¹ See pp. 330 ff., where the sigla used herein are explained.

² The deviations in this article from the usual chronology follow, in general, the results of the researches of Kugler, F. X., Von Moses bis Paulus, 1922, chaps. VI and VIIGoogle Scholar; Kolbe, W., Beitraege z. Syrischen u. juedischen Geschichte, 1926Google Scholar; and Bickermann, E., Der Gott d. Makkabaeer, 1937Google Scholar. The most significant achievement of these studies is the establishment of the year 311 B.C. as the opening date of the Seleucid Era; the fixing of 167 B.C. as that of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV; and of 164 B.C. as the date of the rededication.

³ The reading adonai (or YHWH) elohenu is found in M, following precisely the text of Scripture. It is altogether probable that this text represents a reading which was “corrected” to agree with that of Scripture; or that the word elohenu was omitted in this text by accident.

⁴ Heb. misham, instead of mimizraim, as the Scriptures read in the corresponding passage; see below, p. 295. The words “and an outstretched arm” are found in the Septuagint and in Vetus Latina though they are lacking in all the other versions. This significant agreement between the Passover Haggadah and the Septuagint was first noticed by David Hoffmann, in Magazin f. d. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums 13, 1886, p. 193, note 1. With regard to the significance of the other variant readings to this passage, see Friedmann, p. 51.

⁵ Pesahim 116a.

⁶ Harvard Theological Review, XXXI, 1938, pp. 300–301Google Scholar.

⁷ This is implied in Dan. 11. 14; and is explicitly stated to have been the fact, in Jerome's Commentary to that verse (Patr. Latin. XXV, 562). Reference to Egyptian and Seleucid parties in Coele-Syria is also made by Polybius (Histories V, 86. 10). See further regarding the whole matter, Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1929Google Scholar, ad loc.; Meyer, E., Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, 1921, II, 136Google Scholar; Tscherikower, V., Ha-Yehudim veha-Yevanim, (hereinafter Tscherikower) 1931, pp. 194 ff.Google Scholar; and his Palestine under the Ptolemies in Mizraim, IV–V, 1937 (hereinafter, Tscherikower, Palestine), p. 56; Bickerman, E., in Revue des Études Juives C bis, 1935, p. 24Google Scholar. Regarding the general extent and influence of Egyptian rule in Syria and Palestine, see Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte, IV, 2, pp. 322–323Google Scholar.

⁸ Regarding the relationship of Egyptian antisemitism to the story of the Exodus and the Jewish celebration of Passover, see Additional Note.

⁹ Cf. Bonsirven, J., Le Judaïsme Palestinien au Temps de Jésus-Christ, 1935, II, 122Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See Deut. 26. 1 ff.; Mishna Bikkurim 3. 6.

¹¹ See HTR, loc. cit.

¹² See below, note 56.

¹³ See Additional Note B for a discussion of changes in Jewish ritual for apologetic purposes.

¹⁴ See above, note 4.

¹⁵ The question of the juridical right of Egypt to Palestine was a matter of prime importance in the Hellenistic period. Both the Seleucids and the Ptolemies made amazing efforts to justify their claims to the territories they sought to control by appeals to precedent and right (see CAH, VII, pp. 13; 133 ff.; 161 ff.; Bikerman, E., Institutions des Séleucides, Paris, 1938Google Scholar (hereinafter Inst. Sel.). pp. 15 ff.). In Additional Note A, evidence will be adduced for the probability that Manetho's story of the origin of “Jerusalem” as a state was part of this tendency to justify might by right. Such appeals to right, as a basis for territorial claims, can of course be duplicated in far higher antiquity. Cf., e.g., the argument between Jephthah and the Ammonites regarding the relative claims of Israel and Ammon to the disputed part of Transjordan (Judg. 11. 12 ff.).

It is interesting to note that the antisemitic writers of a later period, when the question of the juridical right of the Egyptians to Palestine had ceased to be an issue, no longer stressed the Egyptian origin of the Jews. Nevertheless, the older tradition persisted among many writers (cf. e.g. Chaeremon, cited in Jos., Contra Ap. I, 288 ff.; and Apion, ibid. II, 6 ff.). Under the Roman rule, the tradition of Egyptian background became indeed a means of deriding the Jews, denying them any claim to a special and significant place in history (see Bergmann, Jued. Apologetik, p. 146). The Palestinian Jewish scholars, aware of the charges of Egyptian origin, and sensitive to their implications, created a literature of Jewish apologetics, stressing the early origin of Israel (see below, p. 310), and above all denying the charge that the Israelites were born of relations between Egyptian masters and Israelite women. Bergmann, loc. cit. mentions a few references bearing on the general subject. But the insistence on the chastity of the Jewish wives in Egypt is a common motif in Rabbinic literature. Compare e.g. Mekilta, Bo, chap. 5, ed. Friedmann 5a; Horowitz-Rabin 14; Lauterbach I, 34.

