1. Büchler, Adolph, “La relation de Josèphe concernant Alexandre le Grand”, Revue des éludes juives 36 (1898): 1–26Google Scholar. The observations and conjectures of this article have been widely approved and are conveniently summarized by Ralph Marcus in an appendix to the Loeb edition of Josephus, vol. 6, pp. 512–32, esp. 530–32. Kasher, Aryeh, “Alexander Macedon's Campaign in Palestine” [Hebrew], Beth Miqra 20 (1975): 196–199Google Scholar, and Lévi, Israel, “Alexandre et les juifs d'après les sources rabbiniques,” Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an DavidKaufmann (Breslau, 1900), pp. 348–49, argue against Büchler (each with his own reasons) that the narrative is a single organic composition but neither is convincing.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

7. Elsewhere I hope to study the Sanballat story.

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

9. The equivalent Greek terms are apantēsisand hypantēsis(“meeting”). On the adventus ceremony see Peterson, Erik, “Die Einholung des Kyrios”, Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 7(1930): 682–702;Google ScholarHölscher, Tonio, Victoria Romana(Mainz am Rhein, 1967), pp. 48–59;Google ScholarPearce, T. E. V., Classical Quarterly 64 (1970): 313–316;Google ScholarMacCormack, Sabine, “Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus”, Historia 21 (1972): 721–752;Google ScholarMillar, Fergus, The Emperor in the Roman World(London, 1977), pp. 31–40. MacCormack and Millar provide further bibliography.Google Scholar

10. Papyrus of Gourob III, 17-IV, 19, as edited by Holleaux, Maurice, Etudes d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques, ed. Louis Robert, 5 vols. (Paris, 1942), 3: 288–90. Cf. the reception the monarch received at Seleuceia (II, 23–III,7). The text is conveniently available in FGrH160.Google Scholar

11. Panegyrici Latini2 (12).37.3–4. I am indebted to the French translation and notes of Galletier, Edouard, Panégyriques latins, 3 vols. (Pairs, 1949–1955).Google Scholar

12. Panegyrici Latini 5 (8).7.6–9.2.Google Scholar

13. On the symbolic importance of the adventus see MacCormack. Both gods (Pearce, p. 316; to his list of passages add Diodorus Siculus 34–35 fragment 33.2) and those celebrating a triumph (MacCormack, p. 726) entered a city with similar ceremonies. (The major distinction between a triumph and an adventus is that the former could be celebrated only at one's home town, while the latter could be celebrated either at home or abroad. See Julius Obsequens, De Prodigiis 56.) It was thoroughly exceptional that Augustus went out to greet Tiberius (Dio 56.1.1) and that Vespasian went out to greet Titus (BJ 7.119). Acclamations: see below, n. 18. Hymns: Svensson, N., “Réception solonelle d'Hérode Atticus”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 50 (1926): 527–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Welcome by gods: sacerdotes <cum> insignibus suis intrantem [Attalus I] urbem [Athens] ac di prope ipsi exciti sedibus suis acceperunt, Livy 31.14.12 (omitted by Polybius 16 25.7). Sacrifice: see n. 19 below. Sacrifice as a sign of rule: Bickerman, Elias J., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1976), 1: 93–94, and C. Bradford Welles, note on Diodorus Siculus 17.40.3 in the Loeb edition. Refusal to participate: Millar, p. 31.Google Scholar

14. Arrian, Anabasis3.16.3–5. “According to the instructions of the Chaldeans” means that Alexander sacrificed to Bel not in the Macedonian fashion/which was his custom, but in the local manner. Cf. , Arrian 4.15.8 and 6.3.1 with the comments of Helmut Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. (Munich, 1926), 1: 87 and 99.Google Scholar

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

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

17. Statues at an adventus: P. Gourob (above); Livy (n. 13 above); Panegyric of 312 C.E. (above); Dio Cassius 78 (11)22.2;Herodian 8.7.2; Ps.-Kallisthenes 1.34.2 (pp. 37–38 ed. Kroll). In one of the Acta Alexandrina the Jews and Alexandrians bring their gods to the tribunal but unfortunately the text breaks off before we are told what the Jews brought (the Alexandrians brought a statue of Sarapis). See Tcherikover, Victor et al., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1957–64), vol. 2, no. 157, lines 17–18.Google Scholar

18. The phrase is pantōn mia phōnēi aspasamenōn. Aspazesthai can mean “to acclaim, to hail” (AJ 10.211; Mark 15:18; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities4.39; see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2d ed. by William Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker [Chicago, 1979], s.v. aspazesthai), a meaning that is assured here by mia phōnēi, a phrase which frequently characterizes acclamations (Erik Peterson, Heis Theos[Göttingen, 1926], pp. 191–92). For acclamations at an adventus see AJ 16.14; BJ 3.459; 7.71 and 102; and especially Germanicus's edict of 19 C.E. (Ehrenberg, Victor and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [Oxford, 1955], no. 320a) with the analysis of Dieter Weingārtner, Die Aegyptenreise des Germanicus(Bonn, 1969), pp. 108–19.Google Scholar

