THE RELIABILITY OF JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS:

THE CASE OF HECATAEUS' AND MANETHO'S

ACCOUNTS OF JEWS AND JUDAISM:
FIFTEEN YEARS OF CONTEMPORARY
RESEARCH (1974-1990) *)

BY

MIRIAM PUCCI BEN ZEEV

Ben Gurion University,Beersheva

At the beginning of the Third Century BCE, the huge expansion

of human and geographical horizons which followed Alexander's
conquests prompted a new departure in Greek ethnographic
studies: in this context it is possible to understand the awakening
of interest also in the Jews and their customs').
During the Third Century BCE, the attitude towards Jews and
Judaism appears similar in the various sources2). Ethnologically,
Jews are classified as a part of the Syrian people; theologically, the
monotheistic character of their religion makes them appear a people

*) I am very grateful to Prof. David Asheri for reading this manuscript and
making, as usual, valuable suggestions.
1) Nothing can be said about the Greeks' attitude to Jews and Judaism in the
pre-Hellenistic period. To what extent were the Greeks aware of the existence of
the Jewish people as a separate and distinct ethnos, characterized by peculiar
customs and religion? Both in Hellenistic and Roman times, the matter was of
tremendous importance for the Jews. The issue was the Jewish claim that their
civilization was older, and therefore superior, to that of the Greeks: hence their
passionate search for mention of the Jewish people in Greek literature. Already
in Hellenistic times, Jewish authors felt uneasy about the Greeks' delay in "dis-
covering" Judaism, and tried to explain this silence in different ways (see for
example Arist. 31 and 312-316). Similarly, Josephus made a diligent search for
reference to Jews in Greek literature when he compiled his Contra Apionem.The
results-in MOMIGLIANO'S words-were negligible. The same scholar observes:
"Modern scholars who have tried to imitate Josephus have had no better luck"
(Alien Wisdom-The Limits of Hellenization,Cambridge 1975, p. 77). No doubt,
most passages by Greek authors of the pre-Hellenistic period interpreted as refer-
ring to the Jews are to be distrusted.
2) The texts are cited from M. STERN,Greekand Latin Authorson Jewsand,Judaism,
I, Jerusalem 1974.
216

of born philosophers3). Generally, and in spite of some minor

negative remarks4), the picture seems one of respect, respect that
MOMIGLIANO believes is due to Platonic and Pythagorean philoso-
phy, which had prepared the Greeks to understand and appreciate
communities like the Jewish one, which he defines as rigorously
hierarchic, indeed hieratic5). In this context it is also possible to
understand the fact that the traditional search for wisdom in the
East could lead Greek authors to point out features common to
Greek and Jewish cultures, so that the Jews' philosophical heritage
of wisdom could be depicted as comparable to that of the Greeks
themselves6).
No significant discrepancy appears in Third Century Greek
sources, nor in modern research about them. As for the inner
significance of these sources on Jews and Judaism, that is, if we
want to define the character of this 'Interpretatio Graeca' of
Judaism, we see that what emerges from these sources is a semi-
Utopian picture (the expression is MOMIGLIANO'S), which is
actually characterized by a significant 'lack of colour'. What was
interesting for the Greeks was the new and complex reality resulting
from Alexander's conquests, with all the variety of new problems
it posed. To the Greeks, the Jews in themselves were not in any way
significant').
One of the few subjects which still appear problematic in modern
research is constituted by the testimonies of Hecataeus and of
Manetho regarding the Jews.

3) Theophrastus, De Pietate, apud: Porphyrius, De Abstinentia,II, 26 = STERN,

I, n. 4; Hecataeus, Aegyptiaca,apud: Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. Hist., XL, 3 =
STERN,I, n. 11; Megasthenes, Indica, apud: Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, I,
15:72:5 = STERN,I, n. 14; Clearchus of Soli, De Somno,apud : Jos., C.Ap., I, 179
= STERN, I, n. 15.
4) Such as Theophrastus' remarks about sacrifices (De Pietate, apud: Por-
phyrius, De Abstinentia, II, 26 = STERN,I, n. 4) and Hecataeus' observations
about the Jews' "unsocial and intolerant mode of life" (Aegyptiaca,apud: Diodorus
Siculus, Bibl. Hist., XL, 3 = STERN,I, n. 11).
5) MOMIGLIANO, op. cit. in n.l., p. 83.
6) See Megasthenes' and Clearchus' accounts cited above and Hermippus of
Smyrna (De Pythagora,apud: Jos., C.Ap., I, 162-165 = STERN,I, n. 25).
7) M. HENGEL,Judaism and Hellenism, I, Philadelphia 1974, pp. 255-258;
MOMIGLIANO, "The Image of Judaism in
op. cit. in n.l., p. 87; J. MODRZEJEWSKI,
Greek Thought in the Third Century BCE", Greeceand Rome in Eretz Israel (ed.
A. Kasher, G. Fuks, U. Rappaport) [Hebrew], Jerusalem 1989, pp. 12-14.
 217

HECATAEUS' TESTIMONY ABOUT THE JEWS

A number of problems still appear unsolved in contemporary

research: the discussion about chronology, for example, which
finds expression in the works of STERN and MURRAy8), the problem
of the identification of Hecataeus' sources, both Greek and
Jewish9), and the problems raised by Contra Apionem 11, 43 10). Here,
I intend to focus on what seems to be the 'burning question': the
authenticity, and hence validity, of Hecataeus' account preserved
by Josephus in Contra Apionem I, 183-204 = STERN, I, n. 12.
May we consider it as the work of the real Hecataeus (which
Josephus could have known through a later abridgement, probably
of Jewish authorship)? Or have we to assume it to be a later forgery,
composed by a Jewish author, who deliberately attached
Hecataeus' name to it")? The matter is of the utmost relevance
from the historical point of view. In the first case, the account
reflects the opinions of a Greek author on Jews and Judaism in the
Third Century BCE, while in the second we have a Jewish
testimony, which can be important for the reconstruction of the

