3.. ,3... .a
1&me 1 a:

 

55..
a.» ”my“

 

 

i. . if?
1.2.2.!”
.
. r.
«numb: r4;
.
a... r.

2.. .n1

. 1:.
.35....
.12... .

 

.11.... Illuwfi. ”var?

 

 

 

 

. . .. amnmmhwnwsn.1,...N.H..._.....,..ws.1...“
13.. . .. 2.. A. .1. u.....;...«...
g2»... mm... ffihmfi. .35 arit

L5,. . :.
Law.

is- . in»;
13.1.1115

amrflw

i: .

aviélv

. 1.2.5.5;2: . , .
cl.“

2.3:...) «.
ire»;

$1.3

 

.I\

“MAKE -.

Ithw— Wzéghgan s
Umvcdty .
Want-1.721,.» 7 1.

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
The Alexandrian Jews During the Ptolemaic

Period.

presented by

Charles A. Alberro
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. Histor
degree in__—y_

Major professor

/

Date August 27, 1976

0'7639

 

LIBRARY BIND: {RS ,
mmeraar mania! ',

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll
1.11mi ,
ilemaic

‘iidatii

 

 

@/&.;:z 5’ ‘7 7

ABSTRACT
THE ALEXANDRIAN JEWS DURING THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD
By
Charles A. Alberro

This dissertation is a study of the political, social, economic,
culhnal, and religious life of the Jews of Alexandria during the
PUHemaic period. The work is divided into three parts: first, the
fbmuhtion of Alexandria and the matter of when and how the Jews settled
tmne; second, a study of the political, social, and economic activities
ofthe Alexandrian Jews during the Ptolemaic period; and third, the
hfifluence of Hellenism on the Alexandrian Jews and an analysis of
antLJewish feelings during this era.

Ancient sources for the Jews of Alexandria during the Ptolemaic
perhxlare scarce. Among the meager sources, Josephus is basic; but
ins works are late and apologetic for the Jews so that they must be
Nuanced by good judgment and the use of papyri and other available
mnfient sources. Another problem is that most reliable sources from
UnePtolemaic period come from outside of Alexandria, as is the case
vhth all the extant papyri. Conclusions concerning the Alexandrian
Jews are often based on the evidence offered by the papyri and ostraka
(xmcerning the Jews of Egypt proper, or they assume a similarity of
tnactices between the Ptolemaic period and the early Roman one, since

tmalater period is well represented in Alexandrian papyri.

 

L—

 

 

 

tithe til

the.

Charles A. Alberro

Evidence indicates that Jews were present at the very foundation
ofthe city of Alexandria, though their exact number is difficult to
esthmte. The Jews occupied the Delta quarter during the Ptolemaic
pmfiod, but this quarter did not constitute a “ghetto" since the Jews
wemanot limited to one area but lived in others as well. By Roman
thms a second, unidentified, quarter of the city had become known
as Jewish.

Very little is known concerning the political history of the
Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt during the period between the reigns
ofldplemy I (323-285 B.C.) and Ptolemy VI (died T45 B.C.), relatively
nmrechnfing the rest of the Ptolemaic period. Not much is known, how-
ewnu of the Alexandrian Jews 22! se, so that frequently assumptions
unmerning their activities must be gleaned from the general activities
ofthe Jews in Egypt. The evidence shows that the Alexandrian and
ngflfian Jews were aware of and closely affected by the political
events that took place in Coele-Syria, especially Palestine, during
HwePtolemaic period. On several occasions they actively participated
hithese events, and played an important role in determining the course
(n events in both Egypt and Coele—Syria.

What was the status of the Jews at Alexandria? During the
RUHemaic period, Alexandria was not a "Greek" city as were other
CHfies founded by Alexander the Great. Rather, it was a collection
ijgfliteumata based on nationalities. As time passed, the Greek
mfliteuma and the Jewish one became the two most important in Alexan-

<hia. The Jewish politeuma possessed, at the very least, an equality

 

L‘—

 

 

 

 

 

Charles A. Alberro

ofrfights and privileges with the Greek politeuma. Probably under the
chrect control of the crown, AJexandria during the Ptolemaic period was
neHMer a "Greek" city nor a "Jewish" one, but rather a "Royal City."

Tolxean "Alexandrian" did not necessarily mean being a citizen of the

Greek politeuma, but rather a member of one of the p_oliteumata of

 

Alexandria.

In many ways the Jews of Alexandria were similar to their
lnethren in other parts of the Diaspora, as well as those in Palestine.
lhe religious center of the community was the synagogue. A second
institution, the school, was closely associated with the synagogue.

'Hm Alexandrian Jews shared the same beliefs as their religious breth-
ren,they participated in the same religious festivals, and they sent
imeir tribute to the Temple of Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the Alexandrian Jews were strongly influenced
bylkfllenism. An increasing number of Jewish children received Greek
names and a Greek education in the gymnasium. Greek became the every—
daylanguage for the Jews instead of Hebrew, so much so that the Torah,
muleventually the rest of the Old Testament, had to be translated into
the Greek Septuagint. Many Jews abandoned the stricter traditions,
mkfiias the Mosaic prohibition against marriages with Gentiles.

Anti-Jewish feelings did not manifest themselves in acts of
vhflence during the Ptolemaic period. When Jews were persecuted and
killed, the cases had political motivations. Anti—Semitism did express
itself through literature, which included slanders-—such as the Jewish
adoration of an ass, or the annual Jewish sacrifice of a Greek man—~

believed by a great majority of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o, _

Charles A. Alberro

The Ptolemaic period was in general peaceful and prosperous
for the Alexandrian Jews. The Roman period would bring strife and
persecutions previously unknown to the Alexandrian Jews, and finally

destruction.

 

 

 

 

THE ALEXANDRIAN JENS DURING THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD

By

,1)
Charles A. Alberro

A DISSERTATION

 

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of History

1976

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii

Copyright by
CHARLES A. ALBERRO

T976

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my special appreciation to Professor Eleanor
Huzar who helped me in a thousand ways in the preparation of this
dissertation. She helped in the search for an appropriate topic,
she advised me concerning methods of research, she made me aware of
important sources and materials for my study, and of course read and
re-read the manuscript several times offering innumerable suggestions
that vastly improved the final draft. I also wish to thank Professors
M. Gesner, Richard E. Sullivan, Leslie B. Rout, and Robert L. Erbes,
all of whom not only read the manuscript carefully, but also offered
many suggestions which I found to be extremely valuable.

I wish to thank my wife, Joann Kathleen, for her patience

and help which in a very definite way allowed me to complete my work.

*****~k

 

 

lliRDDUC

 

INTRODUCTION: THE PURPOSE AND THE SOURCES ...........
PART ONE
Chapter
I. THE FOUNDATION OF ALEXANDRIA: A TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING . .
II. WHEN AND HOW THE JEWISH PEOPLE SETTLED IN ALEXANDRIA . . .
PART TWO
III. THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN EGYPT AND
ALEXANDRIA DURING THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD .........
IV. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY: ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL
STATUS OF THE JEWS AT ALEXANDRIA ............
V. ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE JEWS AT ALEXANDRIA .......
PART THREE
VI. HELLENISM AND THE ALEXANDRIAN JEWS: ITS IMPACT ON
RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS . ', ...........
VII. ANTI-SEMITISM IN ALEXANDRIA ..............

CONCLUSION: A SUMMARY AND EPILOGUE ..............
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

 

Page

22
32

56

100
134

157

 

INTRODUCTION: THE PURPOSE AND THE SOURCES

The purpose of this investigation is to make a historical
survey Of the political, social, economic, and religious life of the
Jews of Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period. The study is divided
into three parts. Part One focuses on the matter of how and when the
Jews settled in Alexandria, and this study is preceded by a brief geo—
graphical description of Alexandria as related to the Jewish settlement
there. Part Two is divided into three chapters. Chapter III attempts
to determine to what extent the Alexandrian and Egyptian Jews were
involved in the political storms that ravaged the Ptolemaic kingdom.
Chapter IV analyzes the long standing dispute about the social status
of the Alexandrian Jews during the Ptolemaic period, especially whether
or not the Jews as a whole were citizens of that city. And Chapter V
studies the economic affairs of the Alexandrian Jews during this period.
Part Three is divided into two chapters. Chapter VI studies the reli-
gious and cultural experiences of the Alexandrian Jews, and the influ-
ence that Hellenism exerted upon them. The last chapter analyzes the
anti-Jewish feelings at Alexandria and Egypt during the Ptolemaic
Period and attempts to determine, if possible, the origins of such
feelings.

Ancient sources concerning the Jews of Alexandria during the

Ptolemaic period are scarce. Apart from Josephus, no one source can

 

 

 

 

 

iutllize
:Nerent

m the

 

 

 

 

 

belnjlized for the entire study; almost every topic requires a
diffinent set of sources. The few existing ones come chiefly not
fmmithe Ptolemaic period but from the Roman era.1

Josephus constitutes the basic source for my study. Born
mnfing the reign of Caligula, c. 37 A.D., Josephus ben Matthias traced
hisihmily's ancestry back to a line of distinguished priests.2 In
Hueyear 66 A.D. he reluctantly participated in the Jewish war against
thelkmmns, and was eventually captured after the fall of Jotapata in
(W A.D.3 By prophesying that Vespasian would soon become emperor (an
event which came true in 69 A.D.), Josephus gained the confidence of
HMS general and of his sons Titus and Domitian.“ He went to Rome with
Titus at the conclusion of the war, where he was assigned a residence,
sfiven Roman citizenship, and granted a yearly pension.5 Josephus was
Hum able to engage in literary work with the support of Vespasian
and his sons.

Much criticism has been leveled against Josephus and his work

tw modern historians. In addition to being called a ”renegade" and a

__

1Only the Septuagint and the Letter of Aristeas, neither of
whhfliprovides much reliable historical information on the subject,
imve survived from the Ptolemaic period originating from Alexandria
itself. From outside of Alexandria, there is more extant material
fmmithe Ptolemaic era that refers to the Jews in Egypt and Alexandria,
EBpecially in the form of Greek papyri, ostraka, and inscriptions.

 

2Josephus The Life 1, 2.
3J05. The Jewish War III. 387-92.

 

1+Ibid., 399-408.
51bid., 422—423.

 

 

 

"cmmud,”6 he has been accused of being an apologist with very little
aume of impartiality.7 There is no doubt that Josephus, like Philo,
atummted to show the Jewish people in such a light as to make them
mxmptable to their Gentile neighbors, especially to the Greeks and
Mmmns. In that sense both writers were apologists. But I do not
fhulevidence that either intentionally altered the truth to suit
his purpose.

Like all historians of antiquity, Josephus made mistakes.
lfis reliability on matters he did not personally witness depends on
Umareliability of his sources, many of which he utilized without
adequate discernment or critical analysis. As I have used Josephus,
Itmve pointed out passages where his sources appear untrustworthy,
multhe reasons for which I make this judgment. Here I will analyze
mfiefly his historical methods and aims, his use of sources, and his
reliability, especially as these matters concern my study.

There are no references in the Jewish War (the first of his

 

lmwks) to Josephus' sources. The inference is that he relied upon
lfis own experience as an eyewitness to the events he records. "The
industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and

inwangement of another's work, but one who uses fresh materials and

h

6S. G. F. Brandon, "Josephus: Renegade or Patriot?" Histor
M 8 (December l958): 836. ~95

7H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus, The Man and the Historian
(New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1967), pp. l9 and 27; Victor
TCherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York:
Athenewn, 1970), pp. 309—3l9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mulmakes the framework of the history his own.“8 On occasions,
Josephus interviewed people who were eyewitnesses to certain events
he had not witnessed, and so based his report on their accounts.9
Mum the work was completed, Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa II read
itcmrefully and vouched for its fidelity to the truth.1°

In spite of Josephus' silence concerning his sources for the
JewhHIWar, he no doubt utilized a certain number, in addition to his
mmlrecollections. 'Thackeray suggests that Josephus used the "memoirs"
mr"commentaries" of Vespasian and Titus,11 documents with which
(kmephus was familiar.12 In addition, Thackeray believes he utilized

a mnnce frequently mentioned in the Antiquities,13 Nicolas of Damascus,

 

'fifiend of Herod the Great and Augustus,“+ and author of a universal
lfistory which contained T44 books.15 Fragments of Nicolas' works have
tmen preserved by Josephus, Athanaeus, and in the Constantine excerpts,

ngfirtutibus and de insidiis.16 There seems to be no reason why the

 

 

8Jos. Jewish War I. 15.

 

9Jos. §;_ffll. I. 47-52.

10Ibid.

11Thackeray, Josephus, p. 38.

12J05. ijg_342, 358; §;_Ap. I. 56.

13J05. Ant, 1. iii. 6; VII. v. 2; XVI. 183-185;WQLJMQ. II. 84,
1L’Jos. Ant, XVI. 184.

15Athanaeus VI. 3.

16See Karl MUller, Fragmenta historicorum graecarum, 5 vols.

(Paris: F. Didot, l878~857jf31 343-464; 4: 661-664, for a collection
Ofnmst of Nicolas' fragments.

cwerall credibility of Nicolas should be doubted, thus marking him as
areliable source. On the other hand, when it comes to events in the
life Of Herod the Great, his obvious partiality for this man makes
those sections less reliable.

Josephus wrote the Jewish War, in part at least,17 to warn his

 

fifllow countrymen of the futility of opposing Rome. He saw himself as
another Daniel before Belshazzar, prOphesying the fall of Babylon,18 or
mknmer Jeremiah before Jerusalem, warning the besieged not to continue
szresistance against the King of Babylon.19 "You are warring not
agahwnzthe Romans only, but also against God,"20 Josephus claims to
lmve told those besieged in Jerusalem by Titus. After describing the
invincibility of the Roman army, Josephus states: "If I have dwelt at
some length on this topic, my intention was not so much to extol the
Mmmns as to console those whom they have vanquished and to deter
others who may be tempted to revolt."

The Antiquities was written c. 94 A.D. (the thirteenth year

 

(H Domitian),22 some sixteen years after the completion of the Jewish

‘—

17His outlook concerning the greatness of Rome furthered his
personal interests as well, since as a propagandist of Rome he became
hlthy esteemed by Vespasian and his sons.

18Compare Jos. Ant. X. 250f. with Life 414-429.

19Compare Jos. Ant, X. 115 with Jewish War V. 373-378.

 

2°Jos. Jewish War v. 378.

 

211bld., III. 108.
22Jos. Ant, XX. 267.

 

L... —

 

l‘. 23
l‘

11.

Ioseph

N051

SENS

Septu

 

 

A1.“ Josephus' motive for writing the Antiquities was different

 

from the one for the Jewish War. His purpose now was to magnify the

 

Jewish people in the eyes of the Graeco-Roman world, to show that the
Jews possessed a very ancient and glorious history, and that they
merited respect for their way of life.”

The Antiquities also differs from the Jewish War in that

 

 

Josephus makes constant references to the sources he used for his work.

For the pre-exilic portion of the Antiquities (books I-X), he utilized

 

almost exclusively the canonical books of the Old Testament, and it

 

seems that he often consulted the Greek translation known as the
Septuagint.25 Besides the Bible, he quotes, wherever possible,
external authorities to support it, such as Herodotus, Menander,

the Sibylline oracles, Nebuchadnezzar, Berosus, and others.26

23Jos. C. An. I. 50. According to this passage, the completed
Jewish War was submitted to Vespasian (who ruled from 69-79 A.D.).
After reading the work, the emperor vouched for the veracity of its
1nformation. Since Josephus did some writing in Rome previous to the
Jewish War (Jewish War I. 3), it is safe to suppose that he completed
the Jew1sfi War towafis the end of Vespasian's reign.

 

“Jos. Ant. xv1. 174-178.

25Emil Schfirer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of
gesus Christ, 2 divisions, 5 vols., authorized English translation

(NegSYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.), Div. I, Vol. I, No. 3,
p. .

 

 

26Jos. Ant. I. iii. 6 (Berosus, Mnaseas, Nicolas of Damascus);
1. iii. 9 (Mane—"tho, Berosus, Hesiod, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Ephorus,
Nicolas); I. iv. 3 (Sibylline Oracles, Hestiaeus); VII. iii. 2 (Homer);
VII. vi. 2 and x. 2-3 (Herodotus), etc. Some of these sources, such as
the Sibylline Oracles, are of dubious reliability.

 

 

 

 

Ill
lzel

 

 

 

 

For the post-exilic history (the last ten books), Josephus
utHized a great variety of sources, some of which are also of dubious
mfliability. This was the case especially for the period 440-175 B.C.

fin'which Josephus depended almost entirely upon two unreliable produc—

 

tions,27 the Alexander legends and the Letter of Aristeas.28 The First

 

mxm.of Maccabees is the principal source for the period 175-135 B.C.,
vmile the chief authorities for the period 135-37 B.C. are Nicolas of

mmmscu529 and Strabo.30 The careful method of weighing his evidence

 

whhflicharacterizes Strabo, and is so conspicuous in his Geography, is
cfiscernible in several passages of Josephus.31 Polybius is mentioned

twhxg3z and Josephus had the good judgment to call him an "honest man."

 

Finally, the treatise against Apion (Contra Apionem) was aimed
nottnfly against the grammarian Apion and his calumniations against the
Jewish people, but also (and perhaps mainly) against the prejudice, the
mun-Jewish sentiment, and the attacks suffered by the Jews in those

days.33 He begins the defense of his people by once more giving

—;

28Josephus based the passages 0f.flfl£~ XII. ll~118 on this source.

29Nicolas is mentioned as a source on many occasions (Ant, XIII.
249. 347; x1v. 8, 68, 104, etc.).

 

3°Strabo is mentioned by Josephus as a source in Ant. XIII. 286,
319, 347; XIV. 35, 68, 104, 114; XV. 9. Strabo's Geography is extant,
but this is not the case with the historical writings whic Josephus
used.

31Schllrer, Jewish People, 11, 1. P- 87’ referring to passages
such as Ant, XIII. xii. 5.

32Jos. Ant, XII. l35f. (concerning Antiochus III) and 385f.
(concerning Antiochus IV's death).

33Jos. C. An. I. 2—5.

 

 

 

 

evidence
11 brim

lNenic

 

mfidence to the great antiquity and honorable past of the Jews. And
helnjngs to bear as evidence for his assertions the statements of
Phoenician,“ Chaldean,” Greek36 historians and other men of learning.
hiaddition, Josephus cites official documents, such as the "letters of
Ifing Alexander and Ptolemy,‘I the "papers of their successors," and the
stele of Julius Caesar at Alexandria.37

One of the problems encountered in working with Josephus, is
thelfistorian's occasional carelessness in cross-checking conflicting
hfibrmation he gives about a certain event in different passages of his
works. A good example of this weakness is found when comparing the
mxmunts of the foundation of the Temple of Leontopolis. Using an

lumnown source, Josephus states in the Jewish Wari’8 that the founder

 

of OHS temple was Onias III, High Priest of the Jews, who was forced
uiflee into Egypt by the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In

Antiquities,39 based probably on different source from the account in
the Jewish War, the foundation is attributed to Onias IV, son of Onias
III. It is left to the reader to evaluate the contradictory accounts

Dian attempt to determine what actually took place.“°

m

3“Ibid., 112f. 35Ibid., 129f. (Berosus).
36Ibid., l62f. (Pythagoras), l67f. (Theophrastus), 168f.
(Herodotus), l76f. (Aristotle), 183-204 (Hecataeus of Abdera),
205-213 (Agatharchides).
37Ib1d., II. 37. 381. 33 and VII. 423.
39XII.387ff. and XIII. 62ff.

“°In Part Two, Chapter III, pp. 63ff., I analyze the accounts
and argue for the reliability of the one in Antiquities.

 

 

 

 

 

Another good example of Josephus' use of different sources for
aacertain event, and the confusion produced by his failure to harmonize
thanCW‘tO distinguish between them, is found in the account of the

Jewhfiisettlement in Alexandria under Ptolemy I. In Antiquities“1

 

ikmephus relates how at one time (undetermined) Ptolemy I seized
iknusalem, captured about 100,000 Jews, and took them back to Egypt
em slaves. Once there, Ptolemy assigned some of the Jewish slaves to
mnszon duties, while others he settled in Alexandria, where he gave
tMmiequal rights with the Macedonians. Josephus based this unlikely

sUny'on Agatharchides”2 and on the Letter of Aristeas,"3 both unreli-

 

MHe»sources for events which occurred during the time of Ptolemy I.”“

In his work Against Apion,“5 Josephus preserves a conflicting

 

inadition of a Jewish settlement in Alexandria under Ptolemy 1. Fol-
lowing a different source, Hecataeus of Abdera,”6 Josephus relates that
anN‘the battle of Gaza (312 B.C.), many of the Jewish inhabitants of

Palestine, hearing of the kindness of Ptolemy I, wished to follow him

~

“Jos. Ant. x11. 3-8.

"2A Greek historian who lived in the second century B.C., and
gho probably wrote during the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-145
.C..

”3The account of Ant, XII. 11—118 is based almost word for word
on this source.

1"'I have argued extensively against the reliability of
Agafluuthides on this matter in Part One, Chapter II, pp. 44ff.
(m the reliability of the Letter of Aristeas, see below, p. 35
and pp. 46ff.

“SJOS. C. An. I. 186ff.

“GHecataeus lived during the time of Ptolemy I, and therefore
was a contemporary of the events he reported.

 

 

 

 

lO

backixiEgypt. The High Priest Hezekias gathered a great number of
lfis peOple, and emigrated to Egypt. Between these two contradictory

inaditions the account found in Against Apion, based on Hecataeus,

 

is the one that merits credibility.

Among the passages of Josephus that have provoked the greatest
cmnnoversy in modern times are those that deal with the matter of
Jewfiflicitizenship in Alexandria.“7 In these passages Josephus either
states or clearly implies that the Jews possessed Alexandrian citizen-

ship. In what context are these passages found? In the Jewish War and

 

hithe Antiquities Josephus is endeavoring to show that the Jews were

 

hehiin esteem by Hellenistic and Roman rulers alike.”8 The proof of
Hufir'esteem was to be found in the many concessions and privileges
whkflithe Jews had been granted from Alexander the Great to Julius
Caesar. Among the privileges mentioned by Josephus was the right of
citizenship held not only by the Alexandrian Jews, but also by the

Jews in other cities such as Sardes,“9 Cyrene,50 and Antioch.51

Q

”7Jos. Jewish War II. 487; Ant, XII. 8; XIV. 187, 188; XVIII.
257-60; XIX. 280-285; C. Ap. II. 37f. For an analysis of these passages
and a discussion of the citizen controversy, see below Part Two,

Chapter IV, PP. 103—133.

 

1+8As for example, Ant, XIV. 185, 186: "It seems to me necessary
to make public all the honours given our nation . . . by the Romans and
tmeir emperors, in order that the other nations may not fail to recog-
n1ze that both the kings of Asia and of Europe have held us in esteem
and have admired our bravery and loyalty."

”Alt. XIV. 259
5°Ibid., XVI. l60.

SlJewish War VII. 43-46.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Against Apion52 Josephus argues against Apion's claim that

 

UneJews of Alexandria were not citizens of that city. Josephus main-
ufins that the Jews were no different from any other group of persons
wMJhad been invited to join a colony and who by so doing took the name
Oftme founders. He points out that the Jewish residents of Antioch
kue called Antiochenes, "having been granted rights of citizenship by
“H3 founder Seleucus. Similarly, those at Ephesus and throughout the
restcfiilonia bear the same name as the indigenous citizens, a right
vNfich they received from Alexander's successors."53 In a similar
fashknn concludes Josephus, the Jews of Alexandria originally settled
there by invitation of Alexander the Great, and therefore they are
lHexandrians in every sense of the word. In addition, their Alexandrian
<fitizenship is authenticized by official documents, such as the "letters
Oflfing Alexander and Ptolemy. . . . The papers of their successors
. .. [and] the stele which stands in Alexandria, recording the rights
twstowed upon the Jews by Caesar the Great."5“

In all these passages Josephus is attempting to present DIE
people, the Jews, in a favorable light, and to defend them against
tAe attacks of their enemies. Therefore, these passages are obviously
mxflogetic in nature, and for this reason their reliability has been

doubted by a school of modern historians.SS Since the official

———_‘

5211. 37ff.

53Ibld.

51+Ib'id.

55Cf. Chapter IV of Part Two.

 

 

 

Amen
.101 is
Aer e1

main:

 

12

dmummnts he cites as evidence of his contentions are not extant,
nor is there even proof (outside of Josephus' assertions) that they

ever existed, the matter of the Alexandrian citizenship of the Jews

remains a controversial one.

 

What does Josephus have to say about his historical methods
amireliability? He criticizes historians (withOut naming them) who
I vate histories based on hearsay reports, “who never visited the sites
run'were anywhere near the actions described."56 On the contrary, when
he,1kmephus, reported contemporary events he either had been present

Amen they occurred, or went out later to the sites and interviewed

 

 

 

f tmose who had been actual eyewitnesses.57 The result, says Josephus,
is that his historical writings are a model of reliability as corrob-
orated by such authorities as Vespasian, Titus, Archelaus, Herod, and
Agrippa.58

It is obvious that Josephus was aware of the aims and methods
(fi’a reliable historian. The fact that he was aware of them does not
assure us that he always practiced what he knew. He no doubt used the
sources that best accomplished his propagandistic and apologetic aims.
(Nithe other hand, and to his credit, there is evidence that he sub—

jected (at least occasionally) his sources to critical examination.59

_

56Jos. C. An. I. 46.

57Ibid., 47-52. In Jewish War I. 16 he adds that "at a vast
expenditure of money and pains" he managed laboriously to collect all
essential facts and information pertinent to his histories.

 

58Jos. C. A9. I. 50-52.

59For example, in Ant, XIV. 9 and XVI. 183-187 Josephus dismisses
certain statements in Nicolas of Damascus as untrustworthy due to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teen nl
n'nen ne
tendenc
linear:
lnnnlen
tfnrnug

all it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

"Even when we become suspicious about Josephus' reliability and even
nNmn we can convict him of contradiction, and of . . . apologetic
tendencies, we are faced with the circumstance that if we were to
cfiscard or eliminate Josephus, we would virtually be devoid of a clear
knowledge of historical events from the beginning of the Maccabean War
‘Hnough the end of the first Christian century."60 These words are
alltmo true as far as my work is concerned.

Philo of Alexandria (born c. 20 B.C.), is also a source of
gneat value. He represents the Hellenized Alexandrian Jew of this age,
atummting on the one hand to remain true to the Jewish tradition, and
(nnthe other to fit into the Greek cultural atmosphere of Alexandria.

Philo's writings provide an insight into the religious, social,
cmltural, and legal practices of the Alexandrian Jews during the early
Amen period, practices that no doubt also held true in general for the
second and first centuries B.C. He was trying to explain his people,
the Jews, to the Gentiles of his day. In that sense he was like
Josephus, an apologist. On the other hand, since it was the religious
ideas of the Jews that he was endeavoring to explain, his writings are
not nearly as controversial in political matters as those of Josephus.
AndeWfile his allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament may not

have been shared by the majority of the Alexandrian Jews, the basic

L

Nicolas' pro Herod biases. In Ant, XIX, 68, 69, and 107 he disregards
certain information provided by his Roman source (not named by Josephus)
concerning the life of Gaius Caligula, because the information did not
appear sound to him. Josephus offers alternatives which seem to him

more logical.

60Thackeray, Josenhus, p. xiii.

 

 

 

 

 

14

mfliefs and practices which are the bases of his allegories were
emdoubtedly held in common with them.

For the political history of the Jews in Egypt and Alexandria
mnfing the Ptolemaic period I have, in addition to Josephus, occasion-
ally utilized the non-canonical Books of the Maccabees. Even though
thelfistorical accuracy of the Third and Fourth Books of the Maccabees
tms been placed in doubt by modern scholars,61 valuable information
concerning the Alexandrian Jews can be found in its pages, though it
nmst be used judiciously. There is, for instance, in Third Maccabees,62
mnaccount of how the Jews of Alexandria suffered a terrible persecution
mnfing the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205 B.C.). The king,
angered by the Jews of Jerusalem who did not allow him entrance into
iflm Holy of Holies, vented his wrath upon the Alexandrian Jews, who
mere condemned to die under the feet of elephants. At the last moment
Gmiintervened and miraculously spared the Jews from destruction.

Josephus has an account which is similar in many respects to

that of Third Maccabees,63 though he places this persecution during the

ifime of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (145 to 116 B.C.). In the struggle

ibr the throne between the latter and Cleopatra II, the Jews, under the
leadership of Onias IV, sided with the Queen. Euergetes II would have

had political reasons for persecuting the Jews. Therefore the account

k

61See, for example, Moses Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of
Iߤ_Maccabees (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 15.

 

62Third Maccabees V and VI.

63C. An. II, 53ff.

 

15

OfJosephus seems more reliable since it fits better into the
lfistorical picture of the Ptolemaic period. The author of Third
thcabees, writing probably at the beginning of the Roman period,5“
emed the same historical tradition as Josephus, but inaccurately
[flaced the events at the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator. The account
oflhird Maccabees adds, however, color and details to the one found
in Josephus.

Invaluable also are the numerous collections of papyri.65 The
mostinmortant for this study has been the collection by V. Tcherikover
and A. Fuks,66 who attempt to gather all published papyri and ostraka
from Egypt that concerns Jews or Judaism. The Jews in Egypt and
AJexandria appear in these primary documents as everyday people,

involved, like the rest of the population, in such activities as

 

farming, industry, commerce, government, military, and so on. These
flatter—of-fact, contemporary records are unusually reliable, albeit
spotty, sources. Tcherikover has also included an extensive commentary
which has added to the value of his work.

The great deficiency of these sources is that there are no

 

extant Ptolemaic papyri from Alexandria itself.67 It has, therefore,

—_‘

61+Hadas, Maccabees, p. 18 f.

55$ee Bibliography, under "Collections of Papyri, Ostraka, and
Inscriptions."

66Conpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1957-64). Especially important have been volumes 1
and 2 which contain papyri and ostraka that have a direct bearing on
the Jews in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and early Roman periods.

 

67Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 16.

 

 

 

16

teen necessary to draw conclusions from the evidence offered by the
papyri and ostraka concerning the Jews of Egypt proper, or from the
evidence of Alexandrian papyri from the early Roman period. In the
latter case one must assume that what was true for the early Roman
perhxlprobably often held true for the Ptolemaic era, or at least
its latter part. Inferences so drawn can sometimes be checked by
other available sources.

An important source for the religious practices of the Jews
in Egypt and Alexandria is the Talmudic literature. This rabbinical
literature comprises portions from both the Halacha and the Haggada.
Vhile both of these are based on the same premise, that is, the inves-
tigation, discussion, and criticism of the Scriptures, they differ in
other ways. The Halacha concentrates on discussing the Icnrgn. It
analyzes the text and expands on its meaning and its application to
everyday life. Validity is given in the Halacha to traditional custom
asannmans of interpreting the laws of the IQEéfl: Thus, in the course
Ofthme, a multitude of legal decisions grew up, many of which had no
connection with the IQEED.bUt were nevertheless of equal authority
with the latter.

The Haggada consists of the elaboration of the historical and
didactic portions of the Scripture. It freely uses subjective opinion
and imagination in the explanation and expansion of these portions of

the Old Testament. Thus many of the works of Philo,68 where he comments

*—

' SBSUCh as De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De Vita Moses, De Confusione
Linguarum, etc. Philo's works are not part of the rabbinical 5293292;
but an example of Haggadic work.

 

 

 

 

17

mulexpands on narrative and didactic portions of the Scriptures, can
Naconsidered an example of Haggadic treatment of the Scriptural text.
The Halacha and the Haggada were transmitted during the
PUHemaic period by oral tradition only. The final fixing of both
hinumerous and comprehensive literary works makes up what is called
"Rabbinical Literature." Almost all rabbinical literature that has

bmynpreserved reaches no farther back than the last decade of the

 

second century after Christ.69 But the oral traditions thus fixed
hithe rabbinical literature go back many centuries, and therefore
(xmstitute an invaluable source for the religious customs of the

Jews, in Palestine and in the Diaspora, during the Ptolemaic period.

 

Part of the rabbinical literature became known as "Talmudic
literature." These are commentaries upon Scripture, a combination of
flgnnhn and Haggada, but grouping the materials in a systematic order,
acahxfing to the subjects dealt with. The Talmudic literature embraces

the Mishna, the Tosephta, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the Babylonian

 

 

mm.

Numerous other sources provide some information, but in a
nmch lesser degree than the Jewish writers. For the foundation and
impography of the city of Alexandria the main sources are Arrian79
and Strabo.71 Arrian, born at Nicomedia about 96 A.D., based his

lfistory of Alexander mainly on the reliable accounts of Ptolemy and

‘

 

69Schijrer, Jewish People, Div. I, Vol. I, No. 3, p. 118.

 

 

7°Anabasis of Alexander III. i and ii.

 

71Book XVII.

 

 

 

 

lnistobu'
and mate
he uses

llennndr
tees not
it be dn

lnnstneo'

 

18

72 who in turn based their works on their own recollections

Aristobulus,
aminmterial from Callisthenes. When Arrian utilizes other sources,
heemes the term lngnt, and part of the story of the foundation of
IHexandria is based on lngn§_and not on Ptolemy or Aristobulus.73 He
does not identify the source of the l_ngns_ in this case, and rarely can
it be determined elsewhere in his writings. In general, his work is
twustworthy, though he is more comparative than critical.7“

Strabo's description of Alexandria is based on what he saw
nNfile he visited the city in 24 B.C. Since the city obviously
experienced many changes from its foundation to Strabo's time, his
description must be considered rather unreliable for the early Ptolemaic
era. In addition, his wording is often vague and inconclusive, shifting
fmmeone area of the city to another without warning, leaving the reader
anfihsed as to the exact location of many of the sites described. Never-
theless, his description is far better than the extremely brief one by
[Hodorus Siculus,7s who had visited the city a generation earlier. In

mkfition to being brief, Diodorus' account is worded in even more vague

mulgeneral terms than Strabo's.

k

72Anabasis 1. Preface.

73Anabasis III. ii. 1, on the story of the barley-meal drOpped
by the soldiers to mark the perimeter of the city.

7"R. B. Steele, "The Method of Arrian in the Anabasis,"
Sflgpsical Philolggy, XIV (1919): 157. By "more comparative than
critical" Steele refers to Arrian's method of placing facts gathered
fmmnAristobulus and Ptolemy by the side of facts gathered from other
authors, none of whom (except Onesicritus) he identifies by name. When
lns authorities disagree, he often cannot decide which is correct.

75Diodorus Siculus XVII. 52.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

Plutarch is another source occasionally useful.76 He was
atfiographer rather than a historian, more interested in relating
anecdotes than in reporting facts with accuracy, more interested in
nmral edification than in stating the truth. As a result he sometimes
is careless in chronological matters, omits many important events, and

retells stories of uncertain authenticity. For his Life of Alexander

 

it is possible that he utilized the same sources as Arrian, since there
are many similarities between the two accounts.77

The Letter of Aristeas provides a legendary account of how

 

the Septuagint came into existence, and also recounts the fate of the
100,000 Jewish captives brought to Egypt as slaves by Ptolemy I: act-
ing on the request of the courtier Aristeas (the alleged author of this
nmrk), King Ptolemy II granted freedom to all Jewish slaves in Egypt.78
The Letter of Aristeas, supposedly written during the reign of Ptolemy
II (died 246 B.C.), is considered today a forgery dating from about

132 B.C.,79 and therefore called by many authorities Pseudo-Aristeas.

From beginning to end it reads like a tale. Therefore, I have argued

76Caesar, Pompey, Alexander, Antony, Cato the Younger, and
Crassus.

 

 

77J. E. Powell, "The Sources of Plutarch's Alexander," Journal
SHLHe11en1C Studies, 59 (1939): 231f. “T-‘““‘

78Letter of Aristeas 22.

 

79Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 54; E. Bickermann, "ZUr Datierung des
Pseudo-Aristeas," Zeitschrift ffir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
29 (1930): 280-296; J. G. Fevrier, La Date, la composition, et les’“'
§9prces de la Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (Paris: Bibliothequefide
l‘Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1925), pp. lOff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

bekmfi° against accepting Pseudo-Aristeas as an authoritative source

 

'uisupport an alleged settlement of 100,000 Jewish slaves in Egypt by
Ptolemy I.

There are intermittent references in other authors to the Jews
(H Egypt and Alexandria which add some details to my study. But the
synthesis and harmonizing of all available sources still leaves an
account which is fragmentary, uneven, and weighted in favor of the

Jews.

 

8°See below, Part One, Chapter II, pp. 46-52. The internal
evidence which I analyze in this study corroborates my content1on
that Ps.-Arist. is historically untrustworthy.

 

 

 

PART ONE

'c 0—”
. . .. .. .h

llenn

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

THE FOUNDATION OF ALEXANDRIA: A
TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING

Arrian, the main historical source for the foundation of
Alexandria,1 describes the event in the following way:

When he [Alexander] had reached Canobus and sailed round
Lake Mareotis, he came ashore where is now the city of
Alexandria, named after Alexander. It struck him that the
position was admirable for founding a city there and that
such a city was bound to be prosperous. He was therefore
filled with eagerness to get to work, and he himself marked
out the ground plan of the city, both where the marketplace
was to be laid out, how many temples were to be built and
En honnr of what gods . . . and where the wall was to be

ui t.

Arrian then adds the following story, which he saw no reason to
disbelieve. Alexander, wishing to lay out the ground plan of the
fOrtification, did so by having his soldiers drop behind him as he
walked the meal (barley) which they carried in vessels. Arrian adds

that the soothsayers then prophesied prOSperity for the future city.3

‘2

1See also Plutarch, Life of Alexander 26, and Pseudo-
Callisthenes Life of Alexander I. 32. Neither of these romantic
accounts is as reliable as Arrian.

 

 

2Arrian Anabasis of Alexander III. i. 5.

3Ibid., ii. 2. Strabo XVII. i. 6, and Plutarch Life 26, relate
a similar story. Plutarch adds, however, that birds suddenly descended
uDon the area and devoured every bit of the flour that had been used to
set out the perimeter of the city. Alexander felt troubled, says

22

 

 

 

 

23

The date of the foundation was probably early in the year of
EH B.C.“

It seems clear from Arrian's statements that Alexander's
[unease in establishing a city at that particular spot stemmed from
lfis firm belief that this city was "bound to be prosperous." The
mfiential of the harbor for future commercial activities cannot have.

5

teen overlooked by Alexander, and it is even possible that Alexandria

was founded to become a "Macedonian Tyre."6
One might add some other probable motives for the foundation
(H Alexandria. The climate of the area was excellent.7 Possibly a

cmmflex of villages already existed on the spot, including a series

 

Plutarch, at this event until the augurs restored his confidence once
were by telling him that the event was a sign that the future city
emuld not only abound in all good things within itself, but also be

a feeder of many nations.

”Pseudo-Callisthenes Life 1. 32. 10 places the event on the
25th of Tybi. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford:
at the Clarendon Press, 1972), 2:3, note 9, has concluded that the
equivalent of this date should be calculated on the Roman calendar
and not on the Ptolemaic. Thus the foundation should be placed

early in 331 B.C.

 

sStrabo XVII. i. 7.

6D. G. Hogarth, "Alexander in Egypt and some Consequences,“
Apnrnal of Egyptian Archaeology, 2 (1915): 53-60. Hogarth maintains
that Alexandria was founded with the purpose of taking Tyre's place
1n world commerce, thus preventing the potential revival of Tyre
after its recent destruction by Alexander.

7Strabo XVII. i. 7; Diodorus XVII. 52. 2; Ammianus Marcellinus
XXII. 16. 8.

 

 

of can

pnnbal

_ _...A..—-s-

 

 

24

Of canals running through them into the sea.8 If this was the case
the area was evidently propitious for the establishment of a large
city.

Alexander founded many cities throughout his vast empire, and
probably he was not always driven by the same motives. Nevertheless
I suggest that at least one motive persisted in each and every case:
the hope of making his cities a potential melting pot of races and
cultures which would aid in setting the basis for an universal kingdom
Of which he would be the supreme ruler. I am convinced that he did
indeed have this ideal of establishing such a kingdom, a kingdom in
vNHch there would be eventually a fusion of races and cultures.3 The
existence of this ideal would help to explain why he established so
neny new cities throughout the territories he conquered. Of course
these cities would serve for military and administrative purposes also,

as well as centers for the diffusion of Hellenistic culture.

g

8Pseudo-Callisthenes Life I. 31. 2, mentions 13 villages, of
which Rhakotis was the most famous, as existing in this area at the
time of the foundation. Strabo XVII. i. 6 implies, on the other hand,
that only Rhakotis existed on the spot.

9The mass marriages at Susa and Alexander‘s speech at Opis
are indications of the existence of this ideal. This theory has been
Pr0posed by Charles Robinson, Alexander the Great (New York: E. P.
Dutton 8 Co., 1947), pp. 166-67, 216-219; and'by W. W. Tarn, "Alexander:
The Conquest of the Far East," Cambridge Ancient History, ed. J. B.
Bury. s. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock (New York: The MacMillan Co.,
1927), Vol. 6, Chapter XIII, p. 437f.; Alexander the Great (Boston:

 

 

 

The Beacon Press, 1972), P- 137f°3 Tarn goes as far as to maintain

("Alexander," p. 437) that Alexander "proclaimed for the first time
. the brotherhood of man."

 

 

 

 

25

It was from Strabo that we learn the main topographical features
Oleexandria.1° Having arrived in the company of the Prefect Aelius
mHlus in 24 B.C., Strabo traveled throughout Egypt and finally settled
atlflexandria for a considerable period of time. His description of
the city is of course based on what he saw at the time he was there,
thus making it rather unreliable for the Ptolemaic era. To add to the
unreliability, his wording is many times vague and inconclusive, shift-
ing from one area of the city to another without warning, leaving the
reader, who has not been able to visit Alexandria in 24 B.C., uncertain
cfi'the exact location of innumerable sites. The account of Diodorus,11
who had visited the city a generation earlier, is even more vague and
general.

A great many authors have attempted to compile maps of Ptolemaic
mwlRoman Alexandria based on the description of Strabo and Diodorus.12
There is general discrepancy among these authors, and no two maps agree
except for some basic features which I have incorporated in my own map.13
Guesswork will probably never be eliminated from topographical studies

cfi'Alexandria, since what nature did not alter through the ages, man

k

1°Strabo XVII. 792-795.
11Diodorus Siculus XVII. 52.

12A. Bernand, Alexandrie La Grande (Paris: Arthaud, 1966),
p. 376; Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 8; H. T. Davis, Alexandria, the Golden
ELEV, 2 vols. (Evanston: The Principia Press of Illinois, 1957), 1;“5;
John Marlowe, The Golden Age_of Alexandria (London: Victor Gollancz,
Ltd., 1971), p. 55; E. M. Forster, Alexandria: A History and a Guide
(New York: Doubleday and Co., 1961):'p. 38.

 

13See below, p. 31.

 

 

 

 

 

26

did. In addition, extensive archaeological excavations, indispensable
if'ancient sites are to be determined with exactitude, are practically
impossible without disturbing modern Alexandria, and therefore few have
teen and probably will be undertaken. In any case, I shall deal only

in general terms with the topography of ancient Alexandria as it relates
‘uithe history of the Jewish people living there during the Ptolemaic
period.

Several ancient sources attest to the fact that Alexandria was
muflosed by walls.1“ According to Arrian and Diodorus, Alexander him-
self determined the lines of the walls.15 However, it appears that the
task Of erecting the walls was not completed until the time of King
FWOTemy I; for Tacitus, in his account of the origins of the cult of
Serapis, speaks about Soter as the ”first of the Macedonians to estab—
lish the power of Egypt on a firm foundation, by giving the new city
Of Alexandria walls, temples, and religious rites."16

Callimachus17 speaks of the scholars of Alexandria gathering

'Hn the shrine before the wall." And Livy, 1" his account 0f the

invasion of Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C.,18 makes it clear that

__

. 11*Strabo, however, is not among them, probably because by his
time the city had spread beyond the walls so that they no longer held
their previous importance. He does mention (XVII. l. 16) the Canopic

AGate, and speaks of "going out" through it.

15Arrian 111, i, 5; Diodorus XVII. 52. Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXII. l6. 7, states that the architect Dinocrates performed this task
using flour.

16Tacitus The Histories IV. 83. 1.

17Callimachus Iambus I fragment 191, lines 9-11.

18Levy XLIV. 19. 9 and XLV. 11. 1.

 

 

 

 

lntinc

thwart

 

 

27

Antiochus found the walls on the eastern side very effective in
thwarting his attempt to take Alexandria.

The existence in Ptolemaic times of two large necropoleis at
Chatby anleabbari has aided scholars in determining the approximate
course of the walls on the eastern and western part of the city,
respectively, since according to Greek practice both necropoleis would
have been located outside the city walls.19 The southern course of
the walls is a matter open to conjecture, and no one can guarantee
its exact location,20 so that on my map I have only tentatively
traced this particular course.

The general street plan, as it was in Strabo‘s days, included
two main streets "which cut one another into two sections and at right
angles."21 These two streets were particularly wide, "more than a
plethrum" (one hundred feet) to allow for horse-riding and chariots.
One of the streets ran from the Necropolis of Gabbari "past the
Gymnasium, to the Canopic Gate.“22 It can only be assumed that the
other street, which must have run north and south, did so somewhere
towards the center of the city.

Next Strabo describes the region of the city called "The

Palaces" in the following manner:

 

19Strabo XVII. i. 10. See also Fraser, Pt. Alex., 1: 12,
and 2: 26, note 64.

2°Fraser, Pt. Alex., 1: 12.
21Strabo XVII. i. 8.
22Ibid., 9.

 

 

 

 

28

And the city contains most beautiful public precincts and

also the royal palaces, which constitute one-fourth or even
one-third of the entire enclosure of the city. . . . However
all these buildings are continuous to each other and to the
harbour. . . . The Museum is also part of the royal palaces;
it has a public walk, an Exedra with seats, and a large house,
in which are the refectory and mess of the scholars who belong
to the Museum. This group of men not only hold property in
common, but also have a priest in charge of the Museum, who
formerly was appointed by the kings, but is now appointed by
Caesar. The monument known as the Sema is also part of the
royal palaces. This was the enclosure which contained the
tombs of the kings and of Alexander.23

The next section in Strabo deals with an account of the disposal
Of Alexander's body. And nowhere else will Strabo deal with the loca-
tion of the Museum or the Sema, so that one is left completely uncertain
about the exact location of these two structures. Strabo continues:

In the Great Harbour at the entrance, on the right hand,

are the island and the tower Pharos, and on the other hand

are the reefs and also the promontory Lochias, with a royal
palace upon it; and on sailing into the harbour one comes,

on the left, to the inner royal palaces, which are cont1nuous
with those on Lochias and have groves and varied dwellings.
Below these lies the harbour that was dug by the hand of man
and is hidden from view, the private property of the k1ngs,
and also Antirrhodos, an isle lying off the artif1c1al harbour,
which has both a royal palace and a small harbour. . ... Above
the artificial harbour lies the theatre; then the Pose1d1um,
an elbow as it were, projecting from the Empor1um, as 1t 15
called, and containing a temple of Poseidon. To th1s elbow

of land Antony added a mole projecting still farther, into

the middle of a harbour, and on the extrem1ty of 1t bu1lt

a royal lodge which he called Timonium.2"

As can be seen from Strabo's description, the island of Pharos,

with the lighthouse on it, is the first thing a traveler approaching

Alexandria and the Great Harbour by ship would see. The island of

 

 

23Strabo XVII. i. 8.
21*Ib1°d., 9.

 

 

29

lNeros was known in antiquity as the home of Proteus, where the sea-god
ems worshiped.25 The famous lighthouse, made of white marble, was one
Ofthe wonders of the ancient world.26 The island itself was inhabited
and was connected to the mainland by the Heptastadium, which was not
only a bridge but also an aqueduct.27 The Heptastadium divided the
Great Harbour on the east from the Eunostus Harbour on the west.
Next to the Eunostus harbour can be found the ”artificial harbour,
which is also called Cibotus; it too has ship-houses.”28 A canal
ran from Cibotus to Lake Mareotis.29

During the Ptolemaic era, Alexandria was divided into five
major divisions or quarters: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon.30
Josephus describes the area where the Delta quarter was situated as
the "finest residential quarter" of the city, on the coast, in an area
where there were no harbors, in the neighborhood of the palaces.31
According to this data, the Delta quarter would have been situated

east of Lochias, near the eastern city walls. In addition, Philo

5...—

25Pseudo-Callisthenes Life I. 32. 1-3.