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

20. General festival: Wilhelm Dittenberger, Orienlis Graeci Inscriptions Selectae (Leipzig, 1903–1905), no. 332, lines 38–40, and BJ 7.73.Google Scholar

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

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

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

24. On soteriological epiphanies, see Roussel, Pierre, “Le miracle de Zeus Panamaros”, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 55 (1931): 70–116;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBickerman, Elias, “Héliodore au temple de Jerusalem”, Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'hisloire orientates et slaves 7 (1939–1944): 5–40Google Scholar, esp. 32–34; and Launey, Marcel, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1950), 2:897–901.Google Scholar

25. FGrH532 D (1). The translation is that of F. C. Grant as quoted by Hadas, Moses, Hellenistic Culture (New York, 1959), pp. 166–67.Google Scholar

26. Plutarch, Lysander20.5; Pausanias 3.18.3.

27. This event allegedly occurred in the fifth century B.C.E.; see Clerc, Michel, Massalia, 2 vols. (Marseilles, 1927), 1: 173–177.Google Scholar

28. It is unclear whether Ammon was worshipped at Aphytis even before the siege or whether the cult was introduced only as a result of Lysander's order.

29. It makes little difference here whether proskynēsis means “prostration” or a “handkiss,” i.e., a kiss on one's hand followed by the extension of the hand as a salute. See Bickerman, Elias, Parola dal Passato 18 (1963): 244–253. The parallel with Daniel 2:46 (see next section) makes the former more likely. Kasher (n.l), pp. 198–99, correctly points out that the reference to proskynēsisis not anachronistic since many orientals by this point (after Issus) showed respect for Alexander in this fashion. The practice was introduced to Macedonians only later.Google Scholar

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

31. See section III. At the temple of Aesculapius at Pergamon, the foster father of Aelius Aristides saw the god in his dream in the form of the consul L. Petronius Sabinus who was still unknown to both Aristides and his foster father. The dreamer, however, realized that the god was using the consul's form and spoke with him about Aristides' work. Later he met and recognized the consul. See Aristides, Aelius, Hieroi Logoi2.9, p. 396, ed. Bruno Keil = C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales(Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 224–225. In Yosippon, p. 54, and in the Samaritan chronicle Book of Joshua (Chronicon Samaritanum…Liber Josuae, ed. Theod orus G. J. Juynboll [Leiden, 1848], p. 184), Alexander sees an angel with the features of Jaddus.Google Scholar

32. See section IV.

33. See Yosippon, p. 54 (perhaps inspired by Gen. 31:24) and the medieval version translated by Gorion, Micha Joseph Bin, Mimekor Yisrael: Classical Jewish Folktales,trans. Lask, I. M., 3 vols. (Bloomington, 1976), 1: 225.Google Scholar

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

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

36. Contrast AJ 11.345.

37. The adventus story had no need for this motif.

38. The motif that Alexander greeted Jaddus first (331) may derive from the adventus story (see n. 22 above) but probably belongs with the proskynēsis as part of the epiphany story. Professor Morton Smith brings to my attention the parallel in Plutarch, Cicero 44.2–4. Cicero sees an image of a boy in a dream but does not recognize him; the next day he meets Octavian for the first time and realizes that he is the boy whom he had seen in his vision.

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

40. Rome: BJ 7.63–74, 119; Antioch: BJ 7.100–2; Jerusalem: AJ 12.138 (Antiochus); 16.14 (Agrippa; cf. too Philo, Legatio294–97); 18.122–23 (Vitellius). Cf. too BJ 3.30 and 459; AJ 13.101 and 149. Even Antiochus IV Epiphanes was greeted magnificently in Jerusalem: 2 Mace. 4:22. Professor Shaya Gafni reminds me that the adventus ceremony is frequently described in rabbinic literature. See, e.g., Pesiqta Rabbati, p. 21b, ed. Ish-Shalom; Leviticus Rabbah 30.7 (pp. 704–5, ed. Margalioth); Mekhilta, p. 119, ed. Horovitz. These and other passages are discussed in the first chapter of Ignaz Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch(Breslau, 1903).

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

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

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

44. Daniel is cited from The Jerusalem Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Anonymi Byzantini Vita Alexandri Regis Macedonum, ed. Jürgen Trumpf (Stuttgart, 1974), p. 78, followed with minor variants by Dergriechische Alexanderroman Rezension Gamma Buck II, ed. Helmut Engelmann (Meisenheim, 1963), p. 218. Cf. Marcus's translation of this text (Loeb edition, p. 515).