8) O. MURRAYholds that Theophrastus and Hecateus were probably contem-

porary, and, if they have to be placed chronologically, Hecataeus is probably
earlier ("The Date of Hecataeus' Work on Egypt",,Journal of EgyptianArchaeology
59 (1973), pp. 163-168). M. STERN, on the contrary ("The Chronological
Sequence of the First References to Jews in Greek Literature",,JEA 59 (1973), pp.
159-163) maintains that Theophrastus must precede Hecataeus. The same view
is shared by MODRZEJEWSKI, art. cit. in n. 7, p. 4, and by E. GABBA,"La Palestina
e gli ebrei negli storici classici fra il V e il III sec. a.C.", Rivista Biblica34 (1986),
pp. 130-131.
9) About the latter, for instance, D. MENDELS("Hecataeus of Abdera and a
Jewish 'patrios politeia' of the Persian Period", Zeitschrift fürdie alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft95 (1983), pp. 98-110) suggests that Hecataeus' description of the
Jewish politeia(apud: Diodorus, XL, 3, 3-8) reflects Jewish ideas which emanated
from certain priestly circles at the end of the fourth Century BCE.
10) See below, note 15.
11) C. R. HOLLADAY, Fragments fromHellenistic JewishAuthors, I, Chico 1983, p.
280 and notes 27, 28, 29, pp. 294-5, presents the opinions maintained by scholars
who have dealt with this subject since 1853. Against authenticity: MÜLER[1853];
REINACH[1895]; WILLRICH[1895; 1900]; SCHÜRER[1901-9]; GEFFCKEN [1907];
JACOBY[1912; 1943]; SCHMID-ST.AHLIN [1920]; BOUSSET-GRESSMANN [1926]; STEIN
[1936]; DALBERT[1954]; HADAS [1959]; SCHALLER[1963]; WALTER[1964];
MURRAY[1967; 1970]; DENIS[1970]; FRASER[1972]; HENGEL[1972; 1974]. For
authenticity: ELTER[ 1893-5];REINACH[1900]; WENDLAND [1900]; ENGERS [1923];
SCHLATTER [1925] HEINEMANN [19311; LEWY[19321; DORNSEIFF [1939]; GUTMAN
[1958]; TCHERIKOVER [1966]; GAGER[ 1969]. Others scholars suspend judgement:
THACKERAY [1926]; OLMSTEAD [19351; JAEGER[1938].
218

situation, otherwise unattested, obtaining in Judaea at the time of

its composition.
Authenticity has been denied to Josephus' account on four main
grounds:
1) the attitude towards Jews and Judaism which emerges from
Josephus' account is very different from that of Hecataeus' frag-
ment preserved by Diodorus (Aegyptiaca, apud: Diodorus Siculus,
Bibliotheca Historica, XL, 3 = STERN, n. 11 ) insofar as it has a clear
panegyric-apologetic character, reflecting a pro-Jewish and anti-
pagan tendency;
2) some details (like the understanding of the tithing, the emphasis
placed upon the Jewish spirit of martyrdom, and a reference to the
existence of a High Priest, Ezekias) have been regarded by scholars
as anachronistic and consonant with the atmosphere prevailing at
a later period, namely, after the persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes;
3) doubts about the authenticity of this account had already found
expression in ancient times: the first instance, as early as the second
Century CE, can be found in Herennius Philo of Byblos.
4) Ant., I, 159 mentions another work of Hecataeus, dealing with
Abraham, which is called by Clemens 'Abraham and the Egyp-
tians' ; this work has been unanimously recognized as not the work
of the real Hecataeus, but a product of Jewish religious prop-
aganda. Since Jewish apologetic writers attached the name of
Hecataeus to this book, they may have done the same with our
account.
Reasonable answers have been offered by scholars to all these dif-
ficulties. Let us quote them briefly, as they appear summarized by
STERN and by HOLLADAY"):
1) In regard to the attitude reflected in this account, two explana-
tions can be given: a) the fact that Diodorus' excerpt had been
taken from a work 'On the Egyptians', while Josephus' probably
derives from a work 'On the Jews', can well explain their different
approaches, since in a work wholly devoted to the Jews one can be
entitled to expect explicit encomium. b) It is not altogether impos-
sible that the apologetic tone is to be attributed to the
embellishments made by Josephus in reporting Hecataeus'
account.

op. cit. in n. 11, p. 281.

12) STERN,I, pp. 23-24; HOLLADAY,
 219

2) As for the anachronisms, they are by no means unambiguous'3).

These kinds of statements arguably reflect the level of
misunderstanding and confusion one might expect from a pagan
writing in the early Hellenistic period.
3) The doubts expressed by Herennius Philo should be regarded as
no more than personal considerations. As a contemporary of
Hadrian, Herennius certainly could not understand the sym-
pathetic attitude shown by Hecataeus towards the Jews. GOODMAN
points out that Herennius' doubts show only how rare such philo-
semitic pagan writings were by his time. Such views were far more
common in the Third Century BCE. GABBA observes that Philo
wrote himself against the Jews14).
4) The two works 'On Abraham and the Egyptians' and 'On the
Jews' need not stand or fall together. The accepted pseudonymity
of the one does not necessarily prove the pseudonymity of the other.
In the last fifteen years, both approaches, for and against authen-
ticity, still appear in modern research.

Against authenticity

Developing SCHALLER'S theory, WACHOLDER and WALTER main-

tain that Josephus' source for this account was a work written by
a Jew, whom they name Pseudo-Hecataeus 111). They consider as
proof the fact that the account is given in the first person, as well
as the deep knowledge shown in the description of the Temple, in
priestly laws, and in the conditions of the country during the Per-

