Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

It seems like we're in a time warp in this thread. I move on to new subjects and you go back to old ones. I just demonstrated that Josephus used On the Jews written by Pseudo-Hecataeus also the likely author of the Letter of Aristeas. Yes these are 'fake' histories. But Pseudo-Hecataeus's existence 150 - 90 BCE raises implications for Gmirkin's theory as well. Pseudo-Hecataeus an Alexandrian Jew is:

1. writing a little over a hundred years after the supposed 'invention' of the Pentateuch according to Gmirkin and
2. trying to demonstrate that Samaritans weren't recognized as 'real Jews' by Alexander
3. not knowing or ignoring the 'actual' recent (i.e. third century) origins of the Pentateuch the author 'decides' to 'acknowledge' the Samaritans were using the Pentateuch already in the Persian period (along with the Jews)

One can be a liar, there are many in antiquity, but to 'credit' the Samaritans with already regulating their lives with sabbatical years makes no sense as part of his agenda.

Your line of reasoning seems to be that because Pseudo-Hecataeus is 'untrustworthy' he isn't a witness to basic 'facts' like whether Jews and Samaritans were only using the Pentateuch recently. This is absurd. Originally you were saying Josephus 'can't be trusted.' Now we've moved on to Josephus's use of a source from the 2nd century BCE. The fact that this Alexandrian Jew from the second century BCE is an apologist should make us DOUBT much of his testimony. But whether or not Jews and Samaritans were using the Pentateuch a century earlier? This is really 'jeopardized' by the fact he's an apologist?

This reminds me of your efforts to undermine Ehrman because of a footnote here or there. "All of Ehrman's writings, his opinions, his scholarship can be ignored because ... of some inaccurate footnotes. This is what you do. But this isn't what most people do. It certainly isn't a sound historical methodology. You can't ignore a source from a hundred or so years from the alleged 'invention' of the Pentateuch in his home city of Alexandria. No we don't accept what the Letter to Aristeas says uncritically. Nor the apologetic 'history' contained in On the Jews. But as to the question whether the Alexandrian Jew Pseudo-Hecataeus knew or didn't know whether the Pentateuch was 'invented' a hundred years earlier in Alexandria this can't possibly be true. He certainly knew details relating to the community of his grandfather or great grandfather. Again that doesn't mean that the Letter of Aristeas isn't a pious 'fake' history. But surely that's one end of the spectrum. If the author is a 'conservative Jew' fighting to exclude Samaritans from association or attaining the same rights as 'Jews' surely he can't be this fanatical knowing that the Pentateuch is another pious fraud invented by his grandparents and great grandparents and their associates.

Let's even take another step back. You'd have to believe that in 120 or 110 BCE you have this sort of anti-Samaritan sentiment in the same 'Jewish community' that produced the Torah 250 CEish. Really? So 125 years earlier Jews and Samaritans eagerly received the Pentateuch from Alexandria. In a generation - let's say 80 or so years before Pseudo-Hecataeus's birth the practices associated with this 'Alexandrian text' get established at Gerizim and Jerusalem. You're telling me that in another 80 years you have a 'conservative Alexandrian Jew' trying to belittle the Samaritan community but at the same time, in spite of their illegitimacy, they were adhering to the laws of Moses since the Persian period? Then layer upon this already tight timeframe (a) Deuteronomy being written by another or others than those who wrote the first four books of the Pentateuch and (b) the addition of Joshua, now the Samaritan-Jewish schism is necessarily pushed back to the second century BCE the same era Pseudo-Hecataeus wrote. Impossible. This is just silly.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:28 pm It seems like we're in a time warp in this thread. I move on to new subjects and you go back to old ones.
I give up. This is exactly what you did with Russell Gmirkin, and as RG said, you simply ignore the propositions and responses that are being made in relation to your points. Ignoring what the other person says and repeating your own ideas in new ways with new angles is not a conversation. It is subjecting others to your monologues.