¹⁶ Regarding the time when the pronunciation adonai was substituted for the original pronunciation of YHWH, see Dalman, G., Der Gottesname Adonai, Berlin, 1889, pp. 63–81Google Scholar; Jacob, B., Im Namen Gottes, Berlin, 1903, pp. 164–176Google Scholar; Schaeder, H. H., Iranische Beitraege I, Halle, 1930, pp. 205–206Google Scholar. Schaeder adduces convincing evidence to show that the original pronunciation ceased to be used in the course of the fifth century B.C. B. Jacob demonstrates that the Chronicler pronounced the tetragrammaton adonai, but he also shows that the pronunciation elohim was used as a variant. (It may ultimately turn out that the author of the original “Book of Chronicles,” i.e., of the older stratum, pronounced YHWH elohim, and the later reviser pronounced it adonai. In that event the distinction may help the separation of the older from the later material.) In any event it is clear that during the third century B.C., the use of the pronunciation adonai was probably not yet sufficiently well established to exclude the meaning of “my lord” in a human sense. The later Sages recalled definitely that the “Men of the Great Assembly” used the original pronunciation of the tetragrammaton (Midrash Tehillim 36. 8, ed. Buber 126a) but we cannot be certain whether they refer to the generation of Ezra or that of Simeon the Righteous; for both are described in Rabbinical literature as belonging to the Great Assembly.

¹⁷ See B. Jacob, Im Namen Gottes, 1903, pp. 16 ff. Passages like Ps. 53. 3, 5, 6, which consistently substitute elohim for the YHWH of corresponding verses in Ps. 14; and a passage like Ps. 68. 8, where elohim replaces YHWH of Judges 5. 4 amply demonstrate that the compiler of that collection of Psalms at least sometimes writes elohim for YHWH.

¹⁸ B. Jacob, op. cit., pp. 165 ff. Cf., also, Zimmermann, H., Elohim, Berlin, 1900, pp. 64 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ As G. Dalman has noticed (Die Worte Jesu, 1930, p. 268), the expression, ishi kohen gadol (“my lord, high priest”), was coined in order to avoid applying the term adoni, used for God, to a human superior. Ishi in the sense of “my lord” occurs only in this expression (see Mishna Yoma 1. 3, 5; 4. 1; Tamid 6. 3; Parah 3. 8). See, in this connection, also Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S., XXXII, 1942, p. 396, n.

²⁰ See Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S., XVI, 1925, pp. 8 ff. When I noted these facts, I did not realize their reason or their significance. Clearly, the Men of the Great Assembly who formulated the earliest form of the Amidah and of the Birkat Ha-Mazon, like the compiler of the Haggadah had to use the term adonai elohenu, in speaking of the Deity, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Later authors, recoiling even from the use of the term adonai, substituted abinu (“our father”) or elohenu (“our God”) for it. It is noteworthy, however, that the call to “bless the Lord” used by the person about to read the Shema in the daily prayers, or the portion of the Law, at services when that is read, says: bareku ʼet ʼadonai. This formula can be traced back to the times of the Temple, but is obviously much older; for it goes back to a time when it was not yet necessary to indicate that one was speaking of the Divine rather than a human Lord; in other words to a time when the tetragrammaton was pronounced in its original form. Now the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as YHWH continued in the Temple long after it had been abandoned in the synagogue service (Mishna Yoma 6. 2; Sotah 7. 6; Tamid 7. 2). If therefore the call bareku ʼet ʼadonai (YHWH) originated as part of a Temple service, it could only indicate a date about 200 B.C. (Presumably, the pronunciation YHWH in a call to the service would not have been used after that date, even in the Temple.) On the other hand, if the call originated in the Synagogue service, it would point to an origin at a much earlier date, perhaps no later than the beginning of the fourth century B.C. As it is probable that the reading of the Torah, at least, originated as a synagogue service; and as the formula bareku ʼet ʼadonaie, is the call used as introduction to that reading, it would seem that this discussion confirms the tradition that the reading of the Torah in public services was introduced by Ezra, toward the middle of the fifth century or, according to the chronology now becoming increasingly prevalent, the beginning of the fourth century B.C. Cf. further my note on the subject in Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S., XXXII, 1942, pp. 394Google Scholar ff.

²¹ See the edition of R. Robert (Pentateuchi Versio Latina Antiquissima) based on the Lyons Manuscript, Paris, 1881, p. 324. This deviation of the text of the Haggadah from that of the Massoretic text was curiously overlooked by the older commentators. It was noticed, however, and commented upon, by R. Elijah Gaon of Wilna in his commentary (see, Eisenstein, J. D., Ozar Perushim ve-Ziyyurim, New York, 1920, p. 311)Google Scholar; by Rabbi Jacob Emden in his commentary (ibid., p. 301); Malbim (in his commentary, published with the text of the Passover Haggadah, Warsaw, 1905); Rabbi Naphtali Z. J. Berlin in his commentary (published with the text of the Passover Haggadah, Warsaw, 1889); by the Yemenite scholar, Rabbi Yahya in his commentary published with the text of the Passover Haggadah (Jerusalem, 1897) by M. M. Krengel, in his commentary, published in Shaare Geulah, Cracow, 1896, see p. 59; and by other even more recent writers.

