9. The Useand Abuse of the ExodusStory

The Exodus was adefining moment,perhaps the defining moment in ancient Is- raelite tradition. As the legend has it,the Israelites’ escape from Egypt under the leadership of Moses shook off the yoke of Egyptian oppression and gave them the impetusfor articulatingprinciples and values, surmounting an arduous jour- ney through the wilderness, and shapingtheir identity as apeople and aculture. The dayoftheir release from the tyrannyofPharaonic Egypt,sothe Lordde- clared in the Book of Exodus,would thereafter be commemoratedinanannual festival, among the most sacredonthe calendar,the ceremonyofPassover.¹ The Exodus generated highdrama, an unforgettable tale in the Bible, perhaps the single most familiar one to Jewand Gentile alike. As inspiration to subsequent generations of Jews and theiradmirers,its power is manifest. But what of the villains of the piece? They,orrather their presumed descend- ants, would not have found this story very entertaining. Indeed, we might imag- ine, they would have reason to feel maligned and defamed. The heartless Phar- aohs, the hostile Egyptian populace,and the royal armyasanagent of evil hardlysupplied models for imitation. And the tale could bring little satisfaction to the indigenous dwellers in the land of the Nile. The spreadofthe story should onlyhaveaggravated matters.Jewishsoldiers and Jewish settlers in Egypt occasionallyappear on record in the centuries that followed the supposed time of the Exodus,most notablyinthe garrison at Elephantine.² But the principal wave of Jewishreentry into Egypt appears to have come at the end of the Persianperiod and in the earlyyears of the Hellen- istic age.³ The Exodus story could have seepedinto Egyptian consciousness in the course of this era, thus to stir reaction and response. Indeed, echoes of a very different variety of the tale emerge in the literatureproduced by pagan au-

 Exodus, .–, .–.  See B. Porten, Archives fromElephantine: The Life of aJewishMilitaryColony (Berkeley, ), –.There were, of course, Jews in Egypt prior to the Elephantine garrison; cf. Jeremiah, – ; Let. Aris. , ;J.Mélèze-Modrzejewski, TheJews of Egypt: FromRameses II to Emperor Ha- drian (Philadelphia, ), –.  Let. Aris. –;Jos. A. J. .–, , . .–.The tale itself of the deportation of , Jews by PtolemyIand their release by PtolemyIIisquestionable. Nor can one place implicit faith in the moreagreeable version ascribed to Hecataeus of Abdera by Jos. C. Ap. .–,that has numerous Jews follow PtolemyIvoluntarily from Palestine to settle in Egypt.See also B. Bar Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus “On the Jews” (Berkeley, ), –.But the congruenceoftestimonydoes at least suggest that asignificant movement of Jews to Egypt occurredatthe beginningofthe Hellenistic period. 198 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story thors in Egypt.Inassorted versions, Jews appear as villains rather thanvictims, oppressors rather thanoppressed, the perpetrators of sacrilegerather than the upholders of the faith, and ultimatelythe defeated rather than the triumphant. Scholars have drawnwhat seems to be alogical conclusion: the conflictingver- sions represent aform of competinghistoriography; pagans produceda“coun- ter-history” to negateorreverse the effects of the Jewish legend; apolemicalcon- test ensued, awar of propagandabetween Jews and Egyptians over the nature of the biblical Exodus.⁴ Josephus, vehicle for much of the variant tradition, buttresses the interpre- tation. His treatise,the Contra Apionem, devotes itself in large part to refuting anti-Jewishtracts by Alexandrian writers and others perceivedashostile to the Jews. Diverse treatments of the Exodus constitute asubstantial portion of the work, drawingJosephus’ fire and promptingelaborate counteractions to under- mine the negative portrayals by Manetho, Lysimachus,Apion, and Chaeremon.⁵ Josephus’ apologia has setthe terms for moderndiscussion. Perhaps misleading- ly so. That the Exodus narrative became transformed and manipulated seems ob- vious enough.But the manipulators and their motivesare not quite so obvious. Complexity and ambiguity adhere to the several versions, undermining trust in the stark and simplisticapproach of Josephus. Modern scholarship, taking its cue from Josephus, discerns abasic dichoto- my.Ingeneral, pagan writingsonthe Jews are assessed along aspectrum with a clear division in the center: they were either favorablyinclined, admiring of Jew- ish character and practices,with positive judgments on their traditions and in- stitutions, or they werevirulentlyantisemitic, hostile to Jewishcustoms,distort-

