Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus - Shaye Cohen

Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to JosephusAuthor(s): Shaye J. D. CohenSource: AJS Review, Vol. 7/8 (1982/1983), pp. 41-68Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486406Accessed: 11/10/2010 22:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ajs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486406?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND JADDUS THE HIGH PRIEST

ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS

by

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

I

Perhaps the most famous section of the second half of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities is the story of Alexander the Great and the Jews (AJ 11.302-47). It consists of three strands: a story about Manasses, Sanballat, and Alexan- der; a story about Jaddus and Alexander; and historical data about Philip II, Darius III, and Alexander the Great. In the first strand Manasses, a brother of the high priest Jaddus, marries the daughter of Sanballat, satrap of Samaria, and as a result is ejected from Jerusalem and flees to his father-

NOTE: This paper is part of a larger project "Josephus and Rabbinic Historiography" which was begun in 1977 under a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Research on this paper was supported by a generous grant from the Abbell Publication Fund of the Jew- ish Theological Seminary. I am grateful to the late Professor Elias Bickerman for discussing the Jaddus story with me and for referring me to the important parallel in Justin. Through the courtesy of Professor Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi I presented a summary of this paper to a Columbia University seminar and benefited from the ensuing discussion.

All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. The following abbreviations are used: AJ = Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae; BJ = Josephus, Bellum Judaicum; CA = Josephus, Contra Apio- nem; Cohen = Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden, 1979); FGrH = Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 15 vols. (Leiden, 1957-68). Yosippon is cited from the edition of David Flusser (Jerusalem, 1978).

41

42 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

in-law. Sanballat promises to build a new temple for him and his Jewish fol- lowers and intends to ask Darius to authorize the project. When Alexander is victorious, Sanballat transfers his allegiance to the Macedonian conquer- or and receives permission from him to build a temple in Samaria. In the second strand, Alexander demands the submission of the Jews but Jaddus, the high priest, remains loyal to Darius. Furious at this rebuff, Alexander marches on Jerusalem. Encouraged by a dream, the high priest and the Jews greet Alexander outside the city. The conqueror of the world bows down before Jaddus and declares that it was Jaddus who had appeared to him in a dream three years earlier and had encouraged him to launch his expedition against Persia. Amidst general rejoicing, Alexander enters the temple, sacrifices to the God of Israel, and bestows gifts upon the Jews. The third strand of the narrative is not a story but historical data about the death of Philip and the conquests of Alexander in Syria and along the Palestinian littoral.

Adolph Bfichler demonstrated long ago that the three strands were originally independent of each other. Even as they stand in the Jewish Antiquities they are easily separable because they have been juxtaposed, not combined.' Neither story refers to the other, although such references would have been easy and natural had the two stories shared a common origin. Alexander asks Jaddus to request whatever he would like, but the high priest of Jerusalem forgets to petition Alexander to tear down the recently con- structed Samaritan temple or to punish Manasses and the apostate Jews who support him. Indeed, Jaddus is so unconcerned about the schism in the Jerusalem community that he does not even mention it. Sanballat too is very forgetful. He is with Alexander at Tyre (321) just as the Macedonian is writ- ing his minatory letter to Jaddus (317), but he forgets to avail himself of the opportunity to demonstrate his dislike for Jerusalem and its temple.2 In only one discrete paragraph (340-44), appended to the narrative and not an inte-

1. Adolph Buchler, "La relation de Josephe concernant Alexandre le Grand," Revue des itudesjuives 36 (1898): 1-26. The observations and conjectures of this article have been widely approved and are conveniently summarized by Ralph Marcus in an appendix to the Loeb edition of Josephus, vol. 6, pp. 512-32, esp. 530-32. Aryeh Kasher, "Alexander Macedon's Cam- paign in Palestine" [Hebrew], Beth Miqra 20 (1975): 196-99, and Israel Levi, "Alexandre et les juifs d'apres les sources rabbiniques," Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann (Breslau, 1900), pp. 348-49, argue against Biichler (each with his own reasons) that the narrative is a single organic composition but neither is convincing.

2. The rabbinic versions of the story (B. T. Yoma 69a and scholion to Megillat Ta'anit, 21 Kislev) develop this point by having the Samaritans ask Alexander to destroy the Jerusalem temple.

ALEXANDER AND JADDUS ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 43

gral part of either story, do the actors of one story (the Samaritans) refer to the actors of the other (the Jews).

The third strand too was originally independent. Both stories are anchored chronologically in the transition from Persian to Macedonian rule (Sanballat intends to ask Darius for permission to build a temple but asks Alexander instead; Jaddus remains loyal to Darius and as a result is the intended victim of Alexander's wrath), but neither story requires the level of detail which the third strand provides. In the sole place where the third strand is closely intertwined with the two stories (317-25), we see how much difficulty the narrator had. After taking Damascus and Sidon, Alexander besieges Tyre and writes to Jaddus (317). Here the Jaddus story begins. The king receives the high priest's response and threatens to attack Jerusalem (318-19). Unfortunately and inexplicably, after capturing Tyre Alexander proceeds not to Jerusalem but to Gaza (320). Now that Alexander is at Gaza instead of Jerusalem, the narrator returns to the Sanballat story and brings the Samaritan to Alexander who was just beginning his siege of Tyre (321). After telling us for a second time about the capture of Tyre and Gaza (this time, however, adding some chronological data), the narrator closes the first story (Sanballat dies) and brings the second story to its climax (Alexander approaches Jerusalem, 325). The historical source gave an accurate outline of Alexander's conquests,3 but our narrator, who had little interest in the deeds of Alexander per se, made use of this information only to provide a chronological framework for the two stories which were his main concern. Perhaps he failed to produce a smooth and coherent narrative out of his disparate sources, but he succeeded in finding room for the Jews and the Samaritans in Alexander's hurried schedule.4

Who was this narrator who combined the three strands into an almost coherent narrative? Was it Josephus himself or his source? The former appears likely in view of the fact that the narrator's techniques are Josephan: intrusive quotations from the historical source open with "about this time" (304 and 313) and close with "as has been related elsewhere" (305); because of the contamination of sources the same event is related more than once

3. The source takes Alexander from Granicus (313) to Issus (314) to Damascus, Sidon, Tyre (317), Gaza (320), and perhaps Egypt (345). The chronological data on the duration of the sieges of Tyre and Gaza (325) are confirmed by other sources.

4. Biichler, pp. 4-6, analyzes 317-25 differently and concludes that the historical source was first combined with the Sanballat story before the two together were combined with the Jaddus story.


(the capture of Tyre); concurrent stories are juxtaposed; an apparent doub- let is used to strengthen the point of the previous narrative (340-44).5 Rather than posit the existence of some lost historian who happened to employ these Josephan techniques, we may assume that this Josephus-like narrator was Josephus himself.6 Previous students have not sufficiently appreciated the role of Josephus in shaping the narrative. For example, scholars have pointed to the anachronistic reference to the book of Daniel (337) and have concluded that the composition of the Jaddus-Alexander story postdates the 160s B.C.E.. The conclusion is probably right but the rea- soning is certainly wrong, since Josephus himself may have been responsible for the anachronism (see section IV below). In this study of the Jaddus- Alexander story,7 I assume that Josephus was not a mindless paraphraser of the work of others, but was a real editor, an active participant in the forma- tion of the story as we have it. I shall analyze the literary type of the story (II), its affinities with other Jewish stories (III), its function within the Jew- ish Antiquities (IV), and its origin and date (V).

Any literary analysis of the Jaddus-Alexander story must be tentative, since the episode is a complex amalgam of motifs rather than a representa- tive of a single genre. Some motifs can be traced to their source, others can not. Some can be explained by appeal to more than one literary tradition, and it will be difficult to decide which source is primary and which second- ary. These problems do not prevent literary analysis, but they do render uncertain some of its results. With all due reserve, then, I suggest that the

5. On "as has been related elsewhere," see Cohen, p. 45 and p. 169; on "at about this time," see Cohen, pp. 55-56, and 73-74; because of the contamination of sources AJ 18 mentions Tiberius's death three times (Cohen, p. 65, n. 131); the story of the Alexandrian delegation to Gaius (AJ 18.257-60) is juxtaposed to, not coordinated with, the story of Gaius, Petronius, and the Jews of Palestine (AJ 18.261-309); Josephus often employs doublets (Cohen, p. 276, index, s.v. "doublets"). I hope to demonstrate elsewhere that sections 340-44 are Josephus's own composition.

6. That the compiler of the various strands of the narrative was Josephus himself is suggested by Felix Marie Abel, "Alexandre a Jerusalem," Revue biblique 44 (1935): 48, and by Friedrich Pfister, Kleine Schriften zum Alexanderroman, ed. Reinhold Merkelbach et al. (Meisenheim, 1976), p. 320, n. 59. Biichler, pp. 5 and 25-26, cannot decide. Since Josephus's techniques were the commonplaces of ancient historiography (Cohen, pp. 24-33), my argument is suggestive, not probative.