²² Regarding the date of the Book of Chronicles, particularly in its final revision, see now R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 811 ff., who argues for a date about the middle of the third century B.C. Cf. the fascinating theory of W. F. Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature, XL, 1921, pp. 112 ff., according to which the Chronicler was none other than Ezra himself, and also Albright's review of Pfeiffer's work, ibid., LXI, 1942, p. 125. It seems probable that various strains must be distinguished in the work of the Chronicler; the earlier, forming the nucleus of the present work, may well be assigned to a comparatively early date (cf. Rothstein-Haenel, Das erste Buch der Chronik, I, pp. 70–75; 189–195; II, pp. XLIV ff.). If the late date assigned to the final redactor of Chronicles be correct, and the suggestion of Egyptian influence on him be accepted, the story of the war between Asa and the Ethiopians may be associated in some manner with the fact that the Ptolemies found the Ethiopians a source of great trial (see Bouché-Leclerq, Histoire des Lagides, I, 143). Similarly the citation of what is now Ps. 105 in I Chron. 16. 8 ff. is broken off just before the story of the Egyptian enslavement and the Exodus, perhaps to avoid having to emphasize those anti-Egyptian motifs.

²³ Cf. E. Koenig, Die Psalmen, 1927, p. 236; R. Kittel, Die Psalmen, fifth and sixth eds., 1929, pp. 264, 344.

²⁴ So Koenig and Kittel. A. Jirku, Die aelteste Geschichte Israels, 1917, pp. 106–114, maintains that Ps. 78 follows the enumeration of the Egyptian plagues not in accordance with our present text of the Pentateuch, but with an hypothetical source, which has been woven into the story now included in Exodus. This hypothetical source (Q) he identifies with the Document J of most higher critics; but he disagrees with their consensus in rejecting the usual combination of literary criteria for determining the division of the “sources”; and somewhat arbitrarily holds that the story of the plagues should be analyzed solely by the criterion of the agent to whom the plague is ascribed, — those ascribed to God Himself belong to J; those ascribed to Moses belong to E; those ascribed to Aaron belong to P. Through this change of method, Jirku avoids the difficulty that the plague of “darkness” is, according to the usual consensus, included in J, though it is omitted from Ps. 78. He thus comes to the conclusion that Ps. 78 was composed while the original Document J was still in existence as an independent source! Unfortunately for his theory, he cannot possibly make any such claim for Ps. 105, which includes the plague of “lice.” He comes to the conclusion therefore that that Psalm is based on some other integration of the sources than our present Pentateuchal text. The evidence given in this article seems to me to dispose both of the possibility of such early origin of these psalms, and also of the need for such a far-fetched hypothesis to explain their deviations from the Pentateuch.

²⁵ See Cambridge Bible on Exod. 9. 9 for discussion of the Egyptian diseases to which the plague of “boils” might refer. Sifra Emor, parasha 3. 15, ed. Weiss 96c, interprets the word “garab” (Lev. 21. 20, “scabbed”) as the “Egyptian lichen.” So also Babli, Bekorot 41a. It is noteworthy that the Septuagint (both in Exod. and in Ps. 105) renders the word kinnim by “gnats” or “fleas” rather than “lice” as do the other versions and in accordance with the meaning of the word in later Jewish tradition.

²⁶ Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums II, 35; Tscherikower, p. 369; A. Jacoby, Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft, XXV, 1927, 265 ff. According to the latter, pp. 271 ff., the identification resulted from the confusion of the word IAO, the equivalent of YHWH in Egyptian papyri, with the Coptic word for “ass,” which has a similar sound. W. F. Albright's interpretation of harel (meaning the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem) as associated with ʼrʼl (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, p. 151) meaning “denizen of the underworld,” suggests the possibility that this fact may have contributed to the identification of the God of the Temple of Jerusalem with Seth. On the other hand, the view that the identification of the God of the Jews with Seth was the origin of the charge of ass-worship is challenged by E. Bickermann, Monatsschrift, LXXI, 1927, pp. 171 ff.; 255 ff. See also I. Heinemann, PWRE, Suppl. V, 28 ff.

²⁷ If we accept the view that v. 28 is an interpolation, the omission of the plague of “darkness” would still lead to the same conclusion as that given in the text.

²⁸ Cadbury, H. J., Journal of Religion, IX, 1929, pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar; for bibliography, see ibid., note 2.

²⁹ See A. M. Blackman, in D. C. Simpson, The Psalmists, 1926, pp. 177 ff.

³⁰ Cf. Albright, W. F., From the Stone Age to Christianity, 1940, p. 274Google Scholar, and references there given.