 See, e.g., the formulations of A. Funkenstein, “Anti-Jewish Propaganda: Pagan, Christian, and Modern,” TheJerusalem Quarterly  (), ;idem, Perceptions of JewishHistory (Berkeley, ), –;A.Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Tübingen, ), –; C. Aziza, “L’utilisation polémique du récit de l’Exode chez les écrivainsalexandrins,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römishchen Welt, II.. (), –;E.Gabba, “The GrowthofAnti-Ju- daism or the Greek Attitude towards Jews,” in W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, TheCambridge HistoryofJudaism (Cambridge, ), vol. , –;M.Pucci ben Zeev, “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius:The Case of Hecataeus’ and Manetho’sAccounts of Jews and Judaism,” Jour- nal for the Study of Judaism,  (): –;Z.Yavetz, “Judeophobia in Classical Antiqui- ty:ADifferent Approach,” Journal of JewishStudies  (): ;P.Schäfer, “The Exodus Tra- dition in Pagan Greco-Roman Literature,” in I. M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and D. R. Schwartz (eds.), TheJews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in MemoryofMenahem Stern (Jerusalem, ), , –.  See especiallyJos. C. Ap. .–, .., .–.OnJosephus’ apologetics and po- lemics,see A. Kasher, “Polemicand Apologetic,” in L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (eds.), Jo- sephus’ ContraApionem: Studies in its Character and Context with aLatin Concordance to the Por- tion Missing in Greek (Leiden, ), –. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 199 ing their history and slandering their values. They might,tobesure, combine as- pects of both. But analyses consistentlyapplythe categories of “pro or anti-Jew- ish.” Researchers differ on where the balance lies. Forsome, the negative pre- vails:the attitude of most pagans was sharply antagonistic.⁶ Others take a quite different line: pagans on the whole either looked upon Jews with favor or merelyindulgedinscorn and mockery,but showed no race hatred against them.⁷ One can refine this division further by resortingtostatistics. An eminent scholarrecentlyreviewed the textsand tabulated the results,calculating that 18 percent of pagan assessments werefavorable, 23 percent unfavorable, and 59 percent neutral.⁸ Hence, ajudicious selectivity can provide support for any line thatone seeks to argueonthis matter.But the whole approach is conceptu- allyflawed. No numbers game will determine the issue, no reckoning of sums or statistical tables can elucidatepagan attitudes towardthe Jews. Even to charac- terize amajority of Gentile remarks as “neutral” maymisconceive the situation. It begs acritical question by assumingthe existenceofawar of words, apolem- ical setting in which all pagan appraisals of Jews can be placed. But that is the very proposition that needs reevaluation. The story of the Exodus supplies acentral exhibit.Asthe common recon- struction has it,that drama served as vehicle either for enhancing the Jewish imageorfor maliciously undermining it,depending on how the tale was told. Adifferent perspective is offered here. Twostarklycontrasting versions of the Exodus can set the matter in abold light.Their sharp differences make the two presentations, those of Strabo and Lysimachus,particularlyuseful and revealing.Onthe face of it,they seem to confirm definitively the notion thatrival interpretations of the tale stemmed

 See, e.g., J. L. Daniel, “Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman World,” Journal of Biblical Lit- erature  (), : “Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman literature… werealmost universallydis- liked or at least viewed with an amused contempt;” M. Goodman, in E. Schürer (ed.), TheHistory of the JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. by G. Vermes,F.Millar,and M. Good- man, Cambridge, ), III., : “Most pagan authors whospokeabout the Jews at all after c.  B.C. did so in apolemicalsense. Hostility was almost universal after the first century B.C.”  See, e.g., J. Isaac, Genèse de l’antisémitisme (Vanves, ), –;R.Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: TheTheological Roots of Antisemitism (Minneapolis, ), –;M.Simon, Verus Israel (Oxford, ), –.  L. H. Feldman, “Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World,” in D. Berger(ed.), Historyand Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism (Philadelphia, ), ;idem, “Pro-Jewish Intimations in Anti- Jewish Remarks CitedinJosephus’ Against Apion,” JewishQuarterly Review  (): – ;idem, Jewand Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, ), . 200 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story from polarizedattitudes toward the Jews. Careful scrutinymight suggest other- wise. Strabo, an indefatigable researcher,traveler,historian, and geographer from Pontus, produced most of his work, in Greek, duringthe ageofAugustus. In the course of his monumental geographic treatise,Strabodescribes the terrain, top- ography, and economies of Syria, Phoenicia,and Judaea. And he takes the occa- sion to append notes on the historical background and traditions of the region. That treatment includes astriking rendition of the Exodus events and their cen- tral figure, Moses. ForStrabo, the most reliable report about the ancestors of con- temporary Jews has them as Egyptians by origin. Moses indeed was an Egyptian priest who became disgruntled with the religious observances of his own people, rejectingtheir representations of divinity in the form of animalsand even taking aside-swipe at Greeks for depicting gods in human shape.⁹ In Strabo’saccount Moses proclaimed that God was all-encompassing, that he cannot be conceived or worshipped through images, and that he responds onlytothose who live tem- peratelyand through righteousness.¹⁰ With such statements, Moses won over a substantial number of right-thinking persons who followed him out of Egypt to the site of Jerusalem. There he installed ajust and pious religion whereGod could be properlyworshipped and whereMoses himself won widespread admiration.¹¹ Such, in brief, is the substance of Strabo’srecreation of the Exo- dus—avery far cry from the biblical narrative.Itdoes, however,deliverahighly flatteringportrait of Moses and of those who accompanied him out of Egypt into the Promised Land. Moses did not,inthis version, rescue an oppressed people. He and his followers left their nativeland for the best of religious motives: to pay proper homagetothe supreme deity,unsulliedbyperverse images. Moses thus stands out as an esteemed religious leader and molder of his people, in acate- gory with the most venerated Greek lawgivers like Lycurgus and Minos and a host of sageprophets.¹² Strabo consequentlyand for obvious reasons has been counted among thosepagan writers who held the Jews and their principles in highregard.¹³