In a normal conversation one does not "move on to new subjects" until one has dealt with. -- not ignored -- the ones being offered for discussion in the first place.

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:28 pm I just demonstrated that Josephus used On the Jews written by Pseudo-Hecataeus also the likely author of the Letter of Aristeas.
Oh my god. And I pointed out that there is no evidence, zilch, none, that that source contained evidence Alexander's tax decision had any relationship to the sabbatical year. No evidence!

I also pointed out that every historian -- every one -- you have cited who mentions the event says there is no historical basis to it. They all agree it is fiction.

Yet none of that fazes you.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

I also pointed out that every historian -- every one -- you have cited who mentions the event says there is no historical basis to it. They all agree it is fiction.
These same historians think that (a) Jewish and Samaritans used the Pentateuch in the Persian period and (b) do not think the Pentateuch was invented in Alexandria in the third century BCE. You also exaggerate the idea that Josephus's source is ignored by scholarship. No, you Neil 'throw out' sources for partisanship, bad footnotes, disagreement with beliefs etc. Not real historians.

And what's the position I am ignoring? You said Josephus can't be relied upon for history in the period of Alexander the Great. Ok. So let's go with that. But now we discover that Josephus was drawing upon Pseudo-Hecataeus for his information regarding the Sabbatical year use of Jews and Samaritans at the time of Alexander. Pseudo-Hecataeus has an agenda. Yes certainly. But for his testimony that Jews and Samaritans followed the Pentateuch during the Persian period? The last scholar I cited dated Pseudo-Hecataeus to the second century. But there are many scholars who date him much earlier - to the time Gmirkin suggests the Pentateuch was composed in Alexandria. From Peter Kirby's page on Pseduo-Hecataeus:
Martin McNamara writes: "In his treatise Against Apion (1.22 §§183-205 and elsewhere) Josephus gives a number of excerpts on Jewish history from a work he attributes to Hecataeus of Abdera—a well-known pagan Greek historian of the late fourth-early third century B.C. Modern scholarship is divided as to whether the excerpts are derived from the pagan writer Hecataeus or rather from a Jewish writer, presumably pseudonymous. The passages cited by Josephus, and the contents of the work as given by him, show such an acquaintance with Jewish affairs that the work may well be from the pen of Jew rather than of a pagan, the work may even have been composed by a Jerusalem priest who became a soldier and joined the army of Alexander the Great as it marched towards the Red Sea. A date of about 300 B.C. would suit for the composition of this work on the history of the Jews. Together with the excerpts given by Josephus in Against Apion 1.22 §§183-205, there may also be an excerpt from it in the same work 1.7.23 §§213-215 and also in The Letter of Aristeas 83-120." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 213)