13) See M. GOODMAN, "Pseudo-Hecataeus", in: E. SCHÜRER,The Historyof the

Jewish Peoplein the age of JesusChrist, III, 1 (ed. G. VERMES-F.MILLAR-M.GOOD-
MAN),Edinburgh 1986, p. 673: "Anachronisms have been seen in the emphasis
on Jewish readiness for martyrdom in defence of the Law (C.Ap., I, 191), in the
reference to a High Priest by the name of Ezekias (C.Ap., I, 187) and in the
attribution to the Priests rather than the Levites of the tithes (188). Against the
view that these passages are anachronistic, is the possibility, given the scarcity of
evidence, that Jews may on occasion have indeed faced death under Persian rule,
even if not to the extent suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes; the recent discovery
of a late Persian or early Hellenistic coin at Beth-Zur bearing the name Hezekiah
in Hebrew, which suggests that this name was found in the high-priestly family;
and our ignorance of the precise date when tithes began to be paid to the Priests
rather than to the Levites.""
14 )GOODMAN, op. cit. in n. 13, p. 673; E. GABBA,art. cit. in n. 8, p. 137.
15) To be distinguished from Pseudo-Hecataeus II and from Pseudo-Hecataeus
III: see the works of WACHOLDER and WALTERcited below, n. 16 and 17.
220

sian occupation. As for the identity of this author, date of composi-

tion and purposes of the text itself, WACHOLDER and WALTER differ.
According to WACHOLDER, this Jew was probably a friend of the
High Priest, and himself a priest. He abandoned his priestly
garments to serve together with another Judaean named
Mosollamus in a Jewish contingent of Alexander's army marching
towards the Red Sea (but did such a contingent really exist?). As
for the date of composition, it is obviously to be identified with a
moment subsequent to the battle of Gaza in 312 BCE, but not
much later. WACHOLDER believes that for the author the Persian
occupation was still a fresh experience, and observes that the lack
of any trace of verbal and terminological dependence on the Sep-
tuaginta in the description of the Temple shows that the text was
written before the translation was completed. The main purposes
of Pseudo-Hecataeus' description are: 1) to show the devotion of
the Jews to their laws; 2) to counter some of the disparaging
remarks about the Jews made by the real Hecataeus (Hecataeus
criticized Moses for introducing a way of life supposedly hostile to
other nations, as we can see from the account preserved by
Diodorus; Pseudo Hecataeus I, on the contrary, defends this self-
isolation of the Jews); 3) to show the greatest trust in Ptolemy
Lagus. In conclusion, WACHOLDER believes that the author was
primarily an eye-witness, who also probably drew upon the genuine
Hecataeus, which accounts for some of the similar mannerisms in
composition and vocabulary. Josephus would be unaware of the
nature of his source, believing he was quoting the real Hecataeus
of Abdera. According to this scholar, the importance of this text is
very significant, inasmuch as it is to be considered the oldest Greek
treatise written by a Jew, who was himself the first Graeco-
Palestinian writer, analogous to the Babylonian Berossus and the
Egyptian Manetho'6). Completely different is the portrait of
Pseudo-Hecataeus I offered by WALTER. According to him, the
stressing of the good relations obtaining between the Jews and the
Ptolemaic kingdom which characterize this account can be inter-
preted as proof that the author was a Jew who lived in Egypt, prob-
ably in Alexandria. As for the time of composition, WALTER main-
tains that the situation portrayed, and especially the details

16) B.Z. WACHOLDER,

Eupolemus-a Study of Judaeo-GreekLiterature, Cincinnati
1974, pp. 266-273.
 221

pertaining to the tithes, points to the Hasmonean times, and

precisely to the time of John Hyrcanus").
WACHOLDER'S and WALTER'S positions represent a minority view
in modern research. Most scholars18) tend to believe in the authen-
ticity of the account preserved by Josephus.

For authenticity

The thesis of authenticity appears in two different formulations:

an absolute authenticity (Josephus summarized Hecataeus' text,
which he himself read) or a partial authenticity (Josephus read
Hecataeus through an abridgement, probably of Jewish
authorship).
GAUGER (1982), COLLINS (1983) and GABBA (1985 and 1989)
believe that Josephus' text reflects the work of the real Hecataeus.
One of the proofs, according to GAUGER, is the fact that the text
mentions, without comment, the Jewish laws. A Jewish author, he
claims, would not have missed the opportunity to praise these laws
in order to extol Jewish wisdom in the eyes of his readers. The same
reasons which bring WACHOLDER and WALTER to postulate Jewish
authorship-namely, the intimate knowledge shown in the descrip-
tion of the Temple, in priestly laws and in the conditions of the
country-are regarded by GAUGER, on the contrary, as indicating
Hecataeus' familiarity with the Jews and with their spiritual world.
Not all details of the account, of course, represent an historical
situation: Jewish refusal to participate in the building of the temple
of Bel, for instance, or the episode of Mosollamus, belong, accord-
ing to GAUGER, to Jewish fiction, which Hecataeus probably
derived from Jewish sources. GAUGER cocludes that there is no
reason to deny authenticity to this account. The panegyric tone can
be attributed to Hecataeus' Jewish sources and/or to the elaboration

17) N. WALTER,"Pseudo-Hekataios I and II", Jüdische Schriftenaus hellenistisch-

römischerZeit, 1, 2, Gütersloh 1976, pp. 146-147. For a discussion of WACHOLDER'S
and WALTER'Spositions, see GOODMAN, art. cit. in n. 13, note 276, pp. 675-676.
18 )An exception is constituted by the views expressed by B. BARCOCHBAon
the occasion of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Promotion
of Classical Studies (held at the University of Haifa, May 17, 1990). According
to this scholar, no single sentence of the account can withstand criticism. We await
the publication of these views in order to discover on which new elements they
rely.
222

made by Josephus. The same conclusions are reached by COLLINS

and GASSA'9).
STERN (1974), 1VIENDELS(1983) and HOLLADAY (1983) propose
that Josephus' embellishments can be attributed to an intermediate
source, which summarized, with apologetic aims, Hecataeus' text.
The author of this revision was presumably a Jew, who could have
written at any time in the period between Hecataeus and
Josephus2o).
It is not easy to decide which of these two formulations of the
thesis of authenticity seems more probable. That is why we also
find scholars, like 1VIOMIGLIANO(1975), ATTRIDGE (1984) and
GOODMAN (1986), who do not take a clear and defined position.
ATTRIDGE writes: "Arguments have been advanced to support the
theory that these fragments ... are pseudepigraphical, but these are
inconclusive. Nonetheless, the tenor of these remarks suggests
either that another pseudepigraphon is involved here, or that an
authentic work of Hecataeus has been slightly revised by Josephus
or an intermediate Jewish source"21). Dealing with those
statements, which seem implausible in the mouth of a non-Jew (for
instance C.Ap., I, 193, where Hecataeus praises the Jews for
destroying pagan temples set up in their country by the invaders),
GOODMAN observes that it is not totally impossible that these
passages came from the genuine Hecataeus. In this regard,
HOLLADAY recalls the critique of popular worship by pagan authors,
which was well established by the time of Hecataeus, so that it is
not inconceivable that "an enlightened pagan would have reported