 Strabo, ..–.Cf. Jos. A. J. ..What Greek art Moses might be expectedtohave seen remains amystery.The idea of Moses inspecting Bronze Agefigurines that turned up in Egypt requiresafeat of imagination.  Strabo, ...  Ibid., ...  Ibid., ..–.  It is not pertinent here, even if it were possible, to determine the sources of Strabo on this matter,how far he was influenced by Hecataeus,how much he paraphrased fromPosidonius, and what proportion stemmed fromhis own researches. See the discussions by J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville, ), –;M.Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 201

At the opposite end of the spectrum standsthe Graeco-Egyptian writer Lysi- machus. Of the man and his time we know virtually nothing,apart from the fact that Josephus considered him as fiercelyhostile to the Jews. Achronological clue lies in Josephus’ remark that Apion provided the same invented figure for the number of Jews who fled Egypt as did Lysimachus.That would date Lysimachus somewhat prior to Apion who livedinthe earlyand middle first century CE, and possiblymake him anear contemporary of Strabo.¹⁴ It would be imprudent to claim greater precision or certainty.Lysimachus’ presentation of the Exodus, in anycase, puts him at very sharp odds with Strabo. AccordingtoLysimachus, Jews in the reign of Pharaoh Bocchoris suffered from leprosy,scurvy,and other afflictionsand, in seeking to alleviate their ailments, took refuge in the temples and resortedtobegging for sustenance. Afamine then struck the land, prompt- ing the king to seek counsel with the oracle of Ammon. On the god’sadvice, Boc- choris expelled the suppliantsfrom the holyplaces,drowningthe victims of scurvy and leprosy and leaving the rest to perish in the desert. He then cleaned the temples, now rid of their impure and impious occupants.¹⁵ The survivors managed to make their waythrough the desert, instructed by Moses to exhibit no kindness to anyone, to give wicked counsel, and to overturn all temples and altars they happen to come across.Still worse, after they reached inhabited land, the Jews treated the indigenous population with disdain, looted and burned theirshrines, and built their own city of Jerusalem from which they could exercise power.¹⁶ Not avery pretty picture. It is hardly surprising that Ly- simachus conventionallyranks among the arch antisemites of antiquity.¹⁷

on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, )I,–;B.Bar-Kochva, TheImage of the Jews in Greek Literature: TheHellenistic Period (Berkeley:UCBerkeley Press, ), with bibliography.  Jos. C. Ap. .: τὸνδὲἀριθμὸντῶνἐλασθέντων τὸναὐτὸνΛυσιμάχῳ σχεδιάσας.Whether he is identicalwith “Lysimachus the Alexandrian,” awriter on marvels and myths,need not be de- cided; see A. Gudeman, “Lysimachos,” Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol.  (): –;P.M.Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, ), vol. , –,n. .For Josephus’ characterization of Lysimachus’ animus,see Jos. C. Ap. ., ., ., ..Bar-Kochva, TheImage of the Jews in Greek Literature,places him at the end of the second century BCE. But the evidenceisindirect and indecisive.  Jos. C. Ap. .–.  Ibid., .–.  So, e.g., Feldman, Jewand Gentile, : “anti-Jewish bigot;” : “arch Jew-baiter;” : “arch anti-Jewish bigot;” Aziza, : “inspiréepar des sentiments antijuifs.” Ibid., –, whodates Lysimachus to the mid-second century B.C.E., speculates that his animosity was pro- vokedbythe Jewish settlement at Leontopolis and that his depiction of atrocities inflicted upon the land had in mind Jewish mercenaries employed by the second-century Ptolemies—atissue of unsupported conjectures. 202 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story

The two narratives, in short,moveindrasticallydifferent directions. For Strabo, the Jews left Egypt on their owninitiative and of their own accord, in order to promoteapurer form of worship, devoid of Gentile idolatry.For Lysima- chus, the Jews themselveswerethe impure, pollutingthe temples with their pres- ence, had to be expelled from the country,and then compounded their sacrilege with further desecration. Such presentations undergird the idea of bipolar pagan approachestoJudaism. The matterisnot so simple. Acloser look at the texts of Strabo and Lysima- chus breaksdown the bold antithesis. How far does Strabopresent an authentic pro-Jewishline and Lysimachus an antisemitic one? Strabo, in fact,while ex- pressingahighopinionofMoses and ascribing noble motivestothose who ex- ited from Egypt,alsofinds progressive deterioration in the character and behav- ior of Jews in subsequent generations. Moses’ initial successors held to his model of righteousness and piety,but laterpriests fell into superstition and aggressive behavior,promotingabhorrent dietary laws and circumcision. Therulers of Ju- daea engaged in plunder and seizure of land not onlyintheir own country but in neighboringterritories,evensubjugatingmuch of Syria and Phoenicia.¹⁸ Straboplainlyfound offensive the actions of the later Hasmonaeans, the trans- formationofpriestly leadership into kingly rule, and the aggressive expansion- ism thatmarkedJudaean policy from the latersecond century B.C.E. to the inter- vention of Pompey.¹⁹ The idea of falling away from agolden ageofadmirable leaders to that of unworthysuccessorsis, of course, acommonplaceinclassical literatureand philosophy. Nor was Strabo the first to applythat schema to the history of the Jews.²⁰ The topos carries little weight as history.But it supplies acritical clue on Strabo’sattitude towardJews closer to his own day. The Greek geographer plainlydid not conveyhis laudatory version of the Exodus in order to celebrate the qualities of contemporary Jews. To judge this account as motivated by pro-Jewish sympathies misses the point. Acomparable assessment can be made on the other side, with regard to Ly- simachus. His Exodus narrative delivers asevere verdict on Jewishbehavior,os- tensiblyreflecting retaliation by Egyptian intellectuals for the defamatory ver- sion in the Bible. YetevenLysimachus’ treatment betrayssome grudging