Emil Schürer writes: "Under the name of this Hecataeus of Abdera there existed a book 'on the Jews,' or, as it is also entitled, 'on Abraham,' concerning which we have the following testimonies:— (1) Pseudo-Aristeas quotes Hecataeus as authority for the notion that profane Greek authors do not mention the Jewish law just because the doctrine held forth in it is a sacred one (Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt in Merx' Archiv. i. 259 = Havercamp's Josephus, ii. 2. 107: διο πορρω γεγονασιν οι τε συγγραφεις και ποιηται και το των ιστορικων πληθος της επιμνησεως των προειρημενων βιβλιων, και των κατ αυτα πεπολιτευμενων και πολιτευομενων ανδρων, δια το αγνην τινα και σεμνην ειναι την εν αυτοις θεωριαν, ως φησιν Εκαταιος ο Αβδηριτης. See the passage also in Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 3. 3, and more freely rendered in Joseph Antt. xii. 2. 3). (2) Josephus says that Hecataeus not only incidentally alluded to the Jews, but also wrote a book concerning them (contra Apion. i. 22: ου παρεργως, αλλα περι αυτων Ιουδαιων συγγεγραφε βιβλιον; comp. i. 23: βιβλιον εγραψε περι ημων). He then gives in the same passage (contra Apion. i. 22 = Bekker's ed. vol. vi. pp. 202, 1-205, 22) long extracts from thi work concerning the relations between the Jews and Ptolemy Lagos, their fidelity to the law, the organization of their priesthood, and the arrangement of their temple; lastly, a passage is given at the close in which Hecataeus relates an anecdote of which he was himself a witness at the Red Sea: a Jewish knight and archer, who belonged to the expeditionary corps, shot a bird dead, whose flight the augur was anxiously observing, and then derided those who were angry for their awe concerning a bird who did not even foreknow its own fate. Eusebius (Praep. ev. ix. 4) also gives single pieces from these extracts of Josephus. From the same source Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 4) gives the information that Alexander the Great bestowed upon the Jews the country of Samaria as a district exempt from taxation as a reward for their fidelity. While according to all this there can be no doubt, that the book treated on the Jews in general, Josephus tells us in another passage, that Hecataeus not only mentions Abraham, but also wrote a book concerning him (Antt. i. 7. 2 = Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 16: μνημονευει δε του πατρος ημων Αβραμου Βηρωσσος . . . Εκαταιος δε και του μνησθηναι πλεον τι πεποιηκε βιβλιον γαρ περι αυτου συνταξαμενος κατελιπε). Is this identical with the work on the Jews? To the decision of this question the two following pieces of testimony mainly contribute. (3) According to Clemens Alexandrinus, the spurious verses of Sophocles were contained in the work of Hecataeus on Abraham and others (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 14. 113 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 40: ο μεν Σοφοκλης, ως φησιν Εκαταιος ο τας ιστοριας συνταξαμενος εν τω κατ Αβραμον και τους Αιγυπτιους, αντικρυς επι της σκηνης εκβοα). (4) Origen says that Hecataeus in his work on the Jews was so strong a partisan for the Jewish people, that Herennius Philo (beginning of the second century after Christ) at first doubted, in his work on the Jews, whether the work was indeed the production of Hecataeus the historian, but afterwards said that, if it were his, Hecataeus had been carried away by Jewish powers of persuasion, and had embraced their doctrines (Orig. contra Cels. i. 15: και Εκαταιου δε του ιστορικου φερεται περι Ιουδαιων βιβλιον, εν ω προστιθεται μαλλον πως ως σοφω τω εθνει επι τοσουτον, ως και Ερεννιον Φιλωνα εν τω περι Ιουδαιων συγγραμματι πρωτον μεν αμφιβαλλειν, ει του ιστορικου εστι το συγγραμμα: δευτερον δε λεγειν, οτι, ειπερ εστιν αυτου, εικος αυτον συνηρπασθαι απο της παρα Ιουδαιοις πιθανοτητος και συγκατατεθεισθαι αυτων τω λογω). According to these testimonies of Clement and Origen, there can be no doubt that the work 'on the Jews' was as much forged by a Jew as that 'on Abraham.' We cannot therefore conclude,—as according to the extracts in Josephus we might feel inclined,—that the work on the Jews is genuine, and that on Abraham spurious. The two are on the contrary very probably identical, and the different titles to be explained by the circumstance that the work was indeed entitled περι Ιουδαιων." (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 304-305)

James Charlesworth writes (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 120-122):

Three phases in work upon so-called Pseudo-Hecataeus can be discerned. Nineteenth and early twentieth-century scholars concurred that Peri Ioudaion was also called Peri Abramou (Jos. Ant. 1.7, 2; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.14, 113 and Protr. 7.74, 2; and Eus. Pr. ev. 13.13, 40), and was written in the third century B.C. by a Jewish pseudographer, founded perhaps on selections from Hecataeus (viz. E. Schürer, History, 2d. Div., vol. 3, pp. 304f.; J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor. Breslau: Skutsch, 1875; pp. 165f; P. Dalbert, Missionsliteratur, pp. 65-67).