7. Elsewhere I hope to study the Sanballat story.


Jaddus-Alexander story is a combination of two substories: the high priest and the Jews greet Alexander the Great (an adventus story); the temple and the Jews are rescued from Alexander the Great by a divine manifestation (an epiphany story).8

The Adventus Story

Adventus ("arrival") is the Latin word for the ceremonial reception of a monarch or other dignitary upon his arrival at a city. Throughout Greco- Roman antiquity these ceremonies followed a regular pattern.9 Before the visitor's arrival, the city would be decorated with wreaths, the temples would be opened, incense would be burnt, and a festival atmosphere would prevail. Dressed in white and bearing garlands, led by their priests, magistrates, and other officials, all in full dress, the citizens would march out of the city to greet the distinguished visitor. The members of the procession would carry various insignia, especially the statues of the city gods. After greetings were exchanged the visitor would enter the city amidst the acclamations, salutations, and general rejoicing of the citizenry. Sacrifices would be offered in the main temple of the city, either by the visitor, or by the citizens, or by both. After the celebrations the visitor, especially if he were a Roman emperor, would distribute largess or respond to the requests of the city.

Of the dozens of texts which illustrate this general description, I cite only a few. The first is the so-called Papyrus of Gourob, an account in the first person plural of the expedition of Ptolemy III Euergetes during the Third Syrian War (246 B.C.E.). Here is the monarch's arrival at Antioch (the text is partially restored):

Going outside of the city, the satraps, the other governors, the soldiers, the priests, the board of magistrates, the young men from the gymnasium, and the

8. I do not engage in the futile attempt to reconstruct the actual words or phrases of these stories.

9. The equivalent Greek terms are apantesis and hypantesis ("meeting"). On the adventus ceremony see Erik Peterson, "Die Einholung des Kyrios," Zeitschrift fir systematische Theolo- gie 7 (1930): 682-702; Tonio H61lscher, Victoria Romana (Mainz am Rhein, 1967), pp. 48-59; T. E. V. Pearce, Classical Quarterly 64 (1970): 313-16; Sabine MacCormack, "Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus," Historia 21 (1972): 721-52; Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977), pp. 31-40. MacCormack and Millar provide further bibliography.


entire wreathed crowd, met us. They brought out all the cult objects to the road in front of the gate. Some saluted us, others greeted us with applause and shouting. [Lacuna] When we had carefully performed all the sacrifices which had been provided, we, with ten private citizens, poured a libation.10

In his panegyric delivered to Theodosius in 389 C.E., Pacatus describes the emperor's reception at Haemona (Pannonia). After mentioning the dancing, singing, rattling, and the hymns, Pacatus rhetorically asks:

Why should I mention the free nobility's festal meeting [with you] outside the city walls, the senators conspicuous by their snowy white clothing, the priests (flamines) venerable in their municipal purple, the priests (sacerdotes) promi- nent by their conical hats? Why should I mention the gates crowned with ver- dant wreaths? Why should I mention, etc."

In a panegyric delivered to Constantine in 312 C.E., an anonymous orator describes the emperor's arrival at Autun (Gaul).'2 He was met by crowds of people. The insignia of all the associations and the images of all the gods were brought forth in the procession. Upon arriving in the town, Constan- tine asked the citizens what they required. The orator exclaims, "O emperor, these are the true benefactions, which are not extracted by prayers but which proceed from your spontaneous generosity, which give the pleasure of attainment without the trouble of petition."

The essential element in the adventus ceremony was the acknowledgment of the authority and power of the visitor. The guest was hailed with acclamations and hymns. The very gods of the city would temporarily leave their temples to welcome him. At the head of a festival procession he would sacrifice to the god of the city, thereby indicating that he was the ruler of the city. Hence the symbolic importance of the adventus ceremony in the Roman period: a refusal to participate could be construed as a rejection of imperial authority.13 Hence too the utility of the adventus ceremony during

10. Papyrus of Gourob III, 17-IV, 19, as edited by Maurice Holleaux, Etudes d'dpigraphie et d'histoire grecques, ed. Louis Robert, 5 vols. (Paris, 1942), 3: 288-90. Cf. the reception the monarch received at Seleuceia (11,23-111,7). The text is conveniently available in FGrH 160.

11. Panegyrici Latini 2 (12).37.3-4. I am indebted to the French translation and notes of Edouard Galletier, Pandgyriques latins, 3 vols. (Pairs, 1949-55).

12. Panegyrici Latini 5 (8).7.6-9.2. 13. On the symbolic importance of the adventus see MacCormack. Both gods (Pearce, p.

316; to his list of passages add Diodorus Siculus 34-35 fragment 33.2) and those celebrating a triumph (MacCormack, p. 726) entered a city with similar ceremonies. (The major distinction between a triumph and an adventus is that the former could be celebrated only at one's home town, while the latter could be celebrated either at home or abroad. See Julius Obsequens, De


a war: when a city was approached by a hostile army, or by an army whose intentions toward the city were not clear, the citizens might go to greet the general ceremonially. Such a gesture would demonstrate to the general that his lordship was already accepted and that military measures were not needed to establish his rule over the city. For example, after the battle of Gau- gamela Alexander marched on Babylon "as if for battle." The Babylonians, led by their priests and archons, went out to meet him en masse and surrendered the city. Upon entering Babylon, Alexander, as the new lord of the city, ordered the Babylonians to rebuild their temples, especially the temple of Bel. Alexander sacrificed to Bel "according to the instructions" of the Chaldeans.14 Similarly, when Antiochus III prepared to enter Jerusalem after taking Palestine from the Ptolemies, the Jews, led by their council of elders, greeted him "splendidly," i.e., they surrendered. During his wars of conquest Jonathan the Hasmonean received similar treatment from the Askalonites.'5

The author of the Jaddus-Alexander story knew the adventus ceremony. He remarks that the meeting (hypantisis) between Jaddus and Alexander is "sacred in character and different from that of other nations" (329). Like the citizens of any Greco-Roman city, the Jews, led by their priests, go out of their city to greet their distinguished visitor. As a token of surrender to him, the gates are opened (327). The city is wreathed.16 Like Theodosius at

Prodigiis 56.) It was thoroughly exceptional that Augustus went out to greet Tiberius (Dio 56.1.1) and that Vespasian went out to greet Titus (BJ 7.119). Acclamations: see below, n. 18. Hymns: N. Svensson, "Reception solonelle d'H6rode Atticus," Bulletin de correspondance hel- Idnique 50 (1926): 527-35. Welcome by gods: sacerdotes <cum> insignibus suis intrantem [Attalus I] urbem [Athens] ac di prope ipsi exciti sedibus suis acceperunt, Livy 31.14.12 (omitted by Polybius 16.25.7). Sacrifice: see n. 19 below. Sacrifice as a sign of rule: Elias J. Bicker- man, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1976), 1: 93-94, and C. Bradford Welles, note on Diodorus Siculus 17.40.3 in the Loeb edition. Refusal to participate: Millar, p. 31.

14. Arrian, Anabasis 3.16.3-5. "According to the instructions of the Chaldeans" means that Alexander sacrificed to Bel not in the Macedonian fashion,'which was his custom, but in the local manner. Cf. Arrian 4.15.8 and 6.3.1 with the comments of Helmut Berve, Das Alexan- derreich aufprosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. (Munich, 1926), 1: 87 and 99.

15. AJ 12.138; 1 Macc. 10:86 = AJ 13.101; 1 Macc. 11:60 = AJ 13.149. Cf. too the reception of Vespasian's general at Tiberias, BJ 3.459.

16. Practically all descriptions of adventus mention wreaths. Josephus writes stephanountas tin polin (327) and it is unclear what was wreathed: the temple and the buildings (cf. BJ 7.71 and Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus 32.1-2), or the citizens (polin = politas), or both. The participants in Judith's triumph also wore wreaths (Judith 15:12-13). In Hellenistic fashion Jews once wore wreaths at weddings too (Syriac Apocalypse of Barukh 10.13; M. Sotah 9:14). In spite of all this, Ganszyniec writes "den Juden waren die Kranz-sitten unbekannt" (in Pauly-Wissowa- Kroll-Ziegler, Realencyclopidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 11,2 [1922], p. 1591). On open gates as a token of surrender at an adventus, see BJ 3.459.