 Strab., ..: ἔπειτᾠἐφισταμένων ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην τὸ μὲνπρῶτον δεισιδαιμόνων, ἔπει- τα τυραννικῶν ἀνθρώπων…οἱ μὲνγὰρἀφιστάμενοι τὴνχώραω ἐκάκουν καὶ αὐτὴνκαὶτὴνγειτ- νιῶσαν, οἱ δὲ συμπράττοντες τοῖς ἄρχουσι καθήρπαζον τὰἀλλότρια καὶ τῆςΣυρίας κατε- στρέφοντο καὶ τῆςΦοινίκης πολλήν.  Strab., ...The formulation of Schäfer (“Exodus Tradition”), ,that “Strabo becomes a bit less pro-Jewish” misconceives the matter.  One can find aparallel interpretation in Diod. ... 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 203 admiration. He reports thatthe Jews survivedhardship and near death in the desert,wererallied by Moses to run the risk of pressingon, and eventuallyex- ercised power and sovereignty in Judaea.²¹ Heretoo, therefore, the notion that this work conveys pure spleen against the Jews overstates and distorts the case. It would be wise to apply some skepticism to the thesis that these variants of the Exodus drama represent either simple denunciation of or apologia for the Jews. Another text serves to underscore the point.Pompeius Trogus, aRomanized Gaul, writing in Latin in the ageofAugustus, composed awide-ranging and mas- sive history of Greek and Near Eastern affairs, concentratingupon the Hellenistic kingdoms, awork preserved onlyinasummary version by the much latercom- piler Justin. Trogus was, therefore, acontemporary of Strabo, and possiblyof Lysimachus.²² In the course of his discussion of Seleucid history in Syria in the latersecond century B.C.E., Trogus offers an excursus on earlyJewish history. Unlikemost Graeco-Roman writers,Trogusknows that the Hebrews had a history prior to Moses—or,atleast,the tradition about ahistory.Hehas heard about apatriarchal period, he locates Jewishorigins in Damascus, he speaks of earlyJewishrulerswho included Abraham and Israhel, evidentlyJacob, and he transmits ahighlycondensed account of Joseph’sexperiences in Egypt.²³ Moretothe point,Trogussupplies anoteworthyrendition of the Exodus. In his view,Moses was the son of Joseph, an error of course but not an especially egregious one. In the Book of Exodus,the Moses story follows almost directly upon that of Joseph—although the text does insert asentenceabout much fruit- ful multiplying in between.²⁴ Trogus proceeds to describe Moses not onlyashav- ing inherited Joseph’sknowledge but as possessingamost handsome counte- nance. TheExodus story then follows in abbreviated form, aversion with some familiar and some unfamiliar features.The Egyptians,inTrogus’ variant, afflicted with leprosy and other skin diseases, took oracularadvice and expelled Moses and others suffering from ailments, lest the pestilence spread further. Moses then assumed leadership of the exilesand took them out of Egypt—mak- ing off with anumber of Egyptian sacred objects as they went.The Jews headed