The second phase began with H. Lewy's critical analysis of the traditions preserved in Josephus ("Hekataios von Abdera Peri Ioudaion," ZNW 31 [1932] 117-32). Lewy's conclusion that Peri Ioudaion is not pseudepigraphical but authentically from Hecataeus has influenced the judgment of several specialists, notably T. Tcherikover (no. 124, pp. 426f.), Y. Gutman (no. 40, pp. 39ff.), and J. G. Gager, Jr. (no. 892c).

Today we are in a third phase; while subtle distinctions are perceived, two contrary conclusions are affirmed. Thirty years after Lewy's publication B. Schaller claimed that much of the material attributed to Hecataeus was spurious (no. 898c; cf. also A.-M. Denis, no. 24, pp. 262-67). N. Walter (no. 899a) and B. Z. Wacholder (no. 898) are now arguing that all of Josephs' material is derived from a pseudographer. They distinguish between Pseudo-Hecataeus 1, who wrote Peri Ioudaion in the first half of the second century B.C., and a Pseudo-Hecataeus 2, who wrote Peri Abramou sometime later but before Josephus.

M. Stern (no. 894) would agree with Walter and Wacholder that Peri Ioudaion and Peri Abramou must be distinguished and that the latter is a pseudonymous product of Jewish religious propaganda. But he would reject the claim that there is anachronistic material in Peri Ioudaion, and that the tone in this text is dissimilar to that in the Diodorus material. Peri Ioudaion, therefore, is a Jewish revision of a genuine Hecataeus composition.

Gager published many arguments similar to those by Stern, but seems to be in even greater disagreement with Walter and Wacholder. In 1969 he presented an impressive argument in favor of the authenticity of many passages that had been considered spurious (no. 892c).

The main question is whether some traditions which criticize the Jews for not mixing with other nations can be identified with other traditions which sound like an apology for Judaism. The issue is clarified but not completely resolved by a recognition that "pagans" could speak favorably about the Jews.

R. Doran writes: "In our view, only two references to Hecataeus of Abdera should be assigned as inauthentic: the testimony of Josephus, Antiquities 1.159, and fragment 2, the verses of Sophocles from 'On Abraham and the Egyptian' as cited by Clement, Stromateis 5.113. The other references are authentic fragments of Hecataeus of Abdera, and should be dated about 300 B.C. Both inauthentic references are to a book about Abraham that must be dated before Josephus. However, since no actual content of this inauthentic work is cited beyond some spurious verses of Sophocles, no conclusions can be drawn as to provenance or to a date for this Pseudo-Hecataeus." (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 907)
This seems to be a fair overview of recent scholarship on Pseudo-Hecataeus. I glean from this overview that at the very time Gmirkin claims the Pentateuch was being forged in Alexandria an Alexandrian Jew was writing apologetic works in favorr of the Jews (against the Samaritans) and their common use of the Pentateuch into the Persian period:

"A date of about 300 B.C. would suit for the composition of this work on the history of the Jews." (McNamara 1983)

"If our conjecture is correct these forgeries belong to the third century before Christ; for such is the date of the pseudo-Hecataeus (see next paragraph)" Shurer (1886)

"fourth century BCE" ("Hekataios von Abdera Peri Ioudaion," ZNW 31 [1932] 117-32)

"third century BCE" (Charlesworth ed Old Testament Pseudepigrapha https://books.google.com/books?id=RU77e ... 22&f=false)

The point here is that you haven't considered these arguments - namely that it is not Josephus but an Alexandrian Jewish source from the fourth - second century BCE who testifies to the shared use of the Penateuch by Jews and Samaritans already in the Persian period. Surely Pseudo-Hecataeus while a bad source for fair and balanced takes on Jewish history can't have been writing these things if the Pentateuch was only invented in the third century BCE.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:28 pm Your line of reasoning seems to be that because Pseudo-Hecataeus is 'untrustworthy' he isn't a witness to basic 'facts' like whether Jews and Samaritans were only using the Pentateuch recently.
Why don't you deal with what I actually said? How about taking a key sentence of mine, quoting it, and responding to it. Simply distorting and twisting what I say like this is not helpful.
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:28 pmOriginally you were saying Josephus 'can't be trusted.' Now we've moved on to Josephus's use of a source from the 2nd century BCE.
Why don't you deal with what I actually said? How about taking a key sentence of mine, quoting it, and responding to it. I at no time said "Josephus can't be trusted". I was very specific with what I said. Deal with what I actually said.
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:28 pmThis reminds me of your efforts to undermine Ehrman because of a footnote here or there
You did not even read that post with any comprehension. It was not at all about "undermining Ehrman". You don't seem to be able to comprehend what you (apparently) read. You even post text and links to articles that you claim say this or that, but when I read them I see they do NOT say what you claim for them at all.