Haemona, Alexander witnesses a colorful sight: the multitude dressed in white, the priests in their vestments, and the high priest in his mitre and his hyacinth-blue and gold robe (327 and 331). Unlike other nations which take their idols to an adventus, the Jews are led by their high priest upon whose mitre the name of God was engraved (331).17 For the Jewish author it is this fact which makes the meeting "sacred and different from that of other nations." The Jews hail Alexander with one voice (332), i.e., they acclaim him,'" and escort him into the city. As he did at Babylon, Alexander sacrifices to the god of the city which has just acknowledged his suzerainty, and sacrifices "according to the instructions" of the clergy (336).19 Amidst general rejoicing,20 Alexander dismisses the assembly (337). On the next day he, like Constantine, bestows "true benefactions" on the people: he asks them what they require and he grants their requests (337-38).21

In all likelihood the adventus story as outlined was once an independent piece with no reference to the miraculous.22 It glorifies the Jews by showing

17. Statues at an adventus: P. Gourob (above); Livy (n. 13 above); Panegyric of 312 C.E. (above); Dio Cassius 78 (77).22.2; Herodian 8.7.2; Ps.-Kallisthenes 1.34.2 (pp. 37-38 ed. Kroll). In one of the A cta Alexandrina the Jews and Alexandrians bring their gods to the tribu- nal but unfortunately the text breaks off before we are told what the Jews brought (the Alex- andrians brought a statue of Sarapis). See Victor Tcherikover et al., Corpus Papyrorum Judai- carum, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1957-64), vol. 2, no. 157, lines 17-18.

18. The phrase is pant6n mia ph6nei aspasamenon. Aspazesthai can mean "to acclaim, to hail" (AJ 10.211; Mark 15:18; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 4.39; see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2d ed. by William Arndt, F. W. Gin- grich, and F. W. Danker [Chicago, 1979], s.v. aspazesthai), a meaning that is assured here by mia ph6nei, a phrase which frequently characterizes acclamations (Erik Peterson, Heis Theos [G6ttingen, 1926], pp. 191-92). For acclamations at an adventus see AJ 16.14; BJ 3.459; 7.71 and 102; and especially Germanicus's edict of 19 C.E. (Victor Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [Oxford, 1955], no. 320a) with the analysis of Dieter Weingirtner, Die Aegyptenreise des Germanicus (Bonn, 1969), pp. 108-19.

19. Sacrifices by the visitor at an adventus: P. Gourob (above); BJ 7.72; AJ 16.14; Herodian 8.7.2-3. The phrase "according to the instructions of the high priest" was not necessarily inspired by the Babylonian (see n. 14) or some other story about Alexander, since analogous phrases appear elsewhere in Josephus. Cf. AJ 10.72. Abel (n. 6), p. 52, interprets the phrase to mean that Alexander himself performed the sacrifice, but this is most unlikely; see for example AJ 15.147 and 19.293.

20. General festival: Wilhelm Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig, 1903-1905), no. 332, lines 38-40, and Bi 7.73.

21. Gifts and concessions at an adventus: Ptolemy IV on his return to Egypt after his victory at Raphia. See Heinz-Josef Thissen, Studien zum Raphiadekret (Meisenheim, 1966), pp. 20-21 (text of the "Raphia decree" or "Pithom stele") and pp. 64-65 (notes).

22. The adventus story is complete without Jaddus's dream and Alexander's threats against the city. That Alexander greeted Jaddus first (331) may be part of the adventus story (cf. Arrian 5.19.2 and AJ 12.172), but it has a more likely place in the epiphany story (see. n. 38 below).


that Alexander the Great honored Jerusalem with a visit and honored the temple of the Jewish God with a sacrifice. The story does not disguise the fact that the Jews surrendered to Alexander. They opened the gates to him, acclaimed him, allowed him to sacrifice in their temple, and received from him permission to live according to their ancestral laws (and, perhaps, exemption from taxes in the sabbatical year). All of these are clear indica- tions of political surrender. The entire world was conquered by Alexander the Great. This story is the Jewish supplement to the histories of pagan authors who were not interested in the people of Jerusalem.

The Epiphany Story

"A visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known," was called an epiphany.23 Ever since Herodotus's description of the Persian attack on Delphi one of the most popular types of epiphany stories was the soteriological: an invading army attacks a temple or a city but is repulsed through a manifestation of the god or goddess. The heroes of the story are the defenders and their god, the villains are the attackers. The manifestation of the divine power could be in any of three ways: the gods could personally participate in the battle (e.g., the Dioscuri might temporarily assume human form and join the ranks of the victorious army); natural and supernatural phenomena could be turned against the enemy (e.g., lighten- ing, thunder, rainstorm, boulders from heaven, and so forth); or, less com- monly, the god might appear in a dream either to the pious defenders (with a message of encouragement or advice) or to the insolent aggressors (with a message of warning).24

We are interested here in the soteriological epiphanies of the third type.

23. Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich (n. 18), s.v. epiphaneia. On epiphanies in general see the bibliography compiled by Bauer et al., especially Friedrich Pfister, "Epiphanie," in Pauly-Wissowa et al., Realencyclopddie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.: Supplementband 4 (1924), pp. 277-323, and Elpidius Pax, "Epiphanie," Reallexicon ftr Antike und Christentum, ed. Theodor Klauser, vol. 5 (1962), pp. 832-909. Cf. J6rg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttes- tamentlichen Gattung (Vluyn, 1977).

24. On soteriological epiphanies, see Pierre Roussel, "Le miracle de Zeus Panamaros," Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 55 (1931): 70-116; Elias Bickerman, "H61iodore au temple de Jerusalem," Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves 7 (1939-44): 5-40, esp. 32-34; and Marcel Launey, Recherches sur les armees helle'nistiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1950), 2:897-901.


During the depredations of the Gauls, the magistrates of Themisonion were instructed in their dreams by Heracles, Apollo, and Hermes to hide the citizens in some nearby caves in order to escape danger (Pausanius 10.32.3). When Mithridates besieged Kyzikos, Athena appeared in a dream to one of the magistrates of the city and encouraged him, assuring him of victory; the next day a violent wind destroyed all the siege engines of the attackers (Plu- tarch, Lucullus 10.2-3). Even more elaborate is the account of Datis's siege of Lindos written by a native of the city:

When Darius, King of Persia, sent forth a great army for the purpose of enslaving Hellas, this island was the first which his fleet visited. The people of the country were terrified at the approach of the Persians and fled for safety to all the strongholds, most of them gathering at Lindos. Thereupon the barbarians set about to besiege them, until the Lindians, sore-pressed by a water shortage, were minded to hand over the city to the enemy. Right at this junc- ture the goddess stood over one of the magistrates in his sleep and bade him be of good courage, since she herself would procure, by intercession with her father, the water they needed. The one who saw the vision rehearsed to the citizens Athena's command. So they investigated and found that they had only enough water to last for five days, and accordingly they asked the barbarians for a truce for just that number of days, saying that Athena had sent to her father for help, and that if help did not come in the specified time they would surrender the city.

When Datis, the admiral of Darius, heard this request, he immediately burst out laughing. But the next day, when a great cloud gathered about the Acropolis and a heavy shower fell inside the cloud, so that contrary to all expectations the besieged had plenty of water, while the Persian army suffered for lack of it, the barbarian was struck by the epiphany of the goddess. He took off his personal adornment and sent it as an offering. . . . He set forth on the business before him, after establishing peace with the besieged and declaring publicly, "These men are protected by the gods."25

This story, an extract from the great inscription of the temple at Lindos (Rhodes), is the first of four labeled "epiphanies" and contains a double epiphany: the goddess's appearance in a dream to one of the magistrates, and the miraculous rainstorm. In the dream the goddess bids the citizens to have confidence, just as in the subsequent epiphany stories of the inscription she

25. FGrH 532 D (1). The translation is that of F. C. Grant as quoted by Moses Hadas, Hel- lenistic Culture (New York, 1959), pp. 166-67.


instructs one of her priests in times of need. The miraculous storm, the second half of the double epiphany, causes Datis to offer dedications to the goddess, lift the siege, establish peace with the Lindians, and acknowledge the power of the local gods.

When Lysander was besieging Aphytis (Thrace), the god Ammon appeared to him in a dream and ordered him to abandon the siege. Lysander complied and ordered the citizens of the city to sacrifice to Ammon.26 A more elaborate story of the appearance of a god in a dream to the general of an army attacking a city is the following account from Justin, Historiae Philippicae 43.5-7:

By general consensus the chieftain Catumandus was chosen general [of the Gauls in their war against Massilia]. When he was besieging the enemy city with a large army of select soldiers, Catumandus was terrified in his sleep by the figure of a fierce woman who said that she was a goddess. [As a result] he voluntarily established peace with the Massilians. After requesting permission to enter their city and to worship (adorare) their gods, he arrived at the citadel of Minerva and, seeing the image of the goddess in the colonnade, exclaimed suddenly that it was she who had terrified him at night, that it was she who had ordered him to withdraw from the siege. Congratulating the Massilians because he realized that they belonged to the care of the immortal gods, he donated a golden necklace to the goddess and concluded with the Massilians a friendship treaty in perpetuity.27

The central element of these epiphanies is the saving action of the gods. The people of Themisonion, Kyzikos, Lindos, Aphytis, and Massilia are saved from their attackers and remain independent. As a result of the epiphany the aggressor explicitly acknowledges the power of the god: Lysander orders the citizens of Aphytis to worship Ammon,28 Datis and Catumandus give offerings (personal jewelry) to Lindian Athena and Massilian Minerva respectively. Both Datis and Catumandus declare that their opponents are protected by the gods. Through the manifestation of the divine power the pious inhabitants of these five cities obtained a victory which would have eluded them had their gods not intervened in their behalf.