 Jos. C. Ap . .–: Μωυσῆντινα συμβουλεῦσαι αὐτοῖςπαραβαλλομένους μίαν ὁδὸν τέμνειν ἄχρις ἂν ὅτου ἔλθωσιν εἰςτόπους οἰκουμένους… ἱκανῶςδὲὀχληθέντας ἐλθεῖνεἰςτὴν οἰκουμένην χῶραν… ὕστερον δ᾽αὐτοὺς ἐπικρατήσαντας.ElsewhereLysimachus passed harsh judgment on Moses as lawgiver; Jos. C. Ap. ..  Atranslation of Justin’sepitomebyJ.C.Yardley includes useful introductorymaterial by R. Develin, Justin: Epitome of the Philippic HistoryofPompeius Trogus (Atlanta, ), –.  Justin, ..–.  Justin, ..;Exodus, .–. 204 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story for Damascus, stoppingatMt. Sinai on the way, and creating the Sabbath to commemorate the end of theirhunger in the Arabian desert.They began the practice of keepingthemselvesapart from other peoples, recalling thattheir ex- pulsionhad been due to Egyptian fear of contamination by plague.²⁵ Adetailedcritique of Trogus’ text would here servelittle purpose.²⁶ But an interesting element in his digression deserves special note. The expulsion of the Jews from Egypt as consequence of leprosy and other diseases, normallycon- sidered to be aquintessentiallyantisemitic ingredient,ispresented by Pompeius Trogus in apurelymatter of fact fashion, with no polemicalovertones. Indeed, the remarks follow directlyupon Trogus’ praise of Mosesnot onlyfor his brains but even for his good looks. To be sure, he noted the Jews’ theft of Egyptian ob- jects of worship on theirway out of the country.But that says no more thanthe Scriptures themselves, which have the Jews trick their Egyptian neighbors out of some precious articles before making their escape from the land.²⁷ And Trogus adds an epilogue, observing that the Jewish practice of combiningkingship with high-priesthood gave them ablend of justiceand religion thatled to incred- ible power.²⁸ The labels of philosemitic or antisemitic plainlyhavenoapplicability to Pompeius Trogus. The whole conceptual approach needs revision. The categori- zation of pagan texts that treat the Exodus as standing on one side or another of ahostile exchangeisoff the mark. The episode of the Exodus held acentral place in Jewish consciousness and the self-perception of Jews. But onlyfor them. Writ- ers of the Graeco-Roman world had no comparable stake in the matter.ToGen- tiles who took notice of it at all, the Exodus constituted little more than acolorful sidelight or the obligatory origo in an ethnographic study. And one can go fur- ther.Those Hellenic intellectuals in Egypt who happened to know the tale would surelyhavefelt no urge to refute it.Why rehabilitate the villains who rep- resented aregime that the Greeks themselveshad eventuallysupplanted?Egyp- tians, to be sure, might have had grounds for annoyance—if they wereaware of the story.But how farisitlikelytohavespread outside the synagogues?Would Jews have propagated anarrative thathighlighted their flight from Egypt at a time when they soughttoestablish their credentials as residents?And how ur-

 Justin, ..–.  See the sensible discussionofGager, Moses, –.Cf. Schäfer, –.  Exod. .–, .–, .–.  Justin, ..: “semperque exinde hic mos apud ludaeos fuit,uteosdem reges et sacer- dotes haberent, quorumiustitia religione permixta incredible quantum coaluere.” Trogus or his source evidentlyassumedherethat the political and religious arrangements that held in the later Hasmonaeanperiod could be traced all the wayback to the generation after Moses. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 205 gent was it for Greeks and Egyptians to refuteaJewish legend that could safely be ignored or dismissed?Itistime to abandonthe imageofamudslingingcam- paign between those sympathetic and those antipathetic to Jews. Afresh ap- proach maybemoreproductive. Forthat purpose, we go backtothe beginning,i.e.the beginning of pagan interest in the JewishExodus from Egypt.The first extant writertoexhibit such interest is readilyidentifiable: Hecataeus of Abdera, acontemporaryofAlexand- er the Great and PtolemyI,thus active in the late fourth century B.C.E. Available information on his career and writingsisfrustratinglysparse, therebyproducing avoluminous scholarlyliteraturethatdwarfs the ancienttestimony. As pupil of the Skeptic Pyrrho, Hecataeus evidentlyhad philosophic as well as historical in- terests. He traveled and livedfor atime in Egypt,anintellectual who profited from the patronage of the court in the ageofPtolemyson of Lagus. Among his works,one at least was composed there, amajor studyofEgyptian history, culture, and traditions. From that work, in all probability,comes alengthyex- tract concerning the Jews that includes aversion of the Exodus.²⁹ The fragmentthatsurvivescomes at third hand. Diodorus quoted it,and his text,inturn, is preserved by Photius. How much condensation has taken place and how farthe extant material has been pieced together rather than belonging together in the original remain beyond proof. Nonetheless, the transmittedtext can be taken as agenerallyreliable indicator of the author’sattitude. Hecataeus records aplague that afflicted the land of Egypt.Its severity drovethe populace to interpret it as divinewrath. They concluded that ancestral religious practices