³¹ Both in The Pharisees, 1938, pp. 145 ff., and in Faith for Today, 1941, pp. 168 ff., I have laid great stress on the aristocratic element in the Egyptian practice, and on the essentially democratic nature of the Hasidean-Pharisaic concept. More recently, I have been led to wonder whether the Egyptian practice of mummification can properly be identified with a doctrine of the Resurrection. Professor A. D. Nock has shown that funerary customs and ideas about the after-life are not necessarily correlated (HTR, XXV, 1932, pp. 335 ff. and Journal of Biblical Literature, LX, 1941, p. 95). Moreover, the Egyptians had, together with their practice of embalming, directed toward the preservation of the body so that it might theoretically enjoy continued existence in the tomb with the offerings there deposited, also entirely different concepts of the dead men riding in the boat of the Sun-god, and being identified with Osiris in an after-life, which is in certain respects the very opposite of the Resurrection. (This dual attitude toward immortality, stressing the Resurrection of the body on the one hand, and also immortality of the soul is, of course, found also in Judaism.) Nevertheless it seems probable that the practice of mummification had its effect on the spread among the Jews, of the doctrine of Resurrection, as well as on the opposition to it, in the following manner. The Jews, impressed with the Persian concept of the Resurrection would tend to relate it to the Egyptian practice. This would have two opposite effects on the people. The purists and rigorists among the religious leaders, including the priests, would reject the Persian belief because they would associate it with the Egyptian practice, to which there had been centuries of objection. On the other hand, there would be double pressure on the populace to accept a doctrine which seems to be worldwide in its recognition. I hope to establish, on another occasion, the theory that the Sadducean negation of the Resurrection preceded the Pharisaic acceptance of the doctrine. This creation of a Sadducean dogma denying the Resurrection, to oppose the Persian doctrine of the Resurrection, might well be associated with the fact that the Persian belief was to some Jewish minds associated with the Egyptian practice. On the other hand, once non-Resurrection had become a dogma of Sadducism, it was only a question of time before the contrary belief, namely the Resurrection, became a dogma of Pharisaism. The belief in angels and demons, stemming, like that of the Resurrection from Persia, never became a really vital issue either for Pharisaism or Sadducism. Indeed except for a passing reference in Acts 23. 8 we could hardly have known that it was a controversial issue. The difference between the great emphasis of both Pharisees and Sadducees on the issue of the Resurrection, and their comparative disinterestedness in the issue of the existence of angels may derive from the fact that the Resurrection was associated with a pagan practice, namely Egyptian preservation and mummification of the body, while the doctrine of angels had no such association. For the instructive fact that the impact of the Persian ideas seems to have been felt in Judaea only after the rise of Graeco-Roman literature, see Nock, A. D. in Journal of Roman Studies, XXX (1940), pp. 195–196Google Scholar.

³² This is the date generally assigned to Is. 24–27; see commentaries of G. H. Box, The Book of Isaiah, 1908, p. 113; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (in Cambridge Bible), 1915, p. 217; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 1922, p. 172, puts it in the period of John Hyrcan. His view seems, however, to have been generally rejected. W. F. Albright, op. cit., p. 269 considers the sixth century B.C. a possibility. But it seems probable that the apocalypse dates from no earlier than the beginning of the third century B.C. See R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 442.

³³ See above, p. 292.

³⁴ B. Pesahim, 116a; Yer., ibid., X, 5, 37d.

³⁵ The introductory phrase, “In the beginning, etc.,” is found as part of B in all the extant versions of the Passover Haggadah, with the exception of those published by Abrahams, I. in Jewish Quarterly Review, X, 1898, pp. 44Google Scholar, 48, and 49; and that published by J. Greenstone in Z. f. hebraeische Bibliographie, XV, 1911, pp. 122 ff. The fragment which I. Abrahams numbers VII, on p. 47 of his article, contains the introductory phrase. In those which I. Abrahams numbers II and VII, B opens with the words, “Your fathers dwelt of old, etc.” In the fragment which he numbers X, B opens with the words, “And Joshua said unto all the people, etc.” According to Rab's view as quoted in Yer. Pesahim, loc. cit., B opens with the words, “Your fathers dwelt of old, etc.” The text of Yerushalmi, according to our eds. reads: “Rab said, ‘In the beginning one should begin (with the words): Your fathers of old, etc.’” L. Landshuth in his Maggid Mereshit, p. X, has made the interesting suggestion that the passage should be emended by placing the word mitehilah (“in the beginning”) before the citation from Scripture. The passage as emended would therefore read: “Rab said, ‘One should begin (the recital of the Passover Haggadah with the words): In the beginning (and then continue) Your fathers of old, etc.’” According to Babli, B opens with the words, “In the beginning, etc.,” precisely as in our texts. Rab Natronai Gaon, in his responsum, cites a ritual in which B began with, “And Joshua said, etc.,” precisely like fragment X published by I. Abrahams. See regarding this ritual, below, p. 327.

³⁶ For the remainder of the passage in Joshua, chap. 24, and the reason for the failure of the compiler to include it in B, see below, p. 329.

³⁷ Yerushalmi Pesahim, X, 37d, cf. Mekilta Bo, chap. 18, Fr. 22b, Horowitz-Rabin, p. 73, Lauterbach, I, 166. See further regarding this baraita, section IV of this article.