19)J.D. GAUGER,"Zitate in der jildischen Apologetik und die Authentizität der

Hekataios-Passagen bei Flavius Josephus und im Ps. Aristeas-Brief ', JSJ 13
(1982), pp. 28-35; J.J. COLLINS,BetweenAthensand Jerusalem,Crossroad-New York
1983, p. 43 and pp. 138-141 ("The Peri Iudaion of Hecataeus is suspect for several
reasons, but none of them is decisive.... We may conclude some embellishments,
but on the whole the Peri Iudaion carries too much plausibility to be dismissed as
a forgery"); E. GABBA,art. cit. in n. 8, p. 137: "A nostro parere, anche questi
frammenti sono autentici". Of the same author, see also "The Growth of Anti-
Judaism or the Greek Attitude Towards Jews", CambridgeHistory of Judaism, II,
Cambridge-New York....-Sydney 1989, pp. 626-627.
20) STERN,I, p. 24; MENDELS,art. cit. in n. 9, note 7, p. 97; HOLLADAY, op.
cit. in n. 11, p. 283: "The question of the authenticity of these fragments remains
open.... Even if they are inauthentic, it is probable that they preserve some
authentic portions of Hecataeus".
21 )H.W. ATTRIDGE, "Pseudo-Hecataeus", in: Jewish Writingsof theSecondTem-
ple Period(Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, sect. II, vol.
II, ed. M.E. STONE),Amsterdam 1984, pp. 169-170.
 223

the destruction of Babylonian temples and altars as an admirable

act" 22). GOODMAN hesitates: "... although it is not totally impossible
that these kind of passages come from the genuine Hecataeus, it
may be best to assume that the original text has been slightly altered
by a later Jewish reviser". But on the same page, further down,
GOODMAN also raises the possibility that the author who made the
embellishments was Josephus himself, and not an intermediate
source: "Neither of these passages is given by Josephus verbatim,
so it is possible that he himself misunderstood or exaggerated his
source ... which was therefore the uncontaminated work of
Hecataeus"23).
In 1990, the situation does not appear very different from that
of twenty years ago. Very few new elements can be presented
regarding the text itself, whose elements have already been
regarded in all possible lights. Scholars' positions rely more on a
choice among possibilities already raised before them than on new
data. The intimate knowledge of priestly laws, for instance, is for
WACHOLDER proof that the author was a Jew, whereas for GAUGER
this indicates only the author's familiarity with the Jews. Similarly,
the fact that the description of the Temple does not show any ter-
minological dependence on the Septuaginta is taken to prove chrono-
logy (namely, that the account was written before the translation):
but it also can be taken to sustain the hypothesis that the description
was written by the real Hecataeus, who not only wrote before the
translation, but is not in any case expected to have any familiarity
with Jewish writings.
Apart from two voices of dissent which appeared in the seventies,
the general orientation of research in the last fifteen years opts for
a thesis of authenticity. Often the existence of an intermediate
source between Hecataeus and Josephus is proposed: proofs,
though, do not exist. It is an argumentum silentio, with all the limits
e
this implies. The problem of authenticity is sometimes more a mat-
ter of possibility that one of probability. In the late sixties, GAGER
observed: "There is no valid reason for denying at least possible
authenticity. Probability is much more an affair of one's subjective
parti pris. What appears to one person as strong evidence may

22) HOLLADAY,op. cit. in n. 11, p. 282.

23) GOODMAN,art. cit. in n. 13, p. 673 and note 272 at p. 673. See also
op. cit. in n. [1],p. 94.
MOMIGLIANO,
224

appear to another as tentative hypothesis. In the present case I can

merely propose that ... we arrive at what appears to be a moderate
probability"24).

MANETHO' ACCOUNTSOF JEWS AND JUDAISM

Manetho's accounts are of the greatest significance, since they

reflect an approach which is completely different from that shown
towards Jews and Judaism by Greek sources of the same period.
Manetho's testimony constitutes therefore a point of departure in
the literary tradition on the subject. Moreover, these accounts are
significant not only in themselves, but also because of their impact
on later sources, since they influenced literary works which were
subsequently written, by Greek as well as by Roman authors, for
at least four centuries. Tacitus' comments on Judaism, for
instance, reflect also Manetho's direct or indirect influence.
The two accounts by Manetho of Jews and Judaism are pre-
served only through Josephus' Contra Apionem (I, 73-91; 93-105 and
228-252). A variety of problems originating from these texts are
dealt with thoroughly by TROIANI in a work completely devoted to
this subject25). I intend to focus here only upon one basic problem:
that of authenticity. It is a problem very similar to the one dealt
with above regarding Hecataeus. Are Manetho's accounts about
the Jews to be regarded as the work of the real Manetho (which
Josephus could of course have read through a later Jewish
florilegium)? Or have we to consider the texts presented by
Josephus as later forgeries, composed with apologetic and political
aims?
In this second case, that is, if we consider the texts presented by
Josephus to be forgeries, then it is clear that they must have been
composed at some period between Manetho and Josephus, namely,
in the Second or in the First Century BCE. This being the case, it
follows that Egyptian and Greek anti-Jewish literary traditions
(Posidonius for instance) are contemporary, that inter-dependence
is possible, and that the Hasmoneans' revolt could be identifiable

24)J.G. GAGERJr., "Pseudo-Hecataeus Again", Zeitschrift furdie Neutestament-

liche Wissenschaft60 (1969), p. 139.
25) L. TROIANI,"Sui frammenti di Manetone nel primo libro del ContraApionem
di Flavio Giuseppe", Studi Classicie Orientali24 (1975), pp. 97-126.
 225

as an important underlying historical factor of both traditions. The

situation is completely different if Josephus' accounts reflect an
original text written by Manetho in the Third Century BCE (and
of course it is not important if Josephus knew the text of Manetho
through a later florilegium which could have added some details,
provided it basically reflected Manetho's original work). In this
case, it is possible to conclude that the Egyptian is the first anti-
Jewish literary tradition, as Josephus claims. That being the case,
it is certainly to be connected with the ideological, social and
political situation obtaining in Egypt itself at that time, and there
would be no connection whatsoever with later Judaen political
developments.
Let us examine the two accounts separately.