 See Diod ..;Jos. C. Ap. ..Josephus’ claim that Hecataeus wrote abook entirelyde- voted to the Jews has generated along and probably undyingcontroversy.This is not the placeto exploreit, nor is it relevant to the subject at hand, for the fragments quoted by Josephus do not bear on the Exodus. Apowerful argument against authenticity is deliveredbyBar-Kochva, Pseu- do-Hecataeus, –.For asummaryofrecentscholarship on the topic, see Pucci ben Zeev, –.OnHecataeus himself, the literatureisimmense. See, amongthe moreimportant works, F. Jacoby, “Hekataios,” Real-encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol.  (), –;W.Jaeger, Diokles von Karystos (Berlin, ), –:O.Murray, “He- cataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology  (): – ;Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. , –;Gager, Moses, –;B.Z.Wacholder, Eu- polemus (Cincinnati, ), –;F.H.Diamond, “Hecataeus of Abdera and the Mosaic Con- stitution,” in S. M. Burstein and L. A. Okin (eds.), Panhellenica: EssaysinAncient Historyand Historiography in Honor of TruesdellS.Brown (Lawrence, Kansas, ), –;J.-D.Gauger, “Zitateinder jüdischen Apologetik und die Authentizität der Hekataios-Passagenbei Flavius Jo- sephus und im Ps.Aristeas-Brief,” Journal for the Study of Judaism,  (): –;E.Will and C. Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellènismos: essai sur le judaisme judéen àl’epoquehellénistique (Nancy, ), –;Gabba(n. ), –;G.E.Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Jose- phus,Luke-Acts,and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden, ), –. 206 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story werenolonger being consistently observed, for there weretoo manyforeigners in the land engagedinalien ritesand rituals. Hence they called for removal of the strangers in their midst.³⁰ The non-Egyptians wereforthwith expelled from the country,the most eminent and energetic among them landing in Greece and certain other places,under the leadership of Danaus and Cadmus. But the largernumber of exiles were driventoanuninhabited land later called Judaea. Moses brought them there, aman of exemplary wisdom and courage, and re- sponsibleboth for the founding of Jerusalem and for the installation of the Temple.³¹ Hecataeus proceeds to ascribe to Mosesahost of admirablepolitical, religious, social,and economic institutions, including division of the people into twelve tribes, enforcement of aniconic worship, appointment of distinguished persons who would serveboth as priests and heads of state, assignment of land to settlers, establishment of marriageand burial practices,and promotion of military training.³² The laudatory character of that presentation appears to prevail. AndHeca- taeus of Abderahas been reckoned by manyscholars as the fountainhead for the favorablepagan tradition on the Jews. His gloss on the Exodus story and his admiration for Moses’ achievement would seem to qualify as the paradigmat- ic positive assessment by Gentiles of Jewish principles and traditions.³³ Heca- taeus’ acquaintancewith the tale apparentlyindicates serious interest in the his- tory of the Jews and the origins of their teachings.Ithas even been claimed that he includes in his discussion aphrase that was lifted from the Pentateuch: “a postscript to the laws at theirconclusion statedthat Moses declared these meas- ures to the Jews, having heard them from God.”³⁴ Focus upon Hecataeus’ sympathies, however,diverts attention from the larg- er implications of his text.Hecataeus did not write to advanceabrief for the Jews. Histreatment of them comes onlyasadigression in abroader studydevot- ed to Egyptian culture. And his attitude toward Judaism is by no means unreliev- edlyappreciative.Inamuch discussed passage, Hecataeus describes the Jewish wayoflife as somewhat antisocial and hostile to others—albeit as consequence

 Diod. ..–.  Ibid., ..–.  Ibid., ..–.  So, e.g., Jaeger, Diokles, –;idem, “Greeks and Jews,” Journal of Relligion  (): –;Will-Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellènismos, –;Gabba (n.), –;Sterling, His- toriography and Self-Definition, –;Feldman, Jewand Gentile, –.  Diod. ..: προσγέγραπται δὲ καὶ τοῖςνόμοις ἐπὶ τελευτῆς ὅτι. Μωσῆς ἀκούσας τοῦ θεοῦ τάδε λέγει τοῖς Ἱουδαίοις.Cf. Lev. –, .;Num. .;Deut. ..The parallel is not close enough to be decisive. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 207 of their own experience of banishment.However one interprets the phraseology, it amountstorather less than aringingendorsement.³⁵ Further,Hecataeus’ de- scription of emigration from Egypt identifiesthosewho went to Greeceasthe most eminent and most vigorous, whereas those who headed for Judaea were simply “the vast majority.”³⁶ Thistoo hardlyadds luster to the Jewishexperience. And most tellingisapassagewhich has receivedsurprisingly little attention. He- cataeus notes that when the HighPriest announces directivesfrom God in polit- ical assemblies or other gatherings, the Jews are so submissive thatthey imme- diatelyfall to the ground when he interprets those directivesfor them. Hecataeus’ use of the word προσκυνεῖν particularlywarrants notice. ForGreeks, the act of προσκύνησις before aman was amark of barbaric servility.³⁷ None of this implies animosityonHecataeus’ part,let alone antisemitism.³⁸ To label He- cataeus in terms of his attitude towards the Jews is simplybeside the point. Amore marked characteristic stands out in Hecataeus’ account: the sheer volume of misinformation therein. The segment on the Jews contains numerous errors,inaccuracies, and misconceptions. To list onlythe most egregious ones: that the Jews occupied an uninhabited land; thatMoses foundedJerusalem and erected the Temple;that he conceivedGod as aglobe-encirclingheaven which ruled the universe; that the Jews were never governedbykings; that the