When you actually address head on an argument of mine, words I have actually spoken -- and the same with Russell Gmirkin's posts -- then we can pick up a serious conversation.

I even tried to point out the basics of how human beings verify facts -- history or anything else -- and you can't even accept or even discuss basics like that. You have to "move on" to avoid facing any idea or fact that challenges your assertions.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:46 pm But now we discover that Josephus was drawing upon Pseudo-Hecataeus for his information regarding the Sabbatical year use of Jews and Samaritans at the time of Alexander. Pseudo-Hecataeus has an agenda.
We have never discovered that. What is your evidence that Josephus got his info on Alexander and the sabbatical year from pseudo-Hecataeus? There was none in the wall of text you posted earlier.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

I've just demonstrated that Pseudo-Hecataeus is often dated to the very place, the very age that Grimkin claims the Pentateuch was 'invented' - the Alexandrian Jewish community of the fourth through second centuries BCE. The point is that surely it is not Josephus but a near contemporary source with the alleged 'Alexandrian inventors' of the Pentateuch which tells the story of the legal observance of Jews and Samaritan in the Persian period. Of course it's possible that if Pseudo-Hecataeus was from the second century BCE that he completely made up this legal observance? But is it likely? I don't think so. However if Pseudo-Hecataeus was from the time Gmirkin proposes the Pentateuch was invented it is highly unlikely. If from the fourth century BCE impossible.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:51 pm I've just demonstrated that Pseudo-Hecataeus is often dated to the very place, the very age that Grimkin claims the Pentateuch was 'invented' - the Alexandrian Jewish community of the fourth through second centuries BCE. The point is that surely it is not Josephus but a near contemporary source with the alleged 'Alexandrian inventors' of the Pentateuch which tells the story of the legal observance of Jews and Samaritan in the Persian period. Of course it's possible that if Pseudo-Hecataeus was from the second century BCE that he completely made up this legal observance? But is it likely? I don't think so. However if Pseudo-Hecataeus was from the time Gmirkin proposes the Pentateuch was invented it is highly unlikely. If from the fourth century BCE impossible.
Can you show me where Ps-Hec is the source for Josephus's claim that the Jews were observing a sabbatical year at the time of Alexander's arrival?

Josephus also says Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel. Did Ps-Hec also inform Josephus that the Book of Daniel was extant -- complete with the prophecy of a Greek king overthrowing the Persian empire -- at the time of Alexander?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Can you show me where Ps-Hec is the source for Josephus's claim that the Jews were observing a sabbatical year at the time of Alexander's arrival?
Most businesses I deal with are shutting down because of the holiday here. Let me try to address these issues. Let's first acknowledge your initial claim that Josephus 'can't be trusted' with respect to his reporting on the events at the time of Alexandria. Be that as it may, it is clear that Josephus used a second century BCE Jewish source named 'Hecataeus' (I leave aside the claim of those who identify his source as the historical Hecataeus from the fourth century.

The discussion that follows assumes that Josephus was drawing upon On the Jews and the author is deciding whether this source should be identified as the historical Hecataeus from the fourth century or pseudo-Hecataeus from the second or third centuries:
Be that as it may, what matters is that an author like Hecataeus, who was well acquainted with court and state affairs, would not have confused the administrative-political status of a relatively large region like Samaria (which also included Galilee)[206] with that of three small toparchies on its southern fringe. He certainly would have been careful not to inflate the territory, thereby providing a precedent that might commit the Ptolemaic administration in the future, especially with the annexation attributed to Alexander.