26Strabo XVII. 1. 6 (792); Jos. Ant, XVI. 144; Jewish War
IV. 512 and 613.

27Strabo XVII. n. 6.

28Ibid., 795.

29Ibid.

3°Pseudo~Callisthenes ttt§_1. 32. 9; Philo In Flaccum 55.

31Jos. C. Ap. II. 33-36.

lnplies

t'ne abn

 

 

r___

30

inmlies proximity to the Necropolis,32 a detail which would reinforce
the above-mentioned conclusion.

It was this area of the city, the Delta quarter, which was
cecupied mostly by the Jewish people. By Roman times a second quarter
Of the city had become known as Jewish, "because most of the Jews
inhabit them, though in the rest of the quarters also there are not
a few Jews scattered about."33 Unfortunately, it is not known which
was the second quarter of Alexandria that had become Jewish by Roman
times. Neither is it known where any of the other above-mentioned
quarters were located, apart, of course, from the Delta quarter. It
is evident that the Jews did not, however, form part of a ghetto,
since they were not confined to a single quarter or area. The attempt
vmuld have been a physical impossibility in any case, since by the time
Of Philo, the middle of the first century A.D., the Jews in Alexandria

numbered close to a million.3”

—_

32Philo In Flaccum VIII. 56.

 

33Ibid., 55.

3"Ibid., VI. 43. H. Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-.
BQEHLESXBE.(Liverpool: at the University Press, 1953), p. 36, believes
Philo's estimate to be not seriously exaggerated.

 

<iIV~NI71<HIqunNVII <

11' ‘ SLHIEI.‘VJI.I1I‘1

31

1’

 

 

‘ Aii

1’
‘- -

’1343913‘0/9 A u I
3:233 154.: I 1 1 I

 

.1 n 4
we)»: 084 03.

OJ

16.-late #3 we:

F40 \\\\m1 QJ 74%;...an ‘1») WWDme Moiitdu

«H1, ska/z- 44.61%

93“ U

V

 

firm

“IIII'/
..
‘

.6 '+
.v “
'0‘!

O. ..

0'.

".'0000

'000000

t3 3 .3.

\ feasts-ad I.,.\..uu "semmvnem

9v 0 ‘

 

 

 

 

¢HMQZ<XMA< UH<EWAOHM

 

_.

. __,fi__ .
vw‘A-mh _____.l
t ..

CHAPTER II

WHEN AND HOW THE JEWISH PEOPLE SETTLED
IN ALEXANDRIA

In the extant literature, Josephus is an important source
for the Jewish settlement in Egypt and in Alexandria during the time
of Alexander the Great and his successors. In his writings he has
preserved three different traditions, two of which are apparently
contradictory, a reflection, perhaps, of the fact that in each case

he used different sources.

The First Tradition: A Settlement
Under Alexander the Great

In Contra Apionem1 Josephus engages in a lengthy analysis

 

and refutation of Apion's accusations against the Jews of Alexandria.
Evidently Apion considered the Jews an inferior people, a people with
an Egyptian origin. And since Apion considered himself an Alexandrian
rather than a native Egyptian, he reflected in his comments about the
Jews the disdain that Greeks felt for the natives of the country.
First, Josephus disclaims an Egyptian origin for the Jews,

referring the reader to his Antiquities for proof of the falseness of
ADion's accusation. Josephus retorts to Apion by pointing out that it

was not the Jews who had an Egyptian origin but rather Apion himself,

“——

1II. 33-46.

32

 

 

 

 

33

a man born on The Great Oasis (west of Thebes) in upper Egypt. Apion
could, therefore, be considered ”more Egyptian than all of them, as one
nfight say,“ a man who had "disowned his true country and falsely claimed
to be an Alexandrian, thereby admitting the ignominy of his race. . . .
Had he not had the meanest opinion of native Egyptians he would never
have turned his back on his own nation."2
Josephus then explains how and when the Jews had entered Egypt
and settled in Alexandria. Alexander the Great, in recognition of the
support he had received from the Jewish peOple during his campaigns and
as a reward for valor and fidelity, settled a colony of Jews at Alexan-
dria on terms of equality with the Greeks.3 Scholars such as SchUrer“
and Bells give credence to this account by JOsephus and acknowledge a

settlement in Alexandria under Alexander the Great. Others, such as

Tcherikover6 and Bevan,7 do not agree.

 

2Ibid., 29-31.
3Ibid., 42. Also Jos. Jewish War II. 487, and Ant. XIX. 281.

l'Emil Schfirer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus Christ, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.), 2:
228 of Div. II.

. 5H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (Oxford: at the
Un1versity Press, 1924), p. 10. -

6Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews
(Phaladelphia: The Jewish Publicatibn Society of America, 1959),
P. 72.

7E. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty
(London: Methuen & Co., 1927), p. 8.

 

 

 

 

 

ext:

10111

EVE

1101

 

 

 

 

34

Tcherikover argues that Josephus' account of a settlement under
Alexander was part of an apologetic section which dealt also with the
alleged citizenship of the Jews at Alexandria, a point which Josephus
attempted to prove by means of some documents and inscriptions on
nenuments which he cited. Since Tcherikover does not believe that
the Jews were citizens of Alexandria, nor that the documents cited
existed in actuality,8 he also disregards any and all statements
concerning a settlement under Alexander.

Even if one were to concede that Josephus was wrong on this
matter, it should not necessarily mean that he was also wrong regarding
everything else he wrote about in this section. Such an implication.

would necessitate the elimination of almost all of Contra Apionem

 

for untrustworthiness.

Tcherikover's second argument against a settlement under
Alexander is that neither Aristeas nor Hecataeus of Abdera (fourth
to third century B.C.) mentions such an event;9 rather, Aristeas
”passes over Alexander's period in silence, whence a conclusion
Hey be drawn in respect of Hecataeus also, since Aristeas had read
Hecataeus."1° This is an argument from silence, which is at best

weak. It is true that Hecataeus was a contemporary of Alexander,

‘—

8For a discussion of the citizenship matter see below, Part
Two, Chapter III.

9Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 495, note 8. For a discussion
of the reliability of Aristeas and the date of the Letter of Aristeas
see below, pp. 35 and 46ft.

101111111., p. 272.

 

 

 

 

 

10115

In

 

 

 

 

35

and one perhaps could expect him to mention the Jewish settlement in
Alexandria by the Macedonian. But it is also true that most of his

emetings have been lost, and what little has been preserved derives

from the writings of Josephus. It is evident that Josephus did not

have before him a clear-cut statement from Hecataeus concerning any

settlement of Jews at Alexandria under Alexander the Great, but this
factor cannot be considered conclusive proof that such a settlement

did not occur.

As for the Letter of Aristeas, it is considered by general

 

consensus to be a forgery dating from a date shortly after 132 B.C.11
I cannot therefore agree with Tcherikover in placing such great impor-
tance on the fact that Aristeas' letter, a recognized forgery, did not
mention an event which would have taken place 200 years before the
forgery was written.

Bevan's argument against the alleged settlement under Alexander
is that the Macedonian would not have been especially interested in the
Jews, since the Jews "were not in those days what they afterwards

became--a people connected to a preeminent degree with trade and

‘5

11Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas)
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), Do 54- A150 E: Bickermann,
“Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas." ZGItSChrlft fur die neutesta-
flentliche Wissenschaft 29 (1930): 280'2963 J- G: Fevrier, La Date,
ggmposition, et les Sources de la Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (Paris:
Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1925), p. lOff. In addition
to being considered a forgery by modern scholars, internal evidence, as
I attempt to show during the course of this study, strengthens my
assertions that Ps.-Aristeas cannot be considered in any way histor-
1cally trustworthy. See below, pp. 46—51 for a discussion of the
reliability of Ps.-Aristeas concerning the matter of the Jewish slaves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

finanO

 

 

 

 

36

finance."12 And since Bevan feels that Alexander's motives for
establishing Alexandria were mainly economic and commercial, there
would have been no reason for Alexander to include a colony of Jews
in his new city.

Even though economic considerations played a vital role in the
establishment of Alexandria, I believe that the Macedonian intended
that his cities become also a melting pot of races and cultures, per-
haps as an expedient way of unifying and maintaining control over his
emfire. If this was so, then a Jewish colony at Alexandria would not
have been out of place. In addition, Josephus mentions the gratitude
for loyal services which impelled Alexander to establish a Jewish
colony in his new city. For this reason I cannot agree with Bevan,
but accept Josephus' account of Alexander's settling the Jewish colony.

The Settlements Under Ptolemy I: The Question
of the 100,000 Jewish Slaves

 

Josephus also preserves two other traditions of Jewish
immigration into Egypt and of settlements in Alexandria. The two
traditions apparently contradict each other, reflecting perhaps the
fact that Josephus utilized different sources for each account.

The earlier tradition is the one that derives from Hecataeus
of Abdera. This historian, as quoted by Josephus, stated that after
the battle of Gaza (312 B.C.) in which Ptolemy I defeated Demetrius,

the son of Antigonus, all Syria and Palestine came under the control

 

 

12 Bevan, Hist. of Egypt, p. 7f. A150 J05. C. AD. I. 60.

 

 

 

 

37

(n Ptolemy. "Many of the inhabitants, hearing of the kindliness and
humanity of Ptolemy desired to accompany him to Egypt."13 Hezekias,
the High Priest of the Jews, gathered a great many of his people and
read to them a document which enumerated all the advantages promised
'UIthem by Ptolemy if they emigrated to the land of the Nile. The
report was accepted with great enthusiasm so that Hezekias and a
multitude of Jews followed Ptolemy back to Egypt. All these Jews

had been attracted by the "excellence of the country and Ptolemy's
liberality."'“

Josephus based the second account on Agatharchides, a Greek
historian who lived in the second century B.C., and who probably wrote
during the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor, though his work is not extant.
According to this tradition, at one time (undetermined by Agatharchides
as quoted by Josephus) Ptolemy I seized Jerusalem by resorting to
cunning and deceit. He accomplished this feat by entering the city
on the Sabbath, pretending that he wished to offer sacrifice to YHWH.
Of course the Jews did not oppose him, especially since it would be
against the Law of Moses to take up arms on the day of rest. Instead
of Offering sacrifice, Ptolemy took over the city and llruled it
harshly."15 When he left Jerusalem and Palestine, Ptolemy took
efith him to Egypt 100,000 Jewish captives as slaves. Once in Egypt,

he assigned some of the slaves for garrison duties, while others were

L

13Jos'. Ant, XII. 9.
ll‘Ib‘id.
151b1d., 4.

 

 

 

settl

laced

 

 

 

38

settled in Alexandria where "he gave them equal rights with the
Macedonians."16
The next portion of Josephus' account17 is based almost word

fOr word on a different source, the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates,

 

called Pseudo—Aristeas today by most authorities.18 The purpose of

 

Pseudo-Aristeas was to give an account of how the Septuagint came

 

into existence;19 however, a portion of the work was also dedicated to
recounting the fate of the 100,000 Jewish slaves brought into Egypt by

Ptolemy I. Basically in agreement with Agatharchides, Pseudo-Aristeas

 

expanded greatly on the former's account.

Naturally, the author of the Letter of Aristeas declares him-

 

self to be none other than Aristeas himself, a very close friend of
King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (who ruled from 285 to 246 B.C.). This
king wished that a translation be made into Greek of the Jewish laws,
and petitioned Demetrius of Phalerum, who was in charge of the king's
library, to start working towards this objective. Aristeas felt that
this would be an opportune time to reconsider the plight of many
thousands of Jewish slaves living in Egypt, and so he approached
Ptolemy II with the following request:

We ought not, 0 king, to allow ourselves to be deceived,

but to show the truth as it is; for, since we have decided

not only to transcribe the laws of the Jews but also to
translate them for your pleasure, by what right should we

h

16Ib'id., 8.
17Ibid., 11-118.
18See above p. 35, note 11.

19See below, Part Three, Chapter VI, PP- 197-205~

 

 

 

 

 

39

do this while so many Jews are slaves in your kingdom?

In accordance, therefore, with your magnanimity and goodness

set them free from their misery, since the God who gave them

their laws is the same who presides over your kingdom, as I

have succeeded in learning after much study.20
After Aristeas had spoken these and a few other words, the king "looked
at him with a cheerful and happy expression and asked, 'How many tens
Of thousands to be set free do you suppose there will be?'"21 The king
was told there would be "somewhat more than 110,000 slaves."22 The
king then said:23

It is indeed but a small gift that you are asking, Aristeas.

But Sosibius and the others present said that he ought to

make a thank-offering worthy of his own magnanimity to God

who had bestowed the kingdom on him, and so, being gently

persuaded by them, he gave orders that, when they paid the

soldiers their wages, they should also pay them 120

drachmas for every captive [Jewish slave] they had.2”
The king then published a decree which in effect set free not only the
Jewish slaves "brought by his father [Ptolemy I] and his army, but also
those who had previously been found in the kingdom and any who were
subsequently brought in.“25

The actual decree, which Josephus reproduced following

Epgudo-Aristeas,26 stipulated the punishment that those who disobeyed

M

20Jos. _A_n_t. XII. 19-21 and Ps.-Arist. 15.
21Jos.Ant. XII. 24 and Ps.-Arist. 16.
22Ps.—Arist. 17 has "a little over 100,000."
23Jos.Ant. XII. 25.

2"Ps.-Arist. 20 quotes the sum of 20 drachmas offered to the
soldiers for each Jewish slave.

25Jos.Ant. XII. 26 and Ps.-Arist. 22.

26Except for the amount of talents paid out (see below, note 28).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

the decree would suffer: they would themselves become slaves of the
person who had reported their disobedience, and all their property
would be turned over to the royal estate.27 The decree of the king
was quickly carried out, "in just seven days, and the redemption-money
came to more than 460 talents, for the slave-holders collected the
120 drachmas even for infants, as if the king had commanded that
payment be made for these too."28

Most modern scholars29 accept without hesitation the tradition

of Agatharchides (as quoted by Josephus) and Pseudo-Aristeas concerning

 

the thousands upon thousands of Jewish slaves brought into Egypt by
Ptolemy I and freed by Ptolemy II, and that the official decree cited
is genuine. Tcherikover, for instance, has categorically stated:
"Aristeas (12-14) tells of 100,000 Jewish captives brought to Egypt

in the time of Ptolemy I; 30,000 of these, men of military age, Ptolemy
placed in fortresses, and the rest (old men and children) he gave to
his soldiers as slaves. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, on ascending the

throne, freed them from slavery. There are no grounds for doubting

 

27Jos.Ant, XII. 31 and Ps.-Arist. 25.

28Jos. Ant. XII. 31. Ps.-Arist. 27 has 600 talents as the
total redempti55_money, and also states that the king actually gave
his approval to paying redemption money for children and infants. The
silver talent was equal to 6,000 drachmas (see Ralph Marcus' note on
the value of the silver talent at this time in Jose hus, 9 vols., Loeb
Classical Library [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966], Vol. 7,
Do 15, note e]).

29Among the most distinguished representatives of this school
of thought which accepts the tradition of Agatharchides and P5. Aristeas
are: Victor Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 273; Solomon Zeitlin, The Rise
gpngall of the Judaean State, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: The JewiEFTTTTTT'
Publication Society of America, 1967), l: 52; John Bright, A History

of Israel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, n.d.), p. 398.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

the historical trustworthiness of this tale, and it is very credible
that as a result of his wars in Palestine--especially after the
capture of Jerusalem--Ptolemw took numerous Jews prisoner and
brought them to Egypt as slaves. . . . It may therefore be accepted
as a historical fact that the Jewish diaspora in Hellenistic Egypt
began under Ptolemy I, and that the vast majority of the Jews left
their native country not of their free will but under compulsion.”0
How does Tcherikover deal with the problem of the two
traditions, one that spoke of a voluntary emigration to Egypt,
attracted by Ptolemy's liberality and kindness (Hecataeus), and

the other (Agatharchides and Pseudo-Aristeas), of a Ptolemy I who

 

took Jerusalem by trickery, enslaved lO0,000 Jews, and took them to
Egypt? Tcherikover admits that there has been and still is a great
deal of difficulty in explaining the two opposite traditions.31 He
also admits that since Ptolemy I conquered Palestine four times (320,
312, 302, and 301 B.C.), and since most details of the conquests remain
unknown, a great deal of guessing will have to take place in order to
harmonize the two traditions. Tcherikover then outlines a series of
"guesses" and "conjectures” as to how all these events could have
taken place.

First, when did Ptolemy I actually capture Jerusalem?
Tcherikover admits that the conjectures of other historians differ

from his own, since he places the event in the year 302 B.C., while

‘—

30Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 273.
31Ibid., p. 56.

 

 

 

 

42

scholars such as Bouché—Leclercq, Willrich, and Abel place the event
in 312 B.C.32 According to Tcherikover, the voluntary emigration of
Jews under the High Priest Hezekiah occurred in 311 B.C., when, after
the conquest of 312 B.C., Ptolemy was forced to withdraw the following
year. Tcherikover assumes that during the previous rule of Ptolemy I
in Palestine, which lasted five years (320 to 315 B.C.), the king
nede many friends among the population, including of course the Jews.
Antigonus, on the other hand, must have been a harsh master, continues
Tcherikover, especially during the years between conquests when
Palestine was lost to Ptolemy (315 to 312 B.C.). If this was the
case, says Tcherikover,33 it comes as no surprise that in 311 B.C.,
when Ptolemy I was once again fOrced to abandon Palestine, a great
neny people felt it would be safer to go with the king to Egypt rather
than to remain in Palestine for another period of Antigonus' stern rule
and possible acts of vengeance for the support previously bestowed on
Ptolemy.

So Hecataeus' tradition concerning a voluntary emigration,
concludes Tcherikover,3“ was based on events which took place in

311 B.C. All the supporters of Ptolemy I followed him to Egypt.

k

32A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, 4 vols. (Paris:
n.p., 1904; reprinted Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1962), l: 50;
H. Willrich, Juden and Griechen (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1895), pp. 23-25; Felix Abel, fijstoire de la Palestine, 2 vols. (Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1952), l: 31.

 

 

33Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 57.

3"Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

Those who were not favorable to Ptolemy but were partial to Antigonus
remained in Jerusalem.

In 302 B.C., continues Tcherikover,35 the political situation
in Palestine must have been completely different. Some of the Jews in
Palestine and Jerusalem were probably tired of Antigonus and his rule,
while many others would still be in his favor. Tcherikover assumes
that these two opposing parties (whose whole existence is based, of
course, on another of his conjectures) would be well represented with-
in Jerusalem, and that Agatharchides' story would fit well into this
political picture. Ptolemy took advantage first of the Jews' abstention
from fighting on the Sabbath, and second, of the ruse of feigning
friendship and an interest in sacrificing to the God of Israel to
gain entrance into Jerusalem unopposed. Naturally, says Tcherikover,36
he was aided by the fact that he had many friends within the city.

Agatharchides, to repeat, was not a contemporary of the events
he described, but rather lived and wrote during the second century B.C.
Hecataeus, on the other hand, was a contemporary of these events, and
therefore his tradition carries considerable weight. He presented the
Jewish emigration as a voluntary one, motivated by promises of future
Prosperity iangypt from a kind and generous ruler, one that was

evidently well-liked by the Jews.

3

35Ibid.
36111111., p. 58.

 

 

 

 

 

44

Agatharchides contradicted himself from the start, a fact that
has gone unnoticed by Tcherikover and the scholars mentioned before.37
Ptolemy I arrived before Jerusalem at an unspecified time with his
invading anmy. The year, according to Tcherikover's conjectures, was
302 B.C., and Palestine had been in the hands of Antigonus for about
ten years. Ptolemy then had a brilliant idea of how to conquer the
city without a fight: he would feign a great desire to sacrifice to
YHWH the God of Isreal. On a Sabbath day he expressed his wish to the
Jews within the city. The people of Jerusalem immediately opened the
doors of their city and welcomed him in. Not only did the Jews allow
Ptolemy to enter the city, but also permitted his entire army to do the
same. This account presents the Jews as being extremely naive, "for
they did not suspect any hostile act."38 But then Agatharchides con-
tradicted himself by stating that since it was the Sabbath day, the
Jews refused to bear arms and defend themselves on their day of rest.
The Jews were "enjoying idleness,“ and Agatharchides laughed at their
"untimely superstitions."39

It seems incredible that the people of Jerusalem would be so
foolish as to believe that after ten years' absence from Palestine,
Ptolemy I had come all the way from Egypt and had camped before

Jerusalem because he and his entire army wished to offer sacrifice

k

37See above, p. 40, note 29.
38Jos. Ant, XII. 4. See also C. Ap. I. 209-212.
39Jos. Ant. XII. 5-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

to the God of Israel. If somehow they had been foolish enough to
allow a huge army to enter their city in full force because they I'did
not suspect any hostile act," why then was it necessary for them to
refuse to bear arms on the Sabbath, thus allowing their city to fall
into Ptolemy's hands? Either the Jews did not suspect any violence
and opened the gates in friendship, or they did suspect violence but
refused to defend their city on the Sabbath. Once they had allowed
Ptolemy and his army inside the city, it would have been too late to
consider whether or not they should bear arms. One way or another,
Agatharchides is an unreliable source on this matter.

According to Agatharchides, Ptolemy now turned into a very
harsh ruler, a "hard master,” who enslaved a multitude of Jews, not
only from Jerusalem, but also from around the countryside. He then
took all these slaves to Egypt where he assigned many of them to his
garrisons, while others were settled at Alexandria where he "gave them
eQual rights with the Macedonians."”° But why should Ptolemy I sud—
denly have turned into a harsh ruler, venting his anger on the Jews
by enslaving many thousands of them? Had he not after all captured

Jerusalem without a fight? It seems improbable that this ruler would

g

l'°Ibid., 8. It is not clear whether the last portion concerning
the equal rights with the Macedonians belongs to Josephus' source
Agatharchides, or solely to Josephus. Either way, It makes little
sense to believe that Ptolemy would enslave tens of thousands of Jews
only to bring them to Alexandria and there give them equality of rights
w1th the Macedonians. '

 

 

 

 

tett

10111

 

 

 

 

46

suddenly enSlave tens of thousands of Jews and deport them to Egypt."1
0n the contrary, the entire event seems fictitious."2

Aristeas' account of the 100,000 slaves brought into Egypt
by Ptolemy I, and of their subsequent fate, also seems unreliable.
Tcherikover first calls Aristeas' account a "tale" and then states
that he does not doubt its historical trustworthiness.’+3 That the

Letter of Aristeas is a forgery is no longer in dispute.““ Hadas, in

 

commenting on the style of Pseudo-Aristeas, suggests the possibility

 

that the author of this forgery was mainly dependent on an earlier

source, namely Agatharchides."5 It is clear that the historicity of

 

t”It is possible, of course, that Ptolemy showed his appreciation
to the faction within Jerusalem that favored him (since in all probabil—
ity such a faction did exist) by enslaving their enemies. He could
hardly have enslaved, however, "tens of thousands" of Jews living in
Jerusalem and the outskirts without seriously depopulating the area.
If the event did take place, it would be more logic to assume that the
number of Jewish captives was far smaller, perhaps one or two thousand
at the most.

"ZWas there even such an event as the "capture“ of Jerusalem
by Ptolemy I? No one has yet doubted that Jerusalem was captured by
Ptolemy during one of his Palestinian campaigns, though there is little
agreement among historians concerning the date of this event. But on
which ancient sources are historians basing the historicity of the
capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I? On Josephus, who is following
Agatharchides, and on Appian (Syrian Wars 50), who in speaking of the
capture of Jerusalem by Pompey states that the Roman "destroyed . . .
Jerusalem, as Ptolemy, the first king of Egypt, had formerly done."
First, according to Agatharchides, Ptolemy did not destroy the city but,
rather, entered unopposed. Second, Appian wrote his Roman History in
the second century A.D. and does not indicate which were his sources
for this particular information. His sources could well have been
Josephus and Agatharchides! Perhaps Jerusalem was never "captured"
by Ptolemy I at all.

”3Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., 273.
““See above, p. 35, note 11.

“SHadas, Aristeas, p. 98, note 12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

the enslavement of thousands upon thousands of Jews by Ptolemy I,
and their subsequent deportation to Egypt, would still revert to the
reliability of Agatharchides.

Pseudo-Aristeas added a considerable amount of information to

 

that which he found in his source, especially concerning the subsequent
fate of the 100,000 slaves brought into Egypt by Ptolemy I. It was
Aristeas who persuaded Philadelphus to liberate the Jewish slaves.

The king became so enthusiastic about the plan that he immediately
issued an edict, and all Jewish slaves were liberated. It is this
edict that I now wish to consider.

W. L. Westermann"’6 has studied an official edict found in a
papyrus (PER Inv. 24,552) in the Rainer collection in Vienna. This
authentic decree apparently liberated a group of people who once had
been free, but later had somehow fallen into slavery, probably for
unpaid debts. This decree required that all slaves in Syria and
Phoenicia be immediately registered by their owners in order to
determine their legal status, with the ultimate aim of liberating
the ones that were in the category which the edict called odhuwto
XOIIKOI fakefieepoe. The similarities between PER Inv. 24,552 and the
E§egdo~Aristeas decree have led scholars such as Wilcken to conclude
that the latter was a genuine official document."7 These similarities

are: that slaves be registered immediately; that all slaves in

‘—

“Gw, L. Westermann, "Enslaved Persons Who Are Free,” American
Journal of Philology 49 (1938): 1-30. ,

 

l'7U. Wilcken, Archiv fUr Papyrusforschung (Berlin: B. G.
Teubner, 1937), 12: 221-223.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

question not only be registered but also presented before the
officials in charge; that those who disobeyed the decree should
be punished; and that all informers be rewarded.‘'8 Westermann,
however, does not agree with Wilcken that the Pseudo-Aristeas decree
is in reality a genuine document.“9 While he does not discard the
possibility that Pseudo-Aristeas used the Rainer decree or a similar
one as a sample on which he based his forgery, he points out a number
of important differences between the two decrees and several reasons
why the Pseudo-Aristeas decree should not be considered genuine.5°
First, the Pseudo-Aristeas decree orders the liberation of
not only the slaves brought by Ptolemy I, but of all other Jewish
slaves brought into Egypt before and after the wars of Ptolemy I.
"There is no similar retroactive nor post—active provision in the
actual decree . . . and there is no place in the Syrian situation
for such an order."51 It was perhaps the absence of such a provision
that prompted Pseudo-Aristeas to have the king himself insert it as a

special gesture which enhanced the king's “greatness of soul."52

Mm

“BWesterman, Persons, pp. 20 and 21.
“gIbid., p. 23. 50Ide., pp. 22—30.
51Ibid., p. 22.

52Ibid. Westermann believes that this difference between the
two decrees is not in itself evidence against the genuineness of the
Bégjfljét, decree, since, as he points out, the genuine decree has no
place for such time-provisions. Rather, the difference suggests to
him that Ps.-Arist. was closely following the genuine decree for his
forgery, and when he realized the absence of a time—provision in the
genuine decree, was forced to add one to his. His romanticized addition
would have been out of place in a genuine document. The combination in
the Ps.-Arist. decree of elements that fit into a genuine decree and

 

 

 

49

Second, it seems highly improbable that any decree from an
absolute monarch such as Ptolemy II would assume the apologetic and

moralizing tone that pervades the Pseudo-Aristeas decree. PER Inv.

 

24,552 is no doubt a genuine example of actual decrees issued by the
Ptolemies, decrees that simply relayed orders without embellishments,
in terse sentences, cut to the bare essentials. It is equally incred-
ible that an absolute ruler such as Philadelphus would make an official

statement declaring that it had been "contrary to justice" for Ptolemy

 

I to capture and enslave the Jews.53 It was an accepted matter in
l antiquity that the conquered could be enslaved during wars. The Jews
1 themselves had in the past enslaved those whom they had defeated in
battle.5“
Third, the time granted in PER Inv. 24,522 for the registration

of the slaves was twenty days. In the Pseudo-Aristeas decree the time

 

specified was three days, beginning with the official publication of
the edict. Three days would have been insufficient to carry out the
decree and enforce it throughout the entire kingdom, but it would be

consistent with the seventy-two days that, according to Pseudo-Aristeas,

*

 

those that obviously do not, suggests to Westermann that Ps.-Arist. was
"d1rect1y borrowing" (ibid., p. 21) from the Syrian (or another equally
genuine) decree.

53Ps.-Arist. 23. It can be added that Ptolemy II would
certainly not attack the policies of his father whom he honored
and whose paternity was Ptolemy II's sole claim to the monarchy.

5"Numbers 31: 9.

 

 

 

ere 1

Greek

VINE

dean

50

wererall that were needed to translate the entire Old Testament into

Greek.55

Fourth, the Pseudo-Aristeas decree has a provision stipulating

 

that persons who had been found to have disobeyed the decree were to
become slaves of those who had turned them in or had informed against
them.56 Westermann points out that he has never found a similar case
of punishment in the entire range of Greek, Hellenistic, or Roman
legislation.57

Finally, the Pseudo-Aristeas decree stipulates that slave

 

 

1 owners were to be paid out of the royal treasury a certain number of

i drachmas for every one of their Jewish slaves freed.58 Westermann

i believes that it would have been highly improbable for any of the
Ptolemies to have paid millions of drachmas from their own treasuries
in order to advance the welfare of their subjects. They were absolute
monarchs with every right to free the slaves by fiat and without
compensation.59

In addition to Westermann's objections, there are several

 

others dealing with the contradictions and differences between the

account of Pseudo-Aristeas and that of Josephus, who was supposedly

 

**

55Ps-Arist. 307. Obviously, the translation must have taken
considerably longer.

 

56Ibid., 25.
57Westermann, Persons, pp. 25 and 26.
58Ps.-Arist. 20.

59Westermann, Persons, p. 25.

 

 

using
my 1
as an
W
hen
nnnen
enuln
nos
hnne‘

ent

mm:

 

51

using the former as his source. When the king asked Aristeas how
many Jewish slaves would have to be freed, Josephus quotes Aristeas
as answering "a little over llO,OOO."5° However the figure listed in

Pseudo-Aristeas is 100,000.61 This is a small discrepancy, however,

 

when compared to the varied monies reported to be paid to the slave
owners. Josephus states that for every Jewish slave freed his owner
would receive 120 drachmas. And although the king realized that the
"cost of redeeming them [the Jewish slaves] would be more than four

hundred talents, he granted it."62 Pseudo-Aristeas mentions a differ-

 

 

ent figure for the redemption money: 20 drachmas per Jewish slave.63
And yet, in spite of the difference in the price to redeem each slave,

both Pseudo—Aristeas and Josephus agree on the estimated grand total

 

 

that would have to be paid out: “in excess of 400 talents."6“
But as the decree was being carried out, it was discovered
that there had been a miscalculation as to the total number of Jewish

slaves that would have to be redeemed. The actual total for the

60.165. Ant. XII. 24.
61Ps.-Arist. 19.
6286s. Aet- XII. 27.

63Ps.-Arist. 20. According to Westermann, Persons, p. 25,
note 85, 20 drachmas per slave was not a “standard".price as Ps.-Arist.
stated. Citing evidence from several papyri, Westermann indicates that
50 drachmas was the lowest price paid for a slave that has been
recorded, and that was for a seven year-old girl in Birta during
the time of Philadelphus.

6"Ps.-Arist. 20 and Jos. Ant, XII. 27.

 

 

 

52

redemption money turned out to be far greater than the four hundred

talents originally calculated. Pseudo-Aristeas states that the total

 

came to 660 talents, "for many children of the breast were emancipated
along with their mothers."65 Josephus quotes the total as 460 talents,
"for the slave-holders collected the 120 drachmas even for infants."66
When one considers that one silver talent equalled 6,000
drachmas, the matter becomes even more confusing--lO0,000 slaves at

20 drachmas each (Pseudo-Aristeas) would equal 2,000,000 drachmas or

 

about 333 talents. This means that approximately 200,000 slaves would
had to have been freed for the total amount of redemption money to equal
660 talents. On the other hand, Josephus' figures of 110,000 slaves at
120 drachmas each would amount to 2,200 talents, without counting the
children and infants that supposedly also were redeemed in the end.
Not only, then, does Josephus contradict his source but both are
inconsistent within themselves. And yet, in spite of the fact that
Eseudo-Aristeas is recognized as a forgery, in spite of all the con-
tradictions and confusion pointed out above, Tcherikover finds that
"there are no grounds for doubting the historical trustworthiness of
this tale."67

Were large numbers of Jews ever brought into Egypt as slaves?

The evidence of the papyri would seem to answer this question in the

¥

65Ps.-Arist. 27.
66.165. Ant. XII. 33.

67V. Tcheriover, Hell. Civ., p. 273. And it is obvious that
the whole story does read like a fairy—tale.

 

 

 

 

 

mat
1 sin
culle
could
cases
been

Pseu

‘

 

 

 

53

negative. In the entire Zenon papyri, for example, there is not even

a single reference to a Jewish slave. In the Tcherikover and Fuks
collection there is a mention of two young circumcised slaves,68 which
could perhaps mean that they were Jews. But one could expect many more
cases to be mentioned in the papyri if, in reality, Jewish slaves had
been brought into Egypt in such large numbers as Agatharchides and

Pseudo-Aristeas indicate.

 

M. Rostovzeff69 points out that slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt was
not a very important institution, and that slave-owners were forced to
pay heavy taxes to the government, perhaps in order to discourage its
~ practice. Native employment was, on the other hand, very cheap, and
it is possible that slavery proved more costly in the long run. Very
few people, except for the king, his court, his household, and his army,
would have been in a position to support a great many slaves.7o It is
Rostovzeff's opinion, however, that a considerable number of slaves
were utilized to work the factories in Alexandria, and so many were

brought in for this purpose.71 But even that theory has been

__*

68V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum,
3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964), 1: no. 4.
One should note that Jews were not the only ones who practiced cir-
cumcision in the ancient world. The Egyptians, for example, did so
also (Herodotus II. 36; Diodorus I. 28, and III. 32; Philo An_
§peCialibus Legibus I. 2-5).

 

69M. Rostovzeff, The Social and Economic History of the
Hpjlenistic World. 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Oxford: at the Clarendon

Press, 1957), l: 321.

 

7oIbid.

71M. Rostovzeff, Cambridge Ancient Histqny, Vol. 7, ed. S. A.
Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth (New York: The Macmillan
90-, 1928), Chapter IV, "Ptolemaic Egypt," p. 135.

 

 

disc
pro'

and

 

H’—

 

 

54

discredited by Westermann,72 who cites papyrological evidence to
prove that the factory laborers at Alexandria were hired workers
and not slaves.
In conclusion, I give more credibility to the tradition

of Hecataeus of a voluntary immigration to Egypt during the time
of Ptolemy I, since Hecataeus was a contemporary of the events he
described. -And even though I do not deny the possibility that a
certain number of Jews were, occasionally, brought in as slaves, I

discard the accounts of Agatharchides and Pseudo-Aristeas concerning

 

a massive importation of Jewish slaves by Ptolemy 1, their settlement,
and subsequent liberation under Philadelphus. Even the account of the
capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I seems to be based on Agatharchides
whose reliability I doubt. The entire "tale" of Aristeas should

remain as such, and not be considered of "historical trustworthiness.“

72Westermann, Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York:
Atheneum, 1929), pp. 54-57.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART TWO

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN EGYPT AND
ALEXANDRIA DURING THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD

While the successors of Alexander the Great waged wars against
one another, and while family feuds divided the Ptolemies among them-
selves, very little is known about the influence that these events had
upon the Jews at Alexandria. This is especially true of the period
lasting until approximately 180 B.C., since hardly any materials or
documents survive relating to Jewish involvement in the political
storms that ravaged Egypt during that time.

The Jews in Egypt always looked to Jerusalem as the center of
Jewish life and civilization. Therefore, the constant wars between
Ptolemies and Seleucids for Palestine must have had a tremendous impact
not only on the Palestinian Jewry, but on that of Egypt as well. I am
sure that the Jews in Egypt felt especially close to those in Jerusalem
during the periods when Coele—Syria was in the hands of the Ptolemies,
forgetting many times that they were physically separated by a long
distance. When Ptolemy V Epiphanes lost Coele-Syria permanently to
the Seleucids at the battle of Panium (c. 198 B.C.), a new era began
for the Jews in Egypt. The separation between Palestine and Egypt now
became not only a physical reality but a spiritual one as well. The

Jews in Egypt began to forget the feeling that they were an extension,

56

 

57

so to speak, of Jerusalem, and more and more felt that they were part
Of the locality in which they resided. Of course this process was
gradual, went practically unnoticed while taking place, and never
reached the point where a direct order from Jerusalem was disregarded.1
The great extent to which the Jews of Alexandria became influenced
by Hellenism after Panium is an example of this process in action.
Although we know next to nothing concerning the political
history of the Jews in Egypt during the period between the reigns
of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy VI Philometor, the period was one of slow,
almost imperceptible establishment in a new place.2 For the later
Ptolemaic era, however, we have documentation for a few instances of
Jewish participation in the political life of the country, instances
that, though rare, are nevertheless very valuable to our study.
There is sufficient evidence to attest that Ptolemy VI
Philometor (181-145 B.C.) was friendly towards the Jewish peOple.
One of his counselors, probably on Jewish affairs, was a Jew named
Aristobulus.3 During his reign, Jews were admitted to the financial

administration of the State as tax-farmers and officials,“ a Jew,

1Jos.Ant. XIV. 131 and Jewish War I. 190.
2Tcherikover and Fuks, C. P. Jud., 1: 19.

3II Maccabees l: 10. Aristobulus is called "King Ptolemy's
teacher" by the author of II Macc. Probably th1s exaggerates
Aristobulus' true relation to the king (cf. Tcher1kover and Fuks,

.£;i1_929, 1: 20).

l'See below, Chapter V. Also Tcheriover and Fuks, C. P. Jud.,
1: 194-226.

 

Pibiu
beer

brie

 

 

58

5 and Philometor even

Dositheos, was a general in the Egyptian army,
allowed a separate Jewish military unit to be created and placed under
the command of Onias, a Jewish general of great importance to our
study.6

Political problems that beset Egypt during the major part of
Ptolemy VI's reign, and that of his successor Eurgetes II, had a strong
bearing on the political role the Jews played during this period. In
brief, Ptolemy VI Philometor's main internal problems were caused by
family feuds, while, externally, the influence and intervention of
Syria and Rome determined the vicissitudes of Ptolemy VI's political
life.

The eldest son of Ptolemy V, Philometor began his rule in
181 B.C. at the age of five or six. The fact that he started to reign
when he was only a small child caused many of his future problems,
since he was dependent on a regent or regents to rule his kingdom.
His first regent was his mother, Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus "the
Great" of Syria, and sister of the then king of Syria, Seleucus IV.
While CleOpatra lived, Egypt was quiet. She maintained good relations
with Rome, whose influence was constantly increasing in the Near East,
and with Syria, where in 175 B.C. Seleucus was succeeded by his brother,
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But after the death of Cleopatra, c. 173 B.C.,
matters changed drastically. Two men of the court, Eulaeus and Lenaeus,

took over as regents. Since Rome immediately sent an embassy to "renew

 

 

sJos. C. Ap. II. 49.
6See below, pp. 63-69, 75-84.

 

 

 

friends
to have
a puss
not diu

they n1

cuniid
from A
dintel
Rune p
QUintu
butiuc
eueryc
Pelus‘

Think'

i

 

 

59

friendship with Ptolemy,"7 the regents probably felt it would be wise
to have the sixteen year-old boy assume his majority in order to remove
a possible cause for future interference by Rome. Their influence did

not diminish, however, after Ptolemy's anakleteria in 172 B.C., since

 

they now became his personal advisors.

The l'advisors" soon provoked a war with Syria, which they felt
confident Egypt could defeat. In 170 B.C. Eulaeus and Lenaeus set out
from Alexandria with an army to invade Syria. Embassies were imme—
diately sent by both sides to Rome to plead their respective cases.8
Rome promised the ambassadors of Antiochus that the senate would ask
Quintus Marcius, the consul, to write to Ptolemy concerning the matter.
Antiochus, however, did not wait for the Roman embassy, and surprised
everyone not only be defeating the Egyptian army, but then by seizing
Pelusium, entering Egypt, and moving on Memphis, which he soon captured.
Thinking that Alexandria would probably be next to fall, the young
Egyptian king tried to escape to the sacred island of Samothrace,
leaving Cleopatra, his sister and wife, and his younger brOther behind
in Alexandria. However, the Seleucid forces captured Ptolemy and
brought him to his uncle's camp. A revolution in Alexandria immediately
followed, Eulaeus and Lenaeus were overthrown, and Philometor's younger
brother was named king (Ptolemy VII Euergetes II). The country was now
divided; Alexandria had one king and Memphis had Philometor, who had

been recognized as king by Antiochus before the Seleucid left Egypt.

E

7Livy XLII. 6.
BPolybius XXVIII. 1.

 

 

contend
163 B.C
169 3.13
had att
formed
forced
the Ron
Laenas,
the cor
consult
the deg
taenos
hntioci
would

Cuncer

sand 11

 

 

60

For most of his life Philometor would henceforth have to
contend with his brother for the throne of Egypt, especially after
163 B.C., when the uneasy alliance established between the two in
169 B.C. (which made them equal co—rulers) came to an end. Antiochus
had attempted a new invasion in 168 B.C. when he heard of the newly
formed alliance between the brothers, but Rome had intervened and
forced Antiochus to give up the invasion.9 Gaius Popilius Laenas,
the Roman legate sent by the senate, met Antiochus at Pelusium.
Laenas, keeping a certain distance from Antiochus, and without making
the conventional sign of friendship, handed the king the senatus-
consultum and told him to read it. The king did so, and then expressed
the desire to consult his friends and advisors before giving an answer.
Laenas took the stick that he was carrying and drew a circle around
Antiochus. When he had finished, he told the astonished king that he
would have to remain inside the circle until he had reached a decision
concerning the order. Antiochus, "after a few moments' hesitation,
said he would do all that the Romans demanded.“1°

So Rome had intervened and had saved Egypt from Antiochus,
but the same could not be done concerning the internal squabbles of the
Ptolemies. Finally in 164 B.C. Philometor was forced by his brother to
flee from Alexandria. He went immediately to Rome, where dressed in

the clothes of a commoner, he made a pathetic appeal to the senate.11

k

9Polybius XXIX. 27ff.
10Ibid.
11Diodorus Siculus XXXI. 15ff.

 

 

 

61

Philometor was given Egypt and Cyprus by the senate, but at the same
time the Romans kept Egyptian territories divided by alloting Cyrenaica
to his brother Euergetes II.12 A Roman embassy was eventually sent to
Egypt to enforce the senate's decision.13

Of course Euergetes was not happy with the new situation. In
162 B.C. he decided to go personally to Rome to plead his case. When
Philometor heard of his brother's trip, he sent representatives of his.
own, but to no avail. The senate changed its previous judgment, and
now added Cyprus to Euergetes II's territories.1“

Philometor, however, did not acquiesce in the senate's
decision, and Euergetes was not able to take possession of Cyprus.
Rome did nothing against Philometor apart from informing him of her
displeasure, that her alliance with him had come to an end, and that
she would henceforth support Euergetes.15 Since Philometor soon dis-
covered that all these words meant nothing in practical terms, he
continued to disregard Rome's wishes.

In 154 B.C. Euergetes II again appeared in Rome, this time in
a very dramatic way: he showed several scars on his body alleging that
they were the result of wounds inflicted upon him by a paid assassin of

Philometor.16 The senate was apparently so horrified that it would not

‘—

12Livy XLVII. 1ff.
13Polybius XXXI. lO.
11+Ibl'd.

15Ibld., 17, 18.
161b1d., XXXIII. 9ff.

 

 

 

even 115
bin. Rc
lbemus,
of them
Euergetu
the effl
But the
some; a
self en
his brc
Persona
Younger

bids to

 

 

 

62

even listen to Neolaides and Andromachus sent by Philometor to defend
him. Rome appointed five legates, headed by Gnaeus Merula and Lucius
Thermus, to support the younger brother. The senate furnished "each

of them with a quinquereme and ordered them to reestablish Ptolemy
Euergetes in Cyprus, writing to their allies in Greece and Asia to

the effect that they had their permission to assist his return.”17

But the allies, seeing that Rome was doing nothing herself, did the
same; and when Euergetes landed in Cyprus with a force, he found him-
self entirely on his own. Philometor took immediate action and captured
his brother. But instead of killing him, "he granted him assurances of
personal safety, and made an agreement with him according to which the
younger Ptolemy was to rest content with the possession of Cyrene, and
was to receive each year a fixed amount of grain."18 During the rest
of Philometor's life this arrangement was followed, and Euergetes
remained in Cyrene.

After the matter of Cyprus was settled, Philometor turned his
attention to Syria, and was soon enmeshed in the political problems of
that area. Finally in 145 B.C., Philometor took part in and was mor-
tally wounded at the battle of the river Oenoparas, where Alexander
Balas, a contender for the Syrian throne, was defeated.19

Philometor was followed by his infant son, Philopator Neos,

under the regency of Cleopatra II, widow of Philometor and mother of

‘

17Ibid.
18Diodorus XXXI. 11-15.
19Strabo XVI. 751. 8; J05. Ant, XIII. 116-119.

 

 

the in
soon c
centre
and i'
diuor
uhicb
There

nuny

 

 

 

 

63

the infant. But this situation did not last long, since Euergetes II
soon disposed of the child and, after marrying CleOpatra II, took
control of the throne. His reign lasted from 145 B.C. to 116 B.C.,
and it was a period of internal strife and family quarrels. After
divorcing Cleopatra II, he married her daughter Cleopatra III, after
which there was a bitter antagonism between the ”sister” and the "wife."
There is evidence that Euergetes II was cruel and vindictive, and that
many outrages were perpetrated by him and his troops.20 Among those
that felt his hatred were the Jews, a people who had been staunch
supporters of his brother Philometor.

I wish now to focus on the participation of the Jewish peOple
in the political life of this period. For the time of Ptolemy VI

Philometor, the building of the Temple of Onias merits detailed

'consideration. On four different occasions Josephus mentions this

event, but, unfortunately, he contradicts himself several times. The
main contradiction is with respect to who founded the Temple: in IDS.

gpwish War Josephus maintains it was Onias III,21 whereas in Antiquities

 

 

it was Onias IV, son of Onias III.22 First, the account in The Jewish

 

War:

2{Justin XXXVIII. viii. 7; Diodorus XXXIII. 12cc. See also
gézgouche-Leclercq, Lagides, 2: 55ff; and Bevan, Ptolemaic Dynasty,

21Jewish War I. 33; VII. 423.

 

2253;, XII. 387f; XIII. 62ff, and xx. 236f.

 

 

64

At the time when Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, was disputing
with Ptolemy VI the suzerainty of Syria, dissension arose
among the Jewish nobles. There were rival claims to supreme
power, as no individual of rank could tolerate subjection to
his peers. Onias, one of the chief priests, gaining the
upper hand, expelled the sons of Tobias from the city. The
latter took refuge with Antiochus and besought him to use
their services as guides for an invasion of Judaea. The
king, having long cherished this design, consented, and
setting out at the head of a huge army took the city by
assault, slew a number of Ptolemy's followers, gave his
soldiers unrestricted licence to pillage, and himself
plundered the temple and interrupted, for a period of

three years and six months, the regular course of the

daily sacrifices. The high priest Onias made his escape

to Ptolemy and, obtaining from him a site in the nome of
HeliOpolis, built a small town on the model of Jerusalem

and a temple resembling ours.23

Josephus expands this first account in another portion of his

Jewish Warzz”

 

Lupus was then25 in control at Alexandria. . . . The
emperor,26 suspicious of the interminable tendency of the
Jews to revolution . . . ordered Lupus to demolish the
Jewish temple in the so-called district of Onias. This

is a region in Egypt which was colonized and given this

name under the following circumstances. Onias, son of
Simon, and one of the chief priests at Jerusalem, fleeing
from Antiochus, king of Syria, then at war with the Jews,
came to Alexandria, and being graciously received by Ptolemy,
owing to the monarch's hatred of Antiochus, told him that he
would make the Jewish nation his ally if he would accede to
his proposal. The king having promised to do what was in
his power, he asked permission to build a temple somewhere
in Egypt and to worship God after the manner of his fathers;
for, he added, the Jews would thus be still more embittered
against Antiochus, who had sacked their temple at Jerusalem,
and more amicably disposed towards himself, and many would
flock to him for the sake of religious toleration.

 

 

23I: 31-33.
21VII. 420-432.
25Josephus is referring to events that took place c. 73 A.D.

26Vespasian.