26. Plutarch, Lysander 20.5; Pausanias 3.18.3. 27. This event allegedly occurred in the fifth century B.C.E.; see Michel Clerc, Massalia, 2

vols. (Marseilles, 1927), 1: 173-77. 28. It is unclear whether Ammon was worshipped at Aphytis even before the siege or

whether the cult was introduced only as a result of Lysander's order.


Like the Lindos narrative, the Jaddus-Alexander story documents a double epiphany: there a dream to a city magistrate and a rainstorm, here a dream to the high priest and a dream to Alexander. In the first epiphany the leader of the city receives encouragement from the god. In the second epiphany the god prevents the attacker from realizing his ambition. As a result of his dream Alexander salutes the high priest (331 and 336), does obeisance to the God of Israel (331),29 enters the temple, and honors (i.e., bestows gifts upon) the high priest and the priests (336).30

Something, however, is wrong with Alexander's dream. While still in Macedonia (at Dion) he saw a robed man exhorting him to attack the Per- sians and promising that he would lead Alexander to victory (334). Alexan- der did not know the identity of the man until he arrived at Jerusalem and saw Jaddus (335). The Jewish narrator imagines that Alexander, like the Nebuchadnezzar of the book of Daniel, knew that the God of the Jews is not like the god of the pagans. The human figure who appeared to Catumandus declared that she was a goddess, but Alexander had the good sense to realize that the human figure who appeared to him was not God but the priest of God, and that obeisance was due not to the human figure but to God.3' This dream, however, is not the right sort for a wicked aggressor. Its closest parallels are the dreams which justify the conquests of pious generals and legiti- mate the usurpation of power by heroic monarchs. It has no place in a soteriological epiphany whose heroes are the would-be victims, not the would-

29. It makes little difference here whether proskynisis means "prostration" or a "hand- kiss," i.e., a kiss on one's hand followed by the extension of the hand as a salute. See Elias Bick- erman, Parola dal Passato 18 (1963): 244-53. The parallel with Daniel 2:46 (see next section) makes the former more likely. Kasher (n. 1), pp. 198-99, correctly points out that the reference to proskynesis is not anachronistic since many orientals by this point (after Issus) showed respect for Alexander in this fashion. The practice was introduced to Macedonians only later.

30. Several manuscripts omit "and the priests." For timan "to reward with gifts," see, e.g., BJ 1.511 and 646. Since the temple of Jerusalem, unlike most other ancient temples, did not have a substantial treasury (see Bickerman, "H61iodore" [n. 24]), Alexander donated gifts not to the temple but to the priests.

31. See section III. At the temple of Aesculapius at Pergamon, the foster father of Aelius Aristides saw the god in his dream in the form of the consul L. Petronius Sabinus who was still unknown to both Aristides and his foster father. The dreamer, however, realized that the god was using the consul's form and spoke with him about Aristides' work. Later he met and recognized the consul. See Aelius Aristides, Hieroi Logoi 2.9, p. 396, ed. Bruno Keil = C. A. Behr, A elius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 224-25. In Yosippon, p. 54, and in the Samaritan chronicle Book of Joshua (Chronicon Samaritanum ... Liber Josuae, ed. Theodorus G. J. Juynboll [Leiden, 1848], p. 184), Alexander sees an angel with the features of Jaddus.


be attackers, and whose major aim is the demonstration of the power of the god to protect his adherents.32 Furthermore, the dream is unsatisfactory from a literary and dramatic perspective. We are supposed to believe that for almost three years (from Dion, mid- or late 335 B.C.E., to Jerusalem, mid-332 B.C.E.), Alexander wondered about the identity of the man in his dream, eagerly staring at every robed figure he would meet. On the night Jaddus saw his dream, Alexander slept undisturbed. When Alexander met the high priest he explained his conduct on the basis of a dream he had seen long before. Aware of this literary inelegance, some medieval versions of the story put Alexander's dream the night before the encounter with Jaddus and include within it a warning to the Macedonian not to harm Jerusalem and the Jews.33

Another difficulty with our narrative as it stands is that the end forgets the beginning. The story opens with Alexander's demand for friendship (philia) on three conditions. The Jews must provide him with soldiers (symmachia), supply provisions for his army (agora), and pay to the Macedonians the tribute (dora) which they had formerly paid to the Persians.34 Jaddus refuses all three conditions on the grounds that he is bound to refrain from fighting against Darius "as long as he [the king] remains among the living" (318).35 At the end of the story, however, the general demand for philia and the specific condition of agora are completely forgotten. Jaddus forgets that he is still bound by an oath and agrees to pay tribute six years out of seven and to accept Macedonian rule provided that the Jews are allowed to live according to their ancestral laws (338). As for symmachia, Alexander asks for volunteers (339) and imposes no compulsion on Jaddus, presumably because the high priest is still bound by his oath.36 Did Jaddus remain loyal to his oath or not? Did the Jews surrender to Alexander or did he accept their neutrality?

32. See section IV. 33. See Yosippon, p. 54 (perhaps inspired by Gen. 31:24) and the medieval version transla-

ted by Micha Joseph Bin Gorion, Mimekor Yisrael: Classical Jewish Folktales, trans. I. M. Lask, 3 vols. (Bloomington, 1976), 1: 225.

34. Symmachia, agora, and dora are fairly common in treaties and alliances. See, e.g., the indices in Hatto H. Schmidt, Die Staatsvertrdge des Altertums III: von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. (Mu- nich, 1969). Alexander ordered the cities of Asia Minor to pay him the same tribute they had paid to the Persians (Arrian 1.18.2).

35. Were loyalty oaths generally required of the high priests? Jaddus had every reason to defect since the Persians had supported his uncle against his father (AJ 11.298) and had polluted the temple (297-301).

36. Contrast AJ 11.345.


To explain these inelegancies and difficulties, I suggest that the epiphany plot was originally an independent narrative, like the Massilian and Lindian narratives, and not just a collection of motifs used to enrich an adventus story. It ran somewhat as follows. As a result of Jaddus's refusal to accept his demand for philia,37 Alexander marches on Jerusalem. The night before the assault both Jaddus and Alexander behold visions. The former receives encouragement from God, the latter receives a warning from a Jaddus-like figure not to touch the Jews. The next day Alexander abandons his siege, receives permission to enter Jerusalem, beholds Jaddus in the temple, recog- nizes him as the figure he had seen in his dream, does obeisance to him,38 and bestows gifts on the priesthood. After establishing philia with the Jews (on their terms, not his), Alexander leaves Jerusalem, perhaps declaring "Great is the God of the Jews" (see section III), and invites the Jews to join his expedition. This epiphany story was at some point combined with the adventus story.

Whether this reconstruction is correct or not; whether the narrator has drawn upon a preexisting epiphany story or merely has drawn motifs from the epiphany literary tradition; whether the narrator has drawn upon a preexisting adventus story or merely has drawn motifs from the adventus literary tradition; in any case, the important point is the seam between the two stories/motifs. The adventus story assumes that the Jews acknowledge the rule of Alexander. As Persian hegemony shifts to Macedonian, the Jews shift their allegiance. The aim of the story is to find a place for the Jews in Hellenistic history. The epiphany story asserts the opposite. God saves the Jews from Alexander. The Jews do not surrender to Alexander; it is he who surrenders and acknowledges the supremacy of God.39 The aim of this story is to add the name of Alexander the Great to the list of distinguished pagans who recognized God's power and showed him respect (see section III). These two stories/motifs sit uneasily one next to the other, the tension being most evident at the end of the narrative.

37. The adventus story had no need for this motif. 38. The motif that Alexander greeted Jaddus first (331) may derive from the adventus story

(see n. 22 above) but probably belongs with the proskynisis as part of the epiphany story. Pro- fessor Morton Smith brings to my attention the parallel in Plutarch, Cicero 44.2-4. Cicero sees an image of a boy in a dream but does not recognize him; the next day he meets Octavian for the first time and realizes that he is the boy whom he had seen in his vision.

39. Yehoshua Gutmann assigned this objective to the narrative as a whole but he did not distinguish between adventus and epiphany. See his "Alexander of Macedon in the Land of Israel" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 11 (1940): 271-94, esp. 285-86.


Although in all likelihood it was Josephus who converted the original warning dream to a dream which sanctions conquest (see section IV), it was not Josephus who welded the adventus to the epiphany. As I remarked earlier, the combination of independent concurrent narratives was not Jose- phus's strength, whereas the combination of adventus with epiphany is well done. It is so well done that we can no longer reconstruct with certainty the original form of either story although the separate motifs remain recogniz- able. Had these stories been combined by Josephus, the union would have been much less harmonious.

