and a triumph over this dominance by a hero-king,9 these descriptions of Jewish history depicted the Hebrews as an impure people, Moses as a polluted Egyptian priest, and portrayed Jewish life and practices as hostile to everything non-Jewish.10 This hostile propaganda was basicaly centered in Alexandria and reflects the tension between Jews of the Egyptian diaspora and the native, especially priestly, Egyptian population. The roots of this anti-Jewish polemic were no doubt multiple,11 and the tension is already reflected in Aramaic papyri of the fifth century BCE from Egypt. Variations on this theme of Jewish origins are reflected in Egyptian literature for over six centuries12 and no doubt formed a vital part of the arsenal of anti-Jewish propaganda offering a supportive rationale for repressive measures.
Perhaps the most significant example of this anti-Jewish version of Moses and the origins of the Jews is that attributed to Manetho (third century BCE) by Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.73–91, 93–105, 228–52), who claims to be quoting from Manetho’s Aegyptiaca, although Josephus seems to retell Manetho’s treatment in two different versions.13 Manetho’s phil-Egyptian version or Josephus’s interpretation of it identified or associated the expulsion of the Hyksos with the biblical account of the Hebrew departure from Egypt, an interpretation sometimes found in modern histories of ancient Israel.
Among the materials preserved by Eusebius from the collective work of Alexander Polyhistor (Concerning the Jews) are fragments of a historical work by the so-called Pseudo-Eupolemus (Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17–39). This writer was apparently a Samaritan and one of the first to present biblical history under the form of Hellenistic historical writing.14 Some time near the beginning of the second century BCE, he combined biblical materials with traditions from non-Jewish writers such as Berossus and Hesiod in order to show Abraham as the source of the culture of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and thus indirectly the source of Greek culture, since Herodotus, Plato, and Hecataeus had argued that the Greeks had acquired much wisdom from the Egyptians. Such a position carried the assertion that the biblical tradition represented the oldest wisdom of humanity. Abraham was the teacher of a multitude of nations (see Gen 17:5)! Pseudo-Eupolemus utilized various elements of Babylonian and Greek mythology, perhaps the pseudepigraphical Enoch tradition, and haggadic traditions about Abraham. His work depicts Abraham in universalistic categories and is clearly concerned with apologetic interests.
Shortly after Pseudo-Eupolemus, and perhaps partially dependent upon him, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (see 2 Macc 1:10) expounded Judaism as a philosophy and sought to show that the Mosaic law was a true philosophy and in no way contradictory to philosophical wisdom.15 His work was apparently addressed to the young King Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145 BCE) but may have been intended for a larger, even predominantly Jewish audience. Such apologetic works—both historical and philosophical—must have been addressed, at least in a limited way, to non-Jewish pagans16 and not just to renegade Jews who had forsaken Judaism or were strongly tempted by the option of apostasy.17 The work of Pseudo-Eupolemus suggests that historical writing as an apologetic concern addressed to non-Jews developed in Palestine in Hellenistic circles before the Maccabean Revolt and probably not just in Samaria.18
The Maccabean struggles against the Seleucids triggered extensive Jewish historical writing. Eupolemus,19 probably shortly after the Maccabean Revolt (see 1 Macc 8:17; 2 Macc 4:11), wrote a work on Jewish history that discussed, among other matters, the date of the exodus and the figure of Moses (dated chronologically much earlier than in the MT), the Solomonic temple, and the Davidic–Solomonic state where the discussion reflects the influence of the expansion of the Hasmoneans and their international political relations. Eupolemus, as a Hellenized, priestly supporter of the Maccabees, demonstrates a strong patriotic and nationalistic interpretation of Jewish history and less of the universalistic spirit that characterized Pseudo-Eupolemus. According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.141), Eupolemus calculated the time between Adam and the fifth year of Demetrius I Soter (162–150 BCE) as 5,149 years. In his chronological concerns, Eupolemus expressed the widespread interest in world chronology that was characteristic of many Hellenistic writers.20 Jason of Cyrene, about whom nothing is certainly known, produced a five-volume history of the early Maccabean struggles (see 2 Macc 2:23), probably covering the years 176–160 BCE. His work has been summarized as 2 Maccabees21 by an unknown epitomizer who probably not only condensed the massive work but added some popular haggadic legends (2 Macc 1:11–18), supernaturalistic touches, and martyrological stories (2 Maccabees 6–7). Second Maccabees is more akin to Hellenistic than biblical historiography—in its direct address to the reader, its edifying quality, its conscious literary strivings, and its concern to entertain and enhance the reader’s enjoyment (see especially 2 Macc 1:1–6; 15:38–39).