 

 

65

Induced by this statement, Ptolemy gave him a tract, a
hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis,27 in the
so-called nome of Heliopolis. Here Onias erected a fortress
and built his temple (which was not like that in Jerusalem,
but resembled a tower) of huge stones and sixty cubits in
altitude. The altar, however, he designed on a model of that
in the home country, and adorned the building with similar
offerings, the fashion of the lampstand excepted; for, instead
Of making a stand, he had a lamp made of gold which shed a
brilliant light and was suspended by a golden chain. The
sacred precincts were wholly surrounded by a wall of baked
brick, the doorways being of stone. The king, moreover,
assigned him an extensive territory as a source of revenue,
to yield both abundance for the priests and large provision
for the service of God. In all this, however, Onias was not
actuated by honest motives; his aim was rather to rival the
Jews at Jerusalem, against whom he harboured resentment for
his exile, and he hoped by erecting this temple to attract
the multitude away from them to it. There had, moreover,
been an ancient prediction made some six hundred years before
by one named Esaias, who had foretold the erection of this
temple in Egypt by a man of Jewish birth.28 Such then was
the origin of this temple.

The first passage of Antiquities29 reads as follows:

 

Then Onias, the son of the high priest, who, as we said before,
had been left-a mere child when his father died, seeing that
the king had slain his uncle Menelaus and had given the high
priesthood to Alcimus, although he was not of the family of

the high priests . . . fled to Ptolemy, the king of Egypt.

And being treated with honour by him and his wife Cleopatra,

he received a place in the nome of HeliOpolis, where he built
a temple similar to that in Jerusalem.

The second passage of Antiquities3° reads:

 

Now the son of the high priest Onias, who had the same name
as his father, having fled to King Ptolemy surnamed Philometor,
was living in Alexandria. . . . And seeing that Judaea was

 

 

27One furlong = 1/8 of a mile.

28The prophet Isaiah wrote these words c. 740 B.C., so the

figure given by Josephus is incorrect. 'The reference 15 to Isaiah
19:18 and 19: "In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in
the midst of the land of Egypt.“

29XII. 387ff.
3OXIII. 62-68.

 

 

 

66

being ravaged by the Macedonians and their kings, and
desiring to acquire for himself eternal fame and glory, he
determined to send to King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra and
request of them authority to build a temple in Egypt similar
to that at Jerusalem, and to appoint Levites and priests of
his own race. In this desire he was encouraged chiefly by
the words of the prophet Isaiah, who had lived more than
six hundred years before and had foretold that a temple to
the Most High God was surely to be built in Egypt by a Jew.
Being, therefore, excited by these words, Onias wrote the
following letter to Ptolemy and Cleopatra. "Many and great
are the services which I have rendered you in the course of
the war . . . when I was in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and
when I came with the Jews to Leontopolis in the nome of
Heliopolis and to the other places where our nation is
settled; and I found that most of them have temples, con-
trary to what is proper, and that for this reason they are
ill-disposed toward one another. . . . And I have found a
most suitable place in the fortress called after Bubastis-
of—the-Fields, which abounds in various kinds of trees and
is full of sacred animals, wherefore I beg you to permit

me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is
in ruins, and to build a temple to the Most High God in the
likeness of that at Jerusalem and with the same dimensions,
on behalf of you and your wife and children, in order that
the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to come together
there in mutual harmony and serve your interests. For this
is what the prophet Isaiah foretold: 'There shall be an
altar in Egypt to the Lord God,‘ and many other such th1ngs
did he prophesy concerning this place."

Josephus continues his narrative with a letter of reply from
Ptolemy granting Onias permission to build his temple at Leontopolis.
But apparently the king wondered whether it would be pleasing to the
Jewish God "that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of
sacred animals.“31 Nevertheless he left it up to Onias, who took
over the place and built a temple and an altar ”similar to that in
Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer. . . . And Onias found some Jews

. . 132
Of his kind, and priests and Levites to m1n1ster there.‘

X

31Ibid., 70.
32Ibid., 71-73.

 

/S’ /r%‘

c
‘_.

67

In Antiguities (XX. 236f.) Josephus makes a last allusion
to this matter:
Onias, who bore the same name as his father, made his way
to Egypt, where he won the friendship to Ptolemy Philometor
and Cleopatra, his queen, and persuaded them to build a
temple to God in the nome of Heliopolis, similar to the
one at Jerusalem, and to appoint him high priest.
Modern scholars agree that the account of Josephus in the
Jewish War refers to Onias III, while that of Antiguities refers to
Onias IV. Their views, however, differ according to which of these
versions they favor. Scholars such as Willrich,33 Momigliano,3“ and
Zeitlin35 accept the account of the Jewish War. They argue that
Onias III was a statesman and soldier whose flight to Egypt was a
political act, seeking a military alliance between the Jews and Ptolemy.
Only such a man as Onias III, who held a position of great influence in
Judaea, could have played a part of such magnitude in the political
world of his time.
The supporters of the account in Antjgnjtjgtés have several
very good arguments against the account making Onias III the founder

0f the temple at Leontopolis. First, there is the text of II Maccabees
____________________

33H. Willrich, Juden and Griechen (Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1895), pp. 77ff.

3"Arnaldo Momigliano, Prime Linee di Storia della Tradizione
Ibseebeiga (Amsterdam: Adolph M. Hakkert, 1968), pp. 38ff.

3SS. Zeitlin, The History of the Second Jewish Commonwealth
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of Amer1ca, 1933),
PP. 28ff.

36E. G. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., pp. 276—77; 392—94; SchUrer,
deui§h_Eeeele, Div. II, v61.‘IIj‘N67’31, p. 287; s. w. Baron, AJSOSIfi‘
299_B§ligigg§nnistory of the Jews, 9 vols. (Ph1ladelph1a: The ew1s
Publication Society of America, 1952), l: 219.

 

 

 

 

 

68

IV. 34ff. which very clearly relates how Onias III was killed at
Daphne near Antioch by his rival Menelaus, of the Tobiad family,

c. 170 or 169 B.C. Second, since Josephus wrote his Antiqyities

 

after he had written the Jewish War, the later account should be

 

considered the correct one, especially since more details are given

in the Antiquities. Third, an Onias appears as an Egyptian general

 

after the death of Philometor in 145 B.C.,37 some twenty years after
Onias fled to Egypt. It would, therefore, seem more logical to assume
that the Onias who fled to Egypt c. 162 B.C. was a young man (Onias IV),
and not an older one (Onias III).

I also accept Onias IV as the true founder of the temple at
Leontopolis. However, in order to understand better the background of
Onias IV and his temple, it seems useful to analyze briefly the events
that took place in Coele-Syria and in Judaea prior to Onias' flight to
Egypt, concentrating on the quarrels between the high priests at
Jerusalem and their rivals from the Tobiad family.

The chronology and history of the high priests at Jerusalem are
altogether unclear. Josephus remains the main source for this study,
supplemented by portions in the Books of Maccabees.

In the eyes of the Jewish peOple, the high priest in Jerusalem
was always viewed as the head of the community. During the time of
Alexander the Great, the office of high priest was occupied by Jaddua,

who died about the same time as Alexander.38 Jaddua was succeeded by

h

37Jos. C. Ap. II. 50.
38.165. Ant. x1. VII. 7.

 

 

 

his son
becausd
countr
of big
then b
of Sin
and Pi
Simon
lotion

bigb

durin
area
then
Coutu

othe'

 

69

' his son Onias I, and he by his son Simon, "who was surnamed the Just
because of both his piety toward GOd and his benevolence to his
countrymen.“39 Since Simon I died leaving an infant son, the office

of high priest was occupied first by Eleazar, Simon's brother, and

then by Manasses, uncle of Eleazar. Manasses was succeeded by the son
of Simon I, Onias II, who was a contemporary of Ptolemy III, Ptolemy IV,
and Ptolemy V.“° Onias II was succeeded by Simon II c. 200 B.C."1

Simon II was succeeded by Onias III, who lived during the time of

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and was the last in the regular series of

 

 

high priests.

The rivalry between the house of Simon and that of Tobias began
during the time of Onias II, c. 242 B.C."2 Coele—Syria had been an
area for which both Ptolemies and Seleucids had contended for many
generations, and naturally the Jews were continuously affected by this
controversy. The Jews would at times take one side, and at times the

other. Onias II was pro-Seleucid. At this period Seleucus II seemed

39Ibid., XII. 43.
”01bid., 157.

 

“lThere is evidence to indicate that this is the Simon who
received the name "The Just," and that Josephus was therefore wrong
in ascribing this title to Simon I. For further discussion see Ralph
Marcus, (trans.) Josephus, 9 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1966), 7: 732-737.

l'ZModern scholars have argued much over the chronology of the
account. Following Josephus (Ant, XII. 157ff.), I agree with scholars
such as Solomon Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962),
1: 60ff., and V. Tcherikover, Hell Civ., p. 128ff. in ascribing
these events to the time of Ptolemy III Euergetes I.

 

 

 

 

to bar
after
unable

unrche

to red
Euergc
to "p1
unles:
or W

the 1.

enoug
recon
SileL

und

 

 

 

 

 

70

to have been gaining the upper hand against Ptolemy III Euergetes I,
after the latter had led a successful campaign into Asia but had been
unable to retain control of many of the areas through which he had
marched.”3

Onias II felt that under these circumstances he could dare
to refuse the customary tribute of 20 talents of silver to Ptolemy.““
Euergetes immediately sent a representative to Jerusalem who threatened
to “parcel out their [Judaean] land and send his soldiers to settle it""5
unless the payment was made. Whether for avarice, as Josephus claims,"6
or for political reasons, Onias still refused. At this crucial moment
the Tobiads entered the picture.

A sister of Onias was married to a man named Tobias."7
According to the Zenon papyri, there was a Tobias who was governor of
a district in the country of Ammon at about this time, most probably

1.48

the same man who was brother-in-law of Onias I Tobias had a son

“3Justin, XXVII. ii. 5ff. Seleucus' come-back was successful
enough to regain a great part of Syria, though he was not able to
recover Palestine. A peace treaty was signed in 240 B.C. between
Seleucus and Ptolemy. See also A. Bouché-Leclercq, Lagides, 1: 257ff.

L"'Jos. Ant, XII. 157.
151b1d., 158.

l"SIbid. "Onias was small-minded and passionately fond of money
and . . . for this reason he did not render . . . the tribute."

l'7Ibid., 160.

l"’Zenon Papyri in the Cairo Museum, PCZ 59003. For a discussion
of this papyrus see V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 64ff. Tcherikover
cpncludes that this Tobias is to be 1dent1fied with the brother-in-law
0 Onias II.

 

 

71

named Joseph, who hearing of Onias' refusal to pay the tribute, came
to Jerusalem and offered his uncle to assume the financial burden
himself.”9 Onias agreed to this,5° and Joseph was soon on his way
to Alexandria with the monies owed. Once there, he so ingratiated
himself with the king that shortly afterwards, and without much dif-
ficulty, he acquired the right to farm taxes for all of Coele-Syria
in the hands of Ptolemy,51 including, of course, Palestine. Two

thousand soldiers were assigned to Joseph to help him collect taxes,

 

all of which made him a very powerful and influential man in the area.
Jerusalem acquired new importance as the city where the chief tax-
collector resided. For all practical purposes, Joseph had gained

1 for the house of Tobias the civil and administrative leadership of

the Jewish nation, powers once solely in the hands of the high priest.52

 

“9Josephus attributes this decision to Joseph's concern over
the fate of the Jewish nation if the tribute was not paid (Ant, XII.
161). There is, I believe, the distinct possibility that Joseph saw
in this "investment” the opportunity to ingratiate himself with
Ptolemy.

5°If avarice was the cause of his original refusal to pay the
tribute, there is no need to eXplain why he gladly accepted Joseph's
Offer. If political reasons, he may have had a change of heart, but
for reasons of pride continued to hold out; Joseph's offer may have
allowed him to save face. Also, in this way, Onias might have felt
he was safe with both the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

 

51Joseph did have to bid for the post, but it is evident from
the account in Josephus that being in the good grace of the king had
much to do with receiving the tax—farming rights. For the entire
account see Jos. Ant. XII. l75ff.

521 find no textual evidence in Josephus to indicate that
Onias II purposely "turned over the civil leadersh1p to Joseph" as
S. Zeitlin, Jud. State, p. 63 and Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 132
state.

 

 

 

 

72

Joseph had seven sons by one wife, and another son, Hyrcanus,

3 Hyrcanus remained, like his father, a partisan of

by a second wife.5
the Ptolemies. Shortly before Joseph's death (c. 202 B.C.), Hyrcanus'
half-brothers, together with a large Jewish faction which included the
High Priest Simon II (son of Onias II), became pro-Seleucid, shifting
their allegiance to the side which apparently was becoming the stronger.
They were shortly proven correct, as (c. 200 B.C.) Ptolemy V lost the
battle of Panium to Antiochus III. And with the battle of Panium
Coele-Syria (including Jerusalem) was permanently lost to the
Egyptians. From Jerusalem, the half-brothers continued to exert,

in all probability, the same authority as Joseph, their deceased
father, had possessed.5“

Onias III, son and successor of Simon II, became pro-Ptolemy,
perhaps due to the decline in prestige suffered by the Seleucids after
Magnesia (190 B.C.). There is evidence that Onias III found in
Hyrcanus a ready-made ally.55 For a short period it seems that
Hyrcanus and Onias III controlled matters in Jerusalem. However,
their triumph was short—lived, since once Antiochus IV Epiphanes
turned his attention to Jerusalem, the situation there changed
dramatically. Jason, one of Onias' brothers, working with the

half-brothers of Hyrcanus, gained the approval of Antiochus Epiphanes,

M

53JOS. ML XII. 186.

5L'Ibid., 228ff. Whether they now collected taxes for the
Seleucids, as Joseph had done for the Ptolemies, is unknown.

5511 Macc. 3: 11. Hyrcanus entrusted Onias III with sub—
stantial funds, which were deposited in the temple.

 

 

of it
sold

Sllppu

reiu

hot

air

 

 

 

 

73

and Onias III was forced to flee from Jerusalem. Jason became the
high priest, and a man named Menelaus, from the Tobiad family, his
chief assistant. It was not long, however, before Menelaus had managed
to gain the approval of Antiochus IV, and Jason was forced to flee from
Jerusalem. Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus took over the control
of the high priesthood.56

Shortly thereafter, at the end of 170 B.C. or the beginning
of 169 B.C., Menelaus stole some golden vessels from the temple and
sold them in order to raise money he had promised Antiochus IV for his
support. Onias III, who had fled to Daphne near Antioch and had taken
refuge in a sanctuary there, openly rebuked the conduct of Menelaus.
The latter felt that Onias III, regarded by most people as the legit-
imate high priest, was a threat to his position. He therefore laid
a trap for Onias, and had him murdered.57

In 168 B.C., Antiochus IV led another campaign into Egypt,
but was met by Popilius Laenas and forced to withdraw.58 The rumor
spread in Palestine that Antiochus had died; and Jason, moving from
his refuge in Ammon, took most of Jerusalem by force, forcing Menelaus
and his supporters to take refuge in the acrOpolis.59 When Antiochus IV
returned from Egypt, he took Jerusalem, and a great massacre followed.

Not only were the supporters of Jason killed, but also those suspected

k

5611 Macc. 4: 7-31.
57Ibid., 32ff.
58See above, p. 60.

5911 Macc. 5: 1-6.

 

 

 

 

atte
inst
lobe
and
the

red

\.

 

 

 

74

of favoring the Ptolemies. Antiochus then entered the temple and
carried away many of its riches, including the altar and the lampstand
which were made of gold.60

At the end of 167 B.C., Antiochus IV once more turned his
attention to Jerusalem. A systematic program of Hellenization was
instituted, including the erection of a pagan statue in the Temple of

Yahweh.61 The regular sacrificial services of the Jews were suspended,

) and in their place, pagan sacrifices were performed. A great persecu-

tion followed of those Jews who chose to remain faithful to their
religious views.62

Of the events that followed, mainly the rise and struggle of
the Maccabee family againstthe Seleucids and the competition for the
crown of Syria after the death of Antiochus IV in 163 B.C., it is
sufficient to say that Menelaus remained high priest until sometime
in 163 B.C., when he was blamed for the troubles in Judaea, taken to
Antioch, and executed in a most brutal fashion.63 Antiochus V and
his regent Lysias then appointed a new high priest by the name of
Alcimus.6“ However, since Judas Maccabaeus opposed the nomination,
and Lysias was not in a position to enforce his will in Jerusalem at

that time, Alcimus does not seem to have exercised his office until

6°I Macc. l: 21 and II Macc. V: 11-15.

61I Macc. 1: 54.

62II Macc. 6 and 7.

63II Macc. l3: 4ff., and Jos. Ant, XII. 384i.
67JOS. Ant, XII. 385; XX. 235; II Macc. 14: 3-7.

 

 

 

162 B.C.
and Lysia
Alcimus 1
unti-Sel

follower

bin ilec
edged h'
leaders:
to make
fightin
the kir
general
trict (
11 Leon
the id
01 the
leonto

leasor

’4‘ __._.,——.——a—.-—1—.v

 

 

75

162 B.C. when Demetrius I came to power, after eliminating Antiochus V

5 Who could have been the high priest during the time

and Lysias.6
Alcimus was not able to exercise his office? It must have been someone
anti-Seleucid, of the priestly line, and recognized by Judas and his
followers. Onias IV would fit this description to the very last detail.
Onias IV, then, must have fled to Egypt around 162 B.C. With
him fled a great number of Jewish supporters,66 who no doubt acknowl-
edged him as the true high priest. Onias was already a young man with

7 and with the desire

leadership abilities, with military experience,6
to make a name for himself.68 He must have organized a nucleus of
fighting men and placed himself at the service of Philometor. Evidently
the king saw the potential of having the Jews as allies, made Onias a
general in his army,69 and allowed him to build a fortress in the dis-
trict of Leontopolis. Tcherikover suggests that the Jewish katoikia

at Leontopolis required a place of worship, and that this gave Onias

the idea of building his temple.7° This theory would make the building

of the temple incidental to the settlement of the Jewish colony at

Leontopolis. Josephus' account in Antiquities gives a different

 

reason for the desire to establish the temple: "in order that the

k

651 Macc. 7: 5.

66Jerome, In Daniel II. 13-14; I Macc. 15: 16ff.
67Jos. Ant, XIII. 65.

68Ibid., 63.

69Jos., C. Ap. II. 49.
70V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 277ff.

 

 

leuish inha
mutual harm
arguments .
or at lease
bar for Egg
Memphis, We
in Egypt d
remained t
Judaea-Ale
even the 11

BC
idea of be
Euuotian .‘

 

76

Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to come together there in

mutual harmony."71

Tcherikover disregards this reason for two main
arguments. First, Onias would have founded his temple in Alexandria,
or at least in Memphis, if he had wished to establish a religious cen-
ter for Egyptian Jewry.72 Leontopolis, a remote village 22 miles from
Memphis, would not have been suited for this purpose. Second, the Jews
in Egypt did not need such a center, since the Temple at Jerusalem
remained their religious focus at all times.73 “In the whole of
Judaea—Alexandrian literature there is no trace of Onias' temple;
even the name is found only in Josephus."7”
Both arguments demonstrate that it is very possible that the
idea of building a temple at Leontopolis came not from the mass of
Egyptian Jewry as such, but rather from Onias and his group. Onias
no doubt hoped that his temple would become the center of Egyptian
Jewry. The fact that it did not, does not prove that Onias had
different reasons for the foundation. And of course there were
more ideal locations for the temple, but were they available to
Onias? Therefore, I cannot accept Tcherikover's arguments for
disregarding Onias‘ reasons as reported by Josephus. That a Jewish

katoikia was established at Leontopolis, and that it remained there

M

 

71Jos. Ant, XIII. 67.

72V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 277e,
731bid., p. 278.

7“Ibid.

 

 

for general
maintain t1
settling on
uby the co'
nbo perhap
Onias IV 111
could be a
Seleucids

Present hi
Sel eucids.
being dese
Leontopol .
freedom, .
driest pe

become so

in the
01 th
for a
for t
[the
great
be kr
in t1
that
and 1
3111‘

 

77

for generations to come,75 is not a matter of dispute. However, I
maintain that the building of the temple was not incidental to the
settling of a military colony at Leontopolis, but rather the reason
why the colony settled there. As the legitimate successor of Onias III,
who perhaps had even been high priest for a period of time at Jerusalem,
Onias IV must have felt that a temple in the style of that in Jerusalem
could be and should be built in exile. The hellenizing movement of the
Seleucids in Palestine had already produced terrible results. The
present high priest in Jerusalem was an imposter working with the
Seleucids. In a very real sense the temple at Jerusalem was still
being desecrated, and who knew where it would all end? There at
Leontopolis, in a friendly country where the Jews could have religious
freedom, a temple in exile could be built, with a legitimate high
priest performing legitimate ceremonies. Perhaps Leontopolis would
become someday a new Jerusalem. Had not Isaiah foretold that,

irithat day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst

of the land of Egypt. . . . And it shall be for a sign and

for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt:

for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors

[the Seleucids?], and he shall send them a saviour, and a

great one, and he shall deliver them. And the Lord shall
be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord

in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation. . . . In
that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria,
and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt. . . . In that day

shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria.76

M—

7SJos. C. Ap. II. 420-2l mentions the destruction of the Temple
Of Onias by the Romans c. 73 A.D.

 

76Isaiah XIX. l9—24. I strongly suggest that this prophecy was
of tremendous importance to Onias IV, who saw himself as the "great one"
who would deliver the Israelites and would fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in

 

The
and himself
importance i
such as the
ognnst the
Philometor| :
but also at

One
is the acco
lens and 55

Now the
the Sam
which i
dlSputc
Ptolem;
at Jeri
laws 0'
on Ger

It

and not in

that Alexa
\

Notice, hc
a“ altar .
God and o-

77‘
millilitra
entire an

78

79

 

 

The religious dreams and ambitions of Onias IV for his temple

However, he did become a man of

and himself were never fulfilled.

importance in the army of Ptolemy VI, who was in need of loyal allies

such as the Jews, in his struggle against his brother Euergetes II and
against the Seleucids. Another Jew, Dositheos, was also a general in
Philometor's army,77 and both men would be loyal not only to Ptolemy VI,
but also after his death, to his queen.78

One more instance giving proof of the king's pro-Jewish feelings

is the account in Josephus concerning a religious dispute between the

Jews and Samaritans:

Now there arose a quarrel between the Jews in Alexandria and
the Samaritans who worshiped at the temple in Mount Gerizim,
which had been built in the time of Alexander, and they
disputed about their respective temples in the presence of
Ptolemy himself, the Jews asserting that it was the temple
at Jerusalem which had been built in accordance with the
laws of Moses, and the Samaritans that it was the temple

on Gerizim.79
It is not clear why this quarrel was taking place in Alexandria,

 

and not in Palestine, though Josephus attributes this to the anxiety
that Alexandrian Jews felt towards the temple at Jerusalem. In the

Israel would become as powerful as Egypt and Assyria.

every respect.
Notice, however, that the prophecy centers around the establishment of
an altar in the land of Egypt, where the Egyptian would come to know
God and offer "sacrifice and oblation."

77Josephus, C. Ap. II. 49. "Ptolemy Philometor and his consort
Cleopatra entrusted the whole of their realm to Jews, and placed their
entire army under the command of Jewish generals, Onias and Dositheos.“

7"See below, p. 79.
79Jos. Ant. XIII. 74ff. and also x11. to.

‘

and, says c"
vindicated.
Oni
role after
became regs
however, w‘
the scene
entering t
suppress t
Onias and
and Euerge
It
Euergetes
Onias, Eue
and brougl
by elepha‘
The e
rushe
numbe
which
bine
to hi
reper
the (

dri a
del i‘

\

 

8

B:

doseDhus
their de

 

 

end, says Josephus, the Jews were found to be right, and their temple

vindicated.

Onias is again mentioned by Josephus as playing an important
role after the death of Philometor.3° Cleopatra, Philometor's widow,
became regent for her infant son, Philopator Neos. Euergetes II,
however, with the support of the Alexandrian population, was soon on

the scene vying for the throne. Onias remained loyal to Cleopatra,
entering the city at the head of a small force to back Cleopatra and
suppress the revolt of the Alexandrian population. Unfortunately for

Onias and the Jews, his intervention was not enough to turn the tide,

and Euergetes succeeded in gaining the crown of Egypt.

It is obvious why the Jews were counted among the enemies of

Euergetes II. Josephus relates that when he was preparing to fight
Onias, Euergetes ordered that all the Jews in Alexandria be arrested

and brought together to be exposed to a terrible death: to be trampled

by elephants, ”the beasts being actually made drunk for the purpose.“81

The elephants, without touching the Jews at their feet,
rushed at Physcon's [Euergetes] friends, and killed a large
number of them. Afterwards Ptolemy saw a terrible apparition,
which forbade him to injure these people. His favorite concu-
bine (some call her Ithaca, others Irene) adding her entreaty
to him not to perpetrate such an enormity, he gave way and
repented of his past actions and further designs. That is
the origin of the well-known feast which the Jews of Alexan~

dria keep, with good reason, on this day, because of the
deliverance so manifestly vouchsafed to them by God.82

80Jos. c. A9. II. 50-52. “Ibid., 53ff.

82Ibid. Evidently the Jews in Alexandria at the time of
Josephus were still celebrating a yearly festival commemorating

their deliverance from the elephants.

 

‘

Thei
mentioned at
the author
llPhilopat
after defea
Once there,
particular,
agreat dez
told that “
since only
persisted
occurred:
to and fro
ground, cc
him from 1

Om

himself 01

 

all Jews
or suffer
king asse

dria. Tr
\\—
3!

Bl

by Ptolel

3

 

 

 

80

There is another account, similar in many ways to the one
mentioned above, that comes to us from a different source.83 However
the author of III Maccabees ascribes the events to the time of Ptolemy
IV Philopator (22l to 205 B.C.). According to this account, Ptolemy IV,
after defeating Antiochus III at Raphia (2l7 B.C.), visited Jerusalem.e”
Once there, the king decided that he would visit the temple and, in
particular, enter the Holy of Holies. Naturally, his decision caused
a great deal of consternation among the Jews. The king was immediately
told that it would not be possible for him to enter the Holy of Holies,
since only the high priest was allowed there once'a year. When Ptolemy
persisted in his purpose and attempted to carry it out, a miracle
occurred: God intervened, taking hold of the king and, ”shaking him
to and fro as a reed is shaken by the wind,“85 thrust him upon the
ground, completely paralyzed. His friends and his body—guard removed
him from the temple, and he left the city uttering terrible threats.

Once in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator immediately set out to avenge
himself on the Jews of his kingdom. A command was issued stating that
all Jews in Egypt must be either initiated into the Dionysiac mysteries
or suffer death. When the Jews refused the Dionysiac initiation, the
king assembled all the Jews from his kingdom in the stadium of Alexan—

dria. There, scribes sought to record all the names of the Jews that

M

83III Macc. 5 and 6.

Bl'There are no other accounts of any such visit to Jerusalem
by Ptolemy IV outside of that in III Maccabees.

85III Macc. 2: 22.

 

‘

were to be kil‘
proved impossi
having run out
also due to Go
arrived. Here
lhata great r
the Jews. GOK
the king's so'
that he was f
and set all t
thanksgiving
tion for sev
annually cel
horrible dea

Scho'
that it is a

not even the

 

Some scholar
story.“7 I
Probably at

torical tra

\

66 Ha
87 En
“50 A. Boc

88 Si

 

 

 

81

were to be killed so that the exact number would be known. The task
proved impossible, since after forty days of work, the scribes reported
having run out of pens and papyrus. After several other postponements,
also due to God's intervention, the dreaded day of execution finally
arrived. Here also, as in the account by Josephus, the king ordered
that a great number of elephants be made drunk and then let loose upon
the Jews. God intervened, and the elephants turned around and trampled
the king's soldiers instead of attacking the Jews. The king realized
that he was fighting a superior force, repented of his evil designs,
and set all the Jews free. With great rejoicing and with prayers of
thanksgiving to God, the Hebrews celebrated a festival of their salva-
tion for seven days. The Jews then decreed that such a festival would
annually celebrate their miraculous deliverance from a certain and
horrible death.

Scholars, not accepting III Maccabees at face value, argue
that it is a work comparable to a Greek romance. Hadas suggests that
not even the author intended his work to be accepted as literal truth.86
Some scholars have rejected altogether the historical value of the
story.87 I believe, however, that the author of III Maccabees, writing
probably at the beginning of the Roman period,88 used the same his—

torical tradition that Josephus ascribed to the time of Euergetes II.

M

86Hadas, Maccabees, p. 15.

87Emil SchUrer, Jewish People, Division 11, Vol. II, Pp. 2l6ff.
Also A. Bouché-Leclercq, [agides, I: 3l3ff.

eeSee Hadas, Maccabees, pp. l8ff.

 

‘

It is much mc
place at the
and not at tl
as Euergetes
The .
enemies of E
when he was
Cleopatra 11
being celebr
would seen i
the Jews sui
persecution
reached an a
longer any ‘
allowed to

The

 

not one mar
that the la
faithful St

\N

89 Ai
9rdered hi:
the nupns

SOT
Sllllililtlgues
ifld A, Fuk

 

 

 

82

It is much more reasonable to accept that a persecution of Jews took
place at the time of Euergetes II, who had every cause to hate them,
and not at the time of Ptolemy IV, who was not a brutal tyrant such
as Euergetes.89

The Jews, then, who for a considerable time had been political
enemies of Euergetes II, suffered some kind of persecution at the time
when he was vying for the throne against his nephew and his mother,
Cleopatra II. The fact that an annual feast of deliverance was still
being celebrated at the time of Josephus by the Jews of Alexandria
would seem to indicate that the persecution ceased abruptly, before
the Jews suffered any considerable casualties. The reason why the
persecution ceased could well have been that soon afterwards Euergetes
reached an agreement with Cleopatra II, and married her. There was no
longer any reason to persecute her supporters, and so the Jews were
allowed to go free.

There is evidence that the rest of Euergetes II's reign was

not one marked by hostility towards the Jews.90

It is quite possible
that the latter, after seeing Cleopatra II join Euergetes, became

faithful supporters of the new regime. Since the Greek population

 

89According to Valerius Maximus, IX. ii. 5, Euergetes 11 once
ordered his army to surround the gymnasium at Alexandria and put all
ltS pupils to the sword.

90The Jews would not have dedicated their newly erected
Synagogues to him unless hostility had ceased. See V. Tcherikover
and A. Fuks, C. P. Jud., l, p. 23.

 

 

‘

of Alexa
continue
Jews may

but dete

role as

niece an
tyrene w
(Ptolemy
as her a
place Sc
der, her
to gain
with the
to Syria

son as i

 

oention
Justin
citizen

 

 

 

83

of Alexandria became very hostile to Euergetes 11,91 while the country
continued to suffer numerous revolts from the native population,92 the
Jews may have provided a neutral third element welcome to Euergetes,
but detested by the Greek population.

The sons of Onias IV, Helkias and Hananiah, played an important
role as Egyptian commanders under Cleopatra III (ll6 to l02 B.C.), the
niece and widow of Euergetes 11.93 According to the latter's will,
Cyrene was left to Cleopatra III and whichever of his two sons by her
(Ptolemy IX Soter II and Ptolemy X, Alexander 1) she wished to choose
as her associate. She was forced by public opinion at Alexandria to
place Soter on the throne with her from ll6 to l08 B.C., while Alexan—
der, her favorite son, ruled at Cyprus. But c. 108 B.C. she managed
to gain the upper hand over Soter, turning public opinion against him
with the accusation that he had attempted to murder her. Soter fled
to Syria, closely pursued by his mother, who wished to eliminate her

son as a contender for the throne once and for all.

 

91Valerius Maximus, IX. 11. 5 and Justin, XXXVIII. viii. 7,
mention incidents adversely affecting the Greek element of Alexandria.
Justin indicates that Euergetes increased the ranks of the Alexandrian
citizens by including many foreigners. Who these foreigners were is
not clear. Hermann Dessau, Geschicte der romischen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols.
(Berlin: Weidmann, l924), 2: 660 suggests Greeks and native Egyptians.
V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, C. P. Jud., l, p. 23, note 58, suggest that
a number of Jews could have been included.

92Strabo, 797; Polybius, XXXIV. l4. 6. See also A. Bouché—
Leclercq, Lagides, 2: 55ff.

93For events during the life of Cleopatra III consult Pausanias
I. 9; Justin XXXIX. 3 and 4: Diodorus Siculus XXXIV and XXXV; XIII.
284 and 328-355. See also A. Bouché—Leclercq, Lagides, Vol. II,
Chapter XII, and E. Bevan, Ptolemaic Dynasty, Chapter ll. In Jos.
Ant. XIII. 284, Helkias and Hananiah appear as heads of the Jews in
the district of Onias.

—

hitiochu:
king of l
Alexande
Hananiah
advisors
Jannaeus
out agai
"an inju
cially o
injustic
this exh

llexande

to dicta

of Egyp

   

 

.‘ __._____.

 

 

84

In Syria there were two contenders for the Seleucid throne.
Antiochus Grypus was king in Damascus, while Antiochus Cyzicenus was
king of Northern Syria. Palestine was almost entirely in the hands of
Alexander Jannaeus. At the head of Cleopatra's army were Helkias and
Hananiah.9” During the campaign that followed, some of the queen's
advisors counseled her to disregard the alliance with Alexander

95 At this point Hananiah96 spoke

Jannaeus and invade his country.
out against such a plan, emphasizing that the queen would be committing
"an injustice if she deprived an ally of his own possessions, 'espe-
cially one who is our kinsman. For I would have you know that an
injustice done to this man will make all us Jews your enemies.I By
this exhortation of Hananiah, Cleopatra was persuaded not to do
Alexander any wrong.“97

According to this account, Hananiah was a man in a position
to dictate terms, since he had behind him the entire Jewish population
of Egypt, and at his command an armed force of considerable strength.
It is also evident from Hananiah's speech that the Jews of the diaspora
considered themselves closely bound to their kinsmen in Palestine,
since an injustice to the latter would be taken as an affront to the

Jews in Egypt as well.

m

9“Jos. fill. XIII. 349.

95Ibid., 353.

96Helkias had died shortly before (Jos. Ant. XIII. 351).
97Ibid., 354f. The conflict between Cleopatra III and Soter

was not resolved in Syria. Soter went back to Cyprus c. l02 B.C.,
and Cleopatra returned to Egypt, where she died shortly afterwards.

 

—

After
Alexander I r
popular upris
ruling after
Soter II rule
He was succee
young cousin
der I. After
Berenice, am
and killed ti
illegitimate
nicknamed Au

Aule
Not only had

had just our

 

claimed at F

people.101

beginning w

years after

   

 

 

 

 

85

After the death of Cleopatra III in lOl B.C., her son
Alexander I ruled alone until 89 B.C., when he was expelled by a
popular uprising. Soter was recalled from Cyprus, where he had been
ruling after the confrontation in Coele-Syria with his mother.98
Soter II ruled with his daughter Berenice until his death in 80 B.C.
He was succeeded by his daughter, by then an elderly woman, and by her
young cousin whom she married, Ptolemy XI, Alexander II, son of Alexan—
der 1. After only 20 days in power, Alexander II murdered his wife
Berenice, and was in turn dragged out of his palace to the Gymnasium
and killed there by the Alexandrians.99 The populace then placed an
illegitimate son of Soter II, Ptolemy XII Philopator Neos Dionysus,
nicknamed Auletes, on the throne.1°°

Auletes found his position viz—a-viz Rome very precarious.
Not only had he come to the throne by the will of a populace that
had just murdered Alexander II, Sulla's nominee, but also it was
claimed at Rome that Alexander II had bequeathed Egypt to the Roman
PEOple.”1 Whether or not this was true, Auletes' reign from the
beginning was under the constant threat of Roman intervention. A few
years after Auletes came to the throne, in 65 B.C., Marcus Crassus,

who held the censorship that year, proposed that Egypt should be made

 

98See above, p. 83.
99Appian The Civil Wars I. l02.
looIbid.

1°'Cicero De Lege Agraria I. I; II. l7.

 

—

tributarj
enterpri:
as evidev

64 B.C.1

tried to
sent 8,0
this act
position
Julius t
that rec
But sinc
partisar

province

 

 
  
 
    

propose
of the
was sim
Pompey.
i the

 

 

 

86

2 It is true that he did not succeed in his

_ tributary to Rome.10
enterprise; nevertheless the thought remained in the minds of many,
as evidenced by the agrarian law proposed by the tribune Rullus in
64 B.C.”a

It is not surprising, therefore, that Auletes repeatedly
tried to gain the support and confidence of the Romans, as when he
sent 8,000 cavalry to Pompey who was subjugating Palestine. However
this act only made him unpopular with his own people, thus making his
position on the throne even more unstable. In 59 B.C., Auletes paid
Julius Caesar 6,000 talents.1°” In return, Caesar had a law passed
that recognized Auletes as king of Egypt, friend and ally of Rome.105
But since the law did not mention Cyprus, the tribune Clodius, a
partisan of Caesar, carried a second law that made Cyprus a Roman

province. M. Cato was sent to the island to induce Auletes' brother,

 

1”Plutarch Life of Crassus XIII. l.

1”Cicero, during his consulship in 63 B.C., spoke against the
proposed law of Rullus in his De Lege Agraria, where he made mention
of the alleged will of Alexander. Cicero obviously saw that Rullus
was simply a pawn in the hands of Julius Caesar and Crassus against
Pompey. The law of Rullus did not mention Egypt specifically as one
of the territories to be sold in order to acquire funds to carry out
the project, but the implication was clearly there. For a more
detailed discussion of the entire matter see E. G. Hardy, Some
Problems in Roman History (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, l924),
pp. 82-98.

 

10"According to Cicero, as quoted by Strabo, XVII. 797, the
total annual revenue of Auletes amounted to l2,500 talents.

105Suetonius Life of Julius Caesar 54.

 

 

—

who was king
not interven

In E
which was pr
sort of supp
in 57 B.C.,
have been d‘
to do the r
have been a
lentulus, w
tunity for
of a comple
the take-0v

It
WWW

the employ

 

naturally

his purpos

   

 

87

who was king there, to turn over his kingdom to Rome. Auletes did
not intervene to help his brother, who ended by committing suicide.106

In 58 B.C., Auletes, fearing for his safety, left Alexandria,
which was practically in revolt, and went to Rome hoping to gain some
sort of support to insure his safe return and permanency on the throne.107

B The senate seems to

In 57 B.C., he appealed to the Roman senate.lo
have been disposed to restore Auletes, but the problem arose of who was
to do the restoring. Lentulus Spinther, proconsul of Cilicia, should
have been appointed ex officio; but Pompey, though apparently supporting
Lentulus, wanted the commission for himself. No doubt he saw an oppor-

tunity for direct intervention in Egyptian affairs with the possibility

 

of a complete takeover in the near future, and Pompey wanted to effect
the take-over.
It was at this time that Cato produced a Sibylline oracle

forbidding the restoration cum multitudine hominum,109 that is, by

 

the employment of a host of men. Since Pompey held the imperium, and
naturally would have had to mobilize and command an army to accomplish
his purpose, he became ineligible by virtue of the oracle. In the end
the question was shelved by a resolution (auctoritas) of the senate,

forbidding the restoration altogether.

M

106Plutarch, Life of Cato the Younger, XXXVI. lff.

 

107Ibid., XXXV. l-5.

_ 108Cicero, Ad Familiares I. l—5; Ad Quintum Fratrem II.2f.
Livy ER. 104.

109Plutarch Cato the Younger XXXV. 6ff.

 

Au
wd moved
proconsul
restore Av
had found
married t
was ready
obstacles
guarded t
to break

hands of
and Sale
Hilcanus
treat.

Jews, pr
behind 1
ihs EN
hemSep.

thing, 0

 

 

 

88

Auletes did not give up, though for the moment he left Italy
and moved to Ephesus. He was soon in negotiations with Aulus Gabinius,

proconsul of Syria. For an enormous price,110

Gabinius agreed to
restore Auletes to the throne. In the meantime, the Alexandrines

had found a successor to Auletes in Archelaus of Pontus, whom they
married to queen Berenice IV, Auletes' daughter. In 55 B.C. Gabinius
was ready to invade Egypt, bringing Auletes with him.111 The first
obstacles in the way of Gabinius was the ford at Pelusium, which was
guarded by Jewish soldiers.112 Would the Jews allow the Roman army
to break into Egypt?

In Palestine, the leadership of the Jews was partly in the
hands of the king and high priest Hyrcanus, son of Alexander Jannaeus
and Salome Alexandra. Sharing the leadership with the Hasmonean
Hyrcanus was Antipater the Idumean, father of the future Herod the
Great. Even though Hyrcanus was the high priest and ethnarch of the
Jews, Antipater was the real power, manipulating the weak Hyrcanus from
behind the scenes. Antipater and Hyrcanus supported Gabinius, and for
this Egyptian campaign to reinstall Auletes on the throne, they placed
themselves entirely at his service. ”In addition to providing money,

arms, corn, and auxiliaries, Antipater further induced the local Jewish

 

110Ten thousand talents according to Dio XXXIX. 55. 3.

111Livy EB: l05 Cicero In Pisonem XXI. 8-50. Jos. Jewish War,
I. 175, Aet- XIV. 98. “' m“

112Jos. C. Ap. II. 65, states that a Jewish guard (from the
“district of Onias,” see Ant, XIV. l30-l33) had been entrusted with
the defense of the strategic area at the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile,
that is, the route from Pelusium to Memphis.

 

guardians c
in the anti
recognized
the country
my of Gal
was restorv
ruled alon
Th
is that th
and Hyrcan
Diaspora,
if their r
remained a
in West
ciiiiii hav:
1

film the
doubt for
during th

in defeat
\
11 3

11k

115

 

 

89

guardians of the frontiers at Pelusium to let Gabinius through.”113

So the authority of Antipater and the high priest Hyrcanus was
recognized by the Jews in Egypt, and they allowed Gabinius to enter
the country. Archelaus was killed in the ensuing battle against the
army of Gabinius,1'“ whose cavalry was led by Marc Antony.115 Auletes
was restored on the throne, and, after killing his daughter Berenice,
ruled alone until his death in SI B.C.

The first inference that can be drawn from this incident
is that the Jews of Egypt recognized the authority of Antipater
and Hyrcanus, leaders of the Palestinian Jews. Like all Jews in the
Diaspora, the Egyptian Jewry always looked to Jerusalem as the center
of their religious life, and to Palestine as their homeland. They
remained aware of the political and religious developments taking place
in Palestine, and of the possible consequences that these developments
could have on their own particular situations.

It is, therefore, quite possible to make a second inference
from the incident at Pelusium in 55 B.C. The Egyptian Jews had no
doubt followed closely the events taking place in Syria and Palestine
during the preceding decade. They had heard of the exploits of Pompey

in defeating Mithridates of Pontus in 66 B.C., and the submission of

M”.-

113Jos. Jewish War I. l75. See also Ant, XIV. 99.
1'“Dio Cassius XXXIX. 58.

115Cicero Pro Rabir. Post., VIII. ll; Plutarch Anton. 3.

 

ligranes 0'
king of Cor
inherited
subsequent
Palestine
by hristob
It
from 78 to
Hyrcanus,
without at
Power was
ducees, i
comPlaint
Pill safet
entrusted

Utterly d
\

115

12!
the ore
3adiiUCee
Ai‘i Stobu
itSided

 

90

Tigranes of Armenia.116 They had heard of the submission of Antiochus,
king of Commagene,117 and of Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates, who had
inherited his father's kingdom of Pontus after the latter's defeat and
subsequent suicide.118 But, above all, they had seen what happened in
Palestine and Jerusalem, their sacred city, when a Jewish faction, led
by Aristobulus (brother of Hyrcanus), had opposed the Romans.

The widow of Alexander Jannaeus, Salome Alexandra (who ruled
from 78 to 69 B.C.), early in her reign had installed one of her sons,
Hyrcanus, as high priest. She had left her other son, Aristobulus,
without any power.119 The latter had sided with the Sadducees, whose
power was being curtailed by the queen. A deputation from the Sad-
ducees, including Aristobulus, was sent to the queen to present their
complaints and petition for permission to leave Jerusalem for their
own safety. Permission was granted to the Sadducees, and the queen
entrusted several fortresses to them, so that they would not be

utterly destroyed by the Pharisees and their supporters.120

 

116Appian Mithridatic Wars 104 and 105. Since Syria had been
conquered earlier by Tigranes, Pompey took over Syria from Tigranes,
who ”voluntarily" gave it up.

117Ibid., 106.
118Ibid., 113.
119Jos. AflE- XIII. 407, 408.

12°Ibid., 409-418. Even though the queen favored the Pharisees,
she did not wish, according to Josephus, to have them massacre the
Sadducees, who were also her subjects. Nothing is said of what
Aristobulus did at this time, whether he remained in Jerusalem or
resided in one of the Sadducean fortresses.

 

 

hi
Aristobul
hands of
amed for
appealed
thought 1

Soon aft.

for long
defeated
and high
but not

intillate

son of ;
idumea |
intrigu.
manipup

and an

\
l

1

1
reign a
C0] 1 abc
terntc

 

 

 

 

91

When, towards the end of her reign, the queen became very sick,
Aristobulus made his move for power. The fortresses that were in the
hands of the Sadducees were turned over to him, and he soon had an
armed force of considerable proportions. Hyrcanus and the Pharisees
appealed to the queen for help, but were told to do whatever they
thought was best, since she was in no condition to anything.121
Soon afterwards she died.

Hyrcanus became king after the death of his mother, but not
for long. Aristobulus with his army met his brother near Jericho and
defeated him.122 Hyrcanus was forced to surrender his position as king
and high priest. Aristobulus took over and ruled from 69 to 63 B.C.
but not peacefully, since Hyrcanus rose to challenge him, driven by
Antipater the Idumean, the man behind the scenes.

Antipater, the father of the future Herod the Great, was the
son of a man also named Antipater, who had been appointed governor of
Idumea by Alexander Jannaeus.123 The younger Antipater, a crafty
intriguer hungry for power, saw in Hyrcanus a weak man he could
manipulate. Antipater secured the aid of Aretas, the Nabatean king,

and an alliance was established among the three (Antipater, Hyrcanus,
121Ibid., 426—29.

1221bid., XIV. 4, 5.

123Idumea had been conquered by Alexander Jannaeus during his
reign and incorporated into his kingdom. Antipater, obviously a
collaborator of Jannaeus, had been appointed governor of the
territory. (Jos. Apt,, XIV. 8—10.)

 

and Arei
Jerusalc
hristobv
forced ‘
had rep

in the

he took
quaestc
making
to Jude

might I

ambass
the in

\

restor
iiiehan

 

 

 

and Aretas).12“ The confederates met Aristobulus in battle near

125 As a consequence, a great part of

Jerusalem and defeated him.
Aristobulus' supporters went over to Hyrcanus, and the former was
forced to withdraw to the temple where, with those of his men that

had remained loyal to him, he was besieged by his brother and Aretas.
In the meantime, the Romans had arrived.

After Pompey had secured the submission of Tigranes of Armenia,
he took immediate steps to gain possession of Syria. Scaurus, his
quaestor, was sent ahead to take over the territory (65 B.C.). After
making sure that Damascus was secure in Roman hands, Scaurus proceeded
to Judaea. Undoubtedly he had been informed of the civil war, and he
might have seen an opportunity to intervene.

As soon as Scaurus stepped into the territory, he received
ambassadors from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. The ambassadors from
the former immediately offered a huge sum of money126 for the Roman

12"Ibid., 15-16. Hyrcanus promised Aretas that, if he was
restored to the throne, he would return twelve cities taken by
Alexander Janneaus from the Nabateans.

125Ibid., 19.

126Jos. Jewish War i. 128, mentions the sum of 300 talents,
whereas in Apt, XIV. 29—31 the sum is 400 talents. This is not neces—
sarily a contradiction on the part of Josephus. The latter passage,
referring to the activities of Scaurus in Syria, declares that Pompey
had sent Scaurus “also" to that area to secure it. Who was the other
man? Most probably Gabinius, Pompey's legate, since Josephus (Ant.
XIV. 37) mentions his name in connection with the bribes. According
to this passage, at a meeting with Pompey in 64 B.C., Antipater's envoys
insisted that their master should be recognized by the Roman as the
Jewish king, since Gabinius had already been paid 300 talents while
Scaurus had been paid 400 talents in order to secure the Roman support
for Antipater (naturally this accusation did not ingratiate the latter

with either Scaurus or Gabinius). This passage could explain why the
two different amounts are mentioned by Josephus.