III

Adventus and epiphany, the two strands which form the bulk of the Jaddus-Alexander story, were popular genres in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Josephus knows the adventus ceremony well, describing the magnifi- cent arrival of dignitaries at Rome (Vespasian and Titus), Antioch (Titus), and Jerusalem (Antiochus III, Marcus Agrippa, and Vitellius).40 Given the familiarity of the motif and the ceremony, we have no need to posit any single historical adventus as the model for the adventus portion of the Jaddus- Alexander story.41 Similarly, we need not posit any historical event as the model for Judith's fictional triumph at Jerusalem. After her victory the high priest and the gerousia go to Bethulia to greet Judith and to praise her (15:8-10). They bestow gifts upon her (15:11) and, amid crowds of women and men, the former dancing, the latter singing, all of them crowned with garlands (15:12-13), they accompany her to Jerusalem in a joyful procession. She sings a hymn of praise to God (15:14-16:17) which modestly includes praise of herself (16:5-10). At Jerusalem all do obeisance to God.

40. Rome: BJ 7.63-74, 119; Antioch: Bi 7.100-2; Jerusalem: AJ 12.138 (Antiochus); 16.14 (Agrippa; cf. too Philo, Legatio 294-97); 18.122-23 (Vitellius). Cf. too Bi 3.30 and 459; AJ 13.101 and 149. Even Antiochus IV Epiphanes was greeted magnificently in Jerusalem: 2 Macc. 4:22. Professor Shaya Gafni reminds me that the adventus ceremony is frequently described in rabbinic literature. See, e.g., Pesiqta Rabbati, p. 21b, ed. Ish-Shalom; Leviticus Rabbah 30.7 (pp. 704-5, ed. Margalioth); Mekhilta, p. 119, ed. Horovitz. These and other passages are dis- cussed in the first chapter of Ignaz Ziegler, Die K6nigsgleichnisse des Midrasch (Breslau, 1903).

41. Hugo Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaischen Erhebung (G6ttingen, 1895), pp. 9-10, suggested the arrival of Agrippa as the model for the Alexander story, while Solomon Zeitlin, endorsed by George Foot Moore, "Simon the Righteous," Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York, 1927), pp. 357-58, and James Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), p. 124, suggested the arrival of Antiochus III. See n. 78 below.

56 SHAYEJ.D.COHEN

The people offer sacrifices (16:18) while Judith dedicates the personal belongings of the enemy Holophernes (16:19). The rejoicing lasts three months (16:20). Jerusalem accorded Judith the same proper but fictional reception it accorded Alexander the Great.42

The epiphany story too has its parallels. On several other occasions through a manifestation of his power the God of the Jews rescued his temple (from Heliodorus), his people (from Nicanor, Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy IX), and his saints (Daniel and his friends).43 These stories highlight not only God's salvific power but also the recognition of this power by the pagan monarchs who had attacked the Jews. Heliodorus was struck down by angels while attempting to plunder the temple. After his ordeal he testified to the mighty acts of the Lord and declared that the God of heaven watches over his temple and protects it from those who would harm it (2 Macc. 3:36-39). After his attempt to kill the Jews of Egypt miscarried, Ptolemy IV Philopator made a similar declaration (3 Macc. 7:6-9). Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tossed into a fiery furnace because they refused to worship the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. When they emerged safely, the king proclaimed, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego ... there is no other god who can save like this" (Dan. 3:28-29).44 Daniel was thrown into the lion's den not once but twice and was rescued each time by God. After the first instance Cyrus proclaimed, "You are great, O Lord, God of Daniel, there is no god but you!" (Bel and the Dragon 41). After the second instance Darius made a more elaborate proclamation, "He is the living God, he endures forever, his sovereignty will never be destroyed and his kingship never end" (Dan. 6:27).

In Daniel a soteriological epiphany is not necessary for a pagan monarch to acknowledge the God of the Jews. When Daniel correctly described and interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the king "fell prostrate" before him, ordered oblations and incense to be offered to him, and declared "Your God

42. I cite Judith from the Greek text. The Latin and Hebrew versions, edited by A. M. Dubarle, Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions II: Textes (Rome, 1966), omit many of the adventus elements. Perhaps Judith's entry is more a triumph than an adventus, but the two are closely related; see n. 13. The Judith narrative is inspired in part by biblical models but the Hellenistic contribution also is clear (e.g., wreaths). On the influence of the epiphany tradition on Judith, see Hadas (n. 25).

43. Heliodorus: 2 Macc. 3; Nicanor: 2 Macc. 15; Ptolemy IV Philopator: 3 Macc.; Ptolemy IX Physcon: CA 2.53-55; Dan. 3; 6; and Bel and the Dragon. Aside from Daniel, I do not quote biblical material here.

44. Daniel is cited from The Jerusalem Bible.


must be the God of gods, the master of kings, and the revealer of mysteries" (Dan. 2:46-47). On another occasion, after Daniel's interpretation of a dream had again come true, Nebuchadnezzar praised God and acknowledged his power (Dan. 4:31-32).

Alexander the Great too was forced by an epiphany to acknowledge the God of the Jews. Like Nebuchadnezzar he did obeisance to the person who was the vehicle for the manifestation of the divine power, but his real obeisance was to God, not to the minister.45 Both Daniel and Jaddus received gifts and honors from their pagan admirers. Like Heliodorus and Ptolemy IV Philopator, Alexander is convinced by the epiphany not to attempt any further action against the Jews.

The pagan and Jewish parallels to this epiphany story suggest that Alex- ander the Great should have acknowledged God's might explicitly. Mini- mally he should have declared, "The God of heaven protects this place"; maximally he might have declared, "You are great, O Lord, God of Jaddus, there is no god but you!" Why is such a declaration, either minimal or maxi- mal, absent from our story? We have two basic possibilities. Either Josephus omitted it, or it was already absent from the narrative which he used. The former possibility is favored by the fact that Josephus regularly omits such declarations. The Bible has Jethro declare "The Lord is greater than all other gods" (Exod. 18:11), but in the Antiquities this Midianite priest makes no such statement (AJ 3.63-65). Josephus omits three of the four acclamations of Daniel.46 His version of the story of 3 Maccabees does not have the king declare the might of Israel's God (CA 2.53-55). Josephus adds to the narrative of 2 Kings 6 that Ben Haddad was amazed at "the miracle, the epiphany (epiphaneia) of the God of the Israelites, [his] power, and [his] prophet," but he does not have Ben Haddad declare "Great is the God of Elisha!" (AJ 9.60). Petronius too was amazed at the epiphany of the God of the Jews and at his providential care (pronoia) for his people, but he did not declare "Great is the God of the Jews!" (AJ 18.286, 288, and 308-9).47 Dis-

45. Jerome on Dan. 2:47 (quoted by James Montgomery ad loc. in his commentary on Daniel [repr. Edinburgh, 1979]): ergo non tam Danielem quam in Daniele adorat deum qui mysteria revelavit; quod et Alexandrum regem Macedonum in pontifice loiade fecisse legimus. Bevan apud Montgomery appositely cites Isa. 49:23 and 60:14.

46. Compare Dan. 2:47 with AJ 10.211; Dan. 3:28-33 with AJ 10.215; Dan. 4:34 with AJ 10.217 and 242.

47. Similarly Josephus adds no acclamation to the biblical story about the ark in the Philis- tine cities (AJ 6.1-15). Unfortunately Josephus's version of the encounter between Naaman and Elisha is lost in the lacuna at AJ 9.50-51. Artaxerxes' decree (AJ 11.279; see Marcus's note) omits the divine epithets of Esther 8:12 = 16:16.


tinguished pagans respect the Jews, bestow benefactions upon them, and sacrifice at their temple. Pagan monarchs and generals recognize that the God of the Jews protects his people and appoints and removes their kings. They even recognize that the God of the Jews appoints and removes gentile kings in accordance with their treatment of the Jews and their temple. Pagans do all these things according to Josephus,48 but they do not boldly and forthrightly proclaim Israel's God. Such proclamations might have sounded odd or unbelievable, and might have raised the sensitive issue of conversion, an issue which Josephus tries to ignore.49 If it were not for Josephus's inconsistency in these matters, as in everything else, we could conclude with some certainty that it was Josephus who dropped Alexander's proclamation from the narrative.5"

What Josephus omitted was supplied by later narrators, both Jewish and Christian. The high priest of the rabbinic story was not Jaddus but Simon the Righteous, and of him it was told:

When Alexander Macedon would see Simon the Righteous, he said, "Blessed is the God of Simon the Righteous."5'

48. Pagan respect and benefactions: see, e.g., the documents in AJ 14. Pagan sacrifices: AJ 3.318-20; 13.242; 14.488; 15.147 and 422; 16.14; 18.122-23; CA 2.48. Cf. too AJ 11.120 and 124; 12.4; 14.477-78; BJ 2.341. Pagan recognition that God appoints and removes Israelite kings: AJ 8.53 and 173; 10.139; that God protects the Israelites: AJ 8.379; 9.16 and 87; that God appoints and removes gentile kings: AJ 11.3-4 and 103 (Cyrus); 11.31 and 58 (Darius); 11.279 (Artaxerxes); 12.25 and 47 (Philadelphus); 12.357 (Antiochus IV; cf. 1 Macc. 6:12); BJ 5-6 pas- sim (Romans). This subject needs to be studied further.