What is even more instructive is the second part of the sentence under discussion, stating that Samaria was given to the Jews aphorologetos , which means "exempt from tribute [photos ]" and possibly other payments. In the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the annual collective photos symbolized the submission of ethnic groups and nations to the ruling state or empire. To free them from the phoros meant actually granting independence. Would Hecataeus have indicated that Alexander recognized the Jewish right to independent rule of Samaria, with all its implications for Ptolemy I? Even if Josephus was not accurate in transmitting the text, and the original in fact only referred to exemption from taxes and duties, such a total and permanent exemption of a nation or a province, or even of a polis, was quite rare and was granted only under very special circumstances or when imperial rule was only nominal.[207] In the case of the Jews it was granted only by Seleucid kings who already had lost control over the Jews and badly needed their help against internal rivals.[208] More common was a temporary exemption after a devastating war,[209] or to help a military settlement establish itself.[210] With regard to the days of Alexander, Josephus states in the story of the reception of Alexander by the High Priest that the Jews were freed from taxes in the sabbatical year (Ant. XI.338; cf. XIV.202, 206). The enthusiastic tone of this dubious legend merely indicates that an exemption in the fallow year was the most the Jews in Judea could expect from and ascribe to Alexander and other Hellenistic rulers who were in real control of the country. And if Judea proper was not totally exempted from these taxes, such exemption is even less likely for an annexed territory, much larger and more fruitful than Judea itself. Hecataeus would not have confused remission from taxes in the fallow year (which in itself is still doubtful) with an unprecedented permanent exemption, thus committing his notoriously greedy patrons to such a major economic concession. The sentence is thus a later Jewish fabrication.

The two components of the sentence have indeed seemed unacceptable even to some supporters of the authenticity of On the Jews. They have therefore suggested that Josephus or a Jewish adapter greatly distorted an original text by Hecataeus.[211] It is true that the structure of the passage may suggest that the sentence was shortened and rephrased by Josephus himself. However, imputing to Josephus such gross errors, both in the definition of the annexed territory and in the exemption, makes efforts to verify the general authenticity of the sentence extremely labored. And after all, it is just one of a fair number of anachronistic and unreliable statements, most of which could not have been invented by Josephus.[212] Similarly, the theory that the text underwent a slight adaptation by an unknown Jew cannot resolve all the difficulties.[213] To assume that it was a consistent adaptation is to deny the value of the passages as a reliable source for Jewish history in the early Hellenistic period.[214]

In conclusion, at the risk of repeating myself: there are too many statements and pieces of information which sound anachronistic, or contradict the information at our disposal, or cannot be attributed to Hecataeus; there is hardly one piece of real, positive evidence that the passages originated with Hecataeus or from his period, or were at least written by a gentile.

Be that as it may, what matters is that an author like Hecataeus, who was well acquainted with court and state affairs, would not have confused the administrative-political status of a relatively large region like Samaria (which also included Galilee)[206] with that of three small toparchies on its southern fringe. He certainly would have been careful not to inflate the territory, thereby providing a precedent that might commit the Ptolemaic administration in the future, especially with the annexation attributed to Alexander.