 Diod. ..: διὰ γὰρτὴνἰδίαν ξενηλασίαν ἀπάνθρωπόντινα καὶ μισόξενον βίον εἰσηγήσατο (Moses). Amost generous appraisal of the passagebyGabba, .Notealso Jaeger, Diokles, –;Diamond, Panhellenica, –;Will-Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellènismos, –.A morenegativeinterpretation by J. N. Sevenster, TheRoots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World (Leiden, ), –;cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilizationand the Jews (New York, ), –;J.Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “L’imageduJuif dans la pensée grecque vers  avantnotreère,” in A. Kasher et al. (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel (Jerusalem, ), ;Feldman, Jewand Gentile, ;Schäfer, –.Abalanced treatment by Bar-Koch- va, Pseudo-Hecataeus, –,with extensive bibliography.  Diod. ..: οἱ μὲν ἐπιφανέστατοι καὶ δραστικώτατοι… ὁ δὲ πολὺςλὲως.  Ibid., ..: τοῦτον δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας συνόδους φησὶν ἐκφέρειν τὰ παραγγελλόμενα, καὶ πρὸςτοῦτο τὸ μέρος οὕτως εὐπιθεῖςγίνεσθαι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὥστε παρα- χρῆμα πίπτοντας ἐπὶ τὴνγῆνπροσκυνεῖντὸντούτοις ἑρμηνεὺοντα ἀρχιερέα.Controversy over attempted introduction of the Persian practice of proskynesis plagued the expedition of Alexander the Great,acontemporary of Hecataeus;see, especially, Arrian, ..–..; Curt.Ruf. ..–, ..;Plut. Alex. –, .–.  The concluding lines of the excerpt reportthat manyofthe Jews’ ancestral practiceswere upset through their minglingwith other nations in the time of the Persian and then the Mace- donian overlordship;Diod. ...But this is almost certainlyDiodorus,not Hecataeus,speak- ing.The latter,writinginthe late fourth century,would be in no position to assess the effects of Macedonian rule. 208 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story

HighPriest was chosen for his superiority in virtue and wisdom.³⁹ And, most central for our purposes, vast discrepancies exist between the Biblical narrative of the Exodus and the version conveyedbyHecataeus.They have remarkablylit- tle in common. Wherein lies the basis for Hecataeus’ adaptation?Ashas long been recog- nized, the form and structure of the presentation owe much to standard Greek folk-tales about colonization, the founding of settlements abroad, and the estab- lishmentofinstitutions to govern the livesofthe settlers. Moses therefore fits the pattern of the οἰκιστής or κτίστης.Hecataeus,infact,employs the language characteristicallyapplied to the leadingout of acolonyand the foundation of cities.⁴⁰ The schemamakes it easy to see whyHecataeus would assumethat the man who broughtthe Israelitesout of Egypt would alsohavebeen respon- sible for foundingJerusalem and the Temple. The interpretatio Graeca pervades the presentation. Moses’ measures on allocation of land and inalienability of the lots, the training of youth for military service, even the exhortation to Jews to keep themselvesapart and theirpracticesdistinct from other peoples strongly recall the imageofthe Spartan system. Other elements, such as the equation of an encirclingheavenwith the deity,anelitist priesthood with special privileg- es that governed the land, and abroad-gauged set of laws that regulated public and religious practices, all suggest the influenceofGreek philosophyand polit- ical theory.⁴¹ The juxtaposition of Jewish migration and the legendary voyagesof Danaus and Cadmus to Greecethus underscores the Hellenic character of the narrative. Jewish traditions have at best amarginal role. The Greek shape of the narrative,however,does not account for everything. Hecataeus relied heavilyupon Egyptian informants for the work as awhole, a studyofthe history,traditions, and cultureofthe land which stressedabove

 Diod. ..–.The efforts of Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, –,toexplain away all these inaccuracies as mereerrors in datingand sequenceofinstitutionsand events are uncon- vincing.  Diod. ..: ἡγεῖτο δὲ τῆς ἀποικίας ὁ προσαγορευόμενος Μωσῆς… ἄλλας τε πόλεις ἔκτισε καὶ τὴννῦνοὖσαν ἐπιφανεστάτην, ὀνομαζομένην Ἱεροσόλυμα.Diodorus himself, in introducing the Hecataean fragment, refers to the establishmentofthe nation from its beginningsasκτίσις; ...Cf. the discussionofBar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, –.  The Hellenic influenceinHecataeus’ formulation has been widelyand variouslynoticed. See Jaeger, Diokles, –;idem, “Greeks and Jews,” –;Murray, “Hecataeus of Abdera”, ;M.Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London, ), –;Gager, Moses, –; E. Bickerman, TheJews in the Greek Age (Cambridge,Mass., ), –;Gabba, – ;Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, –.Numerous parallels between Greek and Israelite foundation stories have been discerned by M. Weinfeld, ThePromise of the Land (Berkeley, ), –,but none directlyapplicable to the Hecataeus narrative. 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story 209 all its place as fountainhead for civilizations all over the Mediterranean and the Near East.⁴² An Egyptian substratum certainlyunderlies the digression on the Jews. In fact,itincorporatestwo separate strands, both rooted in national pride. On the one hand,the notion of foreign rites and customs diminishing re- spect for Egypt’sreligious traditions, bringing aplague from the gods, and re- quiring removal of aliens reflects common Egyptian attitudes: the land needs to be purgedofforeign pollution in order to appease divinewrath.⁴³ On the other,dispatchofCadmus and Danaus to Greeceand MosestoJudaea also rein- forced the idea that thosecultures owed their ultimatederivation to Egypt.The impetus for the story thereforecame from Hecataeus’ Egyptian informants, not from the Book of Exodus. But there is more to be said. Hecataeus was not innocent of contact with Jews. Neither the Hellenic echoes nor the Egyptian conceptualizationcan ex- plain the data on the Jews, however garbled and confused, which Hecataeus transmitted. These include the Jewish sojourn in Egypt,Moses as leader and law- giver, the division of the people into twelve tribes, the prohibition on images of the deity,the central role of the High Priest,and perhaps even aparaphrase from the Scriptures. All of these items must have been obtained through oral commu- nication with Egyptian Jews. The deduction is incontrovertible, and generally acknowledged.⁴⁴ But it creates adilemma.IfHecataeus drew much of his data from knowledgeable Jews, whyare there such sharp discrepancies between Jew- ish traditions, practices,and belief on the one hand and their representation by Hecataeus on the other—not to mention the contrast between his account and that in the Book of Exodus?Itwill not do to ascribe to Jewishinformants only those details in Hecataeus’ text that are accurate, while assigningthe rest to ma-