First Maccabees, like 2 Maccabees, may be classified as contemporary history since its focus of concern is the Maccabean struggles down to 134 BCE, probably near the book’s date of composition. This work is more similar to the narrative style of Kings and Chronicles, that is to biblical historiography, than 2 Maccabees, although the work is in some regards more pro-Hasmonean than the latter.
One further work engendered by the Maccabean struggles should be noted, namely the book of Daniel. While apocalyptic rather than purely historical in form, the book of Daniel does, however, reflect a concern widespread in Hellenistic historiography—the concern with universal history which has already been noted in the work of the Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus. Daniel utilized the concept of four world monarchies in discussing universal history, a concept widely and earlier employed by Greek and Hellenistic writers as well as later Roman authors.22 In Daniel one can discern a tripartite division in the author’s treatment of world history: (1) the time before the capture of Jerusalem, known from the biblical historical works (more assumed than discussed by the author); (2) the era of the four world empires manifesting a great decline in civilization; and (3) the futuristic eternal kingdom about to dawn.23 This understanding and schema of history, later adopted and adapted by Christian historians, were to dominate historical treatments of Israelite and Judean history until the post-Reformation period.
Four writers of Jewish history from the Greco-Roman period deserve attention: Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE), Nicolaus of Damascus (born about 64 BCE), Justus of Tiberias (first century CE), and Flavius Josephus (about 37–100 CE). Alexander was from Miletus, although he wrote in Rome where he had been taken by Lentulus during Sulla’s eastern campaign. The latter manumitted and appointed him a pedagogue. Among Alexander’s more than twenty-five works, one was titled Concerning the Jews, fragments of which have been preserved in Eusebius’s Praeparatio Evangelica. Much of his writings apparently consisted of compilations. His writing on the Jews probably belongs to the period shortly after Pompey’s conquest of the Seleucid empire and reflects the Roman fascination with and curiosity about things Eastern. In the preserved fragments, Alexander, who was not Jewish, quotes Jewish and pro-Jewish as well as non-Jewish and anti-Jewish authors, seemingly adhering faithfully and undiscriminatingly to his sources. His account of Jewish history began with the pre-patriarchal ancestors and may have extended down to his own day. The order of the events narrated follows the sequence of the biblical books, beginning with Genesis and extending through Kings and Chronicles, which might suggest that he was familiar with the biblical books in translation. His quotations from some rather obscure writers would indicate his utilization of a significant Roman library. An important feature of Alexander’s work is its reflection of the extensive chronological synchronization of Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and biblical history and data. For example, Alexander associated the biblical flood and Noah with Berossus’s Babylonian flood story and Xisuthrus. Already in the second and first centuries BCE, numerous attempts had been made to produce a world chronology and an Alexandrian biblical chronological ‘school’ can perhaps be traced hack to the Hellenistic Jewish writer Demetrius, who wrote during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 BCE).24 The Greek version of the Pentateuch certainly reflects the activity of such a chronological school.
Nicolaus of Damascus, who had served as tutor to Cleopatra’s children and written a biography of Augustus, became a court official and counsellor to Herod the Great some time before 14 BCE probably as part of the latter’s desire to turn Jerusalem into a major literary center. Among his works were an autobiography and a world history composed in 144 books. Nicolaus’s history, written in Jerusalem and under the patronage of Herod, to whose reign about one-fifth of the work was devoted, was a true universal