[206] See I Macc. 10.30; Hölscher (1903) 54, 82; F. M. Abel (1933-38). II.134; Avi-Yonah (1966) 25. Jos. Ant. XIII.50 is an inaccurate free paraphrase (see F. M. Abel [1949] 187; Goldstein [1976] 407).
[207] On the polis and royal taxes see Heuss (1937) 108-24, 186-87; Bickerman (1938) 118ff.; Rostovtzeff (1940) I.528; Jones (1940) 101-2. See, e.g., OGIS I.223, 228; Polyb. IV.84, XV.24.
[208] See I Macc. 10.29-30, 11.34-35, 13.39, 15.8. On the question of the phoros in the time of Jonathan, see p. 134 n. 42 below.
[209] Jos. Ant. XII.143. Cf., e.g., P. Tebt. I no. 5, line 93; SIG[3] I no. 344, line 70; Holleaux (1938-57) II.109.
[210] Ant. XII.151; cf. OGIS I 229, lines 100, 104. And see Schalit (1960) 308ff.; Bar-Kochva (1976) 57-58; G. Cohen (1978) 60-62; Ihnken (1978) 118-22; Bar-Kochva (1989) 85 n. 49.
[211] See p. 5 n. 11 above. Particularly referring to the sentence under discussion: M. Stern (1974-84) I.44; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.673 n. 272.
[212] See esp. pp. 70-71 and 100-1 above. There is no reason to think that Josephus misunderstood or misinterpreted any of the other paragraphs.
[213] Loc. cit.
[214] P. 101 above.
Cohen and my former teacher Mason argue that the material cited from Hecataeus in Against Apion contradicts this reporting. But cf Hervé Gonzalez / Marc Mendoza ‘What Have the Macedonians Ever Done for Us?’ A Reassessment
of the Changes in Samaria by the Start of the Hellenistic Period:
Some scholars try to connect the Samarian rebellion with another text of Josephus, C. Ap. 2.43, which quotes “Hecataeus” on the annexation of Samaria to Judea by Alexander; Kasher, “Josephus’ Report,” 156 – 157; Mor, “Samaritans in Transition,” 191 – 198. However, as BarKochva has clearly shown, Josephus rather quotes a Jewish author from the late second century BCE (see also below). And the passage appears to be of little historical value. It probably aims to legitimate the Hasmonean occupation of Samaria (cf. 1 Macc 10:30, 34, 38); Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 113 – 121, 134 – 136; see also Marcus, Josephus 6:523 – 528; Barclay, Against Apion, 192 – 193; Nodet, Antiquités juives, 164 n. 5; Pummer, Flavius Josephus, 152 – 155.
It has been argued that the sabbatical year story with respect to Alexandria is at odds with what is presented in pseudo-Hecataeus. If that's true then the source for the sabbatical year story isn't pseudo-Hecataeus. If it is Hecataeus or pseudo-Hecataeus that's another issue. But clearly (a) Josephus employed sources when reporting on events from the Hellenistic period. He didn't just "make shit up."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

My point would be:

1. Josephus used sources.
2. One of his sources was pseudo-Hecataeus (Against Apion)
3. If Ant. 11.338's source wasn't pseudo-Hecataeus it was a more reliable source than pseudo-Hecataeus which may mean an older source.
4. It is unlikely that Josephus used a hyper partisan source like pseudo-Hecataeus who was aware of Samaritan resentment re: Hyrcanus's destruction of the Samaritan temple and wrote On the Jews as a justification of the Jewish mistreatment of the Samaritans and then 'made up' a soft ball story (i.e. which portrayed Alexander as more sympathetic to the Samaritans) in Ant. 11.338.

I think it is possible that pseudo-Hecataeus is still Josephus's source for Ant. 11.338. If not it is another Hellenistic Jewish writer.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Cohen rejects the idea and proposes a Palestinian source rather than an Alexandrian one https://books.google.com/books?id=mmj4R ... d+in+n.+14.)%22&source=bl&ots=5Gck8O03XG&sig=ACfU3U16OK6hOtun7S2d28fSUIDFoFgXeA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs9ujGs8X7AhW-ADQIHWmrAI0Q6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22See%20the%20passage%20of%20Arrian%20cited%20in%20n.%2014.)%22&f=false. I've also been citing the material incorrectly throughout. It's 11.340 for the mention of the Samaritan story. Also it has been noticed that Josephus refers to the Samaritans here as "Shechemites" rather than Cutheans which seems to indicate a different source than other sections https://books.google.com/books?id=DcKOD ... ce&f=false
Post Reply