The first account

The first account (C.Ap., I, 73-91 = STERN, n. 19) deals with the
oppressive domination of Egypt by the so-called Shepherds, a
foreign people identified with the Hyksos26), who "conquered
Egypt, burnt its cities, destroyed the temples of the gods and dealt
very cruelly with the native population...". After difficult years of
harsh domination, the Egyptian king succeeded in defeating them
and obliged them to leave Egypt. "The Shepherds", continues
Manetho-Josephus, "left Egypt and journeyed over the desert into
Syria. There ... they built in the land now called Judaea a city ...
and gave it the name of Jerusalem" (C.Ap., I, 89-90).
From the beginning of this century onwards, some scholars
(SCHURER and TCHERIKOVER, for example) have accepted this text
as authentic, whereas others have rejected as later additions dif-
ferent sections of it. See the different ways in which scholars like
MEYER, JACOBY, LAQUEUR and MOMIGLIANO have dissected this
text2'). Our main interest, of course, lies in paragraphs 89-90,
which imply the identification Shepherds-Jews. In the last fifteen
years, these paragraphs have been regarded as authentic by STERN

26) The different opinions of scholars regarding the identification Shepherds-

Hyksos are presented by TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, note 5, p. 101.
27) Bibliographical details in TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, n. 3, pp. 98-100.
226

(1974), KASHER (1974) and CONZELMANN ( 1981 )28); GOODMAN

(1986) hesitates29), and JACOBY'S rejection finds a new formulation
in the works of TROIANI (1975) and GABBA (1989).
According to TROIANI and GABBA, the identification Shepherds-
Hyksos-Jews constitutes a later addition by a Jewish source,
motivated by the desire of proving to the readers that mention of
the existence of the Jewish people already appeared in the Third
Century BCE, namely in the work of Manetho. The Jews knew-
these scholars maintain-that their ancestors were shepherds. That
is why they chose to use this Hyksos tradition preserved by
Manetho. Adding the identification Hyksos-Jews, the Manetho-
nian account could become a piece of l(}'topLOrpOtcpLOt 'tijç dtpXGtL6,Mroq.
According to this theory, therefore, Manetho did not mention the
Jews at all. The proof would be the fact that this identification
Shepherds-Jews appears in neither Africanus' nor Eusebius' sum-
maries of Manetho's work3°). This argument, though, is far from
being conclusive. Actually, Africanus and Eusebius do mention the
Jews in connection with the end of the Shepherds' Dynasties,
although an explicit identification is not made. In Africanus'
account, preserved by Synkellos, we read that under Amos, the first
of the kings of Diospolis of the XVIII Dynasty (the Shepherds'
reign had come to an end in the previous XVII Dynasty), "Moses
went forth from Egypt"31). Eusebius, too, mentioned the Jews.
After reporting that the Shepherds left the country, Eusebius writes
that under the reign of Cencheres, the eleventh of the kings of

28) STERN,I, pp. 62-63; A. KASHER,"The Propaganda Purposes of Manetho's

Libellous Story about the Base Origin of the Jews", Studiesin the History of Jewish
Peopleand the Land of Israel(ed. B. ODEDet alii) III, Haifa 1974, pp. 69-84 (Hebr.)
and A. KASHER,The Jewsin Hellenisticand Roman Egypt, Tübingen 1985, pp. 326-
332 ; H. CONZELMANN, Heide"-juden- Christen,Tübingen 1981, p. 78.
29) About these passages (C.Ap., I, 73-105) he writes: "There is no reason to
doubt that their contents do in fact depend on ancient records, although, given the
likelihood that Josephus found these fragments of Manetho in an abridgement
made by an earlier Jewish apologist, it is quite likely that some elements have been
interpolated." (M. GOODMAN,"Manetho", in: E. SCHÜRER,The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ III, 1 (eds. G. VERMES,F. MILLAR,M.
GOODMAN), Edinburgh 1986, p. 595). The problem of course is to decide which
are the interpolated elements.
30) TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, pp. 108-110 and note 7, p. 105 ("L'identificazione
Pastori = Ebrei è di Flavio Giuseppe e non di Manetone"); GABBA,art. cit. in n.
19, pp. 631-632.
31) FrGrHist 609, F2 (p. 36) = W.G. WADDELL, Manetho, London-Cambridge
1940 (repr. 1971), fr. 52, p. 110.
 227

Diospolis of the XVIII Dynasty, "Moses led the Jews in their

march out of Egypt"32). Actually, Eusebius preserves one detail
more than Africanus, since he mentions not only the end, but also
the beginning of the Jewish presence in Egypt. Recalling the begin-
ning of the Shepherds' domination in Egypt, which he places in the
XVIIth Dynasty, he mentions the presence in Egypt of Joseph,
whom he calls "king of Egypt' 133). We cannot suspect Synkellos of
having added this detail, since the same appears in Hieronymus34)
and in the Armenian version 35).
May we consider these mentions of the Jewish people in
Africanus and in Eusebius as two independent testimonies of the
Manethonian text? Or do we have to consider them not as two, but
as one and the same, if Africanus can be identified here as
Eusebius' source?
Eusebius' heavy dependence on Africanus, in his Chronicon, is a
known fact36). But here we can notice three differences between
them: 1) Africanus mentions three dynasties for the Shepherds'
domination in Egypt (XV, XVI, XVIII), whereas Eusebius recalls
only one, the XVIIIth. 2) Eusebius mentions both the beginning
of the Jewish presence in Egypt (with Joseph) and the Exodus,
whereas Africanus mentions the Exodus only. 3) A third difference
is constituted by the fact that Africanus places the Exodus at the
beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, under the reign of the first king,
Amos, whereas Eusebius places it towards the end, under the reign
of Cencheres. Synkellos himself shows his awareness of these dif-
ferences, and offers his own interpretation of the fact37). It is clear

32 )FrGrHist 609, F 3b (p. 41) = WADDELL,fr. 53, p. 114.