49. Ruth's "conversion" is omitted at AJ 5.322; the sailors' fear of the Lord and the Nine- vites' repentance are omitted from the paraphrase of Jonah (AJ 9.208-14). The Adiabene story (AJ 20.17-96) is the only place where Josephus discusses conversion in any detail; elsewhere it is mentioned only a few times and is usually equated with circumcision (AJ 3.217; 11.285; 13.257-58 and 318-19; 18.82; 20.139 and 145; CA 2.282-84 speaks not of converts but of imitators). On the Roman fear of Jewish proselytism in the first century see Johanan Levy, Stu- dies in Jewish Hellenism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 150-61. On the distinction between conversion and declarations of reverence, especially in the mouths of pagan monarchs, see Bickerman, Studies (n. 13), p. 93 and "H61iodore," p. 32.

50. Josephus allows the declaration of Daniel 6:27-28 to remain at AJ 10.263 (albeit in shortened form). AJ 10.139 has Nebuchadnezzar proclaim megas ho theos. Philadelphus either does (AJ 12.114) or does not (AJ 12.90) perform proskynesis before the Torah. On Josephus's general sloppiness and inconsistency, see Cohen, p. 276.

51. Leviticus Rabbah 13.5, p. 293, ed. Margalioth. For parallel texts see Margalioth's notes.


This minimal declaration, obviously inspired by Dan. 3:28 and similar texts, was then expanded (Yosippon, p. 56):

Blessed is the Lord, the God of this temple. For I knew long ago that he is the master of all, and that his dominion is over all, and that the soul of every living creature is in his hand for death and life. And fortunate are you, his servants, who minister before him in this place.

In these Jewish texts Alexander does not "convert." He acknowledges the power of the God of the Jews but does not deny polytheism.52 Contrast the following two Christian texts, the first of which is a fifth century chronicle:

When Alexander founded Alexandria-at-Egypt, coming to Jerusalem he did obeisance (adoravit) to the Lord God, saying, "Glory to you, O God, the only one, the ruler of all, who lives forever."53

Compare this late version of the Alexander Romance:

[The priest] said [to Alexander], "We serve the one God who made heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen. No man is able to interpret [?] him." To this Alexander said, "Go in peace, worthy worshippers of the truly great God, go. Your God shall be my God and my peace [shall be] with you. I shall not invade you as [I have done] to other nations, because you serve the living God."54

"Your God shall be my God." Like Ruth, the Macedonian conqueror

52. On the formula "god of X" where X is the person through whom a god has manifested himself, see Peterson, Heis Theos, pp. 210-12. In other medieval Jewish versions too Alexander does not convert; see Bin Gorion, p. 227 and pp. 229-30.

53. Carolus Frick, Chronica Minora (Leipzig, 1892), p. 270: Gloria tibi deus solus omnia tenens qui vivis in saecula. Cf. the parallel text on p. 322; Gloria tibi deus qui vivis in secula solus princeps. This chronicle, the Excerpta Latina Barbari, is a seventh or eighth century Latin version of a lost fifth century Greek chronicle. The Samaritan Book of Joshua, after paraphrasing Josephus, has Alexander declare, "Deus vester est deus deorum ac dominus dominorum" (trans. Juynboll, p. 184).

54. Anonymi Byzantini Vita Alexandri Regis Macedonum, ed. Jiirgen Trumpf (Stuttgart, 1974), p. 78, followed with minor variants by Der griechische Alexanderroman Rezension Gam- ma Buch II, ed. Helmut Engelmann (Meisenheim, 1963), p. 218. Cf. Marcus's translation of this text (Loeb edition, p. 515).


accepts the faith of Israel. Alexander was not the only distinguished pagan to have monotheism thrust upon him long after his death."*

Although we may presume that Josephus knew how to distinguish "conversion" from a polytheistic recognition of the God of Israel,56 he refrained from placing confessional formulae in the mouths of pagans, perhaps because they could be so easily mistaken as declarations of conversion. But later readers of the Jewish Antiquities had no such reticence. Realizing that an epiphany should be followed by an explicit acknowledgment of God's power, they sensed that something was missing from the Jaddus-Alexander story and imaginatively filled the lacuna. What Josephus suppressed from his source was later supplied from the imagination.57

IV

The rise and fall of states and empires was a common theme in Greco- Roman historiography. Thucydides narrated the rise and fall of Athens. Polybius and Livy described the rise of Rome and the fall of Macedon and

55. According to both Jewish and Christian legend Jethro, who declared the greatness of Israel's God (Exod. 18:11), converted to monotheism. See Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., reprint ed. (Philadelphia, 1967-68), 7: 257, and Cyril of Alexandria, De Adoratione (J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 68: 281-84). Jerome, commentary on Isa. 45:1, deduced from Cyrus's edict that the Persian king acknowledged no god but the God of Israel (Patrologia Latina 24:442 = Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 73a:504-5). From Aristotle's admiration for a Jewish sage (CA 1.176-83), some fifteenth and sixteenth century Jewish scholars deduced that Aristotle converted to Judaism (Azariah de Rossi, Me'or 'Einayim, chap. 22, pp. 246-47, ed. David Cassel [Vilna, 1864-66]). Many additional examples could be cited.

56. Augustine remarks, "Alexander did indeed offer sacrifices in the temple of God, not because he was converted to his worship through true piety, but because he thought through impious vanity that God ought to be worshipped together with false gods." See De Civitate Dei 18.45.2 (cited by George Cary, The Medieval Alexander [Cambridge, 1956], p. 128). Cf. Eccle- siastes Rabbah 10.12 regarding Cyrus, as analyzed by Ephraim Urbach, "Cyrus and his Decree in the Eyes of the Sages" [Hebrew], Molad 19 (1961): 371.

57. Friedrich Pfister, "Eine jiidische Grfindungsgeschichte Alexandrias," Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 5 (1914), no. 11, pp. 25-26, argues that the Alex- ander romance, the rabbis, and Josephus draw independently upon an earlier version of the story which he dates to the early first century C.E. Claiming that the romance depends upon Josephus, Merkelbach et al. delete these pages from Pfister's Kleine Schriften (n. 6) where they should have appeared at pp. 97-98. See Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans, 2d ed. with Jurgen Trumpf (Munich, 1977), pp. 66 and 136. See now Gerhard Delling, "Alexander der Grosse als Bekenner des jiudischen Gottesglaubens," Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981): 1-51.


the Greek states. One of the recurring themes of Josephus's Jewish War is the fall of the Jews and the rise of the Roman empire.58

Within the Jewish Antiquities, too, especially books 10 and 11, this theme has a major role. In book 10 Josephus details the prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel and their fulfillments. Judaea is conquered by Babylon, and Babylon in turn is conquered by the Medes and Persians. Jeremiah explains the causes of Judaea's downfall: sinfulness and folly (AJ 10.89 and 104). Daniel explains the causes of Babylon's downfall: impiety and blasphemies (AJ 10.241-43). In book 11 Josephus narrates Jewish history under Persian rule until the Persians too are replaced by a new empire, the Macedonian. The book opens with Cyrus's edict (11.3-4) which, Josephus says, was prompted by the king's perusal of the prophecies of Isaiah. Two hundred and ten years earlier this prophet had predicted that God would appoint Cyrus king of many nations and that Cyrus in turn would restore the Jews to their land and their temple (11.5-7). By paraphrasing Esdras, some form of Nehemiah, and Esther, Josephus documents continued Persian piety. The later Persian kings (except for the wicked Cambyses) follow Cyrus's lead in recognizing that the God of the Jews has given them dominion and that they owe him gratitude. The gratitude is expressed by benefactions to God's temple, by supporting and protecting God's people, and by discomfiting the Samaritans.59 Unlike the Babylonians the Persians are not guilty of impiety and blasphemies. Why then were they deprived of their empire?

Part of the answer is provided by the enigmatic story about Bagoses and the Jews (11.297-301) which is sandwiched between the paraphrases of Esther (11.184-296) and the narrative about Sanballat, Jaddus, and Alex- ander (11.302-47).60 The story tells of the misdeeds of the Jews. The high priest Joannes feuds with his brother Jesus and kills him in the temple. "Nei- ther among Greeks nor barbarians had so savage and impious a deed ever been committed" (299, trans. Marcus). Just as God would later use the

58. Jacqueline de Romilly, The Rise and Fall of States According to Greek Authors (Ann Arbor, 1977); Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius," a paper delivered at the 1980 meeting of the Association of Ancient Historians.

59. Recognition that God appoints and removes gentile kings: see n. 48 above. Discomfi- ting the Samaritans: AJ 11.16, 61, 97-104, and 114-19. Cambyses was ready to listen to the Samaritans because he "was wicked" (11.26). In AJ 11 Josephus stresses the enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans; see 84-88 and 174.