³⁸ The reading otanu (“us”) instead of etkem (“you”) gives force to the contrast between the utterance of the wise and the wicked sons. This reading, which is supported by the Septuagint and some texts of the Vulgate, is found in none of the other versions. It is the reading of E according to the text of Yerushalmi, loc. cit.; and the best texts of the Mekilta (see ed. Horowitz, and cf. his notes, ad loc.). It is found in the text of the Passover Haggadah of Maimonides (D); in the Darmstadt Manuscript of the Haggadah, and also in the texts cited by B. Italiener in his Die Darmstaedter Pessach Haggadah, on pp. 176, 182, 192, 194, 209, 212, 218, 228 (“corrected” on margin); (all these are said to be of German origin); p. 254 (Italian); p. 279 (Spanish); and in the edition of Haggadah ke-Minhag Teman (the Yemenite Haggadah) published by W. H. Greenburg, London, 1896, p. 19 as well as in the following texts Sa, O, P, U, Va, X. On the other hand the reading etkem, in accordance with the Massoretic text occurs in Siddur R. Saadia, the commentary of R. Isaiah di Trani, (see Shaare Geulah, Cracow, 1896, p. 17) Shibbale Ha-Leket, Orhot Hayyim. Kol Bo, the following Genizah fragments of the Adler collection at the Jewish Theological Seminary 2857, f. 13v.; 2935, f. 4a; 3288, f. 11r.; (there are none with the alternative reading); and the following other texts E, F, G, H, I, J, K (XII, XIII) M, Qa, R, S, Sb, Sc, Sd, T, Ta, Tb, Tc, W, and in the texts cited by B. Italiener, op. cit., pp. 170, 199, 232 (of German origin); p. 249 (Italian); p. 263 (Oriental); p. 269 (French); p. 275 (Spanish). The word is entirely omitted in the manuscript described by Italiener, op. cit., p. 243. See regarding the difference D. Hoffmann, in Magazin f. d. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums 13, 1886, p. 193, and Bet Vaad Lahakamim, I, 1902–03, p. 16; and cf. also Lieberman, S., Hayerushalmi Kifeshuto, I, 1, 1934, p. 520Google Scholar, and other articles, cited below, note 103.

³⁹ See Additional Note C for the meaning and varying orthography and pronunciation of the word afikoman (translated here “entertainment”), according to the different texts of the Mishna, the Passover Haggadah, etc.

⁴⁰ See Hoffmann, D., Die Erste Mischna (Beilage z. Jahresbericht d. Rabbiner-Seminars zu Berlin, 1881–82), p. 8Google Scholar; also Zebi Carl, Pesahim, Lwow, 1925, 93 ff.

⁴¹ See above, note 15.

⁴² Schuerer, III, 546, and references there given; Friedlaender, M., Geschichte der Juedischen Apologetik, 1903, 349 ff.Google Scholar; Krueger, P., Philo u. Josephus als Apologeten d. Judentums, 1906, 62 ff.Google Scholar; Bergmann, J., Jued. Apologetik in Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1908, p. 146Google Scholar; and article, Apologetik u. Apologeten, in Encyc. Judaica (1928).

⁴³ See above, note 15 and references there given.

⁴⁴ Bouché-Leclerq, A., Histoire des Lagides, 1907, I, 232Google Scholar; ibid., Histoire des Séleucides, 1913, p. 465; E. Bikerman, Inst. des Séleucides, pp. 236 ff.; Goodenough, E. R., The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, in Yale Classical Studies, I (1928), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar; see also Heichelheim, P., Wirtschaftsgeschichte d. Altertums, I, 651Google Scholar; II, p. 1119.

⁴⁵ Contra Apionem, I, 1 ff.

⁴⁶ See Reinach, op. cit.

⁴⁷ Josephus, Contra Apionem, see above, note 7.

⁴⁸ See p. 298. One of the purposes of the historical psalms, 78, 105, and 106 may have been to overcome the tendency toward self-depreciation by the Jews under the stress of the calumnies spread about them in the Egyptian and Hellenistic world by the anti-Jewish writers. Perhaps the fear of self-depreciation by Jews may also be in part responsible for the reference to the Patriarchs at the beginning of the Amidah, the first benediction of which was probably formulated in pre-Maccabean times. (Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S., XVI, 1925, 41 ff.Google Scholar) Ben Sira's “Praise of the Fathers of Old” (Ecclus. Chap. 44) attains a new significance when it is regarded as a reply to detractors of the Israelites as a people of recent origin. The apologetic tendency of the Jewish writers under the Ptolemaic rule is perhaps most clearly to be noticed in Ps. 87. The date of this Psalm seems to be fixed by its reference to Egypt under the cypher Rahab, as though the author sought to avoid giving offense to the Imperial rulers. The purpose of the psalmist is to show that Judaea has produced more genuinely great men than any of her neighbors. He says, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah. ‘I will make mention of Rahab and Babylonia’” (i.e. the Seleucid empire) “‘among them that know Me; Behold Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia; This one was born there.’ But of Zion it shall be said: ‘This man and that was born in her; and the Most High Himself doth establish her.’ The Lord shall count in the register of the peoples: ‘This one was born there.’ Selah. And singers, like dancers,” (so to be interpreted, in accordance with Kittel and Koenig, ad loc.) “shout: All my fountains are in thee.”