33) FrGrHist 609, F3b (p. 35) = WADDELL,fr. 48, pp. 94-96.
34) Ed. HELM,1956, pp. 33f-28b: Aegyptiseptimadecimadynastia,quo temporeregna-
bant pastoresann. CIII. RegesAegyptiorumpastoresconicimusnuncupatospropterIosephet
fratres eius, qui in principiopastorumdiscendissein Aegyptumconprobantur.
35) Ed. KARST,1911, pp. 67-68. Here too the appearance of Joseph as king of
Egypt is mentioned under the XVII Dynasty.
36) See J.R. VEIILLEFOND, Les CestesdeJulius Africanus, Firenze 1970, p. 27.
37) Synkellos according to Africanus: FrGrHist 609, F 2 (p. 36) = WADDELL, fr.
52, p. 110: Dyn. XVIII: "Amos, in whose reign Moses went forth from Egypt,
as I (Africanus) here declare; but, according to the convincing evidence of the
present calculation (by Syncellus), it follows that in this reign Moses was still
young." Synkellos according to Eusebius: FrGrHist 609, F 3b (p. 41) = WADDELL,
fr. 53 (a), p. 114: Dyn. XVIII: "[Cencheres] ... About this time Moses led the Jews
in their march out of Egypt. (Syncellus adds: Eusebius alone places in this reign
the exodus of Israel under Moses, although no argument supports him, but all his
predecessors hold a contrary view, as he testifies).
228

therefore that Africanus can in no way be considered here the

source of Eusebius.
We can safely conclude that Africanus and Eusebius are to be
considered in this regard as two independent testimonies of
Manetho's account. Obviously, they had before them two different
sources. It is highly probable, though, that these two sources had
something in common, since, in spite of the existing differences, the
details about the Shepherds' domination in Egypt are basically the
same ("These kings took Memphis and founded in the Sethroite
nome a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt")38). This
puzzling point finds a possible solution if we imagine that Africanus
and Eusebius used two different elaborations of one and the same
Epitome of Manetho's work, which, according to LAQUEUR'S sugges-
tion (accepted also by WADDELL), would have been composed
shortly after Manetho's times39). It is clear that this Epitome had no
interest whatsoever in the Jews. It probably mentioned them-
otherwise Africanus and Eusebius would not have inserted their
mention of the Jews at that point of the text-but as no more than
a hint: perhaps was mentioned just the fact that they left Egypt,
about the same time as the Shepherds. For both Africanus and
Eusebius, the Jews were important: we need not forget the
apologetic aims which underlie the works of these authors (in this
regard similar to those of Josephus), namely, to show the antiquity
and the superiority of Judaism, which was the origin of Chris-
tianity, ais-a-ais ancient pagan civilizations4°). That is probably the

38) "The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherd kings. There were six foreign
kings from Phoenicia, who seized Memphis: in the Sethroïte nome they founded
a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt.": according to Africanus:
FrGrHist 609, F 2 (p. 32) = WADDELL, fr. 43, p. 90. "The Seventeenth Dynasty
were Shepherds and brothers: they were foreign kings from Phoenicia, who seized
Memphis.... These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town, from which as
a base they subdued Egypt.": according to Eusebius: FrGrHist 609, F 3b (p. 35)
= WADDELL,fr. 48 (a), p. 94.
39) In his edition of Manetho's fragments, WADDELL (op. cit. in n. 30, p. XIX)
follows LAQUEUR'S theory and maintains that Manetho's Epitome would have
been Africanus' source. As for Eusebius, he would have used as his source an
elaboration of this same Epitome, made by an Hellenistic Jew in such a way that
the Jewish chronology became compatible with that of Manetho. This hypothesis,
though, fails to explain why the same attempt to conciliate Manethonian and
Jewish Chronologies appears in Africanus as well.
40) About apologetic aims in Julius Africanus' work, see VEILLEFOND, loc. cit.
in n. 36.
 229

reason why, where they found a short mention of the Jewish people
in the Epitome, they both decided to enlarge upon the subject, and
inserted there a piece of the Biblical history, namely, the Exodus.
Eusebius also added some details of the beginning of the Jewish
presence in Egypt in Joseph's time. It is clear that neither Africanus
nor Eusebius used Josephus (or his source), since their accounts of
the Shepherds' deed (two paragraphs only)4') lack all the many and
colourful details (sixteen paragraphs) presented by Josephus of the
Shepherds' behaviour and the end of their domination in Egypt: in
spite of the fact that these details would have served well their
apologetic aims. Also the chronology is different. Josephus main-
tains that the Shepherds' domination over Egypt lasted 511 years,
whereas Africanus gives 802 years (plus the years of the XVIIth
Dynasty, which are not determined) and Eusebius 103 years only.
It is clear therefore that we are dealing here with three independent
testimonies of Manetho's account, namely, Josephus, Sextus Julius
Africanus and Eusebius.
About Josephus' source we cannot say very much. TROIANI
thinks that it was a compilation composed by a Jew, which sum-
marized different works by pagan authors on Jews and Judaism,
together with its own comments. The interesting point of this
theory is the fact this work would have presented not only one, but
several versions of the Manethonian text. This would well explain
the fact that Josephus (C.Ap. I, 83) mentions 'another copy' of the
Manethonian text, which gave a different explanation of the etymo-
logy of the word H yksos42). It is of course difficult to establish if all
copies of the Manethonian account used by Josephus were of
Jewish origin.
We have therefore at least three versions or summaries of the
Manethonian text [of which two are surely not Jewish (Africanus'
and Eusebius' testimonies)], which mentioned the Jewish people.
The hypothesis of an "invention" of the mention of the Jewish
presence in Manetho's account does not appear, therefore, very
convincing. We can add another argument. If the identification
Shepherds-Jews is an invention of Jewish authorship, it is clear
that it was motivated by a clear apologetic purpose, namely, to find
mention of the Jews in ancient pagan sources, in order to prove the

41) See above, n. 38.