 

 

support,1
beraised
obeyed th
support c
was on hi

were SOUI

127
Josephus
"no less
because 1
whereas
Promises
less a 5
i165 pres
their in
iSJosep
"poor" (
Pi‘0bably
how the
Spot, tr
dosePhus
0i Justi
Will be
itd Scat
should i
Should i
positiov
alainst
hum, g
Nibatear

See Ri
on top
also pp

1
i0"tiers
i idl‘ge

1
iilleg5
0f Anti

 

 

support,127 and Scaurus sent orders to Aretas that the siege should

be raised. Aretas knew better than to go against Rome's wishes and
obeyed the order. Aristobulus, filled with the confidence that Roman
support could give, soon gathered a new army128 and pursued Aretas, who
was on his way home. At the battle of Papyron, Aretas and Hyrcanus

were soundly defeated by Aristobulus.129

 

127Why did Aristobulus gain the support of the Romans when
Josephus (Agt. XIV. 30, 31) states that Hyrcanus also offered to pay
“no less a sum"? Josephus declares that Aristobulus' offer was accepted
because he was ”wealthy and generous and asked for more moderate terms,
whereas Hyrcanus was poor and niggardly, and held out untrustworthy
promises for greater concessions.” I doubt that Hyrcanus offered ”no
less a sum“ than his brother. First, neither Hyrcanus nor Aritobulus
was present at this meeting, only their ambassadors who must have had
their instructions before they had set out for the interview. Second,
as Josephus points out, Aristobulus was ”wealthy" while Hyrcanus was
"poor" (he was not the king at that time, was on the run, and therefore
probably did not have a large treasury at his disposal). I do not see
how the ambassadors representing Hyrcanus could have promised, on the
spot, to match Aristobulus' offer. In addition, in Jewish War i. 128,
Josephus states that "three hundred talents outweighed considerations
of justice." If both sides had offered 300 talents, this statement
would be meaningless. The bribe was probably not the only factor which
led Scaurus to decide in Aristobulus' favor. Perhaps he felt that it
should be up to Pompey to decide on a matter of such importance as who
should be king of the Jews. He might have judged that he was not in the
position of declaring in favor of Hyrcanus, who was not the present king,
against a man who had been king of the Jews for several years. In addi—
tion, Scaurus might have felt distrust towards Hyrcanus' allies the
Nabateans, who had been at odds with the Romans on several occasions
(see Richard S. Williams, “Aulus Gabinius: A Political Biography“
[an unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973], p. 86;
also Plutarch Pompey, 39. 2; Dio 37. 15).

128The news that he now had Roman support seems to have worked
wonders, since he apparently did not encounter difficulties in raising
a large army in a very short time.

_ 129005. Aflt, XIV. 33. Both Hyrcanus and Aretas escaped with their
lives, but the latter lost many men. There is no mention in the account
of Antipater.

 

 

 

Th1
disaster.
vention to
to do so.
that Rome'
and that h
then to hi

Ir
himself wi
talents as
in Syria;
tires of I
there in p
lifter 113
that he w
Petites A
90 agains
fortified

alainst p
\
130

131
132
133

13c
30 inter]

 

 

94

The first phase of Antipater's search for power had ended in
disaster. He had had an important part in bringing the Roman inter—
vention to Judaea, and I do not believe that at this point he had meant
to do so. I also believe that about this time he had begun to realize
that Rome's intervention had been, and would continue to be, inevitable,
and that he would have to adapt himself to the circumstances, utilizing
them to his advantage.

In the meantime Aristobulus was attempting to ingratiate
himself with Pompey by sending him a golden vine worth five hundred l
talents as a present.13° After spending the winter of 64 B.C. at Apsis
in Syria,”1 Pompey came to Damascus, where he was met by representa-
tives of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. This time, however, Antipater was
there in person to represent his side (theoretically Hyrcanus').132
After listening to the arguments presented by both sides, Pompey said
that he would not come to a decision until he had reached Judaea.”3
Perhaps Aristobulus believed that Pompey's decision would ultimately
go against him, because instead of heeding the Roman's orders, he

I,

fortified himself in Alexandreion.13 Pompey immediately marched

against him, and Aristobulus, probably not very sure of the strength

kw

130Ibid., 34.

131Dio Cassius XXXVII. 7.
132Jos. Apt, XIV. 37.
133Ibid., 46.

. 131'Ibid., 49. This was clearly an act of defiance, and it was
SO Interpreted by Pompey.

i

 

 

of his posit
comanded," '

Aris
Pompey. He
Pompey follo
Aristobulus
personally w
deliver Jen
for peace.13
and the mom
deliver the
was taken pr.

"Bu
Finiiil the
POPPY. and
mills in t
to resist f
i" the wall
it Priests

to the horr

\
135

It

1391‘

1111.

 

 

95

of his position, "feigned obedience to everything he [Pompey]

commanded," which was delivering Alexandreion to the Romans.135
Aristobulus, however, continued with his plans of resisting

Pompey. He now took his army into Jerusalem, and fortified the city.

Pompey followed close behind, and set his camp near Jericho. Once more

Aristobulus had a change of heart and decided to ask for terms. He

personally went to Pompey's camp to negotiate, and there promised to

deliver Jerusalem and a large sum of money to the Romans, in return

for peace.136 Pompey sent Gabinius to Jerusalem to receive the city

and the money, but Aristobulus' soldiers would not open the gates nor

deliver the money. Aristobulus, who had remained in Pompey's camp,

was taken prisoner, and the city was placed under siege.137
"But among the men within the city there was dissension."136

Finally the supporters of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to

9 Aristobulus and his men took

Pompey, and the Romans marched in.13
refuge in the Temple area where they fortified themselves and continued
to resist for three more months.”0 In the end the Romans made a breach
in the wall and a frightful massacre followed.”1 The victims included

the priests who were engaged in offering sacrifices on the altars. And

to the horror of all the Jews down through the ages, Pompey entered the

NM

135Ibid., 52, 53. 136Ibid., 54, 55.
137Ibid., 57. 133Ibid., 58.
139Ibid., 59. leoIbid., 60—66.

mIbid., 67-70.

 

 

Holy of
to do.1
was rei
(thougl
be Pnt'
reinst.

offici

taking
become
luence
bring
55 By
and is
take.
ludae

Etrot
that

 

 

96

Holy of Holies, something that only the high priest was permitted
to do.ll+2

Antipater had finally achieved part of his aims: Hyrcanus
was reinstated as high priest and made an ethnarch of the people
(though not king). From then onward the real power in Judaea would
be Antipater. Eventually, after Antipater had helped Gabinius to
reinstate Auletes on the throne of Egypt, the Jew would be given
official power as procurator of Judaea.1”3

For the Jews of the Diaspora who were observing the events
taking place in Palestine from 65 B.C. to 55 B.C., two factors had
become quite clear: opposition to the Romans brought tragic conse-
quences, while, on the other hand, working with them could and did
bring abundant rewards. So when Gabinius advanced upon Egypt in
55 B.C. with a large army which included the Jewish leader Antipater
and his soldiers, the Jews of Egypt understood which side they should
take. Although the Egyptian Jews respected the leaders of the Jews in
Judaea, siding with the Romans was the wisest course of action that the
Egyptian Jews could take at that time. Auletes, no doubt, remembered

that the Jews had been his and the Romans' allies, and, although there

Eh

11'ZIbid., 72.

1“3According to Jos. Jewish War I. 199 it was Julius Caesar who
nominated Antipater as procurator. However Antipater is called proc—
urator of Judaea before Caesar's intervention in Palestinian affairs
(Jos. Ant. XIV. 139). I believe Antipater was made procurator when
Gabinius: after the Egyptian campaign, "settled the affairs of the city
of Jerusalem according to Antipater's wishes QAAE. XIV. 102), or as
flgfli§fl_fla§ I. 178 states, "reorganized the government in accordance
with Antipater's wishes."

 

 

is nor

in the

were it
hulete
Philop
Philop
other.
civil

after

find i
remair

0i thv

Since
fore
comp]
infer
thiol

 

 

97

is no record saying so, the Egyptian Jews probably reaped many benefits
in the remaining four years of Auletes' now undisputed reign.

Once again, in 48 B.C., the wishes of Antipater and Hyrcanus
were followed by the Jews in Egypt. Before his death in 51 B.C.,
Auletes had bequeathed Egypt to his ten—year—old son Ptolemy XIII
Philopator, who was to marry his seventeen year old sister Cleopatra VI
Philopator. Three years later, however, they were at war with each
other. At the same time, the Romans were also involved in a terrible
civil war: Julius Caesar against Pompey and his followers. Caesar,
after defeating Pompey at Pharsalus, followed him to Egypt, only to

“ Caesar

find that his enemy had been assassinated shortly before.14
remained at Alexandria, and was soon involved in the internal affairs
of the country on the side of Cleopatra VI.”5

Very soon Caesar realized that he was in a difficult position,
since Ptolemy's army substantially outnumbered his own forces. There-
fore he urged Mithridates of Pergamum to come to his aid. Mithridates
complied promptly, but upon reaching Ascalon with his army, was
informed that the city of Pelusium in Egypt would not allow him
through.”6 At this critical moment Antipater, who had now become
a supporter of Julius Caesar, joined Mithridates with a Jewish force

of 3,000 men. Antipater distinguished himself during the capture of

Pelusium and was

M

1“Plutarch Caesar XLVIII.

 

1”Dio Cassius, XLII. 40-44; Caesar B. Civ. III. 106; B. Alex.;
Plutarch Caesar XLIX; Suetonius Caesar LII.

1”SJos. Jewish War I. l87f., Aflt. XIV. l28f.

 

 

the fir
way for
Mithric
to Caes
as it v
however
ground
then a
then tv
and to
saw th
compli
that t
hithri

Sc
relion of
hithridatr
rue in it

I

Contribut

Hhcanus
\

1‘17
iiiflt in E
thrcanus,

no
illioate
it reli
ii iiiEXa
Mithi‘ida

11s

 

98

the first to pull down part of the wall, thus opening a

way for the others to pour into the city. . . . But when
Mithridates and Antipater with their men were on their way

to Caesar, the Jews who inhabited the district of Onias,

as it was called, prevented them from doing so. Antipater,
however, persuaded them also to side with his party on the
ground of their common nationality, especially when he showed
them a letter from the high priest Hyrcanus, in which he urged
them to be friendly to Caesar and receive his army hospitably
and furnish it with all things necessary. And so, when they
saw that Antipater and the high priest had the same wish, they
complied. And when those in the neighborhood of Memphis heard
that these Jews had joined Caesar's side, they too invited
Mithridates to come to them.”7

Soon afterwards, in a battle fought somewhere in the Delta
region of the Nile, Antipater saved Mithridates from defeat.”8 Thus
Mithridates was able to join Caesar in Alexandria, playing an important
role in turning matters around in favor of the Roman.

It is no wonder that Julius Caesar was very impressed by the
contribution of Antipater and the Jews.”9 Not only did Antipater and

Hyrcanus personally benefit after the conclusion of the Alexandrian

 

1”Jos. Ant. XIV. 130ff. No doubt the Egyptian Jews again judged
that in additiEH—to showing respect for the authority of Antipater and
HI’rcanus, it would be wise to join the Romans and the Victor of
Pharsalus.

1“BJos. Jewish War I. l9lf.; Aflt. XIV. 133—136. Mithridates and
AntI'Pater had encountered an Egyptian force that had attempted to turn
the relief force back before the latter could joan Caesar and his men
at Alexandria. Caesar, however, managed to leave Alexandria, meet
Mithridates, and help him defeat the forces of Ptolemy XIII. DlO
Cassius XLII 41-43, Caesar, B. Alex. 27-28.

1”Jos. Jewish War. l93f.

 

 

llar,150 b
Julius Ca

1
addmc
ammdi
ticipate
neat
and Roma

deternio
\
15

man:
Granted
HPrcanu:

I!
Cites a
Citizen
Mun

 

99

War,150 but the Jews in Egypt and Asia Minor did so as well.1“
Julius Caesar did not forget that he owed much to the Jews.

The above account shows that the Jews in Egypt were aware
and closely affected by the political events taking place in Egypt
and Coele-Syria, and that on several occasions they actively par-
ticipated in the political events of their age. The Jews in Egypt
were a force that had to be acknowledged by the Ptolemies, Seleucids,
and Romans, a force that many times played an important role in
determining the course of events in both Egypt and Coele—Syria.

l 150Antipater was granted Roman citizenship, exempted from
taxation, and confirmed as procurator of Judaea (a post probably
granted him originally by Gabinius: Jos. Aflt. XIV. 102 and 137).
Hyrcanus was confirmed as high priest and ethnarch of the Jews.
151Jos. Agt. XIV. l85ff. Among the benefits that Josephus
cites as bestowed upon the Jews by Julius Caesar was the Alexandrian

citizenship for those dwelling in that particular city. I shall
discuss the citizenship question in the next chapter.

 

 

 

 

tomun
whethe
Before
1 sha'
organ
Hel lei
of wh
which
his u
was n

and w

ind g
Priv'

Part

\

diVl!
MA
to b
i tr

 

 

CHAPTER IV

THE JEWISH COMMUNITY: ORGANIZATION AND
SOCIAL STATUS OF THE JEWS AT ALEXANDRIA

The purpose of this chapter is to study how the Jewish
community was organized internally at Alexandria, and to determine
whether or not the Jews as a whole belonged to the citizen body.
Before studying the internal organization of the Jews at Alexandria,
I shall endeavor to analyze briefly how the city of Alexandria was
organized internally in relation to the rest of Egypt and to other
Hellenistic cities founded by Alexander in this kingdom. The matter
of whether or not Alexandria was founded following the Greek pattern
which Alexander commonly used in the establishment of cities throughout
his vast empire is of great importance in determining who was and who
was not a citizen of Alexandria, what Alexandrian citizenship meant,
and how it was acquired in this city.

A typical Greek city had a citizen body based on territorial
and gentilial prerequisites.1 Citizens in these cities had definite
privileges and obligations. Since civic religion was an intricate

part of Greek city life, citizens were expected to participate in

E

lThere existed in most Greek cities territorial and clan
divisions for citizenship purposes, such as tribes, demes, and
phratries. In post—Cleisthenic Athens, for example, a citizen had
to be a descendant of citizens, and member of a phratry, a deme, and
a tribe.

 

100

 

 

civic ceremc
sacrifices 1
part in gym
citizen bod,
iggA§_or
Egypt were
from the ti
pharaonic c
into a reg(
the purity
intermarri.
thekci
nwonomy.i
iii hear of

wrwcuiu

\

21
0f tile Gi‘fi
NiuCidtis
Great (Sec

31
Pa rPSku
lo. 27.

 

 

101

civic ceremonies, which involved, on most occasions, performing
sacrifices to and taking oaths by the gods of the city, and taking
part in gymnastic festivals which were connected with some cult. The
citizen body would normally govern a Greek city by means of an ecclesia,
a Aggie or a gerousia, and a judicial body. Typical Greek cities in
Egypt were Naucratis and Ptolemais. Naucratis, already in existence
from the time of Psammetichus I (663 to 609 B.C.) of the XXVIth
pharaonic dynasty, quickly developed during the Hellenistic period
into a regular Greek city.2 The Greek citizen-body jealously guarded
the purity of its Greek blood, as is evident by the law that forbade
intermarriage with Egyptians.3 Ptolemais, founded by Ptolemy I, was

a Greek city, with a Greek constitution, and a complete internal

autonomy.“ "We see the council [boule] and people passing decrees,

 

we hear of disorders in the sessions of the council and the assembly,
particularly at the elections of magistrates, and we find the council

and people, on the proposal of the prytaneis, modifying the constitution

 

2Athanaeus, IV. 149-150, speaks of the rytaneum of Naucratis
of the Greek city—magistrates who bore the Ionic title of 'tIpOoXOI.
Naucratis even issued its own coins during the time of Alexander the
Great (see A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces
[London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1971], p. 301).

 

3Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzfige and Chrestomathie der
Eapyruskunde, 4 vols. (Leipzig—Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1912), Vol. 1,
0. 27.

 

l*W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
(Hildesheim: George Olms, Verglagsbuchhandlung, I970), Nos. 48, 49, 50,
and 51 are four inscriptions from the third century B.C. which show
that Naucratis possessed a Greek constitution of the normal type, with
an assembly, a boule or council, and annual magistrates (six prytaneis
in this case). “*TTTT—TT'

 

 

 

 

 

in ano

COUI‘IS

Naocrat
is mega
Roman i
of tree
cation
tOpan

Plexan

hdS pr

\

nemtic
The dc

not 0
Max R

iirte
M

to pc
PM
%
time.
iii)
to
90331
that
lho .
his

369"]

 

 

102

in an oligarchic sense, by decreeing that the council and the law
courts be chosen from a select register.”5

Can Alexandria be classified as a typical Greek city such as
Naucratis and Ptolemais? Max Radin believes strongly that the answer
is negative. In Alexandria, he says, ”there is no trace, till late in
Roman times, of a Aggie, and of a gem9§_as little. In the great mass
of Greek papyri that have come from Egypt, there is nowhere any indi-
cation that a senate [council?] ever met, or a people ever assembled
to parody the deliberations of the Athenian ecclesia. In other words,
Alexandria was much less a pgli§_than it was a royal residence.”6

The problem of whether or not Alexandria ever possessed a 22912
has produced much controversial literature.7 In addition, there is

5Jones, Qitieg, p. 305, commenting on the four inscriptions
mentioned above.

6Max Radin, The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans (Philadelphia;
The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1915), p.7107.

 

7Spartianus, Vita Severi, XVII, indicates that Alexandria did
not obtain a boule in Roman times until the reign of Septimius Severus.
Max Radin, in a book review of H. Idris Bell's Jews and Christians in
Egypt, which appeared in Classical Philology, XX (1925), pp. 368-375,
states that it is his firm belief that Alexandria never did possess a
boule until the time of Severus. Bell, Jews and Christians, pp. 9 and
10, analyzes the different arguments on both sides of this controversy.
He points out that the Edict of Claudius to the Alexandrians found in
Pa rus Lond. Inv. 1912 (edited by Bell on page 23ft. of Jews and Chris-
tians) seems to negate the existence of a boule at Alexandria at any
time. Scholars such as Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, p. 94; Jones,
Cities, p. 303; Davis, Race Relations, pp. 70ff.; Pierre Jouquet, L3
Vie Municipale dans L'Egypte Romaine (Paris: Editions E. De Boccard,
1968), pp. 25—32; are among those who believe that Alexandria did
possess a boule sometime early in its history, but that it was later
abolished._hH6wever, it is not possible for these scholars to identify
who effected the abolition, since Spartianus clearly implies that there
was no boule under the Ptolemies, while Cassius Dio, LI. xvii. 2, 3,
seems to Indicate that Augustus abolished a boule at Alexandria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

only 51
nomal
Not uni
ship 111

thus e:

large
disput
the ci
City 5
the qr
the Jr

\

iiilck.
city 1
twelv
Relat
m,
Alexa
in th
inscr
B.C.
with
see a
dPlies
Wu
on] E

iines
iriav
it i:
that
Hit
the
111$

 

 

103

only slight evidence to indicate that Alexandria possessed even the
normal tribe and district divisions (tribes, demes, and phratries).8
Not until Roman times is there clear evidence that Alexandrian citizen—
ship was open only to those who had finished their ephebic training,9
thus establishing Alexandria in the category of other Greek cities.

No one disputes that during the Ptolemaic period there was a
large Greek element among the population of Alexandria. What is under
dispute is whether this Greek element controlled the political life of
the city, as would have been the case if Alexandria were a typical Greek
city such as Ptolemais or Naucratis. Closely related to this issue is
the question of Alexandrian citizenship, especially as it relates to

the Jewish inhabitants of this city.

8According to papyrus dating from c. 265 B.C. (Mitteis and
Wilcken, Grundnge, No. 25, pp. l4ff.), the citizen body of an unnamed
city was divided into five tribes, twelve demes in each tribe, and
twelve phratries in each deme. Radin, Jews, p. lO7f.; Davis, Race—
Relations, p. 70, note 3; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, l: 39, are
among scholars who believe that this inscription probably refers to
Alexandria, though Fraser also suggests Ptolemais as a possibility.
0n the other hand, Fraser also produces the evidence of Alexandrian
inscriptions, also from approximately the middle of the third century
B.C. (ibid., 42ff.), where the names of certain Alexandrians are coupled
with the statement that they belong to such and such a deme. I do not
see any reason to deny Alexandria the common Greek division of tribes,
demes, and phratries. But I would specify that the demotic was the
official designation for citizens of the Greek politeuma or community
only, which does not concede that Alexandrians without a demotic were
not really Alexandrians.

 

 

 

 

 

9In the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P. London 1912,
lines 52-59, in H. I. Bell's edition), the Emperor confirmed the Alexan-
drian citizenship of all those who had, up to his principate, attained
at by completing their ephebic training. It is clear from his letter
that the e hebate was the normal method of entering into the Alexandrian
Citizenship during the Imperial period. Very possibly, this was also
the common method of achieving citizenship in the Greek Community of
Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period.

N“

 

 

0
citizensh
as a whol
they were
the Alexa
oi Josepl
followinv

Let
[Api
dria
with
on t
he i
proi
forn
rest
this
In '
Ale:
the
tri!

\

tiliii SC

Of two modern schools of thought concerning the Jewish
citizenship at Alexandria, one believes emphatically that the Jews
as a whole were citizens of this city, while the other one believes
they were not. Scholars who believe that the Jews as a whole possessed
the Alexandrian citizenship1° base their opinion mainly on the authority
of Josephus and Philo. Josephus, in Contra Apionem,11 makes the
following statement:

Let us investigate the grave and shocking charges which he
[Apionem] has brought against the Jewish residents in Alexan-
dria. "They came,” he says, ”from Syria and settled by a sea
without a harbour, close beside the spot where the waves break
on the beach." Well, if fault is to be found with the locality,
he is stigmatizing, I do not say his native place, but what he
professes to be his native place, Alexandria. For the sea-board
forms part of the city, and is, by universal consent, its finest
residential quarter. If the Jews owed their . . . tenure of
this quarter to force of arms, that is a proof of their valour.
In fact, however, it was presented to them as their residence by
Alexander, and they obtained privileges on a par with those of
the Macedonians. . . .12 Down to the resent time their local
tribe bore the name of "Macedonians." 3 If Apion had read

*m

1'fIn addition to Max Radin, other scholars in this school are
Emil Schdrer, Jewish Peo 1e, Division II, Vol. II, pp. 270ff.; J.
Juster, Les Juifs aans liEmpire romain (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1914),
Vol. II, pp. lff.; G. De Sanctis, ”Claudio e i Giudei d' Alessandria,“
Revista di Filologia Classica 20 (1924): 473-513; Arnaldo Momigliano,
Claudius: The Emperor and His Achievement (New York: Barnes and Noble,
1961). pp. 96f. Davis, Race—Revamons, p. 111, has a slightly different
View. He believes that only the Jews who settled in Alexandria at its
foundation received the citizenship. By Josephus' time, he continues,
these Jews with citizenship were a minority.

1111. 33-42.

12In Jos. Jewish War II. 487 and AAt.XII. 8, their ioonXi raid
was confirmed by the successors of Alexander.

13The five tribes were probably identical with the five wards, a,
B, Y, 5, 8, into which Alexandria was divided. See A. H. M. Jones, The
Greek Cit from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: at the Clarendon PNEEE,
T§161:_57x158; and S. Davis, Race Relations, p. 93.

 

 

 

then
want
niti
inte

 

105

the letters of King Alexander and of Ptolemy, son of Lagus,
if he had set eyes on the papers of their successors on the
throne of Egypt, or the slab which stands in Alexandria,
recording the rights bestowed upon the Jews by Caesar the
Great; if, I say, he knew these documents and yet had the
face to contradict them in what he wrote, he was a knave;

if he had no knowledge of them, an ignorant fool.

His astonishment at the idea of Jews being called Alexan—
drians betrays similar stupidity. All persons invited to
join a colony, however different their nationality, take
the name of the founders. It is needless to go outside our
race for instances. Our Jewish residents in Antioch are
called Antiochenes, having been granted rights of citizen-
ship by its founder, Seleucus. Similarly, those at Ephesus
and throughout the rest of Ionia bear the same name as the
indigenous citizens, a right which they received from
Alexander's successors. Have not the Romans, in their
generosity, imparted their name to well-nigh all mankind?1“
. . . If Apion disallows this class of citizenship, let

him cease to call himself an Alexandrian. Born, as I have
already mentioned, in the depths of Egypt, how can he be

an Alexandrian, if, as he claims in our case, honorary
rights of citizenship are to be ruled out?

In Antiguities XIV. 188, Josephus makes a most categoric

statement: "And what is more, Julius Caesar made a bronze tablet for

the Jews in Alexandria, declaring that they were citizens of Alexandria.”
The letter of Claudius to the Alexandrines found in Josephusl5

is additional evidence adduced by scholars wishing to prove that the

Alexandrian Jews possessed the citizenship.

It reads as follows:

ll'Notice that Josephus was writing in the first century A.D.
when full Roman citizenship had not been granted yet "well-nigh to all
mankind." (An event that would occur later during the first century
A.D. was the granting by Rome of Latin status to innumerable commu-
nities, a kind of partial citizenship quite similar to what, as I
intend to show, the Jews possessed at Alexandria.)

15m. XIX. 280-285.

 

 

 

l06

Having from the first known that the Jews in Alexandria
called Alexandrians were fellow colonizers from the very
earliest times jointly with the Alexandrians and received
equal civic rights from the kings as is manifest from the
documents in their possession and from the edicts; and that
after Alexandria was made subject to our empire by Augustus
their rights were preserved by the prefects sent from time
to time, and that these rights of theirs have never been
disputed; moreover, that at the time when Aquila was at
Alexandria, on the death of the ethnarch of the Jews,
Augustus did not prevent the continued appointment of
ethnarchs, desiring that the several subject nations should
abide by their own customs and not be compelled to violate
the religion of their fathers; and learning that the
Alexandrians rose up in insurrection against the Jews in
their midst in the time of Gaius Caesar, who through his
great folly and madness humiliated the Jews because they
refused to transgress the religion of their fathers by
addressing him as a god; I desire that none of their rights
should be lost to the Jews on account of the madness of
Gaius, but that their former privileges also be preserved

to them, while they abide by their own customs; and I en—
join upon both parties to take the greatest precaution to
pgevent any disturbance arising after the posting of my

e ict!

Philo16 also appears to confirm the statements of Josephus

about the Alexandrian citizenship of the Jews.

It was to be feared that people everywhere might take their
cue from Alexandria, and outrage their Jewish fellow-citizens
by rioting against their synagogues and ancestral customs.

Again, In Flaccum 53:

When his [Flaccus']17 attack against our laws by seizing the
meeting—houses without even leaving them their name appeared

k.—

16In Flaccum 47.

17Flaccus was appointed prefect of Alexandria and Egypt c.
32 A-D-, near the end of Tiberius‘ principate. According to Philo,
he showed considerable ability during his first five years of office.
But the accession of Gaius in 37 A.D. endangered his position, since
he had been a partisan of Tiberius Gemellus, the rival candidate for
the succession. Flaccus had also been friendly with Macro, who had
fallen into disfavour with Gaius. The anti-semitic party promised
to support him in return for his help against the Jews.

 

 

to

des
cus
moo
mig
for
whi
rig

anti-J!
princii
by the
anothe
indica

classi

_,_,
—r-1
c~f-_
szw

c—‘.

0.1—:-

Phlh

 

 

l07

to be successful, he proceeded to another scheme, namely, the
destruction of our citizenship, so that when our ancestral
customs and our participation in political rights, the sole
mooring on which our life was secured, had been cut away, we
might undergo the worst misfortunes with no cable to cling to
for safety.

For a few days later he issued a proclamation in
which he denounced us as foreigners and aliens and gave us no
right of pleading our case but condemned us unjudged.

In both these passages Philo was writing in reference to the

anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria in the summer of 38 A.D., during the
principate of Gaius. Philo describes a series of atrocities committed
by the Alexandrians against the Jews. In In Flaccum 78—80, he describes
another humiliation suffered by the Jews, and in so doing he seems to

indicate once more that the Jews had been, up to that time at least,

classified with the citizens of Alexandria.

One point in the deeds committed at this time I mention only
with hesitation, lest by being considered an insignificant
matter it may detract from the magnitude of these horrors.
Yet even if it is a small thing it is an evidence of no small
malignancy. There are differences between the scourges used

in the city, and these differences are regulated by the social
standing of the persons to be beaten.

The Egyptians actually
are scourged with a different kind of lash and by a different
set of people, the Alexandrians with a flat blade, and the
persons who wield them also are Alexandrians. The custom was
also observed in the case of our people by the predecessors of
Flaccus and by Flaccus himself in his first years of office.
For it is surely possible when inflicting degradation on others
to find some little thing to sustain their dignity. . . .
Surely then it was the height of harshness that when commoners

among the Alexandrian Jews, if they appeared to have done things
worthy of stripes, were beaten with whips.

. . . Their [the
Jewish] rulers, the magistrates, the elders, whose very name
implies age and honour, in this respect fared worse than their

inferiors and were treated like Egyptians of the meanest rank
and guilty of the greatest iniquities.

In 39 A.D. the Jews of Alexandria sent an embassy to Gaius, and

Philo describes this embassy, of which he was the leader, as a campaign

 

 

on beh
were t

their

Alexa:
Josep

XIV.

 

 

 

108

on behalf of their citizenship,18 and their traditional rights which
were being trampled by the Alexandrians. The ambassadors expressed
their fear that their noXiteia would be destroyed.19

SchUrer believes that the Jews were not only citizens in

Alexandria, but also in many other Hellenistic cities.2°

Following
Josephus, SchUrer speaks about Jewish citizenship in Sardes (Ant,

XIV. x. 24), Cyrene (Ann. XVI. vi. 1), Antioch (Jewish War VII. iii. 3),
and in other cities throughout Asia Minor and Syria (Ant, XII. iii. l).
He believes that the fact that the Jews possessed citizenship rights in
all these cities produced what he calls an "internal contradiction."2‘
0n the one hand, they formed in these cities a community of foreigners,
organized into an independent body, with religious beliefs hopelessly
at variance with Gentile worship. On the other hand, they participated
as citizens in all the rights and duties of municipal life, they had
seats in the civic councils, and therefore the right to vote in them.
They had a share in the direction of city affairs. "This must of
necessity have led to incessant collision. For the idea of separating
religious from political concerns was, so long as it remained true to

itself, altogether foreign to classical antiquity.“22

M.

18Embassy to Gaius, 349. Also Jos. Ant, XVIII. 257—260.
13Philo Embassy, 193, l94.

2°E. SchUrer, Jewish People, 2: 270ff. of Div. II.
21Ibid.

221mm, p. 274.

 

 

refuse
by the
of lies
at Ant
incur
the r'
Minor

nativ

0f Al
Max i
extri
is p‘
dist
firm
the

OH

(L01
m

DD.
it

DD.

 

 

 

109

Again following Josephus, Schfirer points out that the Romans
refused to deprive the Jews of their citizen rights when so petitioned
by the non-Jewish citizens of these cities. He cites cases in the time
of Vespasian at Alexandria (AflE~ XII. iii. 1) and in the time of Titus
at Antioch (Jewish War VII. v. 2), where the rights of citizenship were

inscribed upon tablets of brass.23

Many of the Jews began acquiring
the rights of Roman citizenship: in Rome (Philo Embassy 23), in Asia
Minor (Jos. Ant, XIV. x. l3, l6, l9), in the case of the Apostle Paul,
native of Tarsus (Acts of the Apostles l6:37—39, and 22:25—27).

The school of thought that denies that the Jews were citizens

of Alexandria includes a greater number of scholars than the former.21+

Max Radin simplifies their arguments against the citizenship to an

 

extreme when he states that ”the denial of their [Jewish] citizenship

is principally based upon distrust of Josephus, who asserts it. But
distrust of Josephus can be carried to an extravagant degree.“25 I
firmly agree with the latter part of his statement. Arguments against
the Jewish citizenship are based, however, on more than simple distrust

of Josephus.

 

23According to Josephus, Titus not only refused to abolish their
rights, but in addition confirmed them.

2“Among them, N. M. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization, 3d. ed.
(London: E. Arnold & Co., 1952), p. 22l; H. Willrich, "Caligula,“
Klio, III (T903): 403-405; Pierre Jouguet, Vie Munici ale, l8—2l;
N. Schubart, Archiv. 5 (T909): l08ff.; Bell, Jews and Christians,
pp. lO-l4, and Cults and Creeds in Graeco—Roman Egypt (Liverpool:
at the University Press, l953), pp. 37—4l; V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ.,
pp. 300—3l2, and C. P. Jud. (with A. Fuks), l: 9ff.; FraserT~Pt6TTTfiieX‘
: 54—58. —‘.‘_‘"‘““

 

 

25Max Radin, The Jews, p. l09.

 

0
full citi
which wou
otherwise
such as 1

be dislo:

Alexandr
as a leg
not on] y
Thus the
Indumear
Ciliciar

\

N0. 73,

Connect
appears
Jewish

M

4vols,

110

One of the basic arguments against Jewish citizenship is that
full citizenship in a Greek city would entail worship of the city gods,
which would mean apostasy to a Jew.26 Jews as a rule, Hellenizers or
otherwise, held fast to their religion; and even though individuals,
such as the two Jews who gave thanks in Pan's temple at Edfu, might
be disloyal,27 the majority of Jews were faithful to their God.

Scholars of this school believe that what the Jews formed in
Alexandria was a politeuma, that is, an ethnic community which appeared
as a legally independent unit within the city.28 This term would apply
not only to Jewish communities, but also to other ethnic groups as well.
Thus there are inscriptions that speak of the politeumata of the
Indumeans,29 the Phrygians,3° the Cretans,31 the Lycians,32 the

Cilicians,33 and the Boeotians.3'+

 

26E.g., Tarn, Hell. Civ., p. 22l.

N 27w. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae,
o. 73, 74.

28In the Letter of Aristeas, 310, the term politeuma is used in
connection with the Jewish community of Alexandria. The same term also
appears in two inscriptions from Berenice and Cyrenaica, which refer to
Jewish communities there: see A. Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum
Graecarum (Berlin: G. Reimeri, l877), No. 5361/2.

 

29w. Dittenberger, 0618 No. 737.

30Ibid., No. 658.

318. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al. (eds. ), The Tebtunis Pa yri,
4 vols. (London: Oxford at the University Press, l902- 38), No. 32.

n 32F. Bilabel, and F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden
W (Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, l9l5), No. 6025.

 

33Ibid., No. 7270.
3"Ibid., No. 6664.

 

Tcher
in He
relat
Ptole
who w
whici

consl

Tche
hot
that
inha
exew

Peri

lll

Tcherikover35 quotes Josephus36 for a certain event that
Tcherikover believes exemplifies how Jewish politeumata were established
in Hellenistic Egypt. Josephus is in turn quoting Hecataeus, who
relates an event in the life of Hezekiah, the high priest who joined
Ptolemy I after the battle of Gaza. Hezekiah gathered a number of Jews
who were willing to follow him to Egypt, and read to them a document
which contained ”the conditions of their settlement and their political
constitution.” Tcherikover feels certain that:

we have here an allusion to an official document issued to
Hezekiah in Ptolemy's name, perhaps in the form of a letter
signed by the king, which fixed in advance the type of
settlement of the group of Jews in Egypt and also their
political status in their new country of residence. .
It will not be an error to state that this was the usual
manner of setting up a politeuma, and every new Jewish
community that arose in Ptolemaic Egypt needed a special
”charter“ on the pattern of that granted to Hezekiah by
Ptolemy 1.37
Tcherikover suggests that the document which Hezekiah possessed
probably contained only the main principles of the act of settlement.
What principles were these? No doubt such matters as the number of
inhabitants, the location of the settlement, its purpose, and its
exemption from taxes.38 Probably included in the document was the

permission for the Jews to live according to their laws and religious

K“.—

35Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 300.
36Jos. C. An. I. l89.
37Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 300.

. 38An example would be the case of the refoundation of Lysimacheia
1n Thrace by Antiochus III (Appian Syriaca I. i).

 

 

conce
Alexa
auton

socia

citie
Once
and '
elec

subm

QUdS

mane
poi
the
the
of

rig

tirr

112

concepts, which would have meant that the Jewish community in
Alexandria and in the Diaspora in general would possess internal
autonomy. Not a political autonomy, says Tcherikover, but only a
social and religious one.

Tarn believes39 that the Jews simply filtered into Greek
cities in the Diaspora, their position being merely that of metics.
Once they had become numerous enough, they set up their synagogues
and formed private associations for worship. Officials were then
elected, such as the ”ruler of the synagogue,” to whom disputes were
submitted by the Jewish people, according to their laws.

Next the Jews were allowed to form a politeuma, making them
quasi—autonomous settlers, with greater rights than those possessed
by metics. Like other politeumata, the Jewish ones were allowed to
manage their own internal affairs. In at least one respect, the Jewish
politeumata were privileged beyond any other: they ultimately acquired
the right of having cases judged by their own magistrates according to
their own law, making them most probably exempt from the jurisdiction
of the Greek courts.”0 Tarn believes that it was particularly this
right that brought about Greek discontent towards the Jews in later

times.

M

39Tarn, Hell. Civ., pp. l47f.
“°Ibid., pp. 160 and l75f.

 

 

 

speci
state
the l

the <

a 9hr
howe'
sinc
dewi

Jews

uni

Ale)
that

not
C0”

W. +2.4.12mE1—1

113

Schubart“1 tries to prove that the Macedonians formed a
special class not possessing Alexandrian citizenship. Since Josephus
states that Alexander gave the Jews the right to be classified with
the Macedonians,"2 Schubart concludes that the Jews did not possess
the citizenship.

Jouguet,“3 following Willrich,“” regards the existence of
a ghetto in Alexandria as an argument against citizenship. Bell,”5
however, points out that the argument here is not conclusive either,
since, at least in Philos' time,"6 the Jews were not confined to the
Jewish quarter, nor was that quarter itself peopled exclusively by
Jews.“7

Another set of arguments centers around the interpretation
of the term "Alexandrians,“ since both Josephus and Philo speak about

the Jews at Alexandria as ”Alexandrians” or ”called Alexandrians." i
______________________

”lArchiv., 5: lll. Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 53, and Tcherikover,
Hell. Civ., 322f., agree with him. Bell, although also oppOSIng the
Alexandrian citizenship for the Jews, admits (Jews and Christ., p. 13)
that Schubart's arguments are ”not conclusive.“

#2

C. An. II. 35.

”3Vie Municipale, p. 19.

“““Caligula” 406.

“5Jews and Christ., p. 13.

”sPhilo In Flaccum VIII. 55 and 56.

“7Davis, Race—Relations, p. 92, agrees with Bell that one can

"Gt Speak of a Jewish ghetto in Alexandria, “inasmuch as there was no
compulsion upon the Jews to live in the Delta quarter.

 

Pol yl
Alexa
werci
unde

belo

argu
puss
that
of l
the
not
the
The

dri

des

114

Polybius, in a well-known fragment,“8 divides the population of

Alexandria into three categories: the native Egyptian element, the
mercenary troops, and the ”Alexandrians." Apparently Polybius included

under "Alexandrians“ the whole free Greek civil population, whether they

belonged to the citizen—body or not. He does not mention the Jews.

Scholars who oppose the Alexandrian citizenship for the Jews

argue”9 that Polybius could not have meant to say that all “Alexandrians”

possessed the citizenship. Schubart believes50 that the citizens proper

that were included in the term "Alexandrians” were only a small minority

of the Greek residents of Alexandria. The multitude of men who called

themselves Hellenes, that spoke Greek and lived like Greeks, but did
not possess the rights of citizenship, were perhaps not Greek in blood-—
the offspring of marriages between Greeks and Egyptians for instance.
The Jews, says Schubart, were classified in some ways with the Alexan-
drians,51 but not necessarily as members of the citizen-body.

Wilcken cites a papyrus52 in which a Jewish petitioner is

described as ’AXeEdVépém(g) but the word has been altered to ’Iouaacou

“BPolybius, XXXIV. xiv. 2—5.

“9E.g., Fraser, Ptol. Alex., l: 47f., argues that the full
citizen of Alexandria was known throughout Egypt by his demotic and
patronymic, and not just by the term “Alexandrian“ which was a geo-
graphic expression. Davis, Race—Relations, p. 70, seems to agree:
“There were a number of people who were 'Alexandrians' but not members
of a deme."

5°Schubart, Archiv., 5 (l909), pp. lllf.

51As in the manner of punishment (see above, pp. 107f.), with
the flat of the sword (for Greek citizens), and not with a whip.

52Mitteis and Wilcken, Grundzdge, l: 63, no. 58.

 

Idu 'qu
a differ
'uxd 'A)
that the

qualite

basis 0
Two emb
asking
$5.513

least c

found '
in Col

transl.

115

18v ’ana ’Axexooop6a(g). From this he argues that there was evidently

a difference between the ’AAcEavécOg or citizen, and the ’Iouoodog 16v
’aua ’AXegovopeCog. Juster disputes this inference.53 He believes

that the alteration is simply ”une meilleure determination de la
qualite du solliciteur.”

Bell believes that the entire matter can now be resolved on the
basis of a letter from the Roman Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians.5“
Two embassies had been sent to Claudius from Alexandria c. 4T A.D., each

asking for certain privileges and presenting its side in the recent

stasis at Alexandria between Jews and Greeks. It is clear that at
least one of the embassies was Jewish.

The portions of the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians,
found in the London Papyrus 1912, which are relevant to our study begin

in Col. 3, line 50, and extend to Col. 5, line 100. (I will use Bell’s
translation unless otherwise indicated.)

Concerning the requests which you are anxious that I should
grant, I decide as follows: To all who have become ephebi
down to my principate I secure and confirm the Alexandrian
citizenship with all the privileges and amenities enjoyed

by the city except only to such as may have intruded them-
selves among you and contrived, though born of servile
mothers, to become ephebi; and not less is it my will that
all those favours shall be confirmed which were granted you
by my predecessors in the principate and by kings and prefects.
. . . As to the question of the senate [boule], what was your
custom under the former kings I cannot say, but that you had
no senate under the Augusti who have preceded me you well know.
Since therefore this is a new proposal now first mooted and it

 

 

53Les Juifs, 2: 9f.

M

5“Papyrus Lond. Inv. l912 (edited by Bell on p. 23 of Jews
and Christians).

 

..._._.——4--..u—— A -—

116

is uncertain whether it will be to the advantage of the city
and of my own interests, I have written to Aemilius Rectus
to hold an inquiry and to inform me both whether the order
should be constituted and, if this should be decided on, in
what way it is to be formed.

As to the question which of you were responsible for the
riot and the feud (or rather, if the truth must be told, the
war) against the Jews, I was unwilling to commit myself to a
decided judgment, though your ambassadors, and particularly
Dionysius son of Theon, pleaded your cause with much zeal in
confrontation with their opponents, and I must reserve for
myself an unyielding indignation against whoever caused this
renewed outbreak; but I tell you plainly that if you do not
desist from this baneful and obstinate mutual hostility I
shall perforce be compelled to show what a benevolent prince
can be when turned to just indignation. Wherefore I conjure
you yet once again that, on the one side, the Alexandrians
show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who
for many years have dwelt in the same city, and offer no out-
rage to them in the exercise of their traditional worship but
permit them to observe their customs as in the time of Divus
Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have
confirmed; and, on the other side, I bid the Jews not to busy
themselves about anything beyond what they have held hitherto,
and not henceforth, as if they and you lived in two cities, to
send two embassies-—a thing such as never occurred before now-—
nor to strive in [’eoconofipeoo] gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games,55

 

55The interpretation of this passage heavily depends on the
meaning of the word ’eooonodpeoo. Hunt and Edgar, Select Pa

ri,
4 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932-34), 2: 86 and 87,
read ’entonofieov instead of 'sntondech, and translate ”force their

way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games.” Radin, Classical Philology
20 (l925): 370, suggests another interpretation, since he feels Bell 5
is incorrect. Radin judges that ’enoononetv may well have the sense
of ”jeering" or “scoffing.” Since the Alexandrian Jews were known to
have been, on occasions, far from peaceful, they may well have attended
the games with the purpose of ”scoffing“ and/or “jeering,” which at

such a time could hardly fail to provoke a counter-demonstration. I
a9ree with Radin's interpretation of the term ’enoonafipeov. Bell‘s
interpretation makes little sense; for why should Claudius prohibit
the Jews from participating in games which the Jews avoided by their
own choice, as against their religion? The stadium and its equipment
had been among the chief symbols of the Abomination from the time of the
Maccabees (II Macc. 4: 9f., the high priest Jason was condemned for
establishing a gymnasium in Jerusalem and for encouraging the priests

to neglect the temple sacrifices in order to take part in the unlawful
displays of the palaestra). Jos. ADI: XV. 267—280, uses strong language

 

cont
ci ti
the
letl
plat
wha'
Mi
Dos:
of ,
the
9am
did
of

Acc
(Ba
in
not
dis

117

but to profit by what they possess, and enjoy in a city not
their own [’ev 'aAAOTpCa ndAEC an abundance of all good things;
and not to introduce or invite Jews who sail down to Alexandria
from Syria or Egypt, thus compelling me to conceive the greater
suspicion. . . . If desisting on both sides from these proceed-
ings, you are willing to live with mutual forbearance and kind—
liness, I on my side will continue to display the time-honored

solicitude for the interests of the city, with which my family
has a traditional friendship. .

Bell feels that this letter ”settles" the long-standing

controversy over the question whether the Jews were members of the

citizen body.56 He cannot understand how some ”die-hard champions of

the Josephus assertion” have remained unconvinced, after reading this

letter, that the Jews as a whole were not citizens of Alexandria. Bell
places the emphasis on Claudius‘ reference to the Jews as "profiting by
what they possess and enjoying in a city not their own [en allotria

polei] an abundance of bounteous wealth.” He feels that it is not

possible to imply more definitely that the Jews were outside the body

of Alexandrian citizens. In addition, says Bell, Claudius issued to

the Jews a warning against “striving in gymnasiarchic and cosmetic
games"; if the Jews were not entitled to take part in them, then they

did not possess the citizenship, since citizens were required, as part

of the ephebia, to take part in these activities.

 

in regard to Herod the Great's introducing such contests at Jerusalem.
According to the Rabbinic doctors, participation was sheer idolatry
(Bab. Talmud, Aboda Zara, 18 b), and permission to be present was
grudgingly given, since apparently the rabbis allowed what they could
not prevent. From attendance to participation, however, was a great
distance. It is conceivable that those Jews that did attend, engaged
in "jeering" or "scoffing" thus helping to bring about disturbances.

SGBell, Cults and Creeds, p. 37.

 

the e
in tl
gflg
Alex
such
Radi
orig
and
izer
iunc
fis<

CEl“

tha
met
dou

cat

 

ll8

Max Radin, in addition to having a different interpretation of
the entire passage which deals with the prohibition against taking part

in the games,57 takes issue also with Bell's interpretation of en

allotria polei. Radin58 points out that undoubtedly not all Jews in

Alexandria--Jews ”as such"—-were citizens. But neither were Greeks as
such, no matter what their origin, and certainly not many Egyptians.

Radin argues that citizenship was apparently confined to those who were
originally included in the foundation, their legitimate descendants,

and those who by magisterial grant of some kind had obtained the cit-
izenship. He believes that there were very few, if any, political
functions that accompanied the status as a citizen. It was more a
fiscal designation and an honorific one, since it carried with it

certain personal exemptions, particularly in the area of penal law.

Evidently a great many of the Alexandrian residents were other
than ’Axagavaetg For example, there were people designated as Maueédveg,

metics, transient sojourners, HépOab Th; ’entyovfig. There were, no

doubt, many Jews in Alexandria registered in some of the above mentioned

categories. The question which is truly important, according to Radin,

is whether a large or a small proportion of the Alexandrian Jews were
carried on the census lists as 'AAeEavépng and in possession of the

complex of privileges, duties, and immunities of that status. Claudius'
letter in fact shows, says Radin, that the Jews possessed additional

57See above, p. ll6, note 55.

56Radin, Classical Philology 20 (l925): 369f.

 

imm
Aha.

Pally

perc
quit
mean
fore
Clau
and
emba
dria
be l
emb;
sell
wen
ele.

emb.

 

ll9

immunities, and therefore must have been registered as 'IouéaCop
’Ahegavapetg or ’an’ 'AAeEavopeCag, a term frequently found in the
papyri.