⁴⁹ E. Schuerer, Gesch. d. jued. Volkes, 1909, III, pp. 472 ff.

⁵⁰ Jubilees 11. 19 ff. In Jub. 12. 27, we are told how Abraham learned the Hebrew language, which was obviously foreign to him in Mesopotamia. Cf. I Macc. 12. 21, which claims that the Spartans are descended from Abraham.

⁵¹ See Appendix to this article.

⁵² Schuerer, op. cit., pp. 477 ff.

⁵³ See Quis re. div. heres 43. 214, ed. Wendland-Cohen-Reiter, III, p. 48; Quod omnis probus liber sit 8. 57, ibid., VI, p. 16.

⁵⁴ See Jub. 34. 4 ff.; Test. Judah, chaps. 3–7. The wars between Egypt and Canaan, described in Jub. 46. 6 ff., and alluded to in Test. Simeon 8. 2, are strongly reminiscent of those between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Much of the material bearing on the apologetic tendencies of the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, presented by Friedlaender, op. cit., pp. 161–187 remains relevant, though his conception of these books as products of the diaspora can hardly be accepted. The stories of Artapanus, recording the instruction which Abraham gave to the Egyptian rulers in astrology, and making Moses the virtual founder of Egyptian civilization, follows the same line of thought (op. cit., pp. 477–478). The close relationship between the Palestinian and the Egyptian literature of apologetics demonstrates how well the Palestinians, even at an early date, were aware of the nature of the Egyptian polemics against them. It is therefore entirely natural that the leaders of the Jews, doubtless far better acquainted with antisemitic literature than the masses, should seek to counteract it; particularly at the Passover festival, which drew so many Jews from the diaspora to Jerusalem.

⁵⁵ Cf. Test. Judah, chaps. 3 ff.

⁵⁶ For Syrian traditions associating the Jews with Syrian origin, cf. I. Heinemann, PWRE, Suppl. V, 23. See Reinach, , Textes d'auteurs grecs et remains relatifs au Judaïsme, 1895, pp. 79Google Scholar (Nicholas of Damascus) and pp. 251 ff. (Trogus Pompeius).

⁵⁷ The need felt by the Seleucid government for national unity and the jealousy felt regarding Jewish loyalties to Egypt, were doubtless, finally, one of the determining factors in the religious persecution inaugurated by Antiochus IV; concerning which see below. Cf. E. Meyer, II, 143 ff.; 166: Heinemann, PWRE, Suppl. V, 5.

⁵⁸ See above, note 7.

⁵⁹ For the inherent weakness of the Seleucid kingdom, see Meyer, E., Bluete u. Niedergang d. Hellenismus in Asien, 1925, p. 46Google Scholar, and now M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 1941, I, 473 ff.

⁶⁰ It is noteworthy that this relationship with Syria is emphatically stressed in Test. Judah 10. 1; and Jubilees 34. 20, 21; 37. 1. The fact that Levi is described as marrying a daughter of Aram, and Tamar, the ancestress of the Davidic dynasty, is also so described, indicates the significance which these authors attached to the close relationship between Israel and Aram. Marriage with Canaanite women is described in both works as a serious offense (see Jubilees 20. 4; 25. 1–3; 27. 8; Test. Judah 14. 6).

⁶¹ See note 34.

⁶² The customs of Sura frequently followed those of Palestine and opposed those of other parts of Babylonia. Indeed, this distinction was one of the main reasons for the differences between the academies of Sura and Pumbedita in their interpretations of Judaism (see Ginzberg, L., Ginze Schechter, 1929, II, 508Google Scholar, and Lewin, B. M., Methiboth, Jerusalem, 1933Google Scholar, Introduction, pp. i–v).

⁶³ Cambridge Ancient History, VII, 164; Oesterley, and Robinson, , A History of Israel, II, 1932, 208–209Google Scholar; Eduard Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, II, 126; Bickermann, E., Der Gott d. Makkabaeer, 1937, pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also his article in Revue d. Études Juives, C, 1935, pp. 4Google Scholar ff.

⁶⁴ Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 129 ff. (3, 3). The edict was, naturally, addressed to Ptolemy, one of the Seleucid officials. For the authenticity of the document, see works of Bickermann, cited in preceding note; as well as the following discussions, Willrich, H., Juden u. Griechen, 1895, 42–43Google Scholar; and his Urkundfaelschung in d. hellenistisch-juedischen Literatur, 1924, 18 ff.; Niese, B., Gesch. d. Griechischen u. Makedonischen Staaten, 1899, II, 579Google Scholar; Buechler, A., Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden, 1899, pp. 143 ff.Google Scholar; Bevan, E. R., The House of Seleucus, 1902, II, 166Google Scholar, note 4; E. Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, 1921, II, 127, note 2; Tscherikower, 122 ff. The general trend of modern scholarship seems now to be in favor of the acceptance of the document as genuine.