55. According to both Jewish and Christian legend Jethro, who declared the greatness of Israel's God (Exod. 18:11), converted to monotheism. See Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., reprint ed. (Philadelphia, 1967–1968), 7: 257, and Cyril of Alexandria, De Adoralione(J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca68: 281–84). Jerome, commentary on Isa. 45:1, deduced from Cyrus's edict that the Persian king acknowledged no god but the God of Israel (Patrologia Latina24:442 = Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 73a:504–5). From Aristotle's admiration for a Jewish sage (CA 1.176–83), some fifteenth and sixteenth century Jewish scholars deduced that Aristotle converted to Judaism (Azariah de Rossi, Me'or'Einayim, chap. 22, pp. 246–47, ed. David Cassel [Vilna, 1864–66]). Many additional examples could be cited.Google Scholar

56. Augustine remarks, “Alexander did indeed offer sacrifices in the temple of God, not because he was converted to his worship through true piety, but because he thought through impious vanity that God ought to be worshipped together with false gods.” See De Civitate Dei18.45.2 (cited by George Cary, The Medieval Alexander[Cambridge, 1956], p. 128). Cf. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 10.12 regarding Cyrus, as analyzed by Ephraim Urbach, “Cyrus and his Decree in the Eyes of the Sages” [Hebrew], Molad 19 (1961): 371.

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

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

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

60. The problems analyzed by Williamson, H. G. M., “The Historical Value of Josephus's Jewish AntiquitiesXI. 297–301”, Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977): 49–66, do not affect our discussion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

65. Arrian 2.18.1; Curtius 4.2.17; Plutarch, Alexander24.3 (wherePlutarchjuxtaposesitto a dream of the Tyrians, thereby creating a “double-dream” story).

66. Ps.-Kallisthenes 1.33.7–11 (pp. 34–37, ed. Kroll) and 2.13 (pp. 80–81, ed. Kroll).

67. This possibility was well noted by Büchler, p. 13. Gutmann, pp. 282–85, suggests that the dream is based on the Heracles story, while Abel, p. 51, suggests that it is a judaization of Alexander's sacrifices to the gods at Dion as described by Diodorus Siculus 17.16.3, but I have not found any single event or dream which is the obvious model for the Jewish story. In later versions the Ammon dream referred to in n. 66 was judaized (christianized?) by the addition of Phinehas to Ammon (Vita Alexandri, p. 59, ed. Trumpf) or by the replacement of Ammon by Jeremiah (see Trumpfs apparatus).

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

69. Delphi: Plutarch, Alexander14.4. Siwah: Arrian 3.3–4; Diodorus 17.49–51; Plutarch, Alexander26–27; Curtius Rufus 4.7; Kallisthenes, FGrH124 F 14a. I do not think that the Josephan story is modeled on the Siwah story.

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

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

72. Historical: AJ 2.347–48 (for parallels see Jacoby's commentary on FGrH124 F 31). Romantic: BJ 7.245. Jewish stories about Alexander: BJ 2.487–88; CA 2.35, 37, 42–44, and 72 (civil rights in Alexandria); CA 1.192 and 201–5.

73. The Daniel “oracle” parallels both Alexander's pagan oracles and Cyrus's Isaiah “oracle.” Thus the beginning of AJ 11 (Cyrus-Isaiah) corresponds to its conclusion (Alexander- Daniel). Josephus's use of ring structure awaits investigation. That it was Josephus who inserted the reference to Daniel in the narrative is suggested by Pfister, Kleine Schriften, p. 321, n. 60; Kasher, p. 199; and Arnaldo Momigliano, “Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem,” Athenaeum 57 (1979): 446–447.

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

75. Cohen, pp. 24–47.

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

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

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

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

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

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

82. Hecataeus reports that Alexander gave Samaria to the Jews “free of tribute” (CA 2.43) but in AJ 11 Josephus knows no such thing although he is contrasting Alexander's treatment of the Jews with his treatment of the Samaritans. In CA 1.192 Hecataeus reports that Alexander ordered his soldiers, Jews included, to aid in the rebuilding of the temple of Bel. When the Jews refused they were punished until Alexander relented. This contradicts AJ 11.339 where Alexander assures his Jewish volunteers that they may remain loyal to their ancestral laws. This is not the place for a discussion of the passages ascribed to Hecataeus. If genuine, they are of Egyptian origin; if fake, they probably are of Egyptian (i.e., Alexandrian Jewish) origin. For a brief discussion and bibliography, see Nikolaus Walter, Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker(Gütersloh, 1976; Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeil, vol.I, part2), pp. 144–53. The Hecataean passages quoted by the Contra Apionemare ascribed by Ben Zion Wacholder to early Ptolemaic Palestine, but this view is not convincing; see his Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo- Greek Literature(Cincinnati, 1974), pp. 262–73. The protagonists of the Jewish-Samaritan debate in Egypt (AJ 13.74–79) also do not refer to Alexander.

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