Therefore, says Radin, the question of whether a larger
percentage of the Alexandrian Jews were ’Axegavapetg or not, is not
quite settled by the words ’ev ’aAAorpCa I6AEC. The phrase can simply
mean that Alexandria was outside of Judaea, in a foreign country, or a
foreign foundation and not a colony of Jerusalem.59 And why should
Claudius exhort the Alexandrians to send henceforth only one embassy,
and not as "if you and they [the Jews] lived in two cities, to send two
embassies" unless the Jews would normally be represented in an Alexan—
drian embassy by virtue of their citizenship. In other words, it would
be hard for the Jews to understand why they should not send their own
embassy if they would not be represented by an Alexandrian embassy,
selected by Alexandrian citizens, which the Jews, according to Bell,
were not. If they were not citizens, they would have had no way of
electing one of their own men to represent them in an Alexandrian
embassy, and therefore would have been forced to send their own embassy.

Momigliano, who also favors the Alexandrian citizenship for
the Jews, has interpreted the matter of the two embassies in a different

h'th.“ Momigliano believes that the two embassies did not represent

 

591bid.

6°A. Momigliano, Claudius, The Em eror and His Achievement
New York: Barnes and Noble, l96ll, p. 96, note 25. Momigliano argues
hat not all the Jews in Egypt were Alexandrians, and so the great
@JOrity of those who were not Alexandrians appeared in the census
ists on the same footing as the native Egyptians. It was this fact,
8 believes, that gave rise to the continual protests against the
lexandrian citizenship of the Jews.

 

ademish a
with and .
be divide.
circumsta;
two citie
but would
between t
for the A
Philo‘s s
to be pun
l
Statement
their Cit
Punishmen
JeW8 had
mexmndri
rwits m
the PM:
this cu31
1thtould

of the 3‘

 

120

a Jewish and a Gentile one, but rather were two Jewish embassies: "Jews

with and Jews without Alexandrian citizenship." The two embassies would

be divided from one another by jealousies and rivalries, and under these

circumstances could well have been called by Claudius ”inhabitants of

two cities." Not only would this phrase apply in a metaphorical sense,

but would also apply in a concrete sense, referring to the disparity

between their political rights. An additional argument, says Momigliano,

for the Alexandrian citizenship of the Jews, is to be derived from

Philo's statement, In Flaccum 80, concerning the right of the Jews

to be punished with the flat of the sword instead of with stripes.
Tcherikover, on the other hand, does not believe that Philo's

statement on the manner of punishment of the Jews is an argument for

their citizenship.61 The fact that Philo specifically stated that

punishment with a whip was reserved solely for Egyptians, while the

Jews had previously been punished with the flat of the sword, like the

Alexandrians, means that the Jews had been granted in that respect equal

rights with Alexandrians. If the Jews were citizens, Philo would not

ave put such emphasis on the fact that preceding governors had observed

his custom ”also in regard to ourselves." If the Jews were citizens,

't would have been very clear that the proper punishment was the flat

f the sword. Philo, says Tcherikover, was stressing equality of rights

 

61Victor Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., pp. 3l6ff. Tcherikover does
0t agree with Momigliano on another point: that the two embassies of
laudius' letter were Jewish. Neither does Bell, nor Fraser, nor Radin.
nd it seems apparent to me that Claudius was speaking on the one hand
0 a non-Jewish group and on the other to a Jewish one.

 

in the r
normal 1
that, e‘
time, ti
And, dU'
they co
had bee

0f evid
the Jew
the Jew
Emma
if they
equalit
Toherik
were or
“D to 1
lggflfét
993 obe
TCheril

betray,
\

 

in the matter of corporal punishment precisely because it was not a
normal thing. Tcherikover argues that what Philo does show is evidence
that, even though the Jews were not citizens, they had managed, with
time, to gain certain privileges which belonged to citizens proper.
And, during Philo‘s time, when the Jews were clamoring for citizenship,
they could point to these precedents and rights as evidence that they
had been granted many rights of citizenship.

The account in the Third Book of Maccabees is another piece
of evidence adduced by Tcherikover in defense of his arguments against
the Jewish Alexandrian citizenship. Ptolemy Philopator tried to compel
the Jews to worship Dionysus. He threatened to classify them with the
Egyptians who paid the poll—tax (laographia) and to make them all slaves

if they refused to obey him. To those who obeyed him, he promised

    
  
   
    
  
  

equality of rights with the Alexandrians.62 This is evidence, says
Tcherikover, that the Jews did not belong to the citizen category (they
were promised equality of rights if they obeyed the king), nor were they
up to that time classified with the Egyptians, who had to pay the

lac ra hia, a tax that would be required henceforth from Jews who did
ot obey the king. Worship of the gods appears in III Maccabees, says
cherikover, as a prerequisite to citizenship, and only those who

etrayed their principles accepted the offer.53

62III Macc. 2: 28—30.
63Ibid., 31.

 

cred'
that
Eur
them
was

"fou
part
unhi
seri
Mace

Alex

the
on 1
"le‘
star
did

WOU

Mac
in
con

 

122

Finally Tcherikover launches an all—out attack against the
credibility of Josephus.5“ He begins by attacking Josephus' statement65
that Alexander the Great rewarded the Jews, for their help during his
Egyptian campaign, by allowing them to settle in Alexandria and granting
them equality of rights with the Greeks. Josephus, says Tcherikover,
was no doubt using some kind of Alexandrian legend. Alexander never
”fought" in Egypt; it came into his hands without any resistance on the
part of the inhabitants. The entire passage is to be disregarded as
unhistorical and apologetic. And even if Josephus were to be taken
seriously when claiming that the Jews received equal rights with the
Macedonians, this would prove only that they were not citizens of
Alexandria, since the Macedonians were not citizens of this city.66

Next Tcherikover comments on Josephus' statement concerning
the documents that proved that Julius Caesar had bestowed many rights
on the Alexandrian Jews.67 In this passage Josephus speaks of the
"letters of King Alexander and of Ptolemy,” and of “the slab which
stands in Alexandria." Tcherikover thinks it strange that Josephus
did not reproduce the inscription on the monument verbatim. And why

would Apion ask on what authority the Jews were called Alexandrians

m

61‘V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., pp. 3l9—326.
65Jos., Jewish War II. 487ff.

66Tcherikover adduces as proof Schubart's conclusion that the
.acedonians were not citizens of Alexandria (in Archiv. 5: lll). Bell,
n Jews and Christians, p. l3, judges that Schubart‘s arguments are not
onclusive.

 

67

C. Ap. II. 37.

 

if he c
lived?
Josepht
in an0‘
Apparel
mede
hold 0
if he

import

knew a

l
EILOT

athlet
that (
Mina:

fl lined

Vague
Vogue

 

l23

if he could see the stele standing in the city where he himself
lived? And what about the other documents with which, according to
Josephus, Apion should have been familiar? Tcherikover points out that
in another passage68 Josephus admits that they were not easily available.
Apparently they were not in the public records office, but were kept by
the Jews and by some "barbarians“ (foreigners?). How was Apion to get
hold of them in that case? Josephus implies that he had read them, but
if he had, asks Tcherikover, why does he not reproduce such rare and
important documents? Tcherikover concludes that Josephus probably
knew as little about these documents as Apion.69

Finally, Tcherikover is also among those who interpret
’eacoaafipetv as a prohibition against the Jews‘ participating in the

1 Tcherikover believes

athletic contests held by the city magistrates.7
lthat Claudius was withholding from the Jews permission to receive a
gymnasium education. And since a few lines earlier Claudius had con—
firmed entry into the citizen body to all those who had been registered
as epheboi up to this time, he was, for all practical purposes, barring

the Jews from admission into the citizen body.

 

“Ant. XIV. l87.

69As I will attempt to show later in this chapter, Josephus was
ague about the documents and inscriptions because these in turn were
ague concerning the matter of the Jewish citizenship.

70See above, p. ll6, note 55.

71V. Tcherikover, Hell, Civ., p. 3l7f.

 

 

D
hmhp
believes
other civ
yet been

F
a differe

E
Jews as a

Should be

AUestiOn

0i" deSer

\
7

l

hexane,

l24

Davis72 does not agree that if the Jews were not entitled
to take part in the games, they did not possess the citizenship. He
believes that the Jews may have been granted exemption from this and
other civic duties that might have conflicted with their religion, and
yet been allowed the citizenship.73
Finally, I will argue that if the entire matter is viewed from
a different angle the seemingly contradictory evidence can be harmonized.
Basically, I believe that the question should not be whether the

Jews as a whole’“ were or were not citizens. Rather the questions

 

should be: i
l. What was the meaning of the term ”Alexandrian” in the papyri
and extant inscriptions?
2. What did Josephus and Philo mean by the terms "citizenship”
and "Alexandrian”?

3. Did the meaning of these terms always remain the same?

In the light of these three basic questions the next set of
questions should be considered:

(1) Why were the Jews in Alexandria convinced that they were,
Dr deserved to be, citizens? Obviously this was their belief, as

Evident by the fact that the Jews sent embassies on two occasions to
‘__________________

725. Davis, Race-Relations, pp. lO6f.

73Ibid.

7“That individual Jews could and did become citizens of
lexandria had not been disputed by anyone.

 

 

Rome (‘
promptl
l9l2]

citize
citize

the Je

"Alexa
titiz:
inclu
evide
excep
the t
Other

enrol

what
term

Citi

 

125

Rome (the one led by Philo in 38 A.D., and the one in 4l A.D. that
prompted the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians [Lond. Papyrus
l9l2] to defend their claims to citizenship). (2) Why were the Greek
citizens of Alexandria equally convinced that the Jews were not
citizens? And (3) Why was it that the Alexandrian citizenship of
the Jews did not become an issue until the Roman period.

Fraser75 has made a lengthy study of the meaning of the term
"Alexandrian" and concludes that the use of the term to refer to
citizens would be a wholly anomalous practice within any Greek city,
including Alexandria. However, he is quick to point out that the
evidence on which he has based his study is "slight," and that many
exceptions seem to occur. And outside Egypt, even outside Alexandria,
the term "Alexandrian" could simply refer to someone from Alexandria.
Others76 argue that “Alexandrians“ meant full—citizens, whether
enrolled in a game or not.

It seems clear that there is sufficient evidence to determine
‘what the term ”Alexandrian“ meant. It is safe to assume that when the
term “Alexandrian” is coupled with a demotic the reference is to a

citizen of the Greek politeuma.77 So when Josephus states that the

75Fraser Ptol. Alex. 1: 47ff.

76El-Abbadi, Dikaiomata, Auszu e aus alexandrinischen Gesetzen
und Verordnun en . . . heraus eBen von der Graeca Halensas (Berlin:
Weidmann, l9l3), pp. 92f.; S. Dav1s, Race Relations, pp. l00f.; Max
Radin, The Jews, p. llO.

77See above, p. ll4, note 49, and below, next paragraph.

 

Jews of

necessa

was NOl
Great.
city-s:
Alexani
collec
what l
were c
Period
entire
constd
the Jr
Dract‘
Greek
the G
dewig
nity.

led b

\

=-
(D

m
/
I
\

126

Jews of Alexandria were “called Alexandrians,”7B he does not
necessarily have to mean a citizen of the Greek community.

Why the distinction? It is because, in my opinion, Alexandria
was NOT a “Greek“ city as were other cities founded by Alexander the
Great. In the Boule Papyrus7g the term aoxCreuua is applied to the
city—state organization of Alexandria itself. I agree with Tarn80 that
Alexandria was not a “city” in the strict Greek sense. It was rather a
collection of politeumata, based on nationalities. But, contrary to
what Tarn believes,81 there is no clear evidence that only the Greeks
were called ”the citizens." Nor is there evidence during the Ptolemaic
period that Alexandria even possessed a constitution governing the
entire city. Perhaps each politeuma was allowed to follow its own
constitution and customs. As time passed, the Greek politeuma and
the Jewish one became the two most important in Alexandria, for all

1practical purposes, TWO CITIES IN ONE. There is no evidence that the

‘Greek politeuma was in charge of governing the ENTIRE city. In fact,

(the Greek politeuma for many centuries did not even have a bgulg. The
LJewish politeuma, on the other hand, had a very well organized commu—

nity. According to Strabo, the Jewish community of Alexandria was

led by the ethnarch who "ruled the people, judged its cases, supervised

 

”Jos. Ania- x1x. 28l.

79U. Wilken, Archiv. 9. 253; Herbert A. Musurillo, The Acts of
the 9Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1954), pp. l— 3 and

 

80W. W. Tarn, Hell. Civ., p. 147.
81Ibid.

 

l
j
l

 

contra
state.
of jus
gflmmm
at lea
ll ac
that

Alexa
body

the i
other

the l

\

belt
ethn
Wee
was

AUgu

ment
0Ver

Thos
inst
Boer
hw-

127

contracts and ordinances, just as if he were the head of a sovereign

state.“82

The ethnarch was in charge also of supervising the courts

of justice and the registry of the community. In addition to the
ethnarch, the Jews possessed their own council of elders or gerousia,
at least from the time of Augustus onward,83 and its members numbered
71 according to the Talmud.8l+ Philo's account (In Flaccum 74) mentions
that 38 members of the gerousia were flogged during the riots in
Alexandria under Gaius Caligula. The most prominent members of this

85

body received the title of archons, a post apparently common among

the Jews of the Diaspora."6

In addition to the archons, there were
other posts in the Jewish community of which not much is known today:

the head of the synagogue (Archisynagogos),87 the head of the gerousia

 

82Strabo, as quoted by Josephus, Apt. XIV. ll7.

83Philo In Flaccum 74. V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 302,
believes that the gerousia was instituted by Augustus in place of an
ethnarch. H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds, p. 38, disagrees with the
theory that the ethnarchs were abolished. He believes that a gerousia
was added or revived by Augustus. Josephus, Apt, XIX. 282, states that
Augustus did not ”prevent the continued appointment of ethnarchs.”

8‘*Tosephta Sukka IV. 6.

85Philo In Flaccum 80. In Egyptian documents Jewish archons are
nentioned only once: in Thebais, the community of Arsinoe (see Tcherik-
Jver and Fuks, C. P. Jud. 1: l0 and 2: No. 432, p. 10, and No. 432).

86Archons were found at Antioch (Jos. Jewish War VII. 47), at
Thos, (J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum lRome: Pontificio
'nstitutoi di archeologia cristiana, 1936], No. 757), at Berenice (A.
loeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Vol. III, No 5361), at Rome
ibid., Nos. 9906, 6447, and’6337).

 

 

87Ibid., No. 9906. SchUrer, Jewish People, II Div., 2: 25lf.

 

( erou
( hror
notary
menti<
DlaSpl

but m

H

the.
ln -

128

(gerousiarches),88 the secretary (grammateus), and the overseer
(phrontistes).89 In addition, the Jews had in Alexandria their own
notary office and a court.9° Josephus, in Antiguities XIV. l85-267,
mentions a series of privileges enjoyed by the Jews throughout the
Diaspora.91 The Romans not only reaffirmed their rights and privileges,

but many times extended them.92

 

88A. Boeckh, Clgfi 9902. SchUrer, Jewish People, II Div. 2: 251f.
69Salo w. Baron, The Jewish Community, Vol. I, pp. 102ff.

9°Tosephta Peah IV. 6 and Tosephta Kethuboth III. I. Also V.
Tcherikover and A. Fuks, C. P. Jud., No. 143.

911 have not found anyone who disputes that the Jews enjoyed a
great many privileges and rights allowing them the free pursuit of
their religious customs.

92Josephus, App. XIV. 24l-26l, enumerates four Roman enactments
traceable to the influence of Caesar: (l) A communication from the
(authorities of Laodicea to a Roman official in which they assure him
‘that, according to his instructions, they would not interfere with the
‘Jews in the observance of the Sabbath and the practice of their own
:religious usages. (2) A communication from the proconsul of Asia to
‘the authorities of Miletus, in which the latter are told that they
lshould not interfere with the Jews in their observance of the Sabbath,
{that they should allow them to dispose of their earnings in the way
ithey have been accustomed to. (3) A similar decree relating to the
icity of Halicarnassus. (4) A public decree of the town of Sardes, to
athe effect that the Jews were to be allowed to meet on the days
‘appointed by them for the celebration of their religious Observances,
and further that the magistrates of the town were to assign them a
;place of their own “on which to build and in which to reside.”

Two other very important privileges mentioned by Josephus
granted to the Jews by the Romans were: the Jews would not be com-
pelled to appear in court on the Sabbath (Apt, XVI. 163), and Jewish
soldiers would not be forced to march on the Sabbath (Ant. XIV. 225—
227). Philo also mentions several privileges: Egg, l38 states that
the Jews in Egypt were exempted from placing images of the Ptolemies
on their meeting houses, and were not required to observe the ordinary
forms of the dynastic cult.

 

 

 

posse:
in re
under
mentl
as Gr
Ptole
but r
lo a<
acqo
totil
nece

the

CONS

city
and
to l
at
thdl
Crol
ln «

Out
Sam
Q
the
In

 

129

Thus, during the Ptolemaic period, the Jewish politeuma
possessed, at the very least, an equality of rights and privileges
in relation to the Greek politeuma. The city as a whole was probably
under the direct control of the crown, since royal officials are

3 And Jews, as well

mentioned by Strabo among the city magistrates.9
as Greeks and Egyptians,9“ were utilized in_the royal service by the
Ptolemies. So Alexandria was not a "Greek“ city nor a "Jewish“ city,
but rather a ”royal” city, composed of at least two major politeumata.
To acquire citizenship in the Greek politeuma, the normal process of
acquiring Greek citizenship would have been followed. The consti-
tutional process of acquiring "Alexandrian” citizenship would not
necessarily have been the same, during the Ptolemaic period, as
the one followed to acquire “Greek” citizenship.

It is, in fact, possible that there never existed a

constitution governing the entire city of Alexandria, with well

 

 
   
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
   

. 93Strabo, 797: ”The following are the local officials of the
ity: the exegete, who wears a purple robe and has hereditary honours,
nd is responsible for the public services in the city; the hypomnema-
o ra hos; the archidikastes; and finally the Night General. These
ffices existed under the kings.” Fraser (Ptol. pp. 96f.) points out
hat the posts of hypomnematographos and archidikastes were part of the
rown administration. It is evident that Alexandria was not governed

n the traditional Greek democratic sense, and that Alexandria was not
typical Greek city.

 

9“Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 88 and 2: l67f., notes 334-336, brings
Ut papyrological evidenCe to this effect. But especially see Alan E.
amuel, “The Greek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy,“ EEQEEEQIEQEJQE
he Twelfth International Copgress of Papyrology 7 (1970): 443-453,

here he shows that non-Greeks were used widely by the Ptolemies, who,

n that respect, showed no ethnic preferences (see Part Two, Chapter IV
f this work).

 

defin
acqul
why i
orgar

aboul

side
is 0
poll
thos
were
and

leg:

clt'

Roma

con
Gre
hel
how
or

lit
DEr
l‘eg

COL
C01

 

l30

defined provisions on how ”Alexandrian” citizenship was to be
acquired.95 If this were the case, it would be easy to understand
why information on the subject is so scarce. "Our ignorance of the
organization of the Alexandrian citizen-body is matched by our ignorance
about the constitution by which that body was governed."96
All during the Ptolemaic period Jews and Greeks lived side by
side in Alexandria without any contentions concerning citizenship. It
is obvious that the Jews did not have any cause to envy the Greek
politeuma, since their rights and privileges equalled, if nor surpassed,
those of the Greeks. The Jews of Alexandria were called Alexandrians,
were not governed by the Greeks of the city but by royal authorities
and officials (which included Jews also), and for all practical and
legal97 purposes, were citizens of Alexandria.
The Romans changed the policy concerning the Alexandrian
citizenship. Perhaps with the purpose of achieving uniformity, the

Romans placed Alexandria on a footing similar to other Hellenistic

 

95There is not even evidence that the Greek politeuma had a
constitution by which it was governed. Perhaps when Alexander the
Great founded Alexandria, he intended her to become a model as a
melting-pot of races and cultures, and therefore left somewhat vague
how the citizen body of the city would be established, and also what
type of constitution would govern this body.

_ 96Fraser, Ptol. Alex., p. 93. Again on p. 98: "We know very
little of the constitution and magistracies (of Alexandria) at any
period," and on p. 100: "Very little positive information exists
regarding the Alexandrian constitution.“

9(1 find no evidence during the Ptolemaic period that there was
a legal issue over who was or was not an "Alexandrian." A Jew who
cou prove he was a legal member of the Jewish politeuma of Alexandria
could consider himself, and be called, an "Alexandrian.

 

 

 

cltles suc
as citizen
cltizenshi
the gphej
deference,
local gove
native pot
The panel
the exten
tlon.99 '
this math
I
always co
classed w
addition,
abuse fro
lltinder th
r1'ohts, t
1
Speaking

\
SE
19ml" ol

9?

l3l

cities such as Naucratis and Ptolemais. The Romans now recognized

as citizens of Alexandria only members of the Greek politeuma, and
citizenship could only be acquired in the normal Greek way, through
the ephebate.98 Greek citizens were treated by the Romans with
deference, and were made partners with them in the institutions of
local government. Other foreign inhabitants were classified with the
native population, and the whole weight of taxation fell upon them.
The payment of the poll-tax, known in Egypt as the laographia, became
the external sign which distinguished the two sections of the popula—
tion.99 The Jews were classified by the Romans with the Egyptians in
this matter, and were liable for the poll-tax.

It became more than a financial burden to the Jews. They had
always considered themselves as good as the Greeks, and now they were
:lassed with the native Egyptians. It was a mass humiliation. In
addition, the Jewish politeuma at Alexandria began suffering physical
tbuse from the Greek and other non-Jewish population of the city. No
mnder there was a great clamor from the Jews to defend their ancestral
ights, their "citizenship."

I believe it can now be made clear what Josephus and Philo were
Peaking about. They were not saying that the Jews were citizens of

he Greek politeuma, but of Alexandria. They were “Alexandrians."
___________________

98That this was the case in the Roman period is evidentzfrom the
Btter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (Papyrus Lond. Inv. 19l ).

99V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 311.

 

 

 

lhey h
highes
him ce
nentic
as he

ruled

recog'
the G
could
which
Citiz
all i
clair

the .

with

not
lSn
it 1

i cc
fOur

 

132

They had isopolity;100 they had an ”honorary citizenship“101 of the
highest kind. ”If Apion disallows this class of citizenship,”2 let
him cease to call himself an Alexandrian. Born, as I have already
mentioned, in the depths of Egypt, how can he be an Alexandrian, if,
as he claims in our case, honorary rights of citizenship are to be
ruled out?"”3

Josephus, I believe, clearly understood that the Romans
recognized as citizens of Alexandria only those that had gone through
the Greek process of acquiring citizenship, through the ephebate. He
could not afford to quote Caesar's stele, or the other documents to
which he alluded.1°” Why? Because these did not grant the Jews “Greek”
Citizenship, but rather equality of rights, the isopolity which had been
all that was needed during the Ptolemaic period to support the Jewish
claim for ”this type of citizenship," an honorary citizenship, allowing
the Jews to be “called Alexandrians."

During the Hellenistic period a certain prestige went along

with being considered socially and culturally superior. That many Jews
______________________
10°The iospolity of the Jews, which could well have included

"potential (Greek citizenship” (see S. Davis, Race-Relations, p. l02),
is mentioned by Josephus in Apt. XII. 8 and Apt, XIX. 28F. In addition,

it is mentioned in III Macc. 2: 30.

1“Jos. c. Ap. II. 4l.

102 ‘ A ’ like ”all persons invited to join
Tm) Tpditov TTlS icoAt/retocg, _ .
a colony, however different their nationality, take the name of the
founders.” (Jos. C. Ap. II. 38).

103Jos. C. Ap. II. 41.
10“Ibid., 37.

 

aspir
this
hel is
achil
what
perh
that
Jews
clas
wage
clas
Ale)
Ale:
Sen:
the
No
now

Ale

133

aspired to be classified among the Greeks cannot be disputed, and

this desire probably led many of them to compromise their religious
beliefs, fulfill the requirements for Greek citizenship, and thus
achieved this status. The majority of Greeks probably did not like
what they considered as intrusion into their ranks by a people they
perhaps envied for possessing an internal organization and government
that equalled, and in some ways surpassed, their own. And when the
Jews tried to prove, during the Roman period, that they should not be
classified with the Egyptians, but rather with the Greeks, the latter
waged an equally active campaign to prove that the Jews were not to be
classified among their group. The Romans had given the Greeks of
Alexandria a new status, which the latter were anxious to preserve.
Alexandria was, in the eyes of the Romans, a "Greek city” in the full
sense of the word. Citizens of Alexandria were those that had fulfilled
the Greek prerequisites for citizenship, those that had been gppgppt.
No longer was Alexandria to be “two cities,” but rather one. It was
now the city of the Greek politeuma. The beginning of the end for the

Alexandrian Jews.

 

the
any
in E
evic
Pto'

9C0

add
dri
on
ma-

ESI

 

CHAPTER V

ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE JEWS AT ALEXANDRIA

Information is scarce concerning the economic activities of
the Jews at Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period. There are hardly
any references beyond the papyri to the economic activities of the Jews
in Egypt. And since no Ptolemaic papyri from Alexandria survive,1 the
evidence for the economic life of Alexandrian Jews is extremely limited.
Ptolemaic papyri from the rest of Egypt, however, often mention the
economic activities of the Jews; and on the basis of this information,
it is possible to make inferences concerning the Alexandrian Jews. In
addition, papyri from the early Roman era (including some from Alexan-
dria) can be utilized, especially when they refer to conditions which
probably had remained unchanged since Ptolemaic times. Relevant infor-
mation concerning the economic activities of Alexandria in general,
especially industry and trade, also seems worth surveying briefly.

That Alexandria was an important commercial city in antiquity
is well testified in many sources. According to Strabo,2 topographical
advantages made the city ideal for commercial activities. It had an
excellent harbor, a beneficial climate, and access to Lake Mareotis

and the Nile.
1Tcherikover and Fuks, C. P. Jud., 1: 16.

2Geography 793 and 798.

134

 

 

becaml
and g
The P
Jewel
histc

WEl‘E

Strd
body
obje

have

135

In addition to being an important commercial city, Alexandria
became also a bustling industrial center. Various kinds of metal-work
and glass-ware appear to have been the main industries of the city.3
The Ptolemies possessed a wealth of precious metals, and many items of
Jewelry that belonged to Philadelphus are enumerated by the Rhodian
historian Callixenus.” It cannot be proved that the objects enumerated
were manufactured in Alexandria, but probably many of them were.5

Glass was a very important industry in Egypt and Alexandria.6
Strabo refers to the glass—makers of the city as a well-established
body of craftsmen.7 Since, however, very few references to glass
objects appear in the papyri, some scholars suggest that glass might
have been a luxury trade.8

Pottery was another important industry in Alexandria.

Rostovtzeff believes that this was one of the major industries
______________________

3See M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the
Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, l94l):
T?‘§74f7““—‘_‘_

”As quoted by Athenaeus 5. 25—35, p. l96, A—203 B, in F. Jacoby,
Zi§_frggmente der Griechischen Historiker (Leiden: E. J. Brill, T958),
3. l65, no. 627. The objects mentioned’by Callixenus include Victories
Vith gold wings, gold jewelry worn by women, gold crowns with floral
arrangements and decorations in gold—leaf, golden cornucopias, a golden
litar, golden mixing bowls, cups, and pitchers of various kinds, and
innumerable silver vessels and objects.

5Fraser, Ptol. Alex., I: 136—137.
6Rostovtzeff, Hell. World, L; 370—374.
7Strabo, 758.

8E.g., Fraser, Ptol. Alex., l: 137.

 

of the
how no:
in Ale:
howeve

and so

perfun
nateri

sold.

Strah
0f he
Shlpm

Alexa

136

i the city,9 although Fraser states that "there is great uncertainty
JW much of the pottery of superior quality most frequently encountered
n Alexandria is actually of local manufacture.”1° Fraser does believe,
owever, that Alexandria produced much faience, such as lamps, bowls,
nd small vases, in addition to statuettes of native deities.11
Alexandria was also the center for the manufacture of
erfumes.12 Frankincense and myrrh were sent to Alexandria as raw
aterials from Nubia and Arabia, and there they were processed and
old.
Alexandria engaged in extensive trade with the hinterland.
trabo mentions that the imports on her lake harbors exceeded those
f her maritime harbors.13 The papyri have many references to the
hipments of wheat, barley, oil, and honey to the royal stores in

lexandria.“+ In addition, the Revenue Laws of Philadelphus15 mention

 

9Rostovtzeff, Hell. World, 1: 367-68, 3: 1406, n. 163.

1°Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 138-39.

11Ibid., 140.

121bid., l75—l77.

13Geography 793.

liB. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and E. G. Turner, The Hibeh Papyri
wndon: Egypt Exploration Society, 1906-), no. 98; C. C. Edgar, ed.,
. Zenon Papyri in the Cairo Museum (Cairo: L'Institut francais

rcheologie orientale, 1925), no. 59, 141 and 790; B. P. Grenfell
A. S. Hunt, Papyri from Tebtunis (London: H. Frowde, 1902-38),
03.

 

15B. P. Grenfell, The Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus
iord: at the Clarendon Press, 1896), C015. 40, 47, and 50.

 

 

shnmnt
was reqo

castor c

engaged
Africa,

went th

involve
mefac
Ofexh
in sucl
officia
heda
sirni la

\—

CEHtul

drian
tlnuel

137

shipments of vegetable oils from the ppppp_to Alexandria. Each pppg
was required to reserve a portion of its yield of sesame oil and
castor oil for the capital.16

Alexandria's foreign trade covered a wide field.17 The city
engaged in trade with the West: Italy,18 southern France, and northern
Africa, especially Carthage and Cyrene.19 Trade with the East mainly
went through the international ports of Rhodes and Delos.20

The Jewish community of Alexandria was no doubt actively
involved in the economic life of the city, as industrial workers in
the factories, as store-owners, small and large merchants. A survey
of extant evidence will show the Jews in Egypt and Alexandria involved
in such activities, as well as in other occupations such as government
officials, farmers, and soldiers. At times the evidence will concern
the Jews of the tpppp, and inferences will have to be made about

similar conditions for the Alexandrian Jews.

 

16Ibid., Col. 53.

”Rostovtzeff, Hell. World, 1: 381—404.

18Ibid.

19Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 151-54; 2: 263, n. 156.

20Diod. XIX. 77. 3; Fraser, Ptol. Alex. 1: 162. In the second
entury B.C., after Delos was made into a free port by the Romans to
he detriment of Rhodes, the former became the nodal point for Alexan-

rian trade in the Aegean, even though Rhodian trade was not discon—
lnued (Fraser, Ptol. Alex., p. 171).

 

 

lhe

none
by l
Firs
Jose
Secc
entc
lllerl
sin.

we Y‘l

Jew
pri
tio
anc
dur
low

1‘61

the

Illa;

138

The Jews as Merchants and “Capitalists”

 

“We have no evidence in the papyri of Jewish merchants and
money-lenders in the Hellenistic period."21 Two reasons are given
by Tcherikover for the scarcity of information on this group of Jews.
First, there are no extant Ptolemaic papyri from Alexandria, where
Josephus and Philo indicate that most rich Jews had their domiciles.
Second, the Ptolemaic principles of government did not favor private
enterprise or commerce, so that under the Ptolemies there were few
merchants even among the Greeks. The same held true for money-lending,
since the Ptolemaic banks were a government monopoly, and the bankers
were officials of the State.

Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to indicate that the
Jews did engage in some commercial activities and capitalistic enter—
)rises, especially in Alexandria. Philo22 provides valuable informa—
tion that Alexandrian Jews were owners of property, owners of ships,
lnd common merchants. Philo reports that the riots in Alexandria
'uring the time of Caligula cost some of these wealthy men their
nvestments, implying that Alexandria held Jews who were investors
ather than actual participants in trading activities. There were
lso a number of ship-owning merchants in this city famous for being
re export-harbor of Egypt. The simple traders probably composed the
jority of the Jewish middle class of Alexandria, not much different

wealth status from the artisans mentioned by Philo, since at that

21C. P. Jud., 1: 230.
22Philo In Flaccum 57.

 

 

time
Book
Jews
atti

ast

neve
tax-
Ulldi
has

kee=

The
200
Ale
an

of

139

,ime craftsmen were also dealers who sold their products. The Third
Look of Maccabees recounts the alleged persecutions suffered by the
lews of Alexandria under Ptolemy IV, and speaks of the favorable
attitude that some Greeks and neighbors of the Jews had towards them
as their "business associates," or "partners in business."23
That there were wealthy men among the Jews in Alexandria has
never been disputed. Josephus relates the case of Josephus the Tobiad,
tax-farmer of Coele—Syria, who kept his wealth stored in Alexandria
Jnder the management of his steward Arion.2“ No doubt Arion put his
naster's wealth to work in diverse business enterprises instead of just
<eeping it safe. Josephus also mentions two wealthy Jewish Alabarchs,
Alexander (brother of the writer Philo of Alexandria), and Demetrius.25
The Jewish King Agrippa asked the wealthy Alexander for a loan of
300,000 drachmas. Alexander gave him part of the money in cash in
vlexandria (about 6,000 drachmas) and promised him the rest when he
rrived at Puteoli in Italy, where Alexander evidently had large sums

f money deposited as backing for international business transactions.

 

23111 Macc. 3: 4.
2“Jos. Apt. XII. 199ff.

25Ibid., XVIII. 159, 259; XIX. 276; XX. 147. The function of

e Alabarch is not clear. Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious
story of the Jews, 9 vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
:iety of America, 1952-64), 1: 409f., note 16, suggests he was a
(61 official in charge of local customs (presumably imports and
iorts from Alexandria), and a general tax administrator. If so,
:xander's wealth did not originate from the performance of his
ctions as Alabarch but rather was acquired in some other manner.

 

 

 

were ei
dealer
him to
ation.
the Je
appare
llhat i
doing

to see
Herakl
therei
evidei
who ji
alain:

relat

DloSp

been

\

A who
bUsin
13 3e
his 5
COnse

 

 

140

A papyrus from 41 A.D.26 indicates that Jews in Alexandria

e engaged in lending money on interest. Serapion, a wholesale
ler, writes his agent in Alexandria, a certain Herakleides, advising
to seek a loan as a means of escaping his difficult financial situ-
on. The servant, however, is warned against getting the loan from
: Jews: “but you, like us all, beware of the Jews!” Jews were
Iarently well known as lenders of money at a profit in Alexandria.
lt is not clear from the letter is why Herakleides was warned against
ng business with the Jews. If it had not been customary for non-Jews
seek loans from the Jews, no warning would have been needed since
akleides would not have even considered taking such action. I

refore disagree with those who see in this letter ”the most ancient

 

dence of business anti-Semitism.”27 I agree rather with Tcherikover28

 

judges that Serapion's words were simply a caution to a Greek
inst entering the Jewish quarter in Alexandria at a time when the
ationships between the two peoples were strained to the utmost.
It would seem erroneous to suppose that all Jews in the
-pora were wealthy businessmen. Rather, the opposite must have

true, especially outside of Alexandria. The papyri from

 

26C. P. Jud., No. 152. The author of this letter was Serapion,
ilesale dealer, who had his residence in the chora but maintained
less connections with the capital. Herakleides, to whom the letter
ent, seems to have been his business agent in Alexandria, possibly
lave also. Herakleides was evidently short of money, perhaps in
quence of an unsuccessful business transaction.

 

27U. Wilcken, Grundnge, p. 84.
28Hell Civ., p. 339f.

 

Alex
the .

whicl

by-

Jen

141

lexandria during the time of Augustusz9 produce the impression that
he Jews mentioned in them were rather poor, some of them owing money

hich was being repaid in monthly installments.

ie Jews as Artisans

There are hardly any references to Jewish craftsmen in the
:olemaic papyri. Two Jewish potters from the Fayum are mentioned
I one papyrus;3° others mention Jewish weavers.31 The Talmud reports
tisans in Alexandria:32

R. Judah says: He who has never seen the Diploston of
Alexandria in Egypt has never seen the glory of Israel. They
said: it was a sort of great basilica, stoa in front of stoa;
that at times it held twice as many as left Egypt. . . . And
they did not sit intermingled, but the goldsmiths by them—
selves, the blacksmiths by themselves, the carpet-weavers by
themselves; and when a poor man entered, he recognized the
members of his own craft and applied to them, whence he
derived his livelihood and that of his family.

Philo, in his description of the later persecutions suffered
33

the Jews in Alexandria during the time of Caligula, also mentions

ish craftsmen:
Their enemies overran the houses now left empty and turned
to pillaging them. . . . A still more grievous evil than
the pillaging was the unemployment produced. The trades—
people had lost their stocks, and no one, husbandman, shipman,
merchant, artisan, was allowed to practise his usual business.
29c. P. Jud., Nos. 142-149.
3°Ibid., No. 46.
31Ibid., Nos. 95 and 405.
32Sukkah 51b.
3337—38 A.D. For the account, see Philo In Flaccum 56, 57.

 

evident
above c
Alexanc
0f the
occupy-
artisai
referel

Jerusa

LhLJe'

Ptolen
istrat

P01 ice

142

Although the papyri hardly mention them, Jewish craftsmen
vidently did exist in Alexandria and in Egypt. Arguing from the
Jove quoted passage from the Talmud, Tcherikover suggests3l+ that in
lexandria the Jews were organized in special societies, on the model
i the professional organizations (collegia) of the Hellenistic world,
:cupying an important place in the Alexandrian community. That the
'tisans of Alexandria were highly specialized is evident in several
ferences in talmudic literature to Alexandrian craftsmen brought to

rusalem to make repairs of Temple objects.35

3 Jews as Government Officials

 

Many Jews distinguished themselves as officials during the
ilemaic period. Some of them were men of the court and high admin—
:rators. Others were minor officials, tax-collectors, and village
icemen.

The Third Book of Maccabees36 tells the story of an attempt
the life of Ptolemy IV Philopator just before the battle of Raphia.
lopator's life was saved through the intervention of Dositheos, son
lrimylos, ”by birth a Jew, but subsequently an apostate,” who placed

her man in the royal tent before the attempt. That such a man was

3“Hell. Civ., p. 338.

35Arachin 10b. The craftsmen of Alexandria were brought to
;a1em to repair the bell in the Temple; the bell was made of brass,
‘t had become cracked. Alexandrian craftsmen also repaired a brass
.r, used to mix the incenses. Yoma 38a mentions that the gates of
emple were made by Nicanor of Alexandria.

36III Macc. 1: 1—4.

 

 

in the
year 2:
Both pa
and thl
that “
of the
would

with t
His ca

Presti

Under

entru

8. P.
Esvnt

143

in the court of Ptolemy IV has been confirmed by two papyri from the
rear 222 B.C.,37 one from the Fayum and the other from Oxyrhynchus.
ioth papyri speak of Dositheos, son of Drimylos, “priest of Alexander
ind the gods Adelphoi and the gods Euergetai.“ Tcherikover concludes
.hat "since the name of Drimylos is very rare, whereas the chronology
f the papyri is well in accord with the story of III Maccabees, it
ould seem that we can identify Dositheos son of Drimylos of the papyri
ith the man of this name spoken of in the Third Book of Maccabees.”33
is career can then be traced, with the help of the papyri, to the most
*estigious offices in the state:39

1. In 240 B.C. Dositheos held the office of OnouvnparoXpdoog,

that is, one of the two heads of the royal secretariat (§;E;i-

127a).

2. In 225 B.C. Dositheos was travelling in Egypt with
Ptolemy III (C.P.J. 127C)

3. In 222 B.C. he was holding the office of eponymous priest
of Alexander and the deified Ptolemies, the highest priesthood
in Hellenistic Egypt (C.P.J. 127d,e)

4. In 217 B. C. Dositheos accompanied Ptolemy IV Philopator
during the battle of Raphia (III Macc. 1: 1—4).

Another Dositheos is mentioned by Josephus as a strategos

er Ptolemy IV; “Ptolemy Philometor and his consort Cleopatra
rusted the whole of their realm to Jews, and placed their entire

37The Tebtunis Pa yri (London), N0. 815= C. P Jud, No. 127d;
’. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and E. G. Turner, The HiEeh Papyri (London:
it Exploration Society, 1906- 55), No. 90= C. R. Jud. , No. 127e.

38C. P. Jud., 1: 230.

39Ibid., 231.

 

army
exac

Onla

esti
llilc
lett
lhec
resi

reac

tha

Al

144

rmy under the command of Jewish generals, Onias and Dositheos.”O Who
xactly this Dositheos was is not clear, but that Onias was probably
nias IV, the founder of the temple at Leontopolis, is fairly certain."1
A papyrus from 164 B.C. found near Memphis contains an inter-
;ting allusion to a man of importance, whose name was established by
‘1cken"2 as being Onias, thus a Jew. The papyrus”3 contains three
vtters from the dioiketes Herodes to [0]ni[ai], to Dorion, and to
eon. By the tone of the first letter, [O]ni[as] was a man of
sponsibility, probably an official of the crown. The letter

ads as follows:

Herodes to [o]vc[ac] greeting. King Ptolemy is well, and
King Ptolemy his brother and Queen Cleopatra his sister and
their children, and their affairs also are as usual; if you
also are in good health and all else is in order with you,

it would be as we wish; we too are progressing well enough.
The copy of the letter addressed to Dorion the hypodioiketes
is subjoined. Understanding therefore that consideration for
those engaged in sowing the seed is a common duty incumbent
on all those interested in the administration, be good enough
to use every effort and take every precaution both that none
of those unable to work in the fields be impressed, and that
none of those who are able be shielded on any pretext whatso-
ever; and further that everything be performed in the manner
laid down in the minute sent to you by us. Take care of
yourself to keep in good health.

Wilcken suggests““ that the polite tone of the letter indicates

t Onias was a State official of high rank, perhaps a strategos of

“°Jos. C. Ap. II. 49.
1”See above, Part Two, Chapter III, pp. 63-69.

”2U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemaerzeit (Berlin: W. de Gruyter
1922), N0. 110.

w

“3C. P. Jud., No. 132.

““In his commentary of papyrus 110 in Urkunden.

 

the He
sugges

as the

145

he Heliopolite nome. Tcherikover and Fuks"5 go even further, and
uggest that this was the same Jewish general mentioned by Josephus

s the founder of the temple at Leontopolis.

The identification with the high priest would be certain if

we could identify the founder of the temple of Onias with

the high priest Onias III. . . . Yet, according to II Macc.
4:34, Onias III was slain by Andronikos in Daphne near Antioch
(c. 170 B.C.), and this evidence is now commonly accepted.

. . . The founder of the temple was, in all probability,

Onias IV, son of Onias III. Yet Onias IV cannot be identified
with the Onias of our papyrus: according to Josephus (Afli- XII.
387), Onias IV left Palestine for Egypt after the execution of
Menelaus and the nomination of Alkimos to the office of high
priest, i.e., after 162 B.C., whereas our document was written
in 164 B.C. On the other hand it would be very strange were we
to find in Egypt at the same time two persons both called Onias,
both on good terms with the king's court, and both connected in
some way with Memphis or districts around Memphis. Such coinci—
dences are far too unlikely to be credible. Thus the riddle
seems to be insoluble."6

ierikover and Fuks finally suggest that perhaps Josephus erred in
icing the flight of Onias IV around 162 B.C.; it probably occurred
'eral years earlier.‘+7

These seem sweeping conclusions to draw from such meager
crmation. Even the name of the man to whom the letter is addressed
not be established with absolute certainty. The papyrus was first
lished in Paris in 1865,"8 when C. Letronne established the reading

the name as [09w]uc(The0n). Mahaffy, on the other hand, was not

“so. P. Jud., l: 244r.
“61bid., p. 245.
”Ibid.

1”3W. Brunet de Presle, ed. Notices et extraits des papyrus
s du Musee du Louvre XVIII (18651.

 

even .

readi

seem

llilck

3i"

 

C
l_l

 
 

146

even able to identify the name."9 Wilcken first established the
reading of the name as Onias50 in 1922, and perhaps he is correct.

Even if the name Onias were not disputed, sweeping conclusions
seem drawn from the meager information that this letter provides.
Wilcken proposes the following conclusions:

1. The name to whom the letter is addressed should be
read Onias.

2. Onias was a Jew.

3. Onias was a State official of high rank, “probably
a strategos.“

4. Onias was a strategos of the Helipolite nome (the

district next to Memphis), since the strategos of the

Memphite nome itself (where the papyrus was found),

according to other sources, was another man and not

Onias.

Tcherikover and Fuks not only agree with Wilcken's conclusions,
vut argue that ”from the tone of the letter we can draw conclusions more
ar-reaching than those of Wilcken. It is not merely polite; the pre-
cript of the letter, mentioning the health of the king, the king's
rother, the queeen, and the royal children, is, according to Wilcken
imself, unique in the whole of the official correspondence known to us.
t is unlikely that a letter with such a prescript would be addressed
I the dioiketes to a man who was a mere strategos: there were many
:rategoi in Egypt, one in every nome, and from the dioiketes' point

l+9J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly, The Flinders Petrie Papyri,
‘Vpls. (Dublin: Hodges, Figis, & Co. , 1891—1905),3 . 15f [ ]

50Urkunden, No. 110.

 

a on
So 1
son.
lch
no

sin

Oni

tha
lis
knc
the
ent

stv

Fa:

to

147

of view the office was not of such great importance as to call for
a quite unusual formula of greeting such as that used in this case.
So we may conclude that Onias was a member of the court, known per-
sonally to the king, and, consequently to the dioiketes as well."51
Tcherikover's final conclusion, then, is that this man could have been
no other than Onias IV, the founder of the temple at Leontopolis. And
since the letter was written in 164 B.C., Josephus' account, placing
Onias IV‘s flight to Egypt about 162 B.C., is probably incorrect.
Granted that Ptolemy VI was pro-Jewish, is it not questionable
that Onias IV, a Jewish immigrant who was granted permission to estab-
lish a temple at Leontopolis, managed to become a "member of the court,
known personally to the king," to the point where a letter "unique in
the whole of the official correspondence" was sent to him a year after
entering Egypt? Before rejecting Josephus' account, scholars need
stronger evidence than this one letter. Nevertheless, the evidence
is clear that Onias IV did become an important official of the crown,
a strategos, as did his sons, Helkias and Hananiah52 under Cleopatra
III. Other Jews must have followed similar official careers.
There were also policemen among the Jews. A papyrus from the
'ayum dated 173 B.C. mentions a Jewish policeman as one of the witnesses

o the contract of a loan.53 An inscription from Athribis (Lower Egypt)

51c. P. Jud., 1: 245.
52Jos. Apt, XIII. 283-355.

53C. P. Jud., No. 25.

 

nentic
cento
honor
polic
Supre
proba
a Jew
the F
the F

"disl

and 1
Jews
that
the l
as t

lowe

nOte

r4—aaa_____~__;:::::::7f————-—-—-—---—i-iifwfi
148

nentions a chief of police by the name of Ptolemy who in mid-second

:entury B.C. dedicated a Jewish synagogue to the Supreme God: “in

honor of King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra, Ptolemy son of Epicides,
volice-chief, and the Jews at Athribis built this synagogue to the

upreme God."sl+ Tcherikover and Fuks suggest that this Ptolemy was

robably a Jew himself, since normally a non-Jew would not dedicate

Jewish synagogue to the ”Supreme God.”55 Josephus also mentions that

he Ptolemies entrusted the policing of the Nile, or more specifically,
1e Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, to the Jews of Leontopolis (the

district of Onias”).56

I have already mentioned two Jewish Alabarchs named Alexander
1d Demetrius.57 It is generally agreed that the wealth of these two
ws was not drawn from the performance of their duties, but rather
at the post was an honorary position entrusted to prominent men of
8 community.58 It is possible that in carrying out their functions

tax administrators these Alabarchs employed as their assistants

ver officials, some of which could have been Jews.

\_
5"Dittenberger, Q§t§. No. 96
550. P. Jud. 1: 17, n. 46.
56Jos. tp_yp;. II. 64 and Jewish War I. 175.
57See above, p. 139.

58Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., 340f., Baron, Hist., 1: 409f.,
3 16; SchUrer, Jewish People, DlV. II, 2: 280.

 

 

tax-g
been
delil
for 5
who I
were
the ‘
them
in E
the

but

indi
the

on

flow
(See

and
III

 

149

The ostraca indicate that Jews were employed many times as

ax-gatherers, at least in Upper Egypt.59 The majority seem to have

een simple tax-collectors, who personally collected the taxes and

elivered them to the royal banks and store—houses. Such was the case
or Sambathaios, who collected the ferry-toll or tax,60 for Abielos,

10 collected the shoe-makers' tax,61 and many others. Other Jews
are tax-farmers, who supervised the tax-collectors and guaranteed

1e full amounts to the king.62 Why so many Jews wished to dedicate

emselves to gathering taxes is not easy to understand, especially
Egypt where, like tax-collectors everywhere, they were hated by

e population.63 No doubt there was some profit in this profession,

t the organization of the Ptolemaic state did not enable private

iividuals or government officials to legally enrich themselves at

3 expense of the state, and illegal means, though no doubt used

occasions, were very dangerous.6“ Perhaps the Jews chose this

x“—

59C. P. Jud., Section V, Nos. 48-124. This evidence although
m the early Roman period, applies to the Ptolemaic one as well
especially on this the introduction by Tcher1kover to Section V).