⁶⁵ The privileges granted Jerusalem by Antiochus III were probably from his point of view moderate (see Bickermann, in Revue d. Études Juives, loc. cit., p. 34). But they were of great importance from the point of view of the scholars, in that they recognized for the first time the “scribes of the Temple” and gave a special place, too, to the “sacred singers.” Under the first group, we must recognize the sopherim or the predecessors of the later Pharisaic Scribes; under the second group, undoubtedly, the Levites (see, further, my discussion of the subject, in The Pharisees, 1938, II, 581). For the identity of Simeon the Righteous and his date, see Moore, G. F., in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, 1927, 348 ffGoogle Scholar. For identical conclusions based on somewhat different materials, see N. Krochmal, More Nebuche Ha-Zeman, ed. Rawidowicz, 1924, p. 65.

⁶⁶ The relationship of the Hellenistic movement in Palestine to the international situation has been recognized by a number of writers. Perhaps it has been most emphatically described and most clearly formulated by Taeubler, E., in his essay, Staat und Umwelt: Palaestina in der hellenistisch-roemischen Zeit, in Tyche, historische Studien, 1926, pp. 128–129Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ In Cambridge Ancient History, VII, 130 ff.; Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, 256, 293, 384 f.; Toutain, J., The Economic Life of the Ancient World, 1930, 160 ff.Google Scholar; and Tscherikower, V., Palestine under the Ptolemies (Mizraim, IV–V, 1937, pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar).

⁶⁸ Tosefta Makshirin 3. 4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 675. For the very important historical economic significance of this record, see Ginzberg, L., Mekomah shel ha-halakah behokmat yisrael, 1931, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar; and cf. Lieberman, S., Tosefet Rishonim, IV, 1939, p. 115Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ See L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I, p. 424.

⁷⁰ Ezra 4. 2, 9, et al. For a general discussion of the relations of the Samaritans and the returning Judaites to each other in these early times, see Oesterley and Robinson, A History of Israel, II, pp. 142 ff.; and CAH, VI, pp. 181 ff.

⁷¹ Neh. 2. 19 f.; 3. 33; 4. 1 ff.; 6. 1 ff.; 13. 4 ff. See W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 248; Oesterley and Robinson, op. cit., pp. 153 ff. Nehemiah naturally makes the sympathy of so many neighbors of Israel for the Samaritans seem sheer perverseness. But surely the re-establishment of Jerusalem as the religious center of Judaea, and as its metropolis, did threaten the established economic habits of the Transjordanians as well as of the Samaritans, and was a peril against which both groups might be expected to unite. It is interesting to note that the later Tobiads, like the one who was Nehemiah's contemporary, had close relations with the Samaritans (see Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 168 (4. 3); and cf. Tscherikower, V., Ha-Yehudim veha-Yevanim, 1931, pp. 170Google Scholar ff.).

⁷² See M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, II, 696; cf. ibid., I, 541.

⁷³ For the development of Egyptian-Palestinian commerce under the Ptolemies, see M. Rostovtzeff in Cambridge Ancient History, VII, 191 ff.; Tscherikower, pp. 150 ff.; ibid., Palestine under the Ptolemies, pp. 43 ff.; Westerman, W. L.. Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt, 1929, p. 59Google Scholar; Edgar, C. C., Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, 1931, pp. 17 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ Regarding the Greek cities, see Schuerer, Geschichte⁴, II, pp. 95 ff.; Tscherikower, pp. 66 ff.; Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 1937, pp. 228 ff.Google Scholar; and Tscherikower, V., Palestine under the Ptolemies (Mizraim, IV–V, 1937), pp. 43–45Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Ha-Yehudim veha-Yevanim, pp. 205 ff.

⁷⁶ See Additional Note D for further discussion of the associations of the Tobiads, and a bibliography.

⁷⁷ See Van Rad, , Das Geschichtsbild d. Chronistischen Werkes, 1930, pp. 85 ff.Google Scholar; and J. W. Rothstein–Haenel, J., Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik, 1927, p. 429Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that the Chronicler does not regard Zadok but Azariah, son of Johanan, as the first priest of the Solomonic Temple (I Chron. 5. 36); and that he places great emphasis on the line of Ittamar and of Ebiatar, the rivals of the house of Zadok.

⁷⁸ Cf. the high praise bestowed by Ben Sira on Phineas, the ancestor of the Zadokides (Ecclus. 45. 23 ff.) and the blessing to God for having chosen the “sons of Zadok to be priests” (ibid., 51. 12, Hebrew text).

⁷⁹ II Chron. 26. 16 ff.