42) TRIOANI,art. cit. in n. 25, note 7, pp. 103-104.
230

antiquity and therefore superiority of the Jewish people. But a

Jewish author animated by such apologetic purposes would
reasonably be expected to look for a positive, or at least an objec-
tive, mention of the Jews, whereas the description which appears
in C.Ap. is a completely negative one. The Shepherds-Hyksos-
Jews' behaviour is related in the darkest colours: "...They burnt
our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods
and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some
and leading into slavery the wives and children of others" (C.Ap.,
I, 81 ). If the identification Shepherds-Hyksos-Jews is an invention,
why was not the general tone of this account changed, so as to offer
a better picture of the Jews and of their deeds? Could a description
of this kind fit the purposes of Jewish propaganda?
It is hard to prove that Manetho did not mention the Jews.

The second account

The second account (C.Ap., I, 228-252 = Stern, I, n. 21) deals

with the expulsion from Egypt of 'lepers and other polluted per-
sons' led by Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolis. The expulsion is
presented as connected with the appearance of a pestilence in the
country. The most interesting and problematic passage comes at
the end of the account and identifies Osarsiph with Moses (C.Ap.,
I, 250). Since this constitutes the only explicit connection between
lepers and Jews, the decision about its authenticity is of the greatest
importance. Cm4/)., I, 250 is denied authenticity by MEYER, JACOBY
and LAQUEUR, who consider it an anti-Jewish interpolation.
MOMIGLIANO advances the hypothesis that the whole text
(paragraphs 230-277) is the work of an independent author, who
has clear anti-Jewish purposes. MONTET and HEINEMANN, too, deny
that Manetho referred to Jews, whereas SC11URERand TCHERIKOVER
accept the whole account as authentic43). In the scholarship of the
last fifteen years, we find both scholars who believe in authenticity
[STERN (1974), KASHER (1974), TROIANI (1975), LEVY (1979),
COLLINS (1983) and GOODMAN (1986)] and scholars who deny it
[CONZELMANN (1981) and GABBA (1989)]44). GABBA develops

43) Bibliographical details in TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, note 3, pp. 98-100.

44) STERN,I, pp. 63-65; KASHER,art. cit. in. 28; TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, p.
125; LEVY,"L'antijudaisme paien: essai de synthèse", De l'antijudaismeantiqueà
l'antisémitisme contemporain(ed. V. NIKIPROWETZKY), Lille 1979, pp. 67-71;
 231

JACOBY'S theory: this is not Manetho's work, but a re-elaboration,

a product of independent later propaganda composed in the second
century BCE, this time not by Jews but by their enemies, the
Greeks, or more precisely, Graeco-Egyptians. This theory relies on
the general tone of the account and on the improbability of the
identification Osarsiph-Moses. The general tone of the account is
no doubt very different from that of the first account dealt with
above. These differences were noticed and stressed as early as the
First Century CE by the same Josephus, who maintains that they
are due to the different sources used by Manetho. In C.Ap., I, 105
Josephus informs us: "...As for the additions which Manetho has
derived, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself
admitted, from anonymous legendary tales, I shall later refute them
in detail, and show the improbability of his lying stories," and in
C.Ap., I, 228-229 we read: "So far he followed the chronicles;
thereafter, by offering to record the legends and current talk about
the Jews, he took the liberty of interpolating improbable tales.... "
TROIANI45) suspects that Josephus himself is to be blamed in this
regard-namely, that he deliberately reported Manetho's account
in a confused and contradictory way, in order to be better able to
refute him.
In any case, the mixture of history and fiction which
characterizes this text can in no way be regarded as proof of its
inauthenticity, since it is not peculiar to this account only. The
same mixture of fantasy and historical records appears in other
literary works composed in Hellenistic Egypt, such as the Life of
Alexander, the Dream of Nectanebos, the Oracle of the Potter, the
Prophecy of the Lamb and the Demotic Chronicle. All these works
show features interestingly similar to those appearing in our text46).
As for the identification Osarsiph-Moses (C.Ap., I, 250), no real
proof can be adduced against its authenticity. The fact that it is
preceded by the words 'they say' (Xiyer(xt) can well be explained,
as TROIANI does, by the fact that it was the same Manetho who
mentions a popular saying47). The most suitable observation in this

COLLINS,op. cit. in n. 19, p. 6 and pp. 33-34; GOODMAN, art. cit. in n. 29, pp. 595-
596 ; CONZELMANN, op. cit. in n. 28, p. 78; GABBA,art. cit. in n. 19, pp. 632-633.
45) Art. cit. in n. 25, p. 121.
46) See the bibliography given by STERNI, note 5, p. 64 and by TROIANI,art.
cit. in n. 25, note 28, p. 118.
47) TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25, p. 126. See pp. 113-118 for the hypothesis that
here we have a reference to the biblical Joseph.
232

regard comes from GOODMAN, who observes that an enemy of the

Jews who interpolated the passage later would surely not have been
so truthful as to indicate explicitly that he was not giving authentic
history but only ia vv8w6voa xai Xiy6pva 7cept 't&v 'IOUOOtL<.ùV.
GOODMAN concludes that the view that this identification Osarsiph-
Moses has to be assigned to an anti-Jewish interpolator is not,
therefore, altogether probable4$). Today, we find that most scholars
(see the list given above)49) share a thesis of authenticity: the fact
that perhaps Josephus found Manetho's fragments in a later
abridgement, possibly of Jewish authorship (which can be regarded
as responsible for some additions of its own) does not preclude the
basic fact that mention of the Jews could have appeared in
Manetho's original text.
What, I think, brings the balance in favour of authenticity is the
fact that in the same Third Century BCE Manetho is not the only
author who recounts the Jews' expulsion from Egypt. A very
similar account is preserved by Hecataeus, and this time it appears
not in Josephus' but in Diodorus' work. In Hecataeus, too, the
expulsion of the lepers is linked with the appearence of a pestilence
in Egypt: "Hence the natives of the land surmised that unless they
removed the foreigners, their troubles would never be resolved. At
once, therefore, the aliens were driven from the country". As for
the differences between Hecataeus' and Manetho's accounts, they
are obviously due to the different points of view of their authors.
Hecataeus reports the whole story from a Greek point of view:
ascribing the pestilence to the workings of a divine agency, for
example, is related as an opinion of the common people, ot 1tOÀ-À-OL;
so the identification of the strangers who dwelt in Egypt is wider,
comprehending also the Greeks, whom Hecataeus depicts as "the
most outstanding and active among them"10). But the most

48) GOODMAN, art. cit. in n. 29, p. 596.