(D

60Ibid., Nos. 51-60.
61Ibid., No. 66.
62Ibid., Nos. 90, 107, 109, and 110.

63Philo represents tax-collectors as persons who were rude

cruel, who turned cities and villages into deserts (Q§_§E§£;_L§9-
159-163).

6“C. P. Jud., 1: 18.

 

 

unpl

ofc

NW
of'
dr
as

1h

llld

I

 

150

Inpleasant task because a government office was, in a way, a mark

)f distinction.65

Jews are found also among the royal bank employees in Upper
Egypt.66 A papyrus from the Roman period names several Jews who were
vitologoi, that is, government officials who supervised the delivery
of grain to the royal granaries.67 Another papyrus from the end of
he Ptolemaic period mentions a grammateus or scribe by the name of
nias,68 who apparently was the assistant of the government official
n charge of a toparchy in the Heracleopolite nome.

How many of the above—mentioned Jewish government officials
)uld also be represented among the Alexandrian Jews? Jewish crown
ificials were involved in the administration of the city of Alexan-
‘ia,69 as generals (strategoi) at the service of the kings,70 and even
. heads of the royal secretariat or as eponymous priests of Alexander.71
e Jewish Alabarchs seem to have resided in Alexandria, and perhaps

ny of the tax-collectors did so also when not absent fulfilling their

—\—__

65Ibid., 19.

66Ibid., Nos. 65, 69, 97, 100-103.

67Ibid., 428.

68Ibid., 137.

69Strabo, 797, and above, pp. 129f.; also Alan E. Samuel, ”The

sek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy,“ Proceedings of the Twelfth
:ernational Congress of Papyrology 7 (1970): 443—453.

 

 

70Such as the case of Onias IV and his sons.

71As the case of Dositheos, son of Drimylos (see above,
l42f.)

 

duti
Alei

not

ion

The

no
wh
of
As

 

151

duties. And if there were Jewish policemen in the chora, why not in

 

Alexandria? In conclusion, there is no reason to doubt that most, if
not all, of the government posts occupied by Jews in other parts of

Egypt were also held by Jews of Alexandria.

The Jews as Soldiers

A great many Jews in Egypt were involved in military
activities for the Ptolemies. Jewish strategoi such as Onias IV,
Dositheos, Helkias, and Hananiah have already been mentioned.72 The
military role of the colony at Leontopolis likewise proves the point.
But the writings of Josephus are now corroborated by the information
in the papyri. The Aramaic papyri from Elephantine show that already '
in Persian times the Jews were settled in frontier fortresses.73
Tcherikover and Fuks include a series of papyri from the Ptolemaic
period which mention Jewish soldiers serving in the regular army or
in the reserve (Epigone).7” The army was organized either on the
national principle (Thracians, Thessalians, Macedonians and so on,
which when the Ptolemaic army was still in formation represented units
if such nationalities), or in mixed squadrons designated by numbers.
ls time passed, persons of different national origins were admitted

nto the units originally divided by nationalities, so the papyri

 

72See above, Part Two, Chapter III.

738. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University
f California Press, 1968).

7“c. P. Jud., 1: 147—178.

nent'
was .
Jews
in t
othe

anon

carr
plot
of i
recv

of-

Ale.

arm,

sta
of

E
whe
aft

 

1:.

 
 

152

mention Jews in the Persian and Macedonian squadrons.75 When a soldier
was changed from one unit to another, his designation also changed.76
Jews were, of course, no exception to this rule. The Jews mentioned
in the papyri served in the Egyptian army on an equal footing with the
other peoples. Jews are found among the simple soldiers as well as
among the officers,77 men of the regular army as well as of the
Epiggp§,7e cavalrymen and infantrymen.79

Periodic settlements of foreign soldiers on Egyptian soil was
carried out by crown officials who divided certain tracts of land into
slots which were to be allotted to the soldiers.80 Generally soldiers
)f the same nationality were settled together in colonies which
‘eceived the name of cleruchies or katoikiai. Such was the case
if the JewiSh settlement at Leontopolis.81

It is quite possible that Jewish soldiers were settled in
lexandria, perhaps serving in the reserve, perhaps part of the royal

Pmy stationed in the area. There could have been in Alexandria
___________________

751bid., Nos. 1, 417; 1: 13. Perhaps this is why Josephus
tates that the Jews in Alexandria were allowed ”to take the title
F Macedonians” (Jewish War II. 488).

76B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth, Fayum Towns and
{HE Easolliéi°2€§léd ESAEESEi§l°EEai,'32eE“l-‘S’rligi’dng‘éaneifls '2’
'terwards as a Mysian of the fourth hipparchy.

77%. Nos. 24 and 27.

78Ibid., Nos. 18—26, 30.

79Ibid., No. 24.

80C. P. Jud , 1: l3.

81Jos. Jewish War I. 190, Apt. XIV. 131.

 

 

new
all:
are

and

1h

of
nil
act
sic
se'
al'
til
Si
68

 

153

presentatives of the military settlers who held considerable
lotments of land which was worked by others. Some of these Jews
e mentioned in the papyri as being involved in business activities,82

d therefore could well have had a residence in Alexandria.

1e Jews as Farmers

The papyri and ostraca give ample evidence for the existence
' a rural population of Jews in Egypt.83 There were, of course, the
litary settlers, who had received from the Ptolemies portions of land
cording to royal practice. Some of these Jewish servicemen held con—
derable allotments of land, which they did not generally work them-
1ves but rather leased out to Egyptian peasants.8l+ Originally these
lotments of land were considered the property of the crown, but in
ne they were treated as the private property of the settlers.85
ice each military settler received about 80 to 100 arourai (about
acres), this group of Jews was considered rather wealthy and

luential, as landowners rather than tillers of the soil.86

82c. P. Jud., Nos. 24, 25.
831bid., Vol. I, pp. 15 and 179-93.
8"Ibid., Nos. 24, 28; Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., 336.

85Mitteis and Wilcken, Grundnge, Nos. 282, 334, and 335. The
Inis Papyri (London), N0. 956. During the second century B.C.—‘T—
2 properties were being bequeathed from father to son.

86Several papyri, such as P. Tebtunis Nos. 815 and 818, C. P.
Nos. 24, 25, mention business negotiations involving Jewish
any settlers, which are evidence that these Jews were sufficiently
1y to engage in such non—military and non-agricultural activities.

 

 

0st
who
one
tav
the
the
bet

6C1

hi'
of

 

154

Of course, Jews other than military settlers held land.
;traca found in Upper Egypt testify to the great number of Jews
10 paid land-tax on their holdings to the government.87 Various
iantities of grain were "measured" out by these Jews as payment for
ixes,88 a fact that could reflect the differences in the sizes of
heir estates.89 There is no certainty as to which class of farmers
iese Jews belonged, but Tcherikover suggests that they might have
een "royal peasants" settled on royal land, working this land
:cording to pre-established conditions.9°

Many of the Jews mentioned in the ostraca were evidently
red laborers. A papyrus from Fayum mentions a laborer by the name
‘Joab among the ”peasants receiving wages“ for working the land of
wealthy estate—owner.91 A couple of papyri mention two Jewish
ntners, Samuel and Alexander, who were leasing a vineyard of 60
gpppt from Zenon.92 Other papyri mention Jewish shepherds who owned

93 Evidently during the Ptolemaic

rep and sold the wool to customers.
'iod the Jews of Egypt found their way into various types of agricul—

al activities, as military settlers, land-holders, "royal peasants,"

87C. P. Jud., Section V.
ealbld., NOS. 73-96.
89Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., 336f.
90Ibld.

91C. P. Jud., N0. 36.

92Ibid., Nos. 14 and 15.

93Ibld., NOS. 9, 38, 39, and 412.

 

 

 

fiel

they

who
fan
wen
den
nor
of

Ale

ecc
the
lit
the

dll(

dill
of
M0:

6111

 

 

155

field hands, vine-dressers, shepherds, and so on, the types of work
they had long followed in their native country.

Among the Jews in Alexandria there could well have been those
who lived in the outskirts and had small plots of land which they
farmed. Others may have been rich landowners who, at the same time,
were involved in other business activities, and therefore had a resi-
dence in the city. Their land might have been either leased out or
worked by hired hands. 0f the other above-mentioned Jewish farmers
of the tpppp, there probably would be none represented in the
Alexandrian community.

Jews, then, were involved in just about every branch of the
economic life of Egypt. The absence of papyri from Alexandria for
the Ptolemaic period makes it difficult to reconstruct the economic
ife of the Alexandrian Jews with any degree of certainty. However,
here seems generally to be a difference between the Jew of the tpppp
nd the one in Alexandria. The latter probably engaged more actively
i trade, banking or lending money at a profit, or acted as an artisan
1d small merchant. He was also, in general, wealthier than the Jew
‘ the_ppppp, though there were cases of rich Jews among the latter.
st Jews in Egypt, however, were not among the wealthy, but rather

)ng the hard—working people of rather limited means.

 

 

 

 

PART THREE

 

 

 

esi
an

thl

Je
th

1‘6

 

 

CHAPTER VI

HELLENISM AND THE ALEXANDRIAN JEWS: ITS IMPACT
ON RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

There is no doubt that Hellenism had an influence on the Jews,

especially those of the Diaspora. The Hellenic world offered the Jews

an esthetically attractive form of paganism, one quite different from

the crude savageries of some Near Eastern faiths. Greek philosophy

provided a number of ideals quite compatible with Jewish thought, and

vice—versa, as Philo attempted to demonstrate. Jewish Hellenistic

literature, too, exhibits an interesting fusion of Greek ideas and

ewish tradition. In this chapter I shall attempt to trace some of

he ways in which Hellenism influenced the Alexandrian Jews in their

eligious and cultural affairs.

he S na 0 ue
The religious center of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora

    
 

as the synagogue, and closely associated with it was the school.
hese two institutions, “though of independent origin and never

ganically connected, worked together in a harmony which resulted

substantial unity of instruction."1

1George F. Moore, Judaism, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard

iversity Press, 1958), 1: 283

157

 

 

51199
in E
the
roll

oft

whei
stal
wen
nail

an:

plat
of

hou
Ski
dew
P15
19:
and
he
Coa

158

The origin of the synagogue is unknown. Perhaps, as Moore
suggests,2 it had its antecedents in spontaneous gatherings of Jews
in Babylonia and other lands of their exile on the sabbaths and at
the times of the old seasonal feasts or on fast days.3 The proved
religious value of such gatherings led to custom, and to the spread
of the institution to other communities.

By the beginning of the Christian era, the synagogue,
wherever and however it arose, was already an institution of long
standing, believed to have been established by Moses.“ Synagogues
were to be found in the Diaspora wherever there were enough Jews to
maintain them.5 They were public institutions, commonly possessing
an edifice for religious and communal meetings, which had been erected
by the community or given to it by individuals. The synagogue was a
place not only of worship, but also of instruction in the philosophy

of the Jews.6

 

2Ihid.
3Zechariah 7:5; Isaiah 58:3.
“Philo Vita Moses ii. XXXIX. 211; Jos. C. Ap. ii. 17.

5Philo De Septenario c. VI: ”In all the towns thousands of
-ouses of instruction were open where discernment and moderation and
kill and justice and all virtues generally were taught." Paul met with
ewish synagogues throughout his travels, as for instance in Antioch of
isidia (Acts 13:14), Iconium (Acts 19:1), Ephesus (Acts 18:19, 26;
9:8), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1), Berea (Acts 17:10), Athens (Acts 17:17),
nd Corinth (Acts 18:4, 7). Josephus mentions synagogues in Caesarea
Jewish War ii. 14. 4,5) and Dora (Apt. XIX. 6. 3) on the Phoenician
Jast.

6Philo Vita Moses ii. XXXIX. 211.

 

159

On every Sabbath and festal day the Jews of Alexandria (as
elsewhere) met in the synagogues for worship and instruction. Worship
’ollowed the traditional form which consisted of the recitation of the
333p; (confession of faith), prayer and benedictions (Tefillah), and
:he reading of the scriptural passage with the subsequent homily. At
Alexandria the necessity of a translation of the readings from the
Scriptures must have been early felt, perhaps as early as the insti-
tution of the reading itself.7/ The language of the Bible had long
since ceased to be the vernacular of the Jews everywhere. In Egypt,
Aramaic had given way to Greek, the language of most of the Jews in
:he western Diaspora. And earlier, Aramaic had taken the place of
:he original Hebrew, as can be seen from the case of Nehemiah 8:8,
where the reading of the Law by Ezra was accompanied by a translation
nto Aramaic.

Any competent person could be an interpreter, subject to the
ontrol of the head of the synagogue.8 The translation was supposed
o be extempore; the interpreter listened to the reading of a verse
id gave the meaning of it to the congregation in their own language.

a could not have anything written before him.9 Whether or not the
ows of Alexandria utilized a translator in this fashion is not known

pecially since the Pentateuch and the Prophets were available to

7M. Megillah 4. l, and Moore, Jpp., 1: 302.
8Jerusalem Megillah 74d.
9Ibid.

 

 

 

the
to
Ale

He‘
th
re
mi

re

 

160

them in Greek (the Septuagint) two centuries before Chirst.'° Previous
to the Septuagint, translators were undoubtedly utilized in the
Alexandrian synagogues, as they were everywhere including Palestine.
Eusebius quotes Philo for a description of the service in the
iellenistic synagogues.11 According to Philo, Moses commanded that
the Jews should assemble on the seventh day, and being seated should
‘everently and decorously listen to the Law, in order that no one
light be ignorant of it. One of the priests, or one of the elders,
'ead to them the divine laws and expounded them in detail, continuing
ntil some time in the late afternoon; then the congregation dispersed,
aving acquired knowledge of the divine laws and made much progress in
eligion. ‘
Each synagogue was presided over by a Head of the Synagogue,12
robably chosen from among the ”elders" by the community or by coop-
ition.13 He had general oversight of the exercises in the synagogue,
lintained order,1“ and invited strangers to address the assembly.15

salaried officer was the synagogue attendant, the Hazzan ha-keneset16

K

10On the Septuagint, see below, pp. 197-205.

11Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica VIII 16. 23.

 

12Rosh ha-keneset (Mishna Sotah 7. 7), or in Greek, the

xtouvéywyog (Mark 5:27).

136. Moore, App,, 1: 289f.

1"Luke 13:14: "But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant
:ause Jesus had healed on the sabbath, said to the people, 'There
a six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and
healed, and not on the sabbath day.'"

15Acts 13 15

16Mishna Sotah 7. 7f.

 

or bin
furnit
had hi
he gav
approa

manner

From 1
City 1
the D
the t

.__l-—'
~r~._a-nrn—hm‘1—JoO£(—fmn

/

161

* bunpéin.17 In his charge were the synagogue building and its
lrniture, especially the rolls of the Scriptures. Sometimes he even
1d his dwelling under the same roof. From the roof of the synagogue
: gave the signal to people to stop work when the Sabbath was
)proaching by blasting on a trumpet three times.18 In a similar
inner he gave notice that the holy day had come to an end.

The synagogues never replaced the Temple worship in Jerusalem.
~om Egypt, as elsewhere, the Jews continued to make pilgrimages to the
ity of David.19 Also the Temple tribute continued to be collected in
ie Diaspora and sent to Jerusalem.20 Philo describes the way in which
1e temple tribute was collected and remitted to Jerusalem:

The revenue of the temple is derived not merely from a few
lands, but from other and much more copious sources which

can never be destroyed. Because as long as the human race
endures so long will the sources of the temple revenue con-
tinue to exist, seeing that they will last as long as the
world itself. For it is prescribed that every Jew who is

over twenty years of age is to pay so much tribute annually.

. . . But as might be expected in the case of so numerous a
people, the amount thus contributed is very large. In almost
every town there is an office for the collection of the sacred
funds and into which the tribute is paid. Then at particular
seasons these funds are entrusted to men of good standing whose
duty it is to convey them to Jerusalem. For this purpose it
is always those of the highest rank that are chosen, as a kind
of guarantee that that which is every Israelite's hope may
reach the Holy City untampered with.21

 

17Luke 4:20.
18T. Sukkah 4. 11; Shabbat 35b.
19Philo De Providentia quoted by Eusebius Praep. Evang. VIII.

20Jos. fl. XIV 7. 2.

21Philo De Monarchia II. 3.

 

lh‘

the

win

11"

st

re

61‘

Je

CfOtSHb

 

162

115 passage makes clear that the synagogues were not the places where
1e tribute of the Diaspora was collected for the Temple of Jerusalem,
iich continued to be looked upon as the center of Jewish religious
ife.

The dedicatory inscriptions are an interesting aspect of the
tudy of the synagogues in Egypt. Eight of them survive, from the
sign of Euergetes I down to that of Cleopatra VII.22 All of them
re worded in the same general terms: either individuals, or else
ewish communities dedicate a synagogue or a part of its furniture to
me Theos Hypsistos—-the regular Greek equivalent of Apppppg—on behalf

f the reigning Ptolemy and his wife.23

Fraser analyzes several inter-
;ting points.2" The opening formula is always ”on behalf of" the
Iling house. This was the common ”loyalty formula” used in Ptolemic
adications to deities both Greek and Egyptian. Its use avoided the
rect ascription of divinity to the sovereign, and yet associated him
the worship.25 From Philo we learn that the Jews did not consider

22The two inscriptions from Alexandria are: one from the second
ntury B.C. (in F. Preisigke and F. Bilabel, Sammelbuch griechischer

kunden aus A ten, 5 vols. [Berlinz De Gruyter Co., 1913-52], 2:
. 5891, and one from 36 B.C. (in W. Dittenberger, OGIS., No. 742).

23Fraser, Ptol. Alex., 1: 282.

 

2“Ibid., pp. 283f.

25That a dedication "on behalf of" a certain sovereign was not

sidered the same as a dedication "to“ this or that sovereign is clear
m the story told by Philo concerning the Emperor Gaius and the Jews
Alexandria (Embassy 356-7). The Jews complained to the Emperor that
Greeks were maligning them, and that they had offered the requisite
rifices to him on various occasions. To this complaint Gaius replied:
may be that you offered sacrifice, but it was to another, even if on
alf of me. What good is that? You did not sacrifice to me.“

 

thl
was
no
de
ut
ex

de

 

 

163

themselves as worshiping the rulers: "In three hundred years there
was a succession of ten Ptolemies, yet they [the Alexandrians] made
no dedication of images or statutes in synagogues. . . ."25 What the
dedicatory formulae show is that the Jews in Alexandria had, in fact,
utilized the contemporary method employed by the Greek population to
express their respect for the royal family. On the other hand, the
dedications ”on behalf of" involved no co-worship in their eyes, and,
therefore, no cult-statues or images.
Apart from the opening formula, the synagogal dedications
exhibit a complete correspondence with contemporary pagan dedications t

27 In most instances, the dedication

of sacred furniture and shrines.
is indistinguishable from a pagan equivalent, save for the substitute
of the term “synagogue" for ”the shrine” or ”the temple,“ and for the
name or names of the dedicating party. The Hellenism of these dedica-
tions is, therefore, pronounced in all external respects, and the
Judaism is largely concealed beneath the pagan exterior.

The dedications also raise the question of the status of the
Lyhagogues. Pagan temples were either public——that is, in Alexandria,
-ither royal or civic foundations-—or private. In the latter case,
hey might have been dedicated by and be the property of a private

Ody or a private person.26 The evidence indicates that synagogues

m

26Phi10 Embassy 134-149.
27W. Dittenberger OGIS, Nos. 96 and 101.

28Fraser, Ptol. Alexan., p. 284.

 

 

also were erected either by the Jewish community or by prominent

individuals. One urban dedication of a synagogue, which belongs to

the latest Ptolemaic period, was made by an individual named Alypus.29
Sometimes the synagogues were built by the entire community, calling

itself in such cases "Jews of the Place X," sometimes by the community

in cooperation with a private person.30

That there was more than one synagogue in Alexandria is

vident from Philo, who says that there were many "in each section
f the city."31 There was, perhaps, a central synagogue. It is true

hat Philo does not make specific mention of any central synagogue, but

2 does speak of one synagogue in Alexandria as being larger and more

plendid than the others.32 The tradition that there existed in

lexandria the so—called “Great Synagogue” is also inferred from

he Talmud:33
Rabbi Judah taught: He who has not seen the double colonnade
[5cmkooroov = 1‘1713”79‘TJ at Alexandria has never seen the
glory of Israel. It was made like a great basilica [Boooxtwfi
7‘ 7'77‘01] one colonnade [oroc’a = “PUT-l] within another.
Often there were as many as twice the number which went out of

29C. P. Jud., No. 1432.

3°For examples of synagogues dedicated by Jewish communities,
. Dittenberger, OGIS, Nos. 96, 101, 726, and 742; and F. Preisigke
Bilable, Sammelbuch, Nos. 5862, 6832, 7454, and 8939.

 

TIE

31Philo Embassy 132.

32Ibid., 134.

331 am following here the translation that Erwin Goodenough has
of the text found in Tose hta Sukka IV. 6, in Jewish Symbols in
Graeco-Roman Period, 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon Books, Inc.,
-55 , 2: 85f.

 

 

 

 

 

fill—L

1h.
bu
Gr
we
th
me
sh
tr
La

Elli

 

 

165

Egypt in the Exodus.3” Seventy-one golden chairs were in it
corresponding to the seventy—one elders. Each chair had a
cost of 250,000.36 In the middle stood a wooden platform upon
the top of which stood the Chazan of the synagogue. He had a
scarf in his hand which he waved when a person took up the
scroll [of the Torah] to read, whereupon all the people re—
sponded with "Amen.” At each distinct benediction he waved
the scarf and all the people responded with ”Amen.“ They did
not, however, sit together promiscuously, but goldsmiths by
themselves, silversmiths by themselves, blacksmiths by them-
selves, weavers by themselves, carpetmakers by themselves, so
that if a stranger came he associated himself with his

profession in order to get his livelihood.

 

The passage is interesting for showing not only the tradition of the
building itself but also for revealing that even the rabbis had only

Greek terms for these architectural borrowings, since Greek loan words

_ were used in the Hebrew to describe the building. Krauss37 suggests

that this building was not primarily a synagogue, but really a great

merchants' hall which the Jews also used as a courthouse and for wor—

ship. He bases his assumptions on the description of how the different
tradespeople were grouped. Prayers, benedictions, and readings of the

Law were going on all through the day, and the mass of Jewish merchants

and craftsmen would go on with their work in this happy atmosphere of

3"By tradition this would be 1,200,000.

35The implication of the text in Tosefta and in the Jerusalem
almud, Sukkah, V. 55a,b, is that there were such officials in Alexan-
ria. The Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b, changes this to make these
hairs simply honor "members of the great Sanhedrin

36The Jer. Talmud makes this 250,000 denarii which is fantastic
iough the Bab Talmud makes the value of each chair 210,000 gold

llents!

37Samuel Krauss, Synagogale Altertflmer (Berlin:
22), pp. 261—2 63.

De Gruyter,

 

 

worship, even though they could join in it only by periodically

saying "Amen."

The School

The second great institution of religious education in
Judaism was the school. In some form or other the school was as old
as the synagogue if not older, and the synagogue was always dependent
upon it.38
Several Biblical passages give evidence of early beginnings of

religious instruction among the Jews. Originally the priests were in

 

charge of teaching the people the law of Moses.39 In the time of Ezra,
he Levites were charged with explaining the provisions of the Law
after Ezra had completed reading it.“° In the time of Jehoshaphat,

:he king sent throughout the land a group of men, princes, and Levites,
and they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the Lord with
hem; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among
ie people.“1 It can be inferred from this passage that, as time
lssed, men other than priests were also entrusted with teaching.

By the last century of the Persian rule, the men who had taken

= lead in the field of teaching were receiving the name of soferim,

386. Moore, gpg , 1: 308.

39Dept. 33:10 "They [the Levites'] shall teach Jacob thy
inances, and Israel thy Law." Jer. 2:8; Mal. 2:4-9.

“ONehemiah 8:7 and 8.
“III Chron. 17:7—9.

 

 

 

com
Sir
him
mak
onl

to

brc
of
hig
wis
He
dev

the

as

tra
SCI

167

:ommonly translated ”scribes.“2 In the Greek period, Jesus, son of
Sirach, described the station and occupation of the scribe, contrasting
iim with the classes who had to give all their time and thought to
making a living. The learning of the scholar (gptgp) can be acquired
)nly by such as are free from these necessities and have the leisure
to consider and discuss matters of higher interest."3

The ideal scholar of Sirach is a cultivated man, who has
iroadened his mind by travel in foreign countries and had experience
)f the good and the bad in men, and is a presentable person in the

“5 seeks out the

iighest company.““ He is occupied with prophecies,
visdom of the elders,‘+6 and preserves the wisdom of the men of old."7
ie is skilled in the interpretation of parables and proverbs,"8 and
levotes his mind to the study of the Scriptures and to understanding
:he law of the Most High."9
It is probable that organized schools of higher learning, such

s appear in the sources shortly before the beginning of the Christian

“ZFrom TA 13 1] , ”book”; the soferim would be literally
ranslated as: ”bookmen,” referring of course to the books of the
:riptures.

L”Jesus ben Sirach's Ecclesiasticus 38:24-39.

““Ibid., 39:4; (3. Moore, J_u_d_., 1:309.

1+5Eccles. 39:1

”61bid.

l'7Ibid., 2.

l"’Ibid., 3.

”91bid., l.

 

era
fo
st
th
di

to
of

“Wye“ w

168
rra, were preceded by stated or occasional meetings of the soferim
0r study and discussion. Younger scholars, who perhaps pursued their

tudies under the guidance of individual masters, would have frequented

hese conventions as auditors, and profited from listening to the
iscussions of their elders.50

As early as Sirach, ”place of study"51 became a common term
or a school of higher education. The name was often coupled with that
’ the synagogue in combinations which show that the two were distinct,
ough closely associated. The existence of many biblical scholars
om the third century B.C. on52 shows that there was regular provision
r transmitting the learning of former generations and adding to it.

In Palestine, and probably elsewhere, the school was frequently
lacent to the synagogue, and in later accounts it is assumed that each
iagogue had its own school.53 The building occupied by a synagogue
Ild be transformed into a school, but not vice-versa; it would have
n a descent in rank, such as was forbidden in Mishna Megillah 3. 1.

Elementary instruction was doubtless the responsibility of

ants who could impart the education themselves or hire tutors.5”

:e apparently many parents did neither, many Jewish children were

\_‘

506. Moore, Ju_d., 1:311.

51Ecclesiasticus 51:23. Bet ha-Midrash refers to a school of
ler education, not an elementary school.

521 MaCC. 7: 12-18.
53Megillah 27a.
5“G. Moore, App , 1:316

 

[z

 

169

left without an adequate knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language,
a necessary requirement for those who wished to pursue studies in the
advanced schools. To meet this need, elementary schools were estab-
lished, called Beth ha—Sofer, where boys were taught reading and
writing. The maintenance of the schools and payment of teachers
were the responsibilities of the Jewish community as a whole, which
was made to feel by the rabbis that a community without schools was
not fulfilling the will of God.55 Unlike the advanced schools, the
boys' school maintained by the community was held in the synagogue.56
In small communities the same man often served as school teacher (pptpp)
and as synagogue attendant (ppttpn).57

The Pirke Abot58 would have a boy begin Bible school, or the
leth ha-Sofer, at the age of five, then go on to the study of tradition
‘Mishnah) at ten, and advance to the Talmud at fifteen.59 This ideal
as probably seldom achieved. More probably, boys ordinarily passed
rom the elementary school to the more advanced studies of the Eptp
a—Midrash between the years of twelve and fifteen. Only a small

\

roportion of those who began the study of tradition (Mishnah) had
_________________

55Shabbat 119b.

56Baba Batra 21a and M. Baba Batra 2. 3.

57Jer. Yebamot 13a. Megillah 25b.

58Pirke Abot 5:21. The Pirké Abot (”Chapter of the Fathers")
an appendix to the fourth series (Nezikin) of treatises in the
shnah and the Babylonian Talmud.

59”Mishnah" is used here in the narrower sense, formulated and

norized rules (halakot); Talmud, in this context means explanation
1 discussion of the rules.

 

 

170

ither the opportunity or the ability to go on to the higher stages
y which men advanced to the rank of what we might call professor.6°

later Midrash gives this turn to the words, ‘I have found one man
ut of a thousand' (Eccles. 7:28): "Such is the usual way of the
orld; a thousand enter the Bible school, and a hundred pass from

t to the study of Mishnah; ten of them go on to Talmud study, and
nly one of them arrives at the doctor's degree (rabbinical
rdination)."61

From Philo it is learned that the Greek speaking Jews of

lexandria and Egypt also had this system of schools for the study
f the Scriptures and religious laws.62 But because the Hellenistic
ews of Alexandria were no longer able to read the original Hebrew,
1e Septuagint was used in their synagogues and schools. Philo himself
:ems to have had very little knowledge of Hebrew, and probably used

1e Greek translation of the Scriptures for his writings.63

Apparently
ere were no other major differences from other Jewish communities in
a system of worship and education. In Alexandria, as in all other
vish communities, the synagogue and the school were two basic pillars

their religious foundation.

606. Moore, gpg , 1:320.
61The Midrash commentary on Ecclesiasticus 7:28.

62Embassy 115.

63Erwin Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 2nd ed.
3rd: Basil Blackwell, 1962), p. 9; Samuel Sandmel, The First

itian Centur in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Oxford
rrsity Press, 1969), p. 111; G. Moore, gpg , 1:322.

 

 

 

 

own
veh'
rel '
par
ort
for
wer
imp

the

any

th
Ph

 

 

171

Some Jews to whom Greek education seemed superior to their

wn system adopted a more Hellenized education. The gymnasium was the

ehicle for a Greek education, and athletics, carried out in a Greek

eligious setting, were part of this training. Therefore, when the Jews

articipated in this system of education they did so against the strict

rthodox principles. Not only was the gymnasium, in a sense, a vehicle

or the practice of Greek religion, but in addition athletic activities
ere carried out with very little (if any) clothing, a pattern highly
II Macc. 4: 13, for instance, speaks of
Philo

nproper to the orthodox Jew.

he gymnasium at Jerusalem as the height of evil and corruption.
5 an example of the more Hellenized Jews, who saw very little if
iything wrong with the participation in the Greek gymnasium:

Further, who could be more truly called benefactors than
parents in relation to their children? . . . they have held
them entitled to nurture and later to education of body and
soul, so that they may have not only life, but a good life.
They have benefited the body by means of the gymnasium and
the training there given, through which it gains muscular
vigour and good condition and the power to bear itself and
move with an ease marked by gracefulness and elegance. They
have done the same for the soul by means of letters and
arithmetic and geometry and music and philosophy as a whole
which lifts on high the mind lodged within the mortal body
and escorts it to the very heaven and shews it the blessed
and happy beings that dwell therein, and creates in it an
eager longing for the unswerving ever—harmonious order which
they never forsake because they obey their captain and

marshal.5“
Obviously, many Hellenized Jews in Alexandria were educating

r children in the Greek educational system, the gymnasium, and

3 thinks them worthy of praise for doing so. The same seems to

6“Philo De Spec. Leg. II, 229; see also ibid., 246; De Opif.
78; and De Ioseph 82.

 

 

hal

bee
ine
p11
Sal
to

V
llq
\

 

172

have been occurring in other parts of the Diaspora. At the town of
Iasos in Asia Minor a list of epheboi of the early Roman period has
been preserved on which names such as Judah, Dositheos, and Theophilos
indicate that among these men were many Jews.65 At Miletus a special
place was reserved in the theater for the Jews,66 and at Hypaipa (near
Sardis in Lydia) a group of young Jews called themselves neoteroi,
following the usual system of grouping the ephebes into juniors,
intermediates, and seniors.67 All these examples indicate the keen
ambition of the Diaspora Jews to emulate the Greeks in the most impor—
tant branches of original Greek cultural life, and there is no doubt

that the education of young Jews in the gymnasium opened to them the

 

way to a deeper understanding of Greek culture as a whole.68

Religious Observances and Festivals

The Jewish community of Alexandria observed such fundamental
iractices as circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath. Philo
taunchly defends the practice of circumcision in his first book 9p
he Special Laws.69 He argues that the Jews were not the only ones

3 practice circumcision: many other nations, such as the Egyptians,7°

55V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 350.
66J. B. Frey, C. I. Jud., No. 748.
67Ibld., NO. 755.

58V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 350.

69

De Spec. Leg. I. 2—11.

7"Herodotus II. 104 mentions that circumcision was practised
he Egyptians, the Ethiopians (Nubians), the Phoenicians, and the
ians of Palestine,“ and further by certain tribes in Asia Minor.

 

ze

of

 

 

 

173

ealously observed this custom, since it was a good one for reasons
if cleanliness, health, and spiritual emancipation.71

The second of the fundamental Observances of Judaism was the
Labbath, the keeping of every seventh day as a "holy" day. No work
Ias allowed. The Sabbath was the "eternal convenant,“ between God and

1.72

Lsrae "Every one who does work on it, that person shall be cut off

tut of the midst of his people."73

The observance of the seventh day
If the week as a day reserved for God made the Israelites unpopular
nd gave rise, as I will show later, to accusations of laziness and
o anti—semitic feelings.

Philo extensively deals with and firmly defends the observance
f the Sabbath.7“ The law, he says, was given not to induce slackness,
ut rather to give men a rest from continuous and unending toil. This
afreshes the body and allows it to return to work for another six days
‘th renewed energy. The Sabbath is also important because, while on
at day the body is resting, the soul is liberated to go into the
stical life (Bcog bempn‘rtu6g).

71Philo De Migratione Abrahami 92. For proselytes Philo

:ommends circumcision, but does not feel it should be a requirement
‘ them (Questions and Answers II. 2).

 

72Ezekiel 20:l2; Exodus 3lzl3, l6, and 17.
73Exodus 3lzl4.

74

De Spec. Leg. II. 56-70.

 

 

I74

A papyrus from the Archives of Zenon75 is a good example of the
observance of the Sabbath in the Egyptian ppppp,75 The papyrus contains
a list of bricks received on the estate of Apollonius at Philadelphia in
the Fayflm; the foreman recorded daily the number of bricks received from
the wagoners who brought the load. One day, instead of recording the
number of bricks, he noted only one word: ”Sabbath." On that day
either he or the wagoners who brought the bricks had not worked. The
papyrus also indicates that the building work on Apollonius' estate was
proceeding at a forced pace, and the chief overseer of the estate,
Zenon, had no inclination to clemency or pity. To keep the Sabbath
in such conditions would not have been easy.

Circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath were two
practices against which Hellenism had very little effect, even in the
Diaspora. No compromise was possible, and most Jews were willing even
to die rather than to break these Observances.77

Philo also indicates that the Jews of Alexandria carefully
observed all the other important religious festivals of Judaism. Philo,
however, sees in these festivals more than just a series of physical

ceremonies and activities. The Passover is also a symbol of the

 

75As quoted in C. P. Jud., No. l0, and Tcherikover, Hell. Civ.
i. 528, note 54.

76There is no reason to doubt that the same example could also
llustrate the attitude among the Alexandrian Jews toward the observ—
ice of the Sabbath.

77A5, for example, during Antiochus Epiphanes‘ attempt to
llenize the Jews by force (I Macc. 2: 29—41; II Macc. 5: 25f;
ll; 8: 26).

 

175

migration from body to spirit, the purification of the soul.78 The
feast of the Unleavened Bread is in reality the ”unmixed food which
is prepared by Nature,”79 that is immaterial, unmixed with matter,
which the mystic eats.80 The Feast of the New Moon is useful for
”inculcating kindness and humanity and bidding men never grudge their
own good things, but, imitating the blessed and happy beings in heaven,
banish jealousy from the confines of the soul, producing what they have
for all to see, treat it as a common property, and give freely to the
deserving.”1 The Day of Atonement should serve as an occasion for
turning from the material in order to seek immaterial substenance.82
'Philo makes every Festival into a sacrament in the sense that it is
1 visible sign of an invisible, a mystic grace. . . . How far this
'esulted in the modification of ritual we do not know, but I doubt
f much modification would have been attempted, or felt desirable."83
What caused Philo to interpret the Jewish festivals in this
anner? First, the influence of Hellenism upon Philo. Second, Philo's
esire to present Judaism in terms that could be understood by the
"aeco-Roman world of his day. His allegories, the spiritualization

: the festivals, the mystical language and ideas present in his

 

78Philo De Spec. Leg II. 145—149.
79Ibid., 150-161.

80E. Goodenough, Ip§., p. l57.
81Philo De Spec. Leg. II. l40-l44.
82Ibl'd., 193-203.

63E. Goodenough, 133,, p. l58.

 

176

writings, are all evidence of the Greek influence, especially of Plato
and the Stoic philosophers.3“ On the other hand they are also evidence
that Philo is a representative of the Jewish intelligentsia of Alexan-
dria, though it is not possible to determine how far he represents the
great mass of Alexandrian Jews.

A popular festival highly esteemed by the Jews was the
observance of Purim,85 commemorating the deliverance of the Jews
from the wholesale destruction Haman had planned for them. In
iccordance with the pronouncedly secular character of the Book of
Esther, the festival was not a religious observance, and the secular
:haracter remained the signature of the celebration through its history,
otwithstanding its adoption into the religious calendar.66

At the end of the Book of Esther in its Greek translation,87
wo Jews are mentioned, Dositheos (”who said he was a priest and
evite”), and his son Ptolemy, who introduced ”the present epistle
f Purim“ into Egypt during the fourth year of the reign of “King
tolemy and Cleopatra." Tcherikover, analyzing the chronology in—
>lved,88 points out that there were three joint reigns of a Ptolemy

th a Cleopatra (ll4 B.C., 78 B.C., and 49 B.C.), Tcherikover argues

8“Davis, Race—Relations, p. l28f., Goodenough, Ipp., p. ll4.
65Esther 9:26.

86G. Moore, gpg , p. 51.

87Apocryphal additions to Esther VII:lO and ll.

8BC. P. Jud., l: 46, note ll9.

 

 

177

that, since the Purim stressed so sharply the antagonism between Jews
and non—Jews and evoked the national feeling of Jewish readers, the
Book of Esther was excellently suited to fulfill the aims of Hasmonaean
propaganda abroad. Therefore, the book probably was sent into Egypt on
the initiative of the official circles at the Hasmonaean court. The
date ll4/l3 B.C. seems to Tcherikover the most probable for the intro-
duction of the Book of Esther into Alexandria. From then onward, the
Alexandrian Jews would have celebrated with enthusiasm the festival of
Purim.

The festival of Hanukkah is among those religious celebrations
iot prescribed in the Pentateuch. It was instituted in the year l65
B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers, as an annual eight-day
:elebration of the reestablishment of worship in the Temple after
:hree years' interruption. This festival was to be celebrated with
joy and gladness,”89 and was to be patterned after the Feast of
abernacles.90 The people carried palm leaves and fair branches,
nd sang praises to Him who had helped them to purge His Temple.

II Maccabees opens with a letter from the Jews of Palestine
3 their brethren in the Egyptian diaspora, dated in l24 B.C., which
ivites the Egyptian Jews to celebrate the festival of Hannukah.91

:ference is made to another letter sent to Egypt "during the reign

891 Macc. 4: 59.
9OH Macc. 10: 6—8.
91II Macc. l: l—6.

178

of Demetrius, in the hundred threescore and ninth year,”92 with the
same purpose. To Tcherikover, this is another demonstration of the
organized propaganda emanating from Hasmonaean Palestine.93 Together
vith the new books, such as the Book of Esther and the Book of Judith,
1 different spirit reached the Diaspora of Aristeas or Philo. This was
:he aggressive national spirit of Hasmonaean Israel, born with the
*ebellion of the Maccabees against their Hellenistic Seleucid rulers.
his spirit, says Tcherikover, desired no compromise with the Greeks,
nd still less with those Jews who inclined to them. ”The philosophical
orks of Philo and the Letter of Aristeas reflect, after all, only the
iews of restricted groups of wealthy people in Alexandria and of the
ewish intelligentsia influenced by Hellenism, while literature of the
Ipe of the Third Book of the Maccabees faithfully reflects the trend
’ thinking prevailing among broad sections of the Jewish population
the Egyptian diaspora and probably in other diaspora centers as

ll."9“

In contrast to Tcherikover's views, Goodenough believes that
ilo was the spokesman for a large group of Alexandrian and Diaspora
vs who were adopting Hellenistic thinking. As a result, Greek
:tical metaphysics were introduced into the Jewish Bible, and the

lgam which resulted was to Philo the true meaning of the Torah,

 

92Ibid., vs. 7. The year l69 of the Seleucid era corresponds
l43 B.C. (V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 529, note 6l).

93V. Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 355f.
94Ibid.

 

 

179

of Judaism.95 As Philo expounds his thinking, he exhorts this
Hellenised group to keep these ”mysteries” to themselves:96

These thoughts, ye initiated, whose ears are purified, receive

into your souls as holy mysteries indeed and babble not of

them to any of the profane. . . . But, if ye meet with anyone

of the initiated, press him closely, cling to him lest knowing

of some still newer secret he hide it from you. . . . I myself

was initiated under Moses the God—beloved into his greater

mysteries, yet when I saw the prophet Jeremiah and knew him

to be not only himself enlightened, but a worthy minister of

the holy secrets, I was not slow to become his disciple.

Using this passage, Goodenough suggests that this mystical

thinking and language was not merely figurative but perhaps literally
a mystery religion.97 It is possible, he says, that Philo's mysteries
iad ritualistic acts corresponding to sacraments: something was really
lone to the participant. Here, however, the evidence is less certain,
'and while there are suggestions that they may have had such ceremonies,

:he evidence does not explicitly establish the fact. Philo several

imes refers to divine rites (orgia). . . .“95 Goodenough quotes
nother passage in Philo: ”‘It is strange that there should be a law

n cities forbidding one to divulge the mystic secrets (mustica mus—
aria) to the uninitiated, but that the true mystic rites (hai aletheis
eletai) which lead to piety and holiness should be revealed to ears

Ill of wickedness.l Philo could hardly have told us more clearly that

 

. 95E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, l2: l5. For a recapitulation
the opposite views of Tcherikover and Goodenough, and some conclu-
ons on the matter, see below, p. 2ll.
96De Cherubim 48-53.
97E. Goodenough, Jew. Symbols, pp. l9ff.

98Ibid.

 

180

the Jews had mystic rites which really worked, rites that were sacred,
and hence more to be kept secret than those in pagan mysteries."99
However, concludes Goodenough, we know as little about the Jewish
mysteries alluded to in Philo, as we do about the pagan mysteries.
Philo and his followers probably celebrated such Observances as cir—
cumcision, the Sabbath, New Year, the Day of Atonement, First Fruits,
and the rest, not merely on a literal level, but in such a way as to
fulfill the true mystical rites of Philo's mysteries.100

Two other uniquely Alexandrian festivals are mentioned by
Philo and Josephus. As already related,”1 Josephus has an account,
similar to one found in the Third Book of Maccabees, of how the Jews
of Alexandria were saved by God from a horrible death under the feet
of elephants.102 Even though the accounts in Josephus and III Mac-
cabees differ in chronology, both agree that the miraculous deliverance
gave rise in Alexandria to an annual festival of thanksgiving to God
for deliverance,103 a festival which, according to Josephus, was still
aeing celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in his day.

The second uniquely Alexandrian festival was the one celebrated
Innually on the island of Pharos to commemorate the completion of the
ieptuagint.1°“

99Ibid.

1°°Ibid.

101See above, Part Two, Chapter II, pp. 79ff.
1°2Jos. §;_ifl;. II. 53f. and Third Maccabees.
1°3Jos. flp. II. 53, and III Macc. 7: l8—20.

10“See below, pp. l97—205.

181

Therefore, even to the present day, there is held every year
a feast and general assembly in the island of Pharos, whither
not only Jews but multitudes of others cross the water, both
to do honour to the place in which the light of the version
[Septuagint] first shone out, and also to thank God for the
good gift so old yet ever young. But, after the prayers and
thanksgivings, some fixing tents on the seaside and others
reclining on the sandy beach in the open air feast with their
relations and friends, counting that shore for the time a more
magnificent lodging than the fine mansions in the royal
precincts.”5

roselytism

An important element in the Judaism of the dispersion were the
roselytes, that is, the body of adherents who joined themselves to the
ewish communities.”6 The conviction that Judaism was the only true
eligion, destined to become universal, was a singularity of the Jews.
0 other religion of that time made any such pretensions or cherished

uch aspirations.107

Of course, this exclusiveness was not understood
y the rest of mankind, and therefore the Jews were resented. So it
aems strange that Jewish propaganda should have been crowned with
iything like success among the Gentiles. SchUrer mentions three
easons why, in spite of the unfriendly feelings felt by the Graeco—
iman world towards the Jews, many Gentiles did in fact join the ranks

{ the Jews.108 (1) In the course of their missionary efforts, the

;Ms learned eventually to present their religion in a form calculated

I 1°5Philo De Vita Moses II. 4l and 42.
1“E. Schfirer, Jewish People, Division II, Vol. II, #3l, p. 29l.
l 107G. Moore, JEQJ, l: 323.

1”E. Schfirer, Jewish People, 2: 297ff. of Div. II.

182

0 recommend it to Gentiles. SchUrer believes that whatever the Jews
udged would be considered odd or have a repelling effect was kept in
he background, as if not of an essential nature, until a later time.
tress was placed first upon those points which the Jews assumed would
trike a sympathetic note among the Gentiles they were trying to reach.
hus, Moses was presented as an enlightened legislator whose ideas were
imilar in many ways to those of the Stoic philosophers. Strabo reports
.hat Moses taught:

that the Egyptians had erred in making the divinity to resemble

animals; that such a thing was not done by the Libyans, nor

even the Greeks, who represented Him under a human form. For

that alone is God which embraces us all as well as the earth

and the sea, which we name heaven, and world, and the nature

of things. But what man in his senses would venture to make

an image of that, an image only resembling something around us?

Rather must the making of images be given up altogether, and a

worthy temple being consecrated to Him, let Him be worshipped

without any image whatever.109

(2) Judaism as a religion aimed at achieving a moral and happy
ife. Naturally, there were other religions that also had a similar
im, but in the case of Judaism it assumed a much more definite, more
implete, and more satisfactory form than any other ancient religion.
ie Greek and Roman gods would guide their worshipers neither to a
fuly moral nor to a truly happy life. Judaism, through the promise
Even its followers of deliverance from sin and sorrow, held out a
rtain prospect for both a moral and a happy life.
(3) It was to the advantage of Judaism that the fashion of the

he happened to be affiliation with Oriental religions. In Athens the

109Strabo, XVI. 2. 35.

183

Pyrygian worship of Sabizius (Bacchus) can be found as early as the
fifth century B.C. Egyptian and other Oriental religions followed,
such as the Astarte, Isis, and Serapis cults.11° Similar cults
appeared in Rome111 and widely throughout the empire. SchUrer finds
the attraction of all such religions in two characteristic features
common to all: a touch of monotheism, and the elimination of sin,

2 Since Judaism possessed both

'leading to a life of moral purity.11
these features, and to a greater extent than the other religions,
its appeal was accentuated.

In the Hellenistic-Roman period, Jewish propagandism seems to
have been carried on actively. One could doubt that orthodox Pharisaic
Judaism would make an effort to obtain converts, since the promise of
God applied only to the children of Abraham. What could the Gentiles
gain by their conversion to the Jewish faith? But here the natural
impulse, so characteristic of all active religionists, to impart to
others what Jews themselves possess, proved too powerful for dogmatic
preconceptions. If by his conversion to Judaism the Gentile would not

acquire all the privileges of the true Israelite, still he would be

110A. Boeckh et al., C. Insc. Graec., No. l20.

111See Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, lO vols. (Berlin: George
leimer, l863—83), 345 (Isis), and notes 570-574 (Serapis). In the year
13 B.C. the Triumvirs themselves built temples to Serapis and Isis for
)ublic worship (Dio Cassius_XLVIII. 15)

 

112E. SchUrer, Jewish People, 2: 302. Philo's writings often
:ontain mystical terms and allusions to practices of mystery cults
see above, pp. l79ff.), an evidence of the influence exercised by the
Iriental religions on Philo and the Jewish school of thought he repre-
ents, as well as of Philo's method of using Hellenistic terminology
s a means of presenting Judaism.

ififiF—Jw’.