⁸⁰ The precise meaning to be attached to the phrase, “to register (anagrapsai) the Jerusalemites as Antiochenes” (II Macc. 4. 10) is not clear (see with regard to it the discussions in Schuerer, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel⁴, II, 145, note 205; Tscherikower, pp. 131 ff.; E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaeer, p. 59, n. 1; Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 252; and The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, pp. 17, 111; Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, p. 503). But the general purpose of the measure was unquestionably to break down the distinction between Jerusalem as a Temple City, and the Greek cities. For a picture of the relation of the Greek cities as they affected the economy of the countries through which they were scattered, see F. M. Heichelheim, Wirtschaftsgeschichte d. Altertums, I, pp. 532 ff.; and also pp. 637 ff. From the point of view of the Hellenists, the recognition of their group in Jerusalem as Antiochenes was simply giving political expression to an existing cultural fact. They were Antiochenes in spirit. As A. D. Nock has shown, in his St. Paul (1938), p. 94, “The notion that the essence of being a Greek was cultural rather than racial had been voiced earlier; but it was now (in the Hellenistic age) translated into effective reality.”

⁸¹ It seems to me curious to suppose that nothing more was involved in the appointment of Jason, and later of Menelaus, than an increased tribute or a bribe. It is true that an ancient oriental court would concern itself very seriously with such considerations (E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, II, 169). Nevertheless, on the eve of war with Egypt, the Seleucid king must certainly have taken a careful measure of the need of integrating his dominion; this is especially clear in the light of subsequent events. Perhaps Bevan's failure to recognize this is due to his assumption that the Jews took the initiative in the matter of the Hellenization of Jerusalem. Obviously, this was true, so far as formal communication was concerned; it may be assumed, however, that the initiative of the Jews was in this instance, as in other imperialisms, stimulated from above. Cf. Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, pp. 502, 507. For the question of the extent to which the Seleucid government took the initiative with regard to the Hellenization of the Jews, cf. A. Momigliano, in Atti della R. Accademia d. scienze di Torino, LXVII, 1931–32, p. 195; Nock, A. D., Conversion, 1933, p. 35Google Scholar; E. Bickermann, Der Gott d. Makkabaeer, pp. 117 ff.; and the review of the book by I. Heinemann, in Monatsschrift, LXXXII, 1938, 147 ff.

⁸² For the ancestry and family connections of Menelaus, see Additional Note E.

⁸³ So Tscherikower, p. 204, and apparently also E. Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, II, 146–148. A slightly deviating view of the situation is taken by E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaeer, pp. 64 ff. According to him, the moderate policy of Jason might have remained acceptable to the Jews, had not Antiochus IV purposely interfered. On the other hand, W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization, 1927, p. 170, sees no religious import in the quarrel between the Oniads and the Tobiads. His view seems to be shared by E. R. Bevan in Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, 502 ff.

⁸⁴ The translation follows, generally, that of R. H. Charles, in his Commentary on Daniel.

⁸⁵ So R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 247; E. Meyer, II, 150; W. Kolbe, Beitraege z. syrischen u. juedischen Geschichte, p. 101.

⁸⁶ So J. Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 239, note. It is not necessary to follow Wellhausen in his rejection of the story of Onias' assassination, as related in II Macc. 4. 34, in order to accept his interpretation of the passage in Daniel. It seems to me probable that the story of the murder of Onias is authentic; nevertheless, the passage in Daniel does not seem to me to refer to it.

⁸⁷ See Schuerer, Geschichte des Volkes Israel⁴, III, 266 ff. It is interesting to note that the writers of the earlier period expanded the pre-Seleucid period of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, while since the time of R. Jose and his Seder Olam, Jewish tradition has foreshortened that period.

⁸⁸ B. Menahot 109b; Yer. Yoma 6. 3, 43c.

⁸⁹ Zeeb Yavetz, Toledot Yisrael, IV, 1900, Appendix, pp. 15 ff.

⁹⁰ It is not clear whether Alcimus belonged to the Zadokide dynasty. In I Macc. 7. 14, he is described as “a priest of the seed of Aaron.” But this failure of the historian to refer to any Zadokide antecedents of Alcimus may be due to a desire to avoid giving offense to the Maccabees. It is clear that Alcimus received the office of High Priest as a moderate; this is implied in the sympathy which the Hasideans expressed for him (ibid.). It is noteworthy, in this connection, that Alcimus was a nephew of the famous Jose ben Joezer, a member of the first Pharisaic “Pair” and hence one of the founders of Pharisaism (see Bereshit Rabbah 65. 22, ed. Theodor, pp. 742–743, Midrash Tehillim 11. 7, ed. Buber 52a). According to the Rabbinic tradition, preserved in these Midrashim, Jose ben Joezer was among those whom Alcimus executed (I Macc. 7. 16).

⁹¹ Above, p. 303.

⁹² See above, p. 307.

⁹³ See above, note 35.

⁹⁴ Siddur Rab Amram, ed. Warsaw, 1865, 37b; ed. Frumkin, II, 103b; B. M. Lewin, Ozar Ha-Geonim, III, p. 89.

⁹⁵ Loc. cit.

⁹⁶ Lewy, J. in Ein Vortrag ueber d. Ritual d. Pesach-Abends, Breslau, 1904, p. 17Google Scholar is uncertain regarding the Karaite origin of the ritual cited by Rab Natronai. I. Abrahams categorically denies the possible Karaite character of the work (Jewish Quarterly Review, X, 1898, p. 41)

⁹⁷ See above, note 77.