49) See above, not 44.
50) ",t once the aliens were driven from the country and the most outstanding
and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in
Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among
them being Danaus and Cadmus" (notice the scepticism after all,
Hecataeus shows his awareness of being in the realm of mythology). We have to
notice anyway that Manetho, too, mentioned the expulsion of the Greeks, but
separately from that of the Jews. In Synkellos' account according to Eusebius
(FrGrHist 609, F 3 b (p. 41) = WADDELL, fr. 53 (a), p. 116) we read that the third
king who reigned after Cencheres (under whom the Exodus took place) was
Armais, also called Danaus, who "was banished from Egypt and ... arrived in
 233

interesting thing remains the basic fact that Hecataeus, like

Manetho, mentions the Jews as the largest group among the aliens
driven out of Egypt, under the leadership of Moses: "But the
greater number were driven into what is now called Judaea, which
is not far distant from Egypt.... The colony was headed by a man
called Moses" (Aegyptiaca, apud: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca
Historica, XL, 3 = STERN, I, n. 11, 1-2). To maintain that
Manetho did not mention the Jews would require us to prove that
Diodorus' account also is not to be attributed to Hecataeus.
In Third Century Egypt, therefore, tales of an expulsion of Jews
from Egypt circulated and were known to both writers, Manetho
and Hecataeus, and of course it is not impossible that both drew on
the same or similar sources5'). Josephus is shown to be right when
he writes that Manetho is not to be regarded as the 'author' of the
tales he reports about the Jews' expulsion (C.Ap., I, 229). YOYOTTE
advances the hypothesis that tales of this kind could date back as
early as the time of the Persian conquest52). These anti-Jewish
traditions could have gained momentum in the Third Century
BCE, as a response to the Biblical Exodus, parts of which were
probably being translated about this time in Greek. The historical,
psychological and political background which underlies Manetho's
account, in connection with the growing hostility of the Graeco-
Egyptians towards the Jews, has been thoroughly examined by
KASHER53). An account of the Jews' expulsion from Egypt finds
expression also in a papyrus, whose exact date of composition, how-
ever, is difficult to establish 54).

Greece." The same appears in the Armenian version of Eusebius ( WADDELL,

fr. 53 (b), p. 118). Josephus' version of the Manethonian text (C. Ap. , I, 103 =
WADDELL, fr. 50, p. 106) mentions separately the expulsions of the Jews and of the
Greeks: "Such is Manetho's account: and, if the time is reckoned according to the
years mentioned, it is clear that the so-called Shepherds, our ancestors, quitted"
Egypt and settled in our land 393 years before the coming of Danaus to Argos."
51) See COLLINS,op. cit. in n. 19, p. 138. FRASER'Shypothesis, however
(PtolemaicAlexandriaI, Oxford 1972, p. 509), that Hecataeus and Manetho proba-
bly derived from priestly sources contradicts Josephus' statement about the nature
of Manetho's source in this regard.
52)J. YOYOTTE,"L'Egypte ancienne et les origines de l'antijudaisme", Revue
de l'Histoire des religions163 (1963), pp. 133-143; see also TROIANI,art. cit. in n. 25,
pp. 118-119 (especially note 28, p. 118).
53) Art. cit. in n. 28.
54) M. STERN,"A Fragment of Greco-Egyptian Prophecy and the Tradition of
the Jews' Expulsion from Egypt in Chairemon's History", Zion 28 (1963), pp.
223-227 (Hebr.).
234

Josephus, therefore, seems to be correct when he claims (C.Ap.,

I, 223) that the Egyptians were the first to calumniate the Jews.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern scholarship has accustomed us to be suspicious55).

Josephus' apolegetic aims are held as responsible for most of his
statements when other sources are not available. But the cases
examined above point to the necessity of being cautious. When we
say that Josephus lies, or that he is not accurate in citing his source,
or that he is not aware of the nature of the source he is using, we
must provide proofs.
A similar statement appeared in modern research in the fifties:
it was made by E. BICKERMAN, when dealing with the problems of
authenticity created by Josephus' mention of the Jewish privileges:
"L'incredulite doit, aussi bien que la croyance, 8tre J*ustifi6e " 56)
The cases of Hecataeus and Manetho dealt with above have shown
us how difficult it sometimes is to provide proofs.
Does this mean that we can believe Josephus? Yes, to a certain
degree, since it seems sound to assume that he does not always
quote verbatim, even when he claims doing so, but presents texts
taken from other authors with embellishments he finds necessary
and useful. In other words, we can believe Josephus when he says
that he is quoting Hecataeus' and Manetho's stories about the
Jews, but we cannot suppose that Hecataeus' and Manetho's
accounts were exactly the same as those which we find in Josephus.
The existence of an intermediate Jewish source which sum-
marized Hecataeus and Manetho and was used by Jospehus-non
extant and not mentioned by any source-is possible, even if it is
not certain. It is an argumentum e silentio, with all the limits this
implies.

55) P. BILDE,Flavius Josephus between,Jerusalemand Rome, Sheffield 1988, has

devoted one chapter of his book (pp. 123-171) to the subject "Main Trends in
Modern Josephus Research", which includes: the earlier research; the classical
conception of Josephus, criticism of the classical conception of Josephus; the
classical conception of Josephus in recent years; the modern conception of
Josephus; Josephus research, 1980-1984.
56) E. BICKERMAN, "Une question d'authenticité: les privilèges juifs", in:
MélangesI. Lévy = AnnuaireXIII, 1955 = Studiesin Jewishand ChristianHistory(ed.
A.I. BAUMGARTEN), Leiden 1980, p. 43.