 

 

184

saved from the mass of those doomed to perdition. Consequently, even
the Pharisees in Palestine developed a zeal for conversions. "They
compassed sea and land to make one proselyte.”113

In the Diaspora, the desire to convert Gentile neighbors was
much stronger, since the Jews lived among them. Horace even satirizes
their zeal in this respect.11“ Nevertheless, their efforts were
crowned with great success. “Many of the Greeks have been converted
to the observance of our laws; some have remained true, while others,
who were incapable of steadfastness, have fallen away again.“115 In
another passage116 Josephus remarks that ”there has for a long time
now been a great amount of zeal for our worship; and there is not a
single town among Greeks or barbarians or anywhere else, nor a single
iation to which the observance of the Sabbath as it exists among our-
;elves has not penetrated; while fasting and the burning of lights,117
1nd many of our laws with regard to meats, are also observed." In

[nother passagella Josephus mentions that the great amount of tribute

113Matthew 23:15.

11“Horace Sp}, 1. 4. 142—143.

1”Jos. C. Ap. II. 123.

116Ibid., 282.

117”The burning of lights" refers to the practice carried on

the Jews before the dawn of the Sabbath, so that there would be no

casion to violate the law (Exodus 35:3, Mishna Shabbath II. 6, 7)
ring the course of the day. Josephus is, therefore, speaking of the
servance of practices of a specifically Jewish character by those who
"e not native Jews.

“85m. XIV. 7. 2.

 

 

185

sent to the Temple at Jerusalem did not come only from Jews, but also
from the proselytes. Acts 2:9-11 mentions the proselytes along with
the Jews when speaking of the number of Jews of every nationality
living in Jerusalem. Wherever, in fact, there was a Jewish
community, there was also a body of proselytes attached to it.119

There were two major types of proselytes. First, those
that attended the synagogue, observed several of the Jewish ordinances,
but never quite gave up their own gods and religion.120 They did not
go through all the ceremonies, especially circumcision, that a full
proselyte was bound to perform. Moore opposes calling these “adherents
of the synagogue" semi—proselytes, or even trying to find a category
for them in the rabbinical deliverances concerning proselytes.121

Schfirer, on the other hand, does believe that a gradation of

 

)roselytes is possible.122

119See Acts 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 17:4, 17. Jos. Jewish War II.
‘0. 2 and VII. 3. 3; Dio Cassius XXXVII. l7.

120Tertullian Ad Nationes i. 13.

1216. Moore, 993., l: 326 and 339f.

122E. SchUrer, Jewish Peo le, 2: 311-318. SchUrer mentions as
1 example the case if Izates of Adiabene. In the court of this king
iere was a Jew by the name of Ananias, who in his desire to avoid
’fficulties and unnecessary hardships for the king (and perhaps
'entually for himself), suggested to Izates that he should observe
1 other requirements for becoming a Jew except circumcision, which
uld be painful and subject perhaps to ridicule by other monarchs.
d, said Ananias, would no doubt overlook the omission of this
servance (Jos. Ant. XX. 2. 5). SchUrer believes that there were
iy who thought in_a similar manner, or Ananias would not have sug—
sted such a course. And if this was the case, there must have been
iy semi-proselytes of this kind: men who "feared God‘l but were not
1 proselytes (Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; Jos. App, XIV. 7. 2,
,s 16:14).

186

All agree, however, on the second type, the full proselyte:
man who, having forsaken all his previous beliefs and religious
‘actices, has partaken of the initiatory rites for full proselytes,

d has become not only a member of the Jewish church, but also a
.turalized Jew. Such men have bound themselves to observe the whole
w to its fullest extent.123 Philo describes this type of man in the

rllowing termszlz“

All who are like him [Moses], all who spurn idle fables and
embrace truth in its purity, whether they have been such from
the beginning or through conversion to the better side have
reached that higher state, obtain His approval, the former
because they were not false to the nobility of their birth,
the latter because their judgment led them to make passage

to piety. These last he calls ”proselytes,"125 or newly-
joined, because they have joined the new and godly common—
wealth. Thus, while giving equal rank to all in-comers with
all the privileges which he gives to the native-born, he
exhorts the old nobility to honour them not only with marks
of respect but with special friendship and with more than
ordinary goodwill. And surely there is good reason for this;
they have left, he says, their country, their kinsfolk and
their friends for the sake of virtue and religion. Let them
not be denied another citizenship or other ties of family
and friendship, and let them find places of shelter standing
ready for refugees to the camp of piety.

ording to Philo, a proselyte was one who had completely severed
self from his people, friends, and kinsmen, and had embraced
aism with all his heart. He is obviously describing not a

i-proselyte but a full one.

1236. Moore, de., l: 327, Galatians 5:3. By “naturalized Jew"
e means accepting Judaism in its entirety as Philo describes below.

12“De Spec. Leg. I. 51 and 52.

lsthe subject of dnooéxerat = "approval" is certainly God, but
of MaAEt = “calls“ and the verbs that follow is more likely Moses
F. H. Colson's note on this passage, Philo, Loeb Classical Lib.,

7).

 

 

187

How was a proselyte fully admitted into the Jewish community?
The early initiatory rite consisted of three elements: circumcision,
baptism by immersion, and a sacrifice. In the case of women, only the
last two applied.126 After the destruction of the Temple, the sacri—
fice, a burnt-offering for which doves or pigeons sufficed,127 was
discontinued. Baptism, a practice well-established by the time of
Christ,128 remained as a basic observance for proselytes.

The proselyte, as well as the Jew, was obliged to observe the
whole law.129 He was expected to pay the sacred tribute.13o On the
other hand, only the portions of the proselyte's earnings liable after
his conversion were subject to the sacred tax.131

The proselytes were, in theory at least, equal to the Jews
before the law. On the other hand, there were certain social limita-
tions for proselytes which diminished their ”equality.” Only females
vho were less than three years and a day old at the time of their
10ther's conversion were equal with native Jewish women with respect

:0 the numerous matrimonial rights.132 Furthermore, female proselytes
____________________
126Kerithoth 81a.

127Mishna Keritot 2. l.

128Pesachim 8. 8, Edujoth 5. 2; Sharer, Jewish People, 2: 322ff;
Moore, Jud. l: 332ff.

129Galatians 5:3: "I testify again to every man who receives
ircumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.I

13°Shekalim I. 3, 6; Bikkurim I. 4.
131Pea IV. 6; Chullim X. 4; Challa III. 6.
132Kethuboth I. 2, 4; III. 1, 2.

 

 

188

'ere not at liberty to contract marriage with priests, nor were the

aughters of proselytes allowed to do so except in those instances in

hich one of the parents happened to be an Israelite by birth, in which

ase the privilege was extended to the tenth generation.133 0n the

ther hand, proselyte women were allowed to marry a person who had

een mutilated or emasculated, a thing which, according to the Torah,13“

ltive Jewesses were debarred from doing.135 The legal enactment to

19 effect that, if anyone through carelessness happened to strike a

man in such a way as to cause abortion, he was to give compensation,

d not apply to the case of proselyte women.136 A proselyte was

ver allowed to call the fathers of Israel ”his” fathers,137 while

the order of rank in the theocracy, a proselyte occupied a lower

ice even than a bastard and just above that of an emancipated slave.138
It is evident that a proselyte was, though in theory equal to

* Jew, considered by the native Jews as inferior. Nevertheless, the

atment of proselytes must have depended upon many circumstances:

community itself, who the proselyte was, and what was his social

financial status. The Jews of Alexandria probably treated their

133Jebamoth VI. 5; Kiddishim IV. 7; Bikkurim I. 5.
13“Deut. 23:2

135Jebamoth VIII. 2.

136Baba Kamma V. 4; E. SchUrer, Jewish People, 2: 325f.
137Bikkurim I. 4.

1”Horajoth III. 8.

 

189

proselytes with respect and equality, especially the Greek ones.

Philo was undoubtedly reflecting in his words139 the general attitude

of most Alexandrian Jews of his day.

The Law

The question of which judicial system was utilized by the
Alexandrian Jews is one which had led to much controversy. No one
doubts that the Jewish community at Alexandria possessed the right to
live according to their ancestral laws, that is, possessed their own
judicial system.1”° The Law of Moses, the Torah, was the basis of the
lewish judicial system. The problem arises over determining the influ-
ence of Hellenistic law on the Jewish system. Was the Jewish judicial
iystem utilized by a majority or a minority of the Alexandrian Jews?
'hen did the majority of Jews utilize their judicial system and when
id they utilize the Hellenistic legal system?

The sources, papyri and Philo's writings, compound the
ifficulties. The Greek papyri show that apparently a great number
f Jews accepted the Greek judicial system for certain transactions
1d procedures. Greek documents were used, and cases were tried in
‘eek courts.”1 The legal documents in the papyri reveal the

Illowing picture21“2

R

De Spec. Leg. I. 51 and 52.

MV. Tcherikover, C. P. Jud., 1: 32: "The existence of an
dependent law in the Jew1sh communities 15 beyond quest1on.

139

1“Ibid., pp. 33—36.
142111111.

190

The documents dealing with Jews were drawn up in the usual
manner of Hellenistic documents; even the prescript, containing
the full titles of deified kings, was never omitted.”3

When the document was drawn up in an office, it was not the
office of a Jewish community (even when both contracting parties
were Jews), but a regular government notary's office. The
government official, the agronomos, appended his signature.1”“

There are cases in the papyri where Jews brought legal disputes

to be settled before the Greek tribunals. In these cases also,

the documents were drawn in the usual Hellenistic fashion,
addressed as petitions to the king.”5
4. There are many examples of contracts between Alexandrian Jews,
such as loan contracts,”6 contracts upon the hiring of wet—
nurses,“+7 and a deed of divorce.”8 They were all written

in Greek by Greek officials, in the Hellenistic format and

courts.

Tcherikover concludes that "if the contract, the office, the

rt, were Greek, so were the laws and regulations, and thus we are

1“'i‘Ibid., NOS. 1, 18, 22-26.
1""“Ibid., Nos. 23 and 26.
ll+sIbid., Nos. 19, 37, and 128.
1“‘5Ibid., Nos. 148 and 149.
1”7Ibid., Nos. 146 and 147.
1”Ibid., No. 144.

 

 

191

'aced with the likelihood that Egyptian Jews lived not according
o the precepts of the Bible but according to the principles of
ellenistic common law.”1“9 Tcherikover notes two additional facts.
ne relates to the position of women in society. A Greek woman was
)t allowed to appear in court without a "guardian,” that is, a man
apresenting her and acting for her before the authorities.15° There
[8 no such provision in the Jewish law. Nevertheless, the papyri
ve several instances of Jewish women represented by ”guardians.”151
ilo apparently confirms the evidence of the papyri when, speaking
the betrothal of a woman, he emphasizes that the bridegroom has to
mand his bride from her parents or, if they are not alive, "from her
others, or tutors, or other guardians.“152
The second item relates to business affairs. The Biblical
)hibition on lending money at interest to a Jew is clear.153 The
1u1ations in the Talmud concerning this matter are even stronger.15“

:, the papyri show that Jews lent money to Jews at the regular inter-

. of 24 percent.155 ”Thus it may be inferred that in their business

”911,111., p. 34.

1“P. Meyer, Grieschische Texte aus Agypten (Berlin— —Leipzig:
3. Teubner, 1916), p. 31.

151C. P. Jud., NOS. 19, 26, 144, 146, 148, 149, 430, 453, 455.
152Ph110 De Spec. Leg., III. 67.

153Exod. 22:24; Deut. 23:20.

15"Mishna Baba Mezi'a 5. l, 7, 9. Tosephta Baba Mezi‘a 6. 10
155C. P. Jud., Nos. 20 and 24.

 

 

192

affairs as in matters of family law Egyptian Jews followed the common
juridical practice of the Ptolemaic kingdom.”156

Tcherikover does not deny that there were Jewish courts in
Egypt, nor does he deny the effectiveness of the autonomous Jewish
law in the Jewish communities. Rather, he stresses that the Egyptian
Jewry were faced with two contradictory tendencies: the desire to
follow old national and religious tradition, and the desire to par-
:icipate vigorously in all aspects of Hellenistic life. When the

lewish community as a whole was affected, the first tendency was

 

Iredominant. Individual Jews, on the other hand, when faced with

he innumerable petty problems of everyday life, were more disposed

 

0 follow the second.

 

But Tcherikover is basing all his conclusions on the evidence
f the Greek papyri. Naturally, these reflect transactions of the .
"eek courts, and therefore the evidence has to be considered one-
ided. I do not think the evidence proves that the majority of the
ewish community of Alexandria utilized the Greek courts and generally
'-passed the Jewish ones. Nor can it be determined how much influence
e Hellenistic system had over the years on the Jewish system. Good-
Ough has attempted to answer the latter question by a careful study
lPhilo's interpretation of the Biblical laws in De Specialibus
lipp§.157 Was Philo's interpretation a reflection of the real

‘idicial practice of the Jewish tribunals of Alexandria, or no

156Ibid., 1: 36.

157E. Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in
IQ§_(Amsterdam: Philo Press Publishers, 1968).

 

 

193

iore than his own interpretation? Goodenough affirms the former, and

am persuaded by his arguments.158 It is, of course, possible that
ere and there Philo utilized his own interpretation of the law, but
n general he was expounding the law as it was understood and applied
n the Jewish courts at Alexandria.

De Specialibus Legibus opens with a discussion of the law

 

aquiring circumcision, which Philo cannot class under any of the

en Commandments, but defends for health reasons as well as spiritual
les.159 After this preface, Philo passes to the real subject of his
*eatise, an examination of the individual statutes by which the legal
'inciples laid down in the Decalogue are applied to specific problems.
e first two commandments deal with the matter of One God, monotheism,
d Philo defends these laws with vigor.160 Philo then deals with the
oof of God's existence,161 with the value of meditation on the Divine

ture,162 and finally with the regulations of worship.163

De Special—
15 Legibus II opens with the Third Commandment.16“ While swearing at
I is to be deprecated, since the simple word should be enough, to

ear by parents or by heaven and the like is better than using God‘s

15‘5Ibid., pp. 12-29.

159Philo De Spec. Leg. 1. 11, 12.
160Ibid., 13ff.

161Ibld., 32-35.

162Ibld., 36—50.

163Ibld., 66—298.

16L'1-38.

 

 

194

name. After a study of the Fourth Commandment, in which jppgp
2112) the Sabbath is explained,165 Philo deals with the Fifth Com-
mandment, ”Honor your father and your mother.” ”When Philo comes to
discuss the Fifth Commandment, he does so from a Graeco-Roman basis
almost entirely.“166 Parents are regarded almost as divine.167 Thus
parents have the right to “beat and degrade” their children if they do
10t obey. Parents ultimately have the right, says Philo, of extending
the punishment to death.168
De Specialibus Legibus III and IV_deal with the rest of the

'en Commandments. In brief, adultery is condemned by Philo, and so
re marriages with mothers, step-mothers, sisters, and aliens.169
. woman who has been divorced and then married another may not return
0 her first husband.170 Graver faults, yet, are pederasty171 and
estiality.172 A harlot is worthy of death.173 Murder is a sacrilege
1d deserves the death penalty.17“ While unpremeditated murder may be

165Philo also deals with the many festivals observed by the Jews,
1ch as the New Moon, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the
entecost, the Feast of Trumpets, etc.

166Goodenough, Courts, p. 67.

 

167Philo De Spec. Leg. II. 225. Parents are in a position
alogous to God, since they too are Creators.

168Ibid., 232. 169Ibid., III. 7—29.
170Ibid., 31-33. 171Ibid., 37—42.
1721bid., 48-50. 173Ibid., 51.

17L‘Ibid., 83—85.

 

195

175

less heinous, no mercy must be shown to poisoners.176 Causing

1iscarriage by a blow is a capital crime if the child is fully

d 177 178

iorme It is also wrong to expose infants. Diverse laws
in robbery with and without violence are dealt with in part IV, as
re the last two commandments on false witness and coveting.
Philo mentions several Jewish courts, above all of which
tands the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.179 The highest Jewish
Jurt in Egypt which Philo mentions is the ”whole body of e1ders."18°
)odenough believes that the fact Philo specifies pp§p_in this case
Iggests that the gerousia might meet in other than plenary session,
vided into sections for periodic respite, or to hear different sorts
’ cases.181 The Theion dikasterion is mentioned by Philo as a court
hear the ordeals by oath.182 Oaths were used for different sorts
trials, particularly in cases where goods had been deposited with
other person who was later unable to restore these goods because
2y had disappeared without trace. An oath of innocence of any fraud,
an taken by the receiver before the ”divine tribunal" or ”court of

1" satisfied such a case entirely. But that all juridical oaths had

be heard before this court is not certain.

175Ibid., 92. 176Ibid., 93-99
177Ibid., 108-109. 17BIbid., 110-119.
179Ibid., III. 53.

18°Ibid., 80. h yepUUCa naoo met to judge on a charge of
Idulent misrepresentation of a daughter's virginity.

181Goodenough, Courts, p. 249.

 

182

De Spec. Leg. IV. 34.

 

 

196

In connection with actions for rural property damage, Philo

183

leaks of an agronomos. This man apparently was an official who
:gulated suits for damage done to property, including damage done
' domestic animals. One infers from Philo that there was a regular
ewish agronomos in the Jewish quarters of Alexandria, since he spe-
fically says that wage—disputes were settled by such an officer
:cording to Jewish law.18”
All judges took an oath of office by which they swore to

ve true decisions,185 and the courts, if we may judge from Philo's
:position, were conducted with high standards of integrity.186 Fees
are not allowed for decision, and personal predilections were to be
ven no consideration.187 The judge's decisions were to be based
on two things only: the evidence and the law.188 Evidence was

be carefully studied. Hearsay evidence was strictly prohibited.189
ials were conducted on the basis of documentary evidence, as inter-
eted by legal precedent. When documentary evidence was missing,
tnesses were called in.
”It is unfortunate that Philo's apologetic inversion of

thought processes has limited him to defending the Torah with

183Ibid., 193-96.

18“Ibid.

185Ph11o pg_pggalggg_l4l-

186ph110 g§_§2§£;_L§g, IV. 55, 55.
18715111., 57, 58, 62-64-

188Ibid., 59—50.

189Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

its provisions, and that as a result the large body of laws which the
Jews must have enforced which were not in the Torah are represented
only by casual digressions. . . . But we must be thankful for what
survives: for it is one of the most comprehensive pictures of a legal
practice which we have of any people from that period."190

There seems to be enough evidence to conclude that the Jews
of Alexandria utilized both their own courts and judicial system as
well as the Greek courts and system. Why and when one or the other
was used by individual Jews cannot be determined with any degree of
certainty. Perhaps certain Greek legal documents had become so common
that they were utilized by Greeks and Jews alike. It seems that an
individual Jew could choose the courts and judicial system he wished
to use, and perhaps expediency played a role in the choice. The Greek
‘system might have been quicker and more widely recognized than the
Jewish one. What must be considered a fact is the existence in Alex—
andria of an independent judicial system for the Jewish community, a
system that was in use and was used in one fashion or another by the

majOrity of the Alexandrian Jews during the Ptolemaic period.

Literature

Hellenized Jews took an active part in the literary production
)f the Hellenistic age. Their prime purpose centered around strength-
ening the faith of their co-religionists, while at the same time con—
‘incing the Gentile readers of the greatness of Israel's history and

he soundness of her beliefs.

190Goodenough, Courts, p. 255.

 

 

198

The chief seat of Hellenistic Judaism, and consequently of
Graeco-Jewish literature, was Alexandria. Through the exertions and
generous patronage of the Ptolemies, this city had been raised to
the first rank as a place of Hellenistic scholarship. Its famous
library and museum afforded scholars and writers much material upon
vhich to draw. In this propitious environment, Jewish Hellenistic
literature reached great heights.

The foundation of all Judaeo-Hellenistic culture was the
lflCIGht Greek translation of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint.
"he Letter of Aristeas presents a romantic account of the origins of
his translation. The author of the Lpppgp, supposedly a man living
n the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285—246 B.C.), relates that
he king wished that a translation be made into Greek of the Jewish
aws of which he had heard high praises. Demetrius of Phalerum, who
IS in charge of the library, was assigned the task of arranging a
‘anslation. The king also wrote to the High Priest of the Jews in
rusalem requesting help in this enterprise. Eleazar, the High Priest,
nt 72 elders, six from each tribe, to Alexandria to do the transla—
on. These men were knowledgeable not only in Jewish literature and
iguage, but also in Greek. When they arrived in Alexandria, the king
iediately had them admitted into his presence. “This procedure struck
tryone as strange, for it was the custom that those who came on offi—
1 business gained access to the royal presence on the fifth day,
1e visitors from kings and prominent cities were barely admitted

the court in thirty days. But he thought that these men who had

199

come were worthy of higher honor and rightly judged the eminence of
him who had sent them, and so, dismissing all persons he considered
superfluous, he waited, walking to and fro, to greet them on their
arrival."191
The elders, admitted into the king's presence, showed him the

”precious parchments on which the Law was inscribed in Jewish letters
with writing of gold."192 After the king had examined the rolls, and
“after bowing deeply some seven times said, 'I thank you, good sirs,
and him that sent you even more, but most of all I thank God whose
holy words these are.‘ And when all with one accord, both those newly
come and those already present, exclaimed in a single voice, 'Excellent,
Your Majesty!“ he was moved to tears out of the fullness of his joy.”193
1 banquet followed which lasted seven days and during which the king
[sked many questions of the elders. The answers were all wise, and the
:ing was very impressed. Three talents of silver and a slave were given
0 each of the elders.

Demetrius then took the 72 elders, ”crossed the breakwater,
even stades long [the Heptastadium] to the island [Pharos]. . . .
iere he called a meeting in a mansion built by the seashore, mag-

11 191+

‘ficently appointed and in a secluded situation. There, provided

th everything they needed, they proceeded to their task, “making all

191Letter of Aristeas l75.
192Ibl'd., 176.

193Ibid., 177, 178.
191+Ibid., 301.

200

details harmonize by mutual comparisons. The appropriate result of
the harmonization was reduced to writing under the direction of
Demetrius.“195 Every day the elders appeared in court early in the
morning to pay their respects to the king, and then they returned to
work on the translation. The work-sessions lasted until 3:00 p.m.
(the ”ninth hour”), after which the elders broke up to take care of
their bodily needs. Work itself was immediately preceded by the wash-
ing of hands and prayer to God.196 The spot where they worked was
obviously well situated for this task. “They forgathered every day

to this spot, so delightful for its seclusion and its clear light, and
carried out their appointed task. And so it came about that the work
of transcription was completed in seventy-two days, as if this coinci—

dence had been the result of some design.”197

When the work was concluded, Demetrius assembled the Jewish
:ommunity at the spot where the translation had taken place. There it
vas read to the entire gathering, in the presence of the translators.

great ovation was given to the latter at the conclusion of the read—
ig, "and they accorded Demetrius a similar reception, and requested
1m to have a transcription of the entire Law made and to present it

1 their rulers.”193

1951bid., 302.
196Ibid., 305.
197Ibid., 307.
19BIbid., 309.

 

 

201

Then the priests, and the leaders of the people and of the
politeuma,199 rose up and said: ”Inasmuch as the translation has
been well and piously made and is in every respect accurate, it is
right that it should remain in its present form and that no revision
of any sort take place."2°° Everyone approved of these words, and a
curse was pronounced on any who should revise the text by adding or
transposing anything whatsoever, ”so that the work might be preserved
imperishable and unchanged always.“2°1

A full report was made to the king, and the entire work was
read to him. The king was so pleased and so astonished at the wisdom
of the law-giver, that he asked Demetrius why no one before had dealt
with this subject. Demetrius answered that the Law was so holy that
those who were not fit to write on the subjects had been smitten by
God when they had attempted to do so. Such was the case, explained
Demetrius, of Theopompus who had suffered derangement of the mind
when he had attempted to introduce into his work certain portions of
the Law. God finally restored him to health after he had desisted
from his purpose. Theodectes, the tragic poet, had suffered cataracts
Ihen he had attempted a similar project, and only after he had earnestly

vesought God had his ailment been removed.202

 

199Ibid. 06 upeoBOTepoc Mat t0v dub toO noXcreOpuTog.

200Ibid., 310.

 

201Ibid., 311.
2OZIbid., 313—316.

 

202

The king then sent the elders back to Jerusalem with many gifts
for Eleazar: ten couches with legs of silver, shallow bowls and plates,
two mixing bowls of gold, and several other precious objects.“3 The
king also sent a letter with a standing invitation for Eleazar's
scholars to visit his court anytime in the future.

I have not found any scholar who accepts the account of the
Letter of Aristeas at face-value. In fact, the letter itself does not,
as it claims, date from the reign of Ptolemy II, but from c. 130 B.C.,2°”
and therefore is a forgery. Possibly Pseudo-Aristeas is reflecting some
historical tradition, the essence of which is that Ptolemy Philadelphus
did entrust a group of scholars with a translation of the Jewish law,
the Pentateuch. On the other hand, some scholars argue that Alexandrian
Jews themselves called for the translation because they had all but
forgotten Hebrew, and therefore needed to have their sacred writings
available in the Greek language they understood.

When, exactly, the first translation took place cannot be
determined; but, as time went by, no doubt several revisions were made

of the early and probably rather inexact translation. The Letter of

 

203Ibid., 313—316.
20“Hadas, Aristeas, p. 54.

2”Schlirer, Jewish Peo 1e, Div. II, Vol. II, p. 161; Paul E.
ahle, The Cairo Geniza 1New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers,
959), pp. 209—211.

 

 

203

Aristeas may have been a piece of propaganda for the most recent and
most authoritative of these revisions.206

Once the Torah had been made accessible to Hellenistic Jews,
the need to have the rest of the Scriptures in a Greek translation
became evident. Hence, translations first of the Prophets and after-
wards of the Hagiographa followed. These too chiefly originated in
Egypt-2°7

What is the importance of the Septuagint? Ralph Marcus offers
several reasons why the Greek translation of the Bible by the Jewish
scholars of Alexandria proved one of the most important translations
ever made.208 First, the Septuagint is a valuable control of the
traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, known as the Masora. Secondly,
this early translation, having been made by competent scholars with
some knowledge of early Palestinian exegesis, is of great aid in
yinterpreting some obscure passages in the Hebrew. In the third place,
the Septuagint was the source of a number of secondary versions made
for the early Christian churches, so that through this work the con-
tents of the Hebrew Bible became known to the peoples of Europe and

206Ibid. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford:

at the Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 60ff., disagrees on this point: "As
Kahle's theory involves two hypothetical elements, namely a compara—
tively late date for Aristeas and the postulate of an otherwise unknown
'Biblical Commission' from which emanated a revised official Greek ver—

sion of the Jewish Scriptures, further evidence in its support must
come to light before it can be regarded as probable.“

 

207Sch'drer, Jewish People, II, 2: l62ff.

208Ralph Marcus, "Hellenistic Jewish Literature,“ The Jews, ed.
. Finkelstein (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), p. 46.

 

204

Western Asia. In the fourth place, the Greek Bible played a
considerable part in the gradual transformation of Greek philosophy
into the theology of the Church Fathers and into the influential body
of thought known to Neoplatonism. These, in turn, exerted an immeas-
urably great influence on medieval scholasticism. Philo's great work
of harmonizing Greek philosophy with Judaism, which deeply influenced
early and medieval Christian theologians, would have been almost impos—
sible if he had not had at his disposal an official Greek translation
of the Hebrew Bible. And, finally, the existence of the Septuagint

was indispensable to the rise of Christianity. The earliest Christian
apostles to the Gentiles would probably have had much less success in
converting Jews of the Diaspora and Gentiles in general to Christianity
if they had not had an authoritative Greek text of the Jewish Scriptures

to support their claim that Jesus was Christ.

Historical Literature

 

The church father Eusebius has preserved in his ninth book of

the Evangelical Prgparation fragments from three historical writers

 

, who might have been Alexandrians.209 Eusebius took excerpts from a
Universal History compiled by Alexander Polyhistor, a Greek encyclo-
‘ pedist of the first century B.C. Alexander, in turn, included excerpts
from the writers in question.

2°91bid., p. 47. Marcus says they “probably” were Alexandrians,
(but he does not offer any conclusive evidence to substantiate his

assertion. Nevertheless, I will follow his analysis of these writers
in this section.

 

205

Some time near the end of the third century B.C. a Jew by the
name of Demetrius wrote a history of Israel in brief chronological
form. The extant fragments deal with some of the events in the lives
of Jacob and Moses, and with the number of years that elapsed between
the Israelite deportation to Assyria and the writer's own date, the
reign of Ptolemy IV.210

The second group of fragments derives from Eupolemus, who wrote
a history of the Jews about the middle of the second century B.C. Like
most Hellenistic Jewish historians, Eupolemus embellished his work with
legendary material showing the Jews in a most favorable light. The
most extensive fragment preserved by Eusebius deals with the building 1
of the Temple of Solomon.211

The third historian was Artapanus, who asserted that Moses was
none other than the Greek Museus and the Egyptian Hermes (Toth). The
Jews were a distinguished people of Syrian origin, and not the
descendents of plague—carrying outcasts from Egypt.212

In spite of the meager information available on these three
Jewish historians, certain inferences can nevertheless be made con-
cerning them. First, they were Jewish historians (possibly Alexan-
drians) dedicated to writing on the history of the Jews, using the Old

Testament as their main source. Second, their writings were mainly for

21"Eusebius Praep. Evang. IX. 21 and 29.
2111bid., 30-34.
212Ibld., 27.

 

206

non—Jewish people, and they were apologetic in nature. In a sense

these men can be considered the forerunners of Philo and Josephus.

Philosophic Literature

 

Among the Alexandrian philosophers who preceded Philo, there
is one writer of whose work extensive enough fragments have been
preserved to enable us to form some notion of the more strictly
philosophical literature produced by Philo's co—religionists. The
Alexandrian Aristobulus was a Hellenistic philosopher in the proper

sense.213

He was acquainted with, and expressly quotes the Greek
philosophers Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and was at home with their
views as a philosopher. According to the church father Clement of
Alexandria, Aristobulus was a contemporary of Ptolemy VI Philometor,21“
who reigned from 181 to 145 B.C. He attempted to harmonize the Law of
Moses with the teachings of Greek philosophy in a work titled Interpre-

tation of the Law of Moses.215 Like Philo after him, Aristobulus

 

attempted to show that the Mosaic law, if correctly understood, already
contained all that the best Greek philosophers subsequently taught.216
The best known of the Hellenistic philosophers of Alexandria

is, of course, Philo. His main effort also was to prove to the Gentiles

213Schijrer, Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. II, p. 237.
21“Clement of Alexandria Stromateis I. 22. 150.
215Euseb. Praep. Evang. VII. 13. 7. Also Hist. Eccl. v11. 32. 16.

216Euseb. Praep. Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 10; XIII. 12; Clement
trom. I. 15. 72; 22. 150; V. 14. 97; VI. 3. 32.

 

and his fellow Jews that the views expressed by many Greek philosophers

were very similar to Jewish beliefs.
Very little is known of the man Philo. According to Josephus,

he was a brother of the Alabarch Alexander,217 and, consequently, a

member of one of the most aristocratic families of Alexandrian Jews.

The only event in his life which can be chronologically fixed is his

participation in the embassy to Caligula in 39/40 A.D., of which he

furnishes an account in Embassy to Gaius. Since at that time he was

of advanced age,218 he probably was born c. 20 B.C. It is not known

whether Philo was throughout his life very active politically in the l

Alexandrian Jewish community, though there is no contrary evidence.219 ,
Philo was a man of multiple interests, who was in touch with

all aspects of life in Alexandria. He was the habitué of theaters,

the games, and the banquets of this city. After attending some of the

athletic contests, he comments on the skills of the boxers and their

physical fitness.220 He tells of being at the chariot races where

excitement ran so high that some of the spectators rushed into the

:ourse and were killed.221 He describes the enthusiasm of the crowd
.___________________

217A_mt_. XVIII. 8. 1.

218Philo Embassy 28.

219E. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: _Yale
niversity Press, 1938), pp. 1—20, argues that Ph1lo was qu1te act1ve
n politics during his life.

220Philo Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 26.

221Euseb. Praep. Evang. VIII. 14. 58.

 

 

 

208

at the performance of a now lost play of Euripides.222 And it is
obvious from his writings that he was knowledgeable in Greek poetry
and philosophy.223 Philo sought to find the highest truths of Greek
philosophy, science, and religion in the laws of Moses. Like Aris-
tobulus he used whatever Greek philosophical theories were convenient
for adaptation to his allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The
result is a presentation of the Old Testament in a way which could be
understood by the Hellenistic thinkers of his day. In parts, his
presentation is a blend of Greek philosophic ideas and expressions
with Judaic teachings. Other times his statments appear as an attempt
to fit Jewish thought into Greek philosophy and vice-versa. He made
consistent use of the Platonic doctrine that the immaterial ideas are
superior to sense—perceived matter. From Plato and the Stoics he
derived his theory of intermediate beings between God and the world,

22“ In Philo's writings, the

especially the one he calls the lpgpg.
term lpgp§_means reason, wisdom, speech, or word. It is a process
which begins with God, where it is one and spirit, and culminates in
the multifarious phenomena of the universe where it is many, concrete,

and material.225 The logos is more than the quickening principle of

222Philo Quod Omnis 141.

‘ 223Much literature has been produced on Philo of Alexandria.
Almost half of Goodenough's book Politics is dedicated to an enumer-
ation of modern works on Philo. It would be outside the scope of this

work to attempt even a general survey.

22l+Philo De Confusione Linguarum 40-43; 134-139; Quis Rerum
‘Divinarum Heres 133-143; 201-206.

 

225Philo De Somniis II. 37; J. B. Agus, The Evolution of Jewish

 

Thought (London: Abelard-Schuman, Ltd., 1959), p. 88.

 

 

divine intelligence; it is also the flow of His love and redeeming
grace.226

Philo's allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and the use
of Biblical symbols to describe the pilgrimage of the soul to the
eternal truth of God, are exceptionally ingenious. Not only do the
Patriarchs and the sacred cult objects serve Philo as symbols of moral
and religious ideas, but even such common objects as rivers, mountains,
plants, and animals are all made to play a part in this dramatic com—

7

position.22 Again, in Philo's method of interpreting the Scriptures,

the influence of Hellenism can be clearly recognized.

Conclusion

The Alexandrian and Egyptian Jews, like other Jewish people in
the Diaspora, felt the pressure of two contradictory tendencies: one,
to safeguard their religious traditions, to be faithful to the Law of
Moses and to the precepts of their God. The second tendency was to fit
into the climate of ideas in which they lived, to be like the rest of
the people that surrounded them.

Plentiful evidence shows that the Jews of Alexandria were
similar in most ways to their brethren in Palestine and other countries
of the Diaspora. The synagogue was the religious center of the commu—
nity, and closely associated with it was the school. The people shared

in the same beliefs, participated in the same festivals (except for a

226Ibid., p. 89.

227Ralph Marcus, “Literature,” p. 77.

 

210

couple that were uniquely Alexandrian), and sent their tribute to the

Temple in Jerusalem.228
On the other hand, the influence of Hellenism can also be

clearly seen. From the typically Greek dedicatory inscriptions of

the synagogues to the increasingly common gymnastic education of Jewish

children, the tendency to become assimilated culturally was at work.

Some Jews openly betrayed their ancestral tradition and completely

229 Many others, while not going

abandoned their nation and religion.
that far, nevertheless gave up some of the stricter traditions. Mixed
marriages seem to have been quite common, and while Philo defends the
Mosaic prohibition against such marriages, he does so with uncharacter-
istic lack of force.230

The Greek language replaced Hebrew as the everyday language,
and the Jewish native tongue was all but forgotten. Many Jews started

taking Greek names. A study of names in the papyri shows a strong

tendency among Jews towards Hellenization.231

 

228The Alexandrian Jews looked upon the Temple at Jerusalem as
the center of Jewish religious life, and never recognized the Temple
of Onias at Leontopolis as a substitute to the one in Jerusalem.

229Such was the case of Dositheos, son of Drimylos, who ”changed
his faith and became a stranger to the laws of his fathers" (III Macc.
l: 3). Another case was that of Tiberius Julius Alexander, Philo's
nephew, who left Judaism and in a short time achieved a brilliant
career as a high Roman official (Jos. Jewish War VI. 237; C. P. Jud.,
no. 418 .

230Philo De Spec. Leg. III. 29; Baron, Soc. and Rel. Hist.,
2: 232-234.

231C. P. Jud. in no. 21, all five names preserved are Greek; in
no. 22, nine out of ten; in no. 23, all four; and so on. Many Jews
adopted Greek names such as Alexander, Ptolemy, Antipater, while some
even used names derived from Greek deities, such as Apollonius,
Heracleides, and Dionysus.

 

 

211

How many of the Alexandrian Jews were Hellenized and to what
degree is a matter of dispute. Did Philo for instance represent a
majority or a minority of Alexandrian Jews? That there was a group
opposed to Hellenism is evident from such literary works as III Mac-
cabees, the Book of Esther, and the Book of Judith. These works
represented the aggressive national spirit of Hasmonean Israel,
born with the rebellion of Judas the Maccabee.232 It is possible,
as Tcherikover maintains, that Philo represented the intelligentsia.233
The majority of Jews would be Hellenized to a degree, but not perhaps
to the extent of a Philo. A minority of fierce anti-Hellenists would
constitute the other extreme.

I am persuaded that Philo is speaking for a majority of Jews
at Alexandria. Perhaps the Jews of the Egyptian gpprp_fall into the
three groups that Tcherikover mentions, and in the quantities he pre—
scribes. At Alexandria, a cosmopolitan city where Greek culture was
at its height, the majority of Jews were probably Hellenized to a

much greater degree than their compatriots of the chora.

 

232Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 355.
233Ib1d.

CHAPTER VII

ANTI-SEMITISM IN ALEXANDRIA

During the Ptolemaic period, anti-Semitic1 feelings toward
the Jews of Alexandria did not manifest themselves physically, as they
would during the Roman period. Rather, we find these feelings expressed
through literary means, that is, through the writings of Manetho,
Apollonius Molon, Poseidonius, Lysimachus, and others.2

What caused these anti-Semitic feelings? One factor was that

the Greeks and Egyptians did not understand the religion of the Jews.

 

1The term "anti-Semitic” in the context of this work, has the
meaning of "anti-Jewish.”

2In all fairness, one must point out that the subject of anti-
Semitism during the Ptolemaic (and Roman) period is analyzed mainly on
the basis of the writings of Jewish authors such as Josephus and Philo.
In modern times, most writers on the subject are Jewish or have Jewish
connections. Therefore, it is possible that the picture of anti-Jewish
feelings could suffer from a lack of balance in favor of the Jews. It
is conceivable that Josephus and Philo misinterpreted or exaggerated the
statements of authors they quote as examples of anti-Semitism. Perhaps,
if the complete writings of the authors quoted by Josephus and Philo
were extant, a different meaning could be drawn from their words. Also,
it is not possible to determine (for at least the Ptolemaic period) how
far the anti-Semitic writers (no doubt the intelligentsia of the Hellen-
istic world) represented the great mass of Greeks of the Hellenistic
world. Certainly, the Jews on many occasions received privileged treat-
ment, especially from the Graeco-Roman authorities. Nevertheless, I
believe that anti-Semitism did exist in one form or another in Egypt
and Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period; if not, Josephus, Philo,
and the Jews in general would not have felt so defensive about the
subject, nor would they have written as much nor as vigorously in
defense of their people.

212

213

To them, the incomprehensible obstinacy of the Jews in refusing to
worship the pagan gods, while theirs could not be seen or heard, simply
meant that they had no god. The observance of the Sabbath could only
mean that the Jews had a propensity towards idleness. These and other
religious beliefs segregated the Jews from the rest of the population,
especially since marriage between Jews and Gentiles was normally
prohibited.

Another factor which aggravated the existing animosity was the
uncanny ability which the Jews possessed of always gaining the favor
of whichever power was in command at the time. From the time of the
Persians onward, there was always some type of alliance between the
ruling minority and the Jews. Naturally, the oppressed native majority
felt resentment against them, a resentment many times justified by the
treatment suffered at the hands of Jewish tax—collectors and other gov-
ernment officials. After the Roman conquest, the Greeks realized that
they now had become the subject population. They did not even have a
Council in Alexandria, while the Jews, who once again appeared to have
found favor in the eyes of the new conquerors, maintained their gerousia,
their ethnarchs, their synagogues, and their judicial system. The anti-
Semitic feelings during the Roman period became a means of showing
hostility against Rome.

As far as extant evidence permits us to judge, literary anti—
Semitism originated in Egypt.3 The Egyptian priest Manetho was the

first to speak of the Jews with detestation. Such detestation had been

3Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 358.

214

unknown to the Greeks previously. Their first encounters with the Jews
had aroused no antipathy among them. On the contrary, they looked upon
the Jews as members of a unique people devoted to philosophic observa-
tion. According to Josephus, Clearchus of Soli related a story of a
meeting between Aristotle and a Jew who was a Greek "not only in

language, but also in spirit,”‘+

and who sought the acquaintance of

Aristotle because he was interested in Greek philosophy. In the end,

said Clearchus, Aristotle and his pupils learned from him and not he

from them. An interesting point that Clearchus mentioned concerned the

origin attributed to the Jews: ”The Jews are the descendants of the g

philosophers of India. They say that the philosophers are called

from their place of habitation, Judah. The name of their town, which
is very strange, is Hierousaleme.“5

Megasthenes, one of the intimates of Seleucus I, also spoke
about the Jews as philosophers. Megasthenes visited India between
302 and 291 B.C. on diplomatic business and wrote a book on that
country. ”Everything recorded by the wise men of ancient times about
nature is to be found also among the philosophers outside Greece, part
among the Brahmans in India, part in Syria among the people known as

Jews.”6

 

“Jos. C. Ap. I. 175—183.
5Ibid., 179.

6Theodore Reinach, Textes D'Auteurs Grecs et Romains Relatifs au
Judaism (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963; first ed. by

Kalanoi among the Indians, Jews among the Syrians; the name is derived
Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1895), No. 8. l

 

 

215

Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, referred to the Jews in
the following terms: “They discourse together about the Divine,
because they are philosophers by nature, and at night they observe
the stars, watching them and addressing them in their prayers.”7

Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Ptolemy I, was another
Greek writer who dealt with the Jews.8 According to him, Moses did
not merely enter Palestine, but also founded Jerusalem and other towns,
and built the Temple. In Hecataeus' version of the Exodus, a severe
epidemic had spread over Egypt, and the Egyptian population ascribed
the cause to the wrath of the gods. These were venting their anger
on the Egyptians for allowing strange deities and cults to overshadow
the local gods and their shrines, which stood empty and forsaken. To
appease the gods of Egypt, the Egyptians resolved to expel all for-
eigners. The stronger and cleverer among those expelled formed con—
tingents which crossed to Greece, and the remainder of the exiles
departed to the land of Judaea, which was then a desert. Thus the
Jews became a people. There are not yet strong signs of anti-Semitism
in this story. A hint, however, is to be found in the remark that
Moses initiated a form of life encouraging seclusion from humankind
and hatred of aliens.9

It was during the reign of Ptolemy II that the Egyptian priest

Manetho published his Egyptian history, which he wrote for the Greeks

7Ibid., No. 5 = Euseb. Praep. Evang. IX, 2.
8Ibid., No. 9 and Diod. Sic. Book XL.
9Diod. XL. 3 and 4.

 

 

 

216

in their own language. Two passages of his work have been preserved
by Josephus. In the first one10 no real anti—Semitic feelings are
found. Manetho tells of the Hyksos who attacked Egypt and ruled it
for over five hundred years. After being forced out of Egypt, they
turned toward Syria, and on their way founded the city of Jerusalem
in the land of Judaea. Thus, Manetho identified these “king-shepherds”
with the ancestors of the Jews.11

The second passage, however, is laden with anti—Semitic
feelings.12 Manetho is here recounting legends he had collected
apparently from among the Egyptian priesthood. According to his story,
King Amenhotep, wishing to be granted a vision of the gods, was told to

purge the entire country of lepers and other “polluted persons“ and his

 

wish would be granted by the gods. Delighted at hearing this, he col-
lected all the maimed people in Egypt, numbering 80,000, and sent them
to work in the stone-quarries, on the east side of the Nile, segregating
them from the rest of the Egyptians. Included among these people were
many afflicted with leprosy, some of them learned priests. Later on,
the king assigned the abandoned city of Avaris, which had belonged to
the Hyksos, to these sick people.
After an undetermined amount of time these people decided to

rebel against the king; they fortified themselves at Avaris, elected as

10Jos. C. Ap. I. 73—106.

11Ibid., 103. Josephus feels that Manetho is implying that the
”so-called shepherds” were the ancestors of the Jews.

12Ibid., 228—253.

 

 

217

their leader one of the priests of Heliopolis whose name was Osarsiph,
and swore to obey all his orders. His very first order was that no one
should henceforth worship the Egyptian gods, and that, in addition, the
people should slaughter and eat the animals which were sacred to the
Egyptians. He further forbade them to associate with any person who
was not a member of their confederacy.

After this, Osarsiph sent an embassy to the Hyksos, the

”shepherds,I who had been expelled by Tuthmosis and were not residing

in Jerusalem. He invited the Hyksos to come down to Egypt and join them
in their rebellion. The Hyksos, delighted with the idea, eagerly set
off for Egypt and, 200,000 strong, soon reached Avaris.

When Amenhotep heard the news of the invasion, he was terribly
perturbed. He collected the sacred animals which were held in the
temples, and instructed the priests in each district to conceal the
images of the gods as securely as possible. He entrusted his five-year
old son Sethos to the care of a friend, and then crossed the Nile with
an army of 300,000 men to meet the enemy. Instead, however, of engaging
them, he turned back toward Memphis because he felt that he was about to
fight the gods (?). There he picked up Apis and the other sacred
animals which had been brought there, gathered his army and “the

Egyptian population,“ and set out for Ethiopia. There the Egyptians
were accommodated by its king, cities were assigned to them, and food
provided. For a period of thirteen years, the Egyptians remained in

Ethiopia.

 

 

218

In the meantime, the shepherds and their allies, the polluted
Egyptians, ruled Egypt in a most oppressive and cruel fashion. Towns
and villages were burned, temples were plundered, images of the gods
defiled and mutilated. The priests were forced to slaughter the sacred
animals and roast them so that they could be eaten by the oppressors.
At about this time Osarsiph gave these people a constitution and a code
of laws, and then changed his name to Moses.13

Eventually, Amenhotep gathered courage and attacked the lepers
with a large army. The lepers and shepherds were defeated, and those
that remained were pursued back to Syria. It is implied that the Hyksos
returned whence they had come, to Jerusalem, and that the lepers went
with them. Evidently, Moses led the entire group of survivors back to
Judaea. Thus the Jews of the time of Manetho would be the descendants
of the Hyksos and the Egyptian lepers, and the description given by
Manetho of the activity of the lepers in Egypt was directed undoubtedly
against the Jews.1“

Manetho, as an Egyptian priest, was replying to the Biblical
story of the Exodus, which does not distinguish itself for its sympathy
towards the Egyptians. Manetho probably did not invent the reply him-
self, but rather collected the legends and stories used by the Egyptian

priests as material in their disputations with the Jews.15

 

13Jos. C. A9. I. 250.
1"Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 363.
15Ibid.

 

 

 

219

Another anti-Jewish writer mentioned by Josephus was the
Alexandrian Lysimachus,16 who lived during the first century B.C.17
Lysimachus also wrote referring to the Jews as lepers. According to
this account, the Jews, who in addition to being lepers were also
afflicted with "scurvy and other maladies,” took refuge in the temples
and lived a mendicant existence in the reign of a certain Bocchoris.
"The victims of disease being very numerous, a famine ensued throughout
Egypt."18 King Bocchoris immediately sent an embassy to consult the
oracle of Ammon, situated at an oasis in the Libyan desert. The god
told the king that the failure of the crops was due to the temples'
desecration by the impure and impious people, and that these should
be driven out of the land into the wilderness. Those afflicted with
leprosy and scurvy, however, should be drowned. The king had a list
made of all the unclean people. Then he had his army drive part of
the unclean people into the wilderness, while the lepers were packed
in sheets of lead and drowned in the ocean.

That night, the survivors in the desert were instructed by a
certain Moses to march until they had reached inhabited country. So
they traversed the desert and, after reaching inhabited country, mal-
treated the population, plundered and set fire to the temples, until

they came to Judaea, where they built a city in which they settled.

16Jos. C. Ap. I. 303-320.
17E. SchUrer, Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. III, No. 33, p. 254.
1BJOS. C. Ap. I. 305.