60. The problems analyzed by H. G. M. Williamson, "The Historical Value of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities XI. 297-301," Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977): 49-66, do not affect our discussion.


Romans to punish the Jews for similar crimes, God used the Persians on this occasion, but with one major difference. In the Jewish War the Romans are God's righteous avengers who seek to purify the temple of its contagion, whereas in the Jewish Antiquities the Persians led by Bagoses are wicked. Josephus emphasizes their guilt. They, not the Jews, are said to pollute the temple (miainein, 297 and 300). Bagoses enters the sacred precincts (301) and "enslaves" the Jews (300) by imposing a fee on the tamid sacrifices (297).61 Immediately following this is the first part of the Sanballat-Alexander story which tells of Sanballat's attempts to build a temple for his son-in-law. Pre- vious Persian kings had discomfited the Samaritans, but Sanballat seems confident that Darius will grant his request when he returns from fighting Alexander (311 and 315). The next paragraph relates Alexander's victory (316) and his approach to Jerusalem (317).

Here then is Josephus's explanation for the downfall of the Persians. As long as they behaved benevolently toward the Jews and malevolently toward the Samaritans, their rule endured. Once they reversed these policies they were doomed. Since Josephus had little hard evidence for such a reversal,62 he tried to force his material to fit his thesis. The new Persian enmity toward the Jews is documented by a story which describes the wickedness of both the Jews and the Persians, but the editorial introduction (297) and conclusion (301) to the story ignore the wickedness of the former and highlight that of the latter. The new Persian policy toward the Samaritans is expressed only in the wishful thinking of Sanballat, but Josephus leaves the reader little doubt that Darius was prepared to comply with Sanballat's wishes. Alexander, the inheritor of the Persian mantle, continues the old Persian policies, not the new. True, he is maneuvered by the wily Sanballat into granting permission for the building of a temple (324), but in the end the Samaritans are discomfited nonetheless (340-44). In contrast to Bagoses who profaned the temple and interfered with the sacrificial cult, Alexander respects the temple, venerates the priests, and offers a sacrifice. The Persian leadership and Alexander thus form a contrasting pair, the one wicked and failing, the other righteous and successful.63

61. Cf. 2 Maccabees: the sins of wicked high priests bring the pollution of the temple by a gentile monarch. Redemption comes when both the high priests and the gentile monarch are replaced.

62. At this point Josephus obviously knew nothing about the Persian persecutions described by Hecataeus (CA 1.191) or about the Jewish revolt against Ochus chronicled by Eusebius (Chronicle ad 359 a. Chr.) and other writers (see CA 1.194 with the note of Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2 vols. [Jerusalem, 1974-1980], 1:43).

63. Such contrasting pairs appear elsewhere in Josephus, e.g., Antiochus Epiphanes and Antiochus Sidetes (AJ 13.243), and John of Gischala and Titus (BJ 6.93-95).


In the period of Cyrus, Persian hegemony was legitimated by prophecy. Daniel predicted the collapse of the Babylonians and Isaiah predicted the rise of the Persians. Therefore Josephus claims that Macedonian hegemony too was legitimated by the divine, not only through prophecy but also through a dream.

I suggested above that in the original epiphany story Alexander saw a warning dream the night before his planned assault on Jerusalem. The God of the Jews, in the form of the high priest, warned him not to touch his people. In the extant version of the story the warning dream has been replaced by an exhortatory dream which gives divine sanction to Alex- ander's conquests. Alexander tells Parmenion that while still at Dion in Macedonia he saw a figure in a dream exhorting him to attack the Persians and assuring him of victory (334-35). In antiquity generals and kings rou- tinely, and especially at their accession to power, were honored with visions sent by the gods, and Alexander was no exception.64 At Tyre he saw a dream in which Heracles, the god of the city (= Melqart), beckoned to him and led him into the city.65 In the romance Alexander's dreams play an important role. In one dream Sarapis assured him of world dominion and revealed to him the eternal glory of Alexandria. In another Ammon appeared to him and instructed him how to proceed.66 Alexander's dream in the Antiquities is of this type, perhaps a Jewish version of a dream which was originally ascribed to some other god.67

More effective than dreams for the legitimation of power were omens and oracles because they, unlike dreams, were usually public. Alexander, no less than many Roman emperors (e.g., Vespasian),68 industriously sought out favorable omens and oracles. His visits to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi

64. See, e.g., Cohen, p. 109, n. 37, and Merkelbach (n. 57), p. 39; J. Rufus Fears, Princeps a diis electus (Rome, 1977).

65. Arrian 2.18.1; Curtius 4.2.17; Plutarch, Alexander 24.3 (where Plutarch juxtaposes it to a dream of the Tyrians, thereby creating a "double-dream" story).

66. Ps.-Kallisthenes 1.33.7-11 (pp. 34-37, ed. Kroll) and 2.13 (pp. 80-81, ed. Kroll). 67. This possibility was well noted by Bfichler, p. 13. Gutmann, pp. 282-85, suggests that

the dream is based on the Heracles story, while Abel, p. 51, suggests that it is a judaization of Alexander's sacrifices to the gods at Dion as described by Diodorus Siculus 17.16.3, but I have not found any single event or dream which is the obvious model for the Jewish story. In later versions the Ammon dream referred to in n. 66 was judaized (christianized?) by the addition of Phinehas to Ammon (Vita Alexandri, p. 59, ed. Trumpf) or by the replacement of Ammon by Jeremiah (see Trumpf's apparatus).

68. It was Josephus himself who gave Vespasian one of the oracles which bestowed divine legitimation on the new ruling house.


and Ammon at Siwah are famous. At both he received predictions of his future greatness.69 Not to be outdone, the Jews too pointed to their "oracles" which predicted Alexander's conquests: the book of Daniel. While at Jerusalem Alexander was shown the book of Daniel and learned that the God of the Jews had preordained that one of the Greeks would destroy the Persian empire (337).

Who was the author who converted Alexander's dream of warning to a dream of exhortation, and inserted the Daniel episode into the narrative, an episode which is an integral part of neither the epiphany nor the adventus stories? To rephrase the question: Which Jew wished to show that Alex- ander's conquest of Persia was effected with divine approval and divine aid?70 I suggest that it was Josephus. In the Jewish War he piously declares that God approves of the Roman dominion over the Jews. He invents the fiction that Cyrus read Isaiah.7' He is familiar with the tradition about Alex- ander the Great, both the historical and the romantic.72 Hence he may well have been the one to create the Dion dream based on a pagan model and to insert the Daniel episode into the narrative,73 making both changes in order to bestow divine sanction on the inheritor of the Persian, and the ancestor of the Roman, rule over the Jews.74

69. Delphi: Plutarch, Alexander 14.4. Siwah: Arrian 3.3-4; Diodorus 17.49-51; Plutarch, Alexander 26-27; Curtius Rufus 4.7; Kallisthenes, FGrH 124 F 14a. I do not think that the Josephan story is modeled on the Siwah story.

70. The author of 1 Macc. was not such a Jew; see 1 Macc. 1:1-9 with the commentary of Jonathan Goldstein (New York, 1976).

71. As far as I have been able to determine this motif appears nowhere else independently of Josephus. It is not rabbinic (Urbach [n. 56], p. 370) and is not mentioned by Ginzberg, Le- gends (n. 55), 4: 353 (with the notes). In one rabbinic legend Cyrus reads Daniel (Song of Songs Rabbah 3.4).

72. Historical: AJ 2.347-48 (for parallels see Jacoby's commentary on FGrH 124 F 31). Romantic: BJ 7.245. Jewish stories about Alexander: BJ 2.487-88; CA 2.35, 37, 42-44, and 72 (civil rights in Alexandria); CA 1.192 and 201-5.

73. The Daniel "oracle" parallels both Alexander's pagan oracles and Cyrus's Isaiah "oracle." Thus the beginning of AJ 11 (Cyrus-Isaiah) corresponds to its conclusion (Alexander- Daniel). Josephus's use of ring structure awaits investigation. That it was Josephus who inserted the reference to Daniel in the narrative is suggested by Pfister, Kleine Schriften, p. 321, n. 60; Kasher, p. 199; and Arnaldo Momigliano, "Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jeru- salem," Athenaeum 57 (1979): 446-47.

74. The divine approval granted the Macedonians was forfeited by Antiochus IV who favored the Samaritans (AJ 12.257-64) and profaned the temple.


V

AJ 11.302-47 is woven out of three strands: (1) A story about Sanballat and Alexander (2) A story about Jaddus and Alexander

(2a) An adventus story or motif (2b) An epiphany story or motif

(3) Data about Persian and Macedonian history. The prehistory of this material is most obscure since no extant author earlier than Josephus, who completed his Jewish Antiquities in 93/4 C.E., betrays any knowledge of either (1) or (2), and it is likely that all post-Josephan authors who retell this material depend upon Josephus either directly or indirectly. If, as I have suggested, it was Josephus who combined the three strands with each other, we cannot determine the date and provenance of one strand by the date and provenance of another since Josephus may have combined material of disparate origins. Rather than transcribe his sources verbatim, Joseph paraphrased them, adding, changing, and omitting whatever he wished.75 Hence we cannot rely upon isolated motifs or phrases to reveal to us the origins of the three strands of AJ 11.302-347, since we can never be certain that any given phrase or motif was part of the pre-Josephan source.