 

 

 

220

They called this town Hierosyla ("town of temple-robbers") because of
their sacrilegious propensities. ”At a later date, when they had risen
to power, they altered the name, to avoid disgraceful imputation, and

called the city Hierosolyma and themselves Hierosolymites."19

2>

third author who dealt with the departure of the Jews from
Egypt was Chaeremon.2° According to this account, Isis appeared to
Amenophis in his sleep, and reproached him for the destruction of her
temple in war—time. The sacred scribe Phritobautes told him that if

he purged Egypt of its contaminated population, Isis would be appeased.
The king, therefore, collected 250,000 afflicted persons and banished
them from the country. The leaders of these people were Moses and
Joseph. The exiles, upon reaching Pelusium, joined a body of 380,000
persons left there by Amenophis, who had refused them permission to
cross the Egyptian frontier.21 The entire body now turned back on
Egypt and attacked Amenophis, who fled to Ethiopia leaving behind his
pregnant wife. The latter took refuge in a cavern and there gave birth

to a son named Ramesses. When Ramesses grew up, he drove the Jews out

19Ibid., 311.

20Jos. C. Ap. I. 288-302. Chaeremon was a Stoic philosopher and
a librarian of Alexandria who lived in the first century A.D. He was
afterwards the tutor of Nero. He wrote a History of Egypt and also a
work on hieroglyphics (see E. SchUrer, Jewish People, 11, 3: 255).
Chaeremon and Apion (see below), though belonging to the early Roman
period, refer to beliefs prevalent also during the Ptolemaic times, and
base themselves on Ptolemaic sources. Both authors generally fit into
the category of anti-Jewish writers previously mentioned.

21Chaeremon does not explain who these 380,000 persons were or
where they had originated.

 

 

 

221

of Egypt into Syria, and then brought his father Amenophis back home
from Ethiopia.

The grammarian Apion also included a report on the Jewish
Exodus in his History of Egypt.22 According to Apion, Moses was a
native of Heliopolis who in that city built prayer—houses all facing
east. This Moses led an exodus of lepers, blind, and lame out of Egypt
in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, the year of the foundation
of Carthage. The number of people that left Egypt was 110,000. After
marching for six days, they all developed tumors in the groin. That is

why, after reaching Judaea, they rested on the seventh day, and called

 

it "sabbaton,“ preserving the Egyptian terminology for disease of the
groin, “sabbo.”23 Thus, Apion explains the origin of the Jewish
"Sabbath.”

Apion also related another anti—Semitic story which seems to
have gained widespread acceptance during the Ptolemaic and Roman period.
It referred to the Jewish cult of an ass in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Following the earlier accounts of Poseidonius,”+ Damocritos,25 and

22Jos. §;_Ap, II. 8—27. Born in upper Egypt, Apion studied at
Alexandria and taught rhetoric in Rome under Tiberius and Claudius.
Under Caligula, he headed the anti-Jewish deputation sent from Alexan-

dria to the Emperor, when he was opposed to Philo (Jos. App, XVIII.
257ff.). This is the same Apion against whom Josephus wrote his

Contra Apionem.
23Jos. C. Ap. II. 21.

2"Diod. XXXIV. l, 3 = Reinach, Textes, No. 25. Poseidonius was
born in 135 B.C. in Syria.

25Reinach, Textes, No. 60. Damocritus was, according to Reinach,
probably a contemporary of Chaeremon and Lysimachus. He wrote a work
entitled On the Jews which is not extant.

 

 

 

222

others, Apion related that when Antiochus Epiphanes entered the Holy

of Holies, he saw there the statue of a bearded man riding on an ass

and holding a book. The man was Moses, who gave the Jews laws of hatred
toward all mankind.25 The ass's head was of pure gold, worth a very
high price.

This valuable and sacred ass-head was once stolen during a long
war between the Jews and the Idumaeans.27 An inhabitant of the city of
Dorii by the name of Zabidus came out to the Jews and promised them to
deliver Apollo, the god of Dorii, into their hands. The Jews believed

his words, whereupon Zabidus constructed an apparatus of wood, inserted

 

in it three rows of lamps, and put it over his person. Thus arrayed

he walked about, presenting the appearance of stars circling the earth.
Astounded at this amazing spectacle, the Jews kept their distance, in
perfect silence. Zabidus then passed into the sancturary, snatched up
the golden head, and made off quickly to Dorii. Apion does not explain
how the Jews got their golden ass—head back, since apparently this

Idumaean war took place before the visit of Antiochus to the Temple.

26Tacitus Hist. V. 3ff. explains the relation between Moses
and the ass in the Temple by stating that when Moses was in the desert
leading the exodus, he followed a herd of wild asses and discovered
water in the wilderness. From then onward, the Jews held the ass as
a sacred animal, and paid divine honors to it in their temple. Tacitus
also explains the observance of the Sabbath as an act of idleness, the
abstinence from swine flesh as due to the fact that this animal is
peculiarly liable to the itch, the very disease that made the Jews
suffer so much during the exodus and wanderings through the desert,
and the use of unleavened bread as an evidence that the Jews stole
wheat at the time of the exodus.

 

27Jos. C. Ap. II. 112—120.

 

 

223

The origins of this strange slander are not known. It is
perhaps connected with the Egyptian myth of the deity Typhon or Set,

a The ass was the sacred

god of evil and the opponent of Osiris.2
animal of Typhon, and Plutarch relates that, after a battle, the god
fled on an ass for seven days. Having been saved from death, he begot
two sons, Jerusalem and Judah.29 In this myth Typhon appears as the
ancestor of the Jews, and since Poseidonius described Moses as an old

man riding on an ass,3°

it is quite possible that the anti-Semites
equated Moses with Typhon, symbol of evil.
Another slander whose origin is obscure refers to the account

of the ritual murder. Baron believes the story was created to justify

 

Antiochus Epiphanes after he had desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem.31
Tcherikover believes that the king appears in the story only for con-

venience.32

In any case, the myth was invented and was believed by
most people of that time.

According to Damocritos, the Jews made a practice of kidnaping
a foreigner every seven years, killing him, and then cutting his flesh

into small pieces.33 Apion had a more detailed version.3“ When

 

28Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 365.

29Reinach, I§y§g§, No. 68 = Plutarch 0n Isis and Osiris 31.
3°Diod. XXXIV. l and 3 = Reinach, Ipyppgg No. 25.

31Baron, A Soc. and Rel. Hist., 1: 192ff.

 

32Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., p. 367.

33Reinach, Textes, No. 60.

 

3"Jos. C. Ap. II. 91ff.

 

 

Antiochus entered the Temple, he found a couch, on which a man was
reclining. In front of the man was a table laden with good food,
such as fish, fowls, and other meats. The "poor fellow was gazing

in stupefaction" at the table and its contents when the king walked
in. The appearance of the ruler brought great happiness to the man,
who "hailed him with adoration.“ The man fell at the king's feet and,
stretching out his arms in supplication, implored the king to set him
free. The king reassured the man and asked him who he was, why he was
there, and what was the meaning of the banquet set before him. With
sighs and tears, the man, ”in a pitiful tone," told him the following
story. He was a Greek who, while traveling about the province making
his livelihood, was suddenly kidnapped by men of a foreign race, and
conveyed to the temple. There he had been locked and secluded from
everybody, but was being fattened on feasts of the most lavish descrip—
tion. At first he was deceived by all these attentions, and felt him-
self to be quite fortunate. But then he became suspicious and finally
extremely worried. He asked some of his attendants the reason for all
that had occurred to him and was told the horrible secret. Every year
the Jews would kidnap a Greek foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and
then would take him to a wood where he was slain. It was a sacrificial
ritual, they told him, during which the Jewish people partook of the
flesh,35 that is, entrails, of the Greek, while swearing an oath of
perpetual hatred to the Greeks. The remains of the man were then

35Josephus later questions (C. Ap. II. 101) how the flesh of
one Greek man could suffice for so many thousands of participants.

 

 

 

 

225

thrown into a pit. The wretched man had but a few days to live before
the sacrifice took place, and implored Antiochus to deliver him from
his miserable predicament. The king was horrified at the story and
was happy to set the man free.

Closely connected with the myth of the ritual sacrifice was
the charge of misanthropy or hatred of mankind leveled against the Jews.
Diodorus, citing Poseidonius,36 relates that when Antiochus Sidetes
attacked Jerusalem, he was advised by his courtiers to exterminate
the Jews completely, since they were the only people who refused to
associate with other peoples and regarded all of them as enemies.
Apollonius Molon declared that the Jews did not accept among themselves
people who entertained different opinions concerning the divinity,
neither did they wish to come into contact with those whose customs
differed from their own.37 Apion described the solemn oath which was
ellegedly taken by the Jews ”by the God who made heaven and earth and
sea, to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks."38

As Reinach points out, once hatred for a certain class of
people becomes rooted in the hearts of men for one reason or another,
everything associated with this class begins to be detestable.39 So

Apollonius Molon declared that the Jews were cowards, insolent, and

 

36Diod. XXXIV. l. l = Reinach, Textes, No. 25.
37Jos. C. Ap. II. 258.
38Ibid., 121.

39Reinach, Textes, Introd., p. xiv.

 

 

 

226

the only barbarians who had not made any useful invention because
they were people without any abilities.“o

As mentioned before, anti-Semitism during the Ptolemaic period
did not manifest itself in acts of physical violence. The persecution
that took place during the reign of Euergetes II (145 to 116 B.C.),
according to Josephus,‘+1 had wholly political motivation. The king
ordered that all the Jews of Alexandria be arrested and then exposed
to die under the feet of elephants. Third Maccabees has a similar
account, but ascribes the events to the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator
(221 to 205 B.C.). According to the author of Third Maccabees, the
attack on the Jews was inspired by anti—Semitic feelings of the king
after being refused entrance to the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem. As

shown above,"2

modern scholars disregard the chronology of Third Mac—
cabees, and agree that the event is the same as the one related by
Josephus. Euergetes II had political reasons for persecuting the Jews
of Alexandria, since they were allies of Cleopatra II. Once Euergetes
became reconciled with the Queen, the persecution was called off, and
the Jews of Alexandria, who attributed their deliverance to God rather

than to political reasons, instituted a day of celebration to be held

annually from then onward.

 

“OJOS. C. Ap. II. 148.
l”Ibid., 53ff. See also above, pp. 79ff.

“ZSee above, Part Two, Chapter III, pp. 80ff.

 

 

 

227

Tcherikover analyzes some modern—day explanations of
anti-Semitism.‘+3 He feels that there are three main bases for
antagonism: economic, religious, and political. The economic
interpretation argues that anti-Semitism in antiquity was due to the
functions filled by Jews in that era as traders, money-lenders, tax-
collectors, and the like. This explanation rests on the hypothesis
that the Jews in the ancient world performed the same functions of
traders and financiers as they afterwards performed in the Middle Ages
and in modern times. For Tcherikover, sufficient evidence is lacking
to indicate that most Jews of that time were wealthy and dedicated to
business enterprises as may be true in modern times.

The second school of thought emphasizes the religious and
public self-segregation of the Jews, and regards it as the sole cause
of anti-Semitism. Tcherikover feels that this thinking approximates
the truth more closely, but does not solve the problem completely.

He asks whether every people with strange customs evoked a similar
reaction on the part of the Greeks, and he feels that they did not.

The third line of thinking emphasizes the political antagonism
between the Jews and the other peoples. The Jews remained, according
to this school, a political and national unit even outside their
country, and this the Greeks were unwilling to recognize. Tcherikover
feels that this political theory solves isolated problems of the growth
of anti-Semitism in various places, but cannot explain the origin of

anti-Semitism in its entire scope.

”3Tcherikover, Hell. Civ., pp. 369ff.

 

 

 

 

228

Tcherikover believes that the inner quality of anti-Semitism
arises from the very existence of the Jewish people as an alien body

among the nations.“+

This alien character has two aspects: the Jews
are alien to other peoples because they are foreigners derived from
another land, and they are alien because of their foreign customs which
are strange and outlandish in the eyes of the local inhabitants. In
addition, the Jews do not resemble the other aliens.“5 As long as
strangers are not numerous and live unobtrusively, without making
demands and claims, there is no special reason for hating them. The
Jews in Alexandria, however, enjoyed numerous privileges but at the
same time were exempt from duties. This situation resulted from the
fact that the Jews were not dependent on the favors of the Greek city,
but had received their privileges directly from the kings. During the
Hellenistic period, the Greek cities were also dependent on the favor
of the kings, and, consequently, the Greek city and the Jewish community
existed side by side as forces of equal importance. While the Greeks
had to surrender at times some part of their autonomy, the Jews enjoyed,
under the same monarchs, all their privileges and rights; so the Greeks
felt envious.

I agree in great part with Tcherikover's analysis because I
believe that during the Ptolemaic period the Jewish politeuma at
Alexandria enjoyed at least an equality of rights with the Greek

politeuma. The Jews did not have any cause to envy the Greek

““Ibid., p. 358.
451515, p. 372.

 

 

 

229

politeuma, and it is, in fact, quite possible that the opposite was
the case. No doubt in theory, the Greeks of Alexandria felt this city
to be theirs, but in practice, it belonged just as much to the Jews.
The situation lent itself to producing problems. The evidence of the
Ptolemaic literature indicates that the situation in Alexandria did

produce feelings of hostility toward the Jews.

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION: A SUMMARY AND EPILOGUE

Evidence indicates that Jews were present at the very foundation
of the city of Alexandria, though the exact number would be difficult
to estimate. The Jews occupied the Delta quarter during the Ptolemaic
period. This quarter did not constitute a “ghetto" since Jews lived in
other quarters as well. By Roman times a second unknown quarter of the
city had become known as Jewish.

A tradition maintains that about 100,000 Jewish slaves were
brought into Egypt by Ptolemy I and settled in the land, some as
soldiers who performed garrison duties, others in Alexandria on equal
terms with the Macedonians. This tradition of Pseudo—Aristeas seems
less trustworthy than the tradition of Hecataeus that the Jews volun-
tarily migrated to Egypt under the same ruler. It is possible that
occasionally some Jews were brought into Egypt as slaves, but the
enormous number of Jewish slaves that Pseudo—Aristeas maintains existed
in Egypt until the time of Philadelphus seems unrealistic.

Very little is known of the political history of the Jews in
Alexandria and in Egypt during the period between the reigns of Ptolemy
I (323 to 285 B.C.) and Ptolemy VI (died 145 B.C.). Relatively more
information exists for the political activities of the Jews in Egypt
during the rest of the Ptolemaic period. Not much is known, however,
of the Alexandrian Jews pg§_§g, and their activities must be considered

against the background of the general activities of the Jews in Egypt

230

 

 

 

 

231

during this period. A major religious event was the foundation of the
Temple of Onias at Leontopolis. This Onias should be identified with
Onias IV, son of the high priest Onias III. If Onias hoped that his
temple would become the new religious center for the Jews in Egypt,
replacing the Temple of Jerusalem, his hopes were disappointed. The
foundation did seem to serve this purpose,:however, for the Jewish
katoikia at Leontopolis. Onias also became a man of importance in

the army of Ptolemy VI, and after the death of Philometor he played

a significant political role on the side of the royal widow, Cleopatra
II.

It was due to political enmities that the Jews of Alexandria
suffered persecution after the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor. The
Jews, led by Onias, sided with Cleopatra II who was fighting Euergetes
II, brother of Philometor. Onias was not able to stop Euergetes who
took Alexandria and condemned the Jews of the city to death. Fortu—
nately, Euergetes II made peace with Cleopatra II and married her.
The persecution against the Jews was immediately called off, and the
Jews attributed their deliverance to God.

The sons of Onias, Helkias and Hananiah, played an important
role as military commanders under Cleopatra III (116 to 102 B.C.).
The Jews at Pelusium filled the same office at the time of Gabinius
(55 B.C.), and again in 48 B.C. during the time of Julius Caesar.
Clearly, the Jews of Egypt and Alexandria were aware of and closely
affected by the political events that took place in Egypt and in

Coele-Syria during the Ptolemaic period. On several occasions they

 

 

 

232

actively participated in these developments, and played an important
role in determining the course of events in both Egypt and Coele—Syria.
What was the status of the Jews at Alexandria? During the
Ptolemaic period, Alexandria was not a “Greek" city as were other
cities founded by Alexander the Great. Rather, it was a collection
of politeumata based on nationalities. As time passed, the Greek
politeuma and the Jewish one became the two most important in Alexandria.
The Jewish politeuma possessed, at the very least, an equality of rights
and privileges with the Greek politeuma. Under the direct control of
the crown, Ptolemaic Alexandria was neither a “Greek" city nor a
”Jewish“ one, but rather a "royal city." To be an ”Alexandrian” did
not necessarily mean being a citizen of the Greek politeuma. It could
very well mean being a member of any one of the politeumata of the city.
The Jewish politeuma was led by an ethnarch who ruled the Jewish
community as if he were the head of a sovereign state. In addition to
the ethnarch, the Jews possessed their own council of elders, their own
judicial system, and their own notary office. It is interesting to
note that while the Jewish politeuma enjoyed all these privileges, the
Greek politeuma did not possess even a ppplg, The city of Alexandria
was not governed by the Greeks any more than by the Jews, but rather
by royal authorities and officials, which included both Greeks and Jews.
There is no evidence that the city of Alexandria as a whole was governed
by one constitution, and even less evidence that it was governed by a
"Greek" constitution, one that declared as "Alexandrians” only those

who had acquired “Greek“ citizenship in the Greek politeuma. So, in

 

 

233

this light, the Jews were as much ”citizens“ of Alexandria as were
the Greeks.

The economic activities of the Alexandrian Jews differed in
some respects from those of their fellow Jews in the Egyptian gpppp.
The city dwellers engaged to a much greater extent in commercial and
industrial activities, so that, in general, they were wealthier than
the Jews of the countryside. Some must have been engaged in all the
major industries of Alexandria, working as glass-makers, potters,
and in the manufacturing of perfumes. Others were shop-owners,
merchants, and artisans. A few Alexandrian Jews were so wealthy
that they were involved in banking and as investors. In addition,
there were Jews engaged as soldiers, farmers, and government officials,
or in almost every branch of the economic life of Egypt.

In many ways the Jews of Alexandria were similar to their
brethren in other parts of the Diaspora, as well as those in Palestine.
The religious center of the community was the synagogue. A second
institution, the school, was closely associated with the synagogue,
as was the case for the Jewish communities everywhere. The Alexandrians
shared with their fellow Jews the same beliefs, they participated in the
same religious festivals, and they sent their tribute to the Temple in
Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the Alexandrian Jews were strongly influenced
by Hellenism, as is evident in the ever—growing practice of offering
Jewish children a Greek education in the gymnasium, and of giving them

Greek names. The influence of Hellenism can also be seen in the fact

 

234

that Greek became the everyday language for the Jews instead of Hebrew,
so much so that the Torah, and eventually the rest of the Old Testament,
had to be transcribed into Greek, a version of which became known as the
Septuagint. And finally, the influence of Hellenism can be seen in the
abandonment by many of the Alexandrian Jews of the stricter traditions,
such as the Mosaic prohibition against mixed marriages.

Anti—Semitism during the Ptolemaic period did not manifest
itself in acts of physical Violence. Those cases in which the Jews
were persecuted and killed were due to political motivation. Anti—
Semitism during this period did express itself through literature,
which included purposely invented slanders, such as the Jewish adoration
of an ass, or the annual sacrifice of a Greek man. Sadly enough, such
absurd stories were believed by a great majority of people.

Thus we come to the end of our study of the Alexandrian Jews
during the Ptolemaic period. It was a period in which they enjoyed
relative peace, with the possible exception of the political persecution
under Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II which was brief and did not cause many
casualties among the Jews. It was a period in which the Alexandrian
Jews prospered politically, socially, and economically. They enjoyed
the overall respect of the Greeks, the Jewish politeuma enjoyed an
equality of rights with the Greek politeuma, and the Alexandrian Jews
claimed and received an equal share in this beautiful city.

Ahead of them loomed the Roman period. The Alexandrian Jews
had no way of knowing that it would be a terrible time for them. When

the Romans conquered Egypt they changed the nature of citizenship.

 

 

 

 

235

"Alexandrians" to the Romans meant those who had acquired citizenship
the normal Greek way, through the ephebate. Greek citizens were made
partners with the Romans in the institutions of local government, while
the non-Greeks were classified with the native population: the whole
weight of taxation fell upon the latter. The payment of the poll—tax
or laographia became the distinguishing sign between the two sections
of the population. To the Jews, all this represented more than just a
financial burden. It became a terrible humiliation to a people who had
always considered themselves "Alexandrians“ and equal in all respects
to the Greeks. So the Greeks saw in this policy change their chance,
while the Jews saw their danger. The latter set out to defend their

"citizenship“ with all their might, and the Greeks fought just as

 

tenaciously against it. The Alexandrian Greeks, though now theoret-
ically a subject population, felt more recognized as Greeks than they
had during the reign of the Ptolemies. The Jews, strangers who had
gained equality with the Greeks at Alexandria during the Ptolemaic era,
were now being placed where the Greeks felt their rightful place was:
below them. Alexandria had now been given to the Greeks as it had
never been given to them before, and they were not willing to share
the city again with the Jews without a fight. And so the stage was
set for the physical struggles that followed, struggles that would
culminate in the terrible pogroms during the reigns of Caligula, Nero,
and Trajan. The Jewish revolt in Egypt under Trajan (115 to 117 A.D.)

was actually only part of a more general movement, which included the

236

Jews of Cyrene and Cyprus also.1 The §§p§j§_became an outright war

of Jews against Greeks and Romans alike, a war during which atrocities
were committed by both sides.2 The Roman attitude towards the Jews had
suffered a considerable change, especially after the Jewish revolt and
the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This event seems to have produced a
Roman hostility and suspicion against the Jews, not only in Judaea, but
throughout the Diaspora as well.3 And so during the gpppig of 115 to
117 A.D. the Romans vigorously crushed the rebellion, which had grown
to a polemos after the Jews of Cyrene intervened on the side of their
Egyptian brethren. As a result, the Jews in Egypt were almost totally

exterminated.“

 

1The sources for the Jewish rebellion under Trajan are: P.
Oxy. 1242, a fragment which forms part of a collection known today as
the ”Acts of the Pagan Martyrs” or Acta Alexandrinorum (for a good com—
mentary on this fragment, see H. A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan
Martyrs [Oxfordz at the Clarendon Press, 1954], pp. 161-178 ; Eusebius
Hist. Eccl. 4. 2; Dio Cassius 68. 32; Appian Bell. Civ. 2. 90= Reinach,
Textes, No. 76; Jer. Sukkah 5. 55b; and C. P. Jud., Nos. 158, 435,
436-450.

2Dio Cassius (68. 32) emphasizes the ferocity of the Jewish
rebels against the Greeks and Romans: they smeared themselves with
the blood of their victims, ate their flesh, and the like. He quotes
220,000 as the number of persons slaughtered by Jews in Cyrene, and
240,000 in Cyprus. Though he perhaps exaggerates, there is no doubt
that the struggle was fierce, and the atrocities committed by the
Jews against their enemies were, no doubt, reciprocated with equal
ruthlessness.

3An example of the new attitude of the Romans is found in
the account of the destruction of the Temple of Onias c. 73 A.D. (Jos.
Jewish War VII. 420—21). Josephus states that the temple was destroyed
because Vespasian was ”suspicious of the interminable tendency of the
Jews to revolution. . . ." (Josephus does not explain why Vespasian
felt that destroying the Temple of Onias would aid in curbing the
Jewish tendency to revolution.)

“Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4. 2. 4; C. P. Jud., Nos. 445 and 448;
and J. Sukkah 5. 55b.

237

Why did the Romans change the nature of citizenship? It
certainly was not because they disliked the Jews, since the contrary
seems to have been the case early in the Roman period. As the Jews
had done on previous occasions with other conquerors, they soon had
managed to gain from some of the Roman leaders recognition for their
religious customs and traditions, and slowly appeared to be gaining
once again the confidence of the conquerors.5 The Romans allowed the
Jews to retain much of their internal autonomy, including their own
judicial system, their gerousia, their ethnarchs, and the like. The
Greek politeuma, on the other hand, petitioned for a ppg1§_and was
turned down. So at this point the Roman policy change in the Alex—
andrian citizenship could not have had anything to do with hostility
against the Jews. It rather must be attributed to a desire on the
part of the Romans to eliminate anomalies in constitutional matters
in relation to other Hellenistic cities throughout the Empire. The
Romans were much in favor of overall consistency, and Alexandria did
not conform to the rule. Therefore the policy change was introduced
that brought so much grief to the Alexandrian Jews and would cause
their ultimate near-extinction there. And so, at the beginning of
the Roman period, the Jews, without knowing it, had started to move
from sunlight to darkness, from a period of relative happiness to one

that would bring great sorrow.

 

5See above, Part II, Chapter IV, p. 128, note 92.

5.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources

Greek and Latin

Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt. Edited by
. Gardthausen. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum
Teubneriana. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1874-1875.

Appian. The Civil Wars. Edited and translated by E. Gabba. Rome:
La Nuova Italia Editrice Firenze, 1958.

Historia Romana. Translated by Horace White. Loeb
Classical Library. 4 vols. London: W. Heinemann;
New York: The MacMillan Co., 1912—1913.

Aristeas. Letter of Aristeas. Edited and translated by Moses Hadas.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.

Arrian [Flavius Arrianus]. Anabasis. Translated by E. Illiff Robson.
Loeb Classical Library. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1929—1933.

Periplus Maris Erythraei. Edited and translated by
J. W. McCrindle. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink, and Co., 1879.

Athanaeus. Translated by Charles Burton Gulick. 7 vols. Loeb
Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1927-1935.

Caesar [C. Julius Caesar]. Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars.
Translated by A. G. Way. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1955.

Callimachus. Iambus. Translated by C. A. Trypanis. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Callisthenes [Pseudo]. The Life of Alexander of Macedon. Translated
by Elizabeth H. Haight. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1955.

Cicero [M. Tullius Cicero]. Epistulae ad Familiares. Translated by
W. Glynn Williams. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1939.

238

L‘.‘

‘ _ _...

‘ 7' ’( '7 .
239

. Ad Atticum. Translated by E. O. Winstedt. 3 vols. Loeb
Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1925.

Orations. Translated by H. Grose Hodge and J. H. Freese.
2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1927-1930.

Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis. Translated by G. W. Butterworth.
toeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
953. '

Dio Cassius [Cassius Dio Cocceianus]. Roman History. Translated by
Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library. 7 vols. New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1914-1927.

Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca historica. Translated by C. Oldfather.
Loeb Classical Library. 12 vols. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1933-1967.

Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Translated by K. Lake. Loeb
Classical Library. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1953-1957.

Preparatione euangelica. Translated by J. Sirinelli.
N.p. Editiones du Carf, 1974.

Horace [Horatius Flaccus Quintus]. The Complete Works. London:
M. Dent & Sons; New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1911.

. The Odes and Epodes. Translated by Joseph P. Clancy.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Josephus [Flavius Josephus]. The Life and Against Apion. Translated
by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1926.

The Jewish War. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb
Classical Library. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1927-1928.

The Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Ralph Marcus,
L. H. Feldman, and Allen Wikgren. Loeb Cla551cal Library.
8 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1929—1965.

Justin [Marcus Junianus Justinus]. Pompei Trogi fragmenta. Translated
by John Selby Watson. London: G. Bell, 1875.

Livy [T. Livius]. Ab urbe condita. Translated by Evan T. Sage and
Alfred C. Schlesinger. Loeb Classical Library. 14 vols.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942—1959.

240

Pausanias. Description of Greece. Translated by W. S. Jones. Loeb
Classical Library. 5 vols. London: W. Heinemann; New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1918-1935.

Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. Loeb Classical
Library. 10 vols. London: W. Heinemann; New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1929—1962.

Photius. Bibliotheque. Translated by Rene Henry. 5 vols. Paris:
Societe D'Edition. "Les Belles Lettres," 1959-1967.

Plutarch. Vitae parallelae. Translated by B. Perrin. Loeb Classical
Library. 11 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1929—1963.

On Isis and Osiris. German translation by Theodore Hopfner.
Prague: Orientalisches Institutes, 1940.

Polybius. Historiae. Edited by Theodor Buettner-Wobst. Bibliotheca
scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Stuttgart:
B. G. Teubner, 1966.

Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Horace L. Jones. Loeb Classical
Library. 8 vols. London: W. Heinemann; New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1924—1931.

Suetonius [C. Suetonius Tranquillus]. Lives of the Caesars.
Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. 2 vols.
London: W. Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1960

Suidas. Lexicon. Edited by Ada Adler. 5 vols. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubneri, 1928-1938.

Tacitus [Cornelius Tacitus]. The Histories and The Annals. Translated
by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. Loeb Classical Library.
3 vols. London: W. Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1930-1937.

Tertullian [Tertullianus Quintus Septimius Florens]. Ad nationes.
Edited by Janus Guilielmus Borleffs. Leiden: Brill Ltd.,
1929.

Valerius Maximus. Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem cum
Iulii Pardis et Ianvarii Nepotiani epitomis. Edited by Karl
Kampf. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum
Teubneriana. 2nd. ed. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1966.

1
H

241

Hebrew
The Bible (King James Version).

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Translated by Edwin C. Bissell.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880.

The Babylonian Talmud. Translated by Rabbi I. Epstein. London: The
Soncino Press, 1948.

Epigraphical Collections

C. I. G. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by A. Boeckh.
Berlin: G. Reimeri Libraria, 1877.

C. I. L. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: George Reimer, 1862.
Vol. I, Pt. II, 2nd ed., 1918; Vol. X, 1883.

Frey, J. B. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Rome: Pontificio
instituto di archeologia cristiana, 1936.

I. L. S. Inscriptiones Latinae selectae. Edited by Hermann Dessau.
3 vols. 2nd ed. Berlin: H. Weidmann, 1954-1955.

Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (F Gr Hist).
14 vols. Leyden: E. J. Brill, 1950-1963.

Miller, Karl. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. 5 vols. Paris:
F. Didot, 1878—1885.

0. G. I. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Edited by W.
Dittenberger. Hildescheim: George Olms, 1960. First
published in 1903.

Reinach, Theodore. Textes D'Auteurs Grecs et Romains Relatifs Au
Judaisme. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963.

Papyrological Publications: Collections of
Papyri, Ostraka and Inscriptions

Aegyptische Urkunden aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin: Griechische
Urkunden (BGU). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, l895—.

Amherst Papyri, (The). Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
London: H. Frowde Co., 1900-1901.

242

An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and Other Greek Papyri. Edited by
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Oxford at the Clarendon
Press, 1896.

Berichtigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus Agypten.
Edited by F. Preisigke, F. Bilable, M. David. B. A. van
Groningen, E. Kiessling. Heidelberg: C. Winter Co., 1931.

Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum [C. P. Jud.]. Edited by Victor A.
Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks. 3 vols. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1957-1964.

Dikaiomata: Ausnge aus alexandrinischen Gesetzen und Verordnungen
(Papyrus Halensis 1). Edited by E. Abbadi. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1913.

FayOm Towns and their Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt,
and D. G. Hogarth. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900.

Flinders Petrie Papyri (The). Edited by J. P. Mahaffy. Dublin:
Hodges, Figgis, & Co., 1891.

Greek Ostraka in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Edited by J. G. Tait.
London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1930.

Greek Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Oxford:
at the University Press, 1903.

Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum. Edited by E. J. Goodspeed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902.

Greek Papyri in the British Museum. Edited by F. G. Kenyon and
H. I. Bell 5 vols. London: British Museum, 1893-1917.

Greek Papyri in the Library of Cornell University. Edited by W. L.
Westermann and C. J. Kraemer. Milan: Cisalpino-Goliardica,
1972. First published in 1926.

Griechische Ostraka aus Agypten and Nubien. Edited by U. Wilcken.
2 vols. Leipzig: Gieseke & Devrient, 1899.

Griechische Texte aus Agypten. Edited by Paul Meyer. Berlin—Leipzig:
G. Teubner, 1916.

Grundnge und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde. Edited by L. Mitteis and
. Wilcken. 4 vols. Berlin— —Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912.

Hibeh Papyri (The). Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, E. G. Turner,
and M. T. Lenger. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1906—

1955.

243

Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection. Edited by John G.
Winter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936.

Papyrus grecs. Edited by P. Jouguet. Paris: Institute Papyrologique,
Universite d'Lille, 1907-1928.

Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten. Edited by F. Preisigke
and F. Bilabel. 5 vols. Berlin—New York: De Bruyter, 1913-

1952.

Select Papyri. Edited by A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar. London: W.
Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1932—1934.

The Tebtunis Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, J. G. Smyly,
and E. J. Goodspeed. 4 vols. London and New York: Oxford at

the University Press, 1902-1938.

Papyri from Tebtunis. Edited by Arthur Boak. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1933-.

Oxyrhyncus Papyri (The). Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. 5. Hunt.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-.

Zenon Papyri. Edited by W. L. Westermann, C. W. Keyes, and H. Liebesny.
2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934-1940.

Zenon Papyri in the Cairo Museum. Edited by C. C. Edgar. Cairo:
L'Institute francais d'archeologie orientale, 1925.

Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection. Edited by
C Edgar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1931.

Modern Works

Abel, F. M. Histoire de la Palestine depuis 1a conquete d'Alexandre
jusqu'a l'invasion Arabe. 2 vols. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952.

Agus, Jacob B. The Evolution of Jewish Thought. New York: Abelard-
Schuman, Ltd., 1959.

. The Meaning of Jewish History. New York: Abelard—Schuman,
Ltd., 1963.

Angus, S. The Religious Quests of the Graeco—Roman World. New York:
Biblo and Tannen, 1967.

Badian, Ernst. Foreign Clientelae: (264-270 B.C.). Oxford: at the
Clarendon Press, 1958.

 

 

244

Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1968.

Studies in Greek and Roman History. New York: Barnes &
Noble, 1964.

Baron, Salo Wittmayer. A Social and Religious History of the Jews.
9 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942—1965.

History and Jewish Historians. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1964.

Judaism. New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1954.

The Jewish Community. 3 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1942.

Bartlett, John R. First and Second Books of the Maccabees. Cambridge:
at the University Press, 1973.

Bell, H. Idris. ”Anti-Semitism in Alexandria.“ Journal of Roman
Studies 31 (1941): 1-18.

Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Liverpool: at the
University Press, 1953.

. Egypt, From Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest.
Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1948.

. Jews and Christians in Egypt. Oxford: at the University
Press, 1924.

Juden und Griechen in Romischen Alexandria. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs, 1927.

Belloc, H. The Battleground, Syria and Palestine. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Co., 1936.

Bentwich, Norman. Josephus. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1914.

Bernand, Andre. Alexandrie la Grande. Paris: Arthaud, 1966.

. l‘Un Inventaire des Monuments d'Alexandrie Greco—Romaine."
Revue des Etudes Grecques 85 (1972): 139-154.

Bernstein, Leon. Flavius Josephus: His Time and His Critics.
New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1938.

245

Bevan, Edwyn. Hellenism and Christianity. London: George Allen &
Unwing Ltd., 1921.

. The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt Under the
Ptolemaic Dynasty. 1st ed. revised. Chicago: Argonaut, Inc.,

Publishers, 1968.
The House of Seleucus. London: Edward Arnold, 1902.

, and C. Singer, eds. The Legacy of Israel. Oxford: at the
Clarendon Press, 1948.

Bickermann, Elias. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. New York:
Schocken Books, 1962.

. ”Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas.” Zeitschrift fUr die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29 (1930): 280-296.

Bonnard, Andre. Greek Civilization. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd.; New York: The MacMillan Co., 1961.

Botsford, G. W., and E. G. Sihler. Hellenic Civilization. New York:
Octagon Books, 1965. First published by Columbia University

Press, 1915.

Bouché-Leclercq, A. Histoire des Lagides. 4 vols. Paris: n.p.,
1904; reprinted Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963.

. Histoire des Seleucides (323-364 avant J C.). 2 vols.
Paris: n.p., 1913; reprinted Brussels: Culture et
Civilisation, 1963.

Boulos, Jawad. Les Peuples et les Civilisations du Proche Orient.
3 vols. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1962.

Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: at the
University Press, 1965.

Brauer, George C. Judaea Weeping. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.,
1970.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, n.d.

BUchler, A. Studies in Jewish History. Oxford: at the University
Press, 1956.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. A History of Egypt. Oosterhout: Anthropological
Publications, 1968.

‘lt

Egypt. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1925.

Burich, Nancy J. Alexander the Great, A Bibliography. The Kent State
University Press, 1970.

Burn, A. R. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Empire. London:
The English Universities Press, Ltd., 1947.

Bury, J. B. The Ancient Greek Historians. London and New York: The
MacMillan Co., 1909.

The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VI. Edited by J. B. Bury, S. A.
Cook, and F. E. Adcock. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1927.
Vol. VII. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P.
Charlesworth. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1928.

Cary, Max. A History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C. London:
Methuen and Co., 1963.

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphica of the Old Testament.
2 vols. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1971.

Clermont—Ganneau, M. “L'Antique Necropole Juive d'Alexandrie.”
Academie des Inscriptions & Belles—Lettres, 1907, pp. 234-243.

Cornfeld, G. Daniel to Paul. New York: The MacMillan Press, 1962.

Conder, Claude R. Judas Maccabaeus. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,

Davis, Harold T. Alexandria, The Golden City. Evanston: The Principia
Press, 1957.

Davis, S. Race—Relations in Ancient Egypt. London: Methuen & Co.,
1951.

Ferguson, W. S. Greek Imperialism. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1963.

Fevrier, J. G. La Date, la composition, et les sources de la Lettre
d‘Aristee a Philocrate. Paris: Bibliotheque de 1'Ecole des
Hautes Etudes, 1925.

Filmer, W. E. ”The Chronology of the Reign of Herod.“ Journal of
Theological Studies, October 1966, pp. 36-73.

Finkelstein, Louis, ed. The Jews. New York: Harper and Brothers 1
Publishers, 1960. l
l

Foerster, W. From the Exile to Christ. Philadelphia: The Fortress
Press, 1964.

 

 

 

247

Forster, E. M. Alexandria: A History and a Guide. New York:
Doubleday and Co., 1961.

Fox, Robin L. Alexander the Great. New York: The Dial Press, 1974.
Frank, Tenney. Roman Imperialism. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1921.

Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: at the Clarendon
Press, 1972.

Ghali, Ibrahim Amin. L'Egypte et les Juifs dans L'Antiquité. Paris:
L'Imprimerie Clerc, 1969.

Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1962.

Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period. 13 vols.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-1961.

. The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt. Amsterdam:
The Philo Press, 1968.

. The Politics of Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1938.

Goodwing, D. W., and Peter Walters. The Text of the Septuagint.
Cambridge: at the University Press, 1973.

Graetz, H. A History of the Jews. 2 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1891.

Grayzel, Solomon. A History of the Jews, From the Babylonian Exile to
the Present. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society
of America, 1968.

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great. Chicago: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

Grenfell, B. P. The Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford: at
the Clarendon Press, 1896.

Hadas, Moses. Hellenistic Culture. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1959.

The Third and Fourth Books of the Maccabees. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1953.

Hardy, E. G. Some Problems in Roman History. Oxford: at the Clarendon
Press, 1924.

 

 

 

 

248

Heichelheim, Fritz, and Cedric Yeo. A History of the Roman People.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962.

Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. London: The SCM
Press, Ltd. 4.

 

Hirschberg, H. 2. A History of the Jews in North Africa. Leiden:
J. Brill, 1974.

Hogarth, D. G. "Alexander in Egypt and Some Consequences." Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 2 (1915): 53-60.

Jackson, F. J. Josephus and the Jews. New York: Richard R. Smith,
3
Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: at the
Clarendon Press, 1968.

Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed.
Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1971.

The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: at
the Clarendon Press, 1940

The Herods of Judaea. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1938.

The Later Roman Empire (284-602 A.D.). 2 vols. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1964.

Jouguet, Pierre. La Vie Municipale dans l'Egypte Romaine. Paris:
Editions E. de Boccard, 1968.

Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928.

Juster, J. Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1914.

Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. New York: Frederick A. Praeger
Publishers, 1959.

Kaplan, Mordecai M. Judaism as a Civilization. New York: Thomas
Yoseloff, 1957.

Keller, Werner. Diaspora, The Post- Biblical History of the Jews.
New York. Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969.

Kincaid, C. A. Successors of Alexander the Great. Chicago: Argonaut
Publishers, 1969.

Kobler, Franz. A Treasury of Jewish Letters. London: Farrar, Straus,
and Young, Inc. , 1952.

 

 

 

 

 

249

Kraeling, Emil. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1953.

Krauss, Samuel. Synagogale Altertfimer. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1909.

 

Kwapong, A. A. "Citizenship and Democracy in Fourth—Century Cyrene.”
Africa in Classical Antiquity. Edited by L. A. Thompson and
J. Ferguson. Nigeria: Ibadan University Press, 1969.

Laistner, M. L. W. The Greater Roman Historians. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1947.

Learsi, Rufus [Israel Goldberg]. Israel: A History of the Jewish
People. Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1949.

Lewis, N. “Greco-Roman Egypt: Fact or Fiction?” Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology 7 (1970): 3-14.

, and M. Reinhold. Roman Civilization. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1951.

Lindsay, Jack. Leisure and Pleasure in Roman Egypt. London:
Frederick Muller Ltd., 1965.

Mahaffi, J. P. The Empire of the Ptolemies. London: The MacMillan
Co., 5.

Marcus, Ralph. ”Hellenistic Jewish Literature.” The Jews. Edited by
L. Finkelstein. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960,
pp. 43-81.

Margolis, Max L., and Alexander Marx. A History of the Jewish People.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1927.

Marlowe, John. The Golden Age of Alexandria. London: Victor Gollancz,

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. Oxford: at the
University Press, 1957.

 

Meyer, Paul Martin. Das Heerwesen der Ptolemaer and Romer in Agypten.
Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1966.

Millar, Fergus. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: at the Clarendon
Press, 1964.

Milne, J. G. A History of Egypt Under Roman Rule. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1898.

Milns, R. 0. Alexander the Great. New York: Pegasus Publishers, 1969.

 

 

 

250

Momigliano, Arnaldo. Claudius, The Emperor and His Achievement.
New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961.

Prime Linee di Storia Della Tradizione Maccabaica.
Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968.

Ricerche Sull‘ Organizzazione Della Giudea Sotto Il Dominio
Romano. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1967.

Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian
Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958, 1959.
First published in 1927.

Musurillo, Herbert A. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs [Acta Alexan-
drinorum]. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1954.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. London: Adam and Charles Black,
1958.

Oesterly, William 0. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha.
London: S. P. C. K. Publishers, 1958.

The Jews and Judaism During the Greek Period. Port
Washington: Kennikat Press, 1970.

Oldfather, Charles H. "The Greek Literary Texts from Greco—Roman
Egypt.” University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Studies
9 (1923): 5-46.

Otto, W., and Leopold Wenger. Papyri and Altertumswissenschaft.
Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlangsbuchhandlung, 1934.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by M. Cary et al. Oxford:
at the Clarendon Press, 1949.

Pauly, F. von, and G. Wissowa, eds. Real-Encyclopadie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Edited in succession by W. Kroll,
K. Mittelhaus, and K. Ziegler. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: J. B.
Metzlerche Buchhandlung, 1894—.

Peremans, W., and E. Van't Dack. Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Louvre:
Publications Universitaires, 1959.

Perowne, Stewart. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1956.

. The Political Background of the New Testament. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1965.

 

 

 

 

Peters, F. E. The Harvest of Hellenism. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1970.

Porten, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1968.

Posner, Ernst. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1972.

Radin, Max. The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans. Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1915.

. Book Review of H. I. Bell's Jews and Christians in Egypt.
Classical Philology 20 (January-October 1925): 368-375.

Reinach, Theodore. Jewish Coins. Chicago: Argonaut, Inc., 1966.

Robinson, Charles A. Alexander the Great. New York: E. P. Dutton
and Co., 1947.

. The History of Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Providence:
Brown University, 1953.

Rostovtzeff, M. A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Studies, 1922.

”Ptolemaic Egypt." Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VII.
Cambridge: at the University Press, 1954. First edition:
New York: The MacMillan Co., 1928.

The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World.
3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.

Roth, Cecil, ed. A Short History of the Jewish People. Hartford:
Hartmore House Publishers, 1969.

The World History of the Jewish People. 11 vols. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1956—1964.

Russell, David. The Jews from Alexander to Herod. New York: Oxford
at the University Press, 1967.

Sachar, A. L. A History of the Jews. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1953.

Samuel, Alan E. ”The Greek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy.“
Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology
7 (1970): 443-510.

 

. Ptolemaic Chronology. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962.

Sandmel, Samuel. The First Christian Century in Judaism and
Chgistianity. New York: Oxford at the University Press,
9 9.

Scaramuzza, Vincent M. The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1940.

SchUrer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ. Authorized English Translation. 3 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Schwarz, Leo W., ed. Great Ages of the Jewish People. New York:
Random House, 1956.

Segre, Angelo. "Antisemitism in Hellenistic Alexandria." Jewish
Social Studies 8 (1946): 127—136.

Shatzman, Israel. ”The Egyptian Question in Roman Politics
(59-54 B.C.).” Latomus: Revue d'etudes latines 30
(1970): 363—369. ,

Sherwin-White, A. N. Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome. Cambridge:
at the University Press, 1967.

. The Roman Citizenship. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press,
1973

Skeat, Theodore C. The Reigns of the Ptolemies. Munich: C. H.
Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1954.

Smallwood, E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva,
Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: at the University Press,
1966.

. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio Ad Gaium. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1970.

”The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica During the Ptolemaic and
Roman Periods.” Africa in Classical Antiquity. Edited by
L. A. Thompson and J. Ferguson. Nigeria: Ibadan Un1ver51ty
Press, 1969.

Snyder, John W. Alexander the Great. New York: Twayne Publishers,
1966.

Stern, S. M. Aristotle on the World State. Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 1968.

253

Syme, Ronald. The Roman Revolution. London: Oxford at the University
Press, 1962. First published in 1939 by the Clarendon Press at
Oxford.

Tarn, W. W. "Alexander: The Conquest of the Far East.” Cambridge
Ancient History. Vol. VII. New York: the MacMillan Co.,
1927. Chapter XIII.

'Alexander the Great. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962. First
printed in 1948 by Cambridge University Press (England).

. Hellenistic Civilization. 3rd. ed. London: Edward Arnold
& Co., 1952.

The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: at the
University Press, 1951.

Taubenschlag, R. The Law of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Warsaw: Panstwowe
Wydawnietwo Naukowe, 1955.

Tcherikover, Victor. “Alexandria." Encyclopedia Judaica. New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1971.

. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959.

Thackeray, H. St. John. Josephus, the Man and the Historian. New York:
Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1967.

Thompson, L. A., and J. Ferguson, eds. Africa in Classical Antiquity.
Nigeria: Ibadan University Press, 1969.

Wallace, Sherman L. ”Census and Poll—Tax in Ptolemaic Egypt."
American Journal of Philology 59 (1938): 416-442.

Walsh, P. G. Livy. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1974.

Welles, C. B. Alexander and the Hellenistic World. Toronto:
A. M. Hakkert Ltd., 1970.

Westermann, William L. ”Enslaved Persons Who Are Free." American
Journal of Philology 59 (1938): 1—30.

Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt. New York: Athaneum,
9.

Wilcken, U. Alexander the Great. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,
1967.

254

Will, Edouard. Histoire Politique du Monde Hellenistique. 2 vols.
Nancy: Faculte des Lettres de 1'Universite de Nancy,
1966—1967.

Williams, Richard S. "Gabinius: A Political Biography." Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973.

Willrich, H. Juden und Griechen. thtingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1895.

Winter, John Garrett. Life and Letters in the Papyri. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1933.

Zeitlin, Soloman. The History of the Second Jewish Commonwealth.
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1933.

The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State. 2 vols.
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1962.

 

 

 

 

 

7......J:

1111191131 113110111 .1 1111111

I

11

AN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

 

2
:2. 2..

2.5

.1... :22.

5.. .7...

2..

 

2.3.5

22......» ..

5...:

.11:
32.2..
1;; .

.2...) .22

.27... .
2 . . .. ..

 

.22 .s

.22? f2. ..\_2?..n22

2.2....5 v1. {.121

2.2..

 

22...... .

{7...
51...... . 51.3.1

2.... 2......
:2. tn». 34 .233.me

.1 .32 2. 22 . .32:
z. 1.... 2. .1. ....€.......:.

, .22..
. .. 22:22:22.2.122}
.2. I. E.
r...
«t....—.\ all—Elm:
:2: .2122 :58: I .
:22: 2:22.23 mm} s HIE.

3
.. 2:23.225:
1.}.

v .2213: 2..
3.6..

:2:
512.; L
5 :

2 2.2.23 “.22....22222222222. .22 22.. 2.2mrammwvwmm2u