Unfortunately, scholars have ignored these problems. Many have ascribed an Alexandrian provenance to the Jaddus and Sanballat stories on the grounds that they reflect the Jewish-Samaritan tensions within that city (cf. AJ 12.10 and 13.74-79). But the Jaddus story has nothing to do with the Samaritans, is not dependent upon the Sanballat story, and probably circulated for a long time before being juxtaposed to a story about the Samari- tans.76 Similarly, Biichler argued that the Jaddus story was composed in the period of Julius Caesar on the grounds that it refers to an exemption from

75. Cohen, pp. 24-47. 76. Biichler, p. 13, argued that the Jaddus story is an imitative reaction to the Sanballat

story but its literary parallels show that the Jaddus story was once independent. Under Biichler's influence many scholars have assigned an Alexandrian anti-Samaritan origin to the story. See Marcus's appendix in the Loeb edition and George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), 1: 24. Willrich (n. 41), pp. 11-13, deduced from the alleged anti-Samaritan tendency a (Palestinian?) setting under Cumanus.


taxes in the seventh year (338), a boon that was granted the Jews by Caesar (AJ 14.202 and 206). But this argument is precarious for many reasons, not least of which is our ignorance of the precise formulation of Jaddus' request in the original story. Josephus (or someone else) may have modified the request to make it prefigure the Caesarian exemption. By employing Biichler's logic we could conclude that the Jaddus story is of Babylonian origin on the grounds that Alexander is said to guarantee the rights of the Jews of Babylonia and Media (338).77 When we seek to determine the date and provenance of the Jaddus story we must rely upon the fundamental structure and message of the story as a whole and not upon its disjecta membra.

The aim of the adventus story was to find a place for the Jews in Helle- nistic history, to show that the conqueror of the world considered Jerusalem worthy of a visit and the Jews worthy of respect. Like everyone else, of course, the Jews accepted Macedonian sovereignty: before his departure Alexander guarantees the Jews' right to follow their ancestral laws. The most plausible setting for this story is the pre-Maccabean period, when the Jews looked benevolently upon gentile dominion. This conclusion would be almost a certainty if we could be sure that the reference to the ancestral laws was an integral part of the story and not a later addition, since appeal to an Alexandrian precedent for permission to follow the ancestral laws would have been most useful during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods.78 For the Jews in the Maccabean period, who prided themselves on their victories over the Macedonians and told stories about the saving power of God and the success of those who trusted in him (Daniel, 1 Maccabees, Judith), this adventus story about a polite Macedonian king and obedient Jews was unsatisfactory. It therefore was converted into an epiphany story whose aim was to demonstrate the power of the God of Israel. Even Alexander the

77. Josephus had connections with trans-Euphratean Jewry (BJ 1.6) and knew historical traditions emanating from that area (AJ 3.318-19; 10.264-65; 11.131-33; 18.310-79; 20.17-96; cf. CA 1.192). It is possible that the Jews of Babylonia and Media told their own stories about Alexander the Great (in response to the adventus of Alexander at Babylon? See the passage of Arrian cited in n. 14.) and that AJ 11.338 combines a fragment of such a story with the Palestini- an Jaddus story.

78. Especially the time of Antiochus III; see n. 41 above. It is not impossible that the adventus story originated in the Maccabean period, when the Jews invented a genealogical link between themselves and the Spartans (1 Macc. 12) and sought to find a place for themselves in the politics of the Hellenistic world. The adventus story "puts the Jews on the map." All in all I think an earlier date is more plausible.


Great had to bow in homage to God and had to leave the Jews in peace. (It is possible that the epiphany story about Alexander once circulated independently before being combined with the adventus story.) Shared concerns and motifs link this adventus-epiphany story to the literature of Palestine of the second half of the second century B.C.E.79 It is this story which forms the basis of the account in AJ 1 1.80

Although Alexandria was the creative center for many traditions con- cerning Alexander, both historical and novelistic, it is unlikely that our Jad- dus story hails from that city. Alexandrian Jews spoke of Alexander the Great as the grantor and guarantor of their civic rights," but our story makes no such claim. Alexander promises to protect the rights of the Jews not only in Palestine but also in Babylonia and Media, areas which he had not yet conquered, but he does not make a similar promise regarding the Jews in the cities which he was going to build. In the Against Apion, a work based upon Alexandrian Jewish sources and concerned with the problems faced by Alexandrian Jewry, Josephus gives a list of monarchs who sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem or otherwise showed respect to the Jews (CA 2.42-64) but omits Alexander's visit to Jerusalem. This omission demonstrates not only Josephus's sloppiness but also the fact that Alexandrian apologists did not know the Palestinian story about Alexander. Similarly, the narrative in AJ 11 omits or contradicts relevant information contained in

79. For some of the shared motifs see section III above. There are others too. With Alex- ander's invitation to the Jews to join his army (339), compare the similar invitations issued by Demetrius I (1 Macc. 10:36 and 13:40). This parallel was noted by Biichler, p. 19, but his deduc- tions are extreme. The "Phoenicians and Chaldeans" ready to plunder Jerusalem (AJ 11.330) remind us of the slave dealers of I Macc. 3:41 (cf. 2 Macc. 8:11). Their presence in the epiphany story heightens the glory of the salvation, much as Datis scoffed at Athena before the goddess manifested her power. ("Phoenicians" probably means "traders" and "Chaldeans" probably means "astrologers"; see Marcus's note ad loc. and Arrian 6.22.4). The epiphany story also has many affinities to 2 Macc. (see section III above) although the resemblance between AJ 11.326 and 2 Macc. 3:14-17 is superficial. Not appreciating the distinction between the adventus and epiphany stories, Momigliano, p. 445, writes, "It is difficult to imagine Palestinian Jews inven- ting a visit of Alexander to Jerusalem between 170 and 70 B.c."

80. Josephus added the reference to Daniel, changed the nature of Alexander's dream (see section IV above), added the reference to Babylonia and Media (see n. 77), and made many other changes which we can no longer identify. Josephus is also responsible for giving the story its chronological setting and for juxtaposing it to material about the Samaritans (see section I).

81. For example, BJ 2.487-88; CA 2.35, 37, 42-44, 72; cf. AJ 12.8. For a recent discussion of these passages, see Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 1978), pp. 171-76.


a work ascribed to Hecataeus, in all likelihood a work of Alexandrian origin.82 Hence the Jaddus story is not Alexandrian but Palestinian.83

The historical Alexander did not visit Jerusalem, did not do obeisance to the high priest, and did not sacrifice to the God of Israel. He was too busy conquering the world to bother with an insignificant inland people living around a small temple. But Alexander's journey affected the Jews deeply nonetheless. When they told stories about him they told them in Greek and adopted the literary genres of the Greeks. As the tension between the adventus and epiphany stories demonstrates, it was not always easy to decide whether Alexander surrendered to the Jews or the Jews surrendered to Alex- ander.

Jewish Theological Seminary of America 3080 Broadway New York, NY 10027

82. Hecataeus reports that Alexander gave Samaria to the Jews "free of tribute" (CA 2.43) but in AJ 11 Josephus knows no such thing although he is contrasting Alexander's treatment of the Jews with his treatment of the Samaritans. In CA 1.192 Hecataeus reports that Alexander ordered his soldiers, Jews included, to aid in the rebuilding of the temple of Bel. When the Jews refused they were punished until Alexander relented. This contradicts AJ 11.339 where Alexan- der assures his Jewish volunteers that they may remain loyal to their ancestral laws. This is not the place for a discussion of the passages ascribed to Hecataeus. If genuine, they are of Egyp- tian origin; if fake, they probably are of Egyptian (i.e., Alexandrian Jewish) origin. For a brief discussion and bibliography, see Nikolaus Walter, Fragmentejiidisch-hellenistischer Historiker (Giitersloh, 1976; Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-r6mischer Zeit, vol. 1, part 2), pp. 144-53. The Hecataean passages quoted by the Contra Apionem are ascribed by Ben Zion Wacholder to early Ptolemaic Palestine, but this view is not convincing; see his Eupolemus: A Study ofJudaeo- Greek Literature (Cincinnati, 1974), pp. 262-73. The protagonists of the Jewish-Samaritan debate in Egypt (AJ 13.74-79) also do not refer to Alexander.

83. For a recent endorsement of the Alexandrian view, see Momigliano (n. 73), p. 445. By assuming the unity of the Jaddus and Sanballat stories, Wacholder, pp. 293-95, ascribes a Palestinian origin to AJ 11.302-47.