 See Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, –.  Cf. Jaeger, Diokles, ;J.Yoyotte, “L’Égypteancienne et les origines de l’antijudaisme,” Revue de l’Histoiredes Religions,  (): ;D.B.Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day Books (Mississauga, Ontario, ), –;Will-Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, .  See, e.g.,Jaeger, Diokles, ;F.Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischenHistoriker (Leiden, ), IIIa, , –;Gager, Moses, .Wacholder, Eupolemus, –,evenspeculates that Hecataeus visited Jews in Palestine.For Diamond, Panhellenica , ,all of Hecataeus’ infor- mation came froma“reliable Jewish source.” But she does not specify how or in what form. That the Greek historian had anydirect knowledge of the Bible is highlyunlikely, the Septuagint did not yetexist.Aristobulus,tobesure, claims that earlier translationsofthe Hebrew had circulat- ed; Eusebius, PE, ...But Aristobulushad aspecial axetogrind: the postulateofearlier translationswas requiredtosupport his thesis that Jewish writings influenced Greek thinkers likePythagorasand Plato.The allusions to prior Greek renditions of the Bible in the Letter of Aristeas, –,are mere fables. 210 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story liciousEgyptians,Hellenic formulas, or Hecataeus’ ownerrors.That is tooeasy. And it should now be abundantlyclear that the question of whether the Greek historian was favorable or unfavorable to the Jews is quite irrelevant and devoid of meaning. Avery different proposition needstobeconsidered. The DiasporaJews them- selvesmay have had ahand in molding even the non-traditional parts of the story,thereby to have abetter fit with the cultural milieu in which they found themselves. It would be agross errortoassume that Jewish intellectuals adhered rigidlytothe Exodus tale as it appears in the Bible and that departures from it represent manipulation by Gentiles. Variantsonthe story mayinfact owe more to Jewish ingenuity thanwecustomarilyallow.⁴⁵ The portrayal of Moses’ leader- ship as based on φρονήσις and ἀνδρεία,the selection of the governing classfor their outstanding merit and ability,and the Exodus as issuing in the establish- ment of areligious and political center as well as aTemple could well be adap- tation of the scriptural narrative by Hellenized Jews themselves. The concepts would strike familiar chords to thoseofthe Diasporabrought up in an atmos- phere pervaded by Greek culture. It is time to question the idea that pagans wereprimarilyresponsible for reshaping or misshapingthe Biblical Exodus for polemicalpurposes. On the contrary.Few of them would have had the occasion, interest or motivation to do so.⁴⁶ The Jews playedalarge part in the refashioning of theirown past.⁴⁷

 D. Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera and aJewish patris politeia of the Persian Period (Diodo- rus Siculus XL, ),” Zeitschrift fürdie Alttestamentliche Wissenschaf  (): –,offers the inventive and intriguing suggestion that Hecataeus’ material came from Jewish priestlycir- cles in the latefourth century whorepresent the ideology of the Persian period as reflectedinthe books of Ezraand Nehemiah.Mendels finds anumber of provocative parallels. But the argument toooften rests on strained conjectures. It is not easy to believe, for instance, that Jewish priests in the Persian period promulgated the idea of Moses as founder of Jerusalem and the Temple in order to diminish the statureofthe Davidic kingdom. Nor can one readilyconcur with the idea that adownplayingofDavid’sline translateditself into adenial that the Jews ever had aking. Still less probable is the notion that Moses’ supposed measures on military trainingand land distribution reflect the actual policiesofNehemiah with amere overlayofinterpretatio Graeca. Mendels properlyrecognizes that Jews playedapart in revampingthe tradition that appears in the Bible. But he fails to explain how priestly opinionsinJudaea would have reached Hecataeus in Egypt.  On Greek attitudes to foreigners’ accounts of their own origins generally, see E. J. Bickerman, “Origines Gentium,” ClassicalPhilology,  (): –.  D. R. Schwartz, “Diodorus Siculus .—Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” in A. Oppenheim- er and M. Mor,Jews and Gentiles in the HolyLand in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mis- hnah, and the Talmud (Jerusalem, ) –,maintainsthat the entirefragmentactually derivesfromaJewish “Pseudo-Hecataeus” of the lateHasmonaeanperiod. This is not the place 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story 211

The hypothesis can be pursued through adifferent avenue. The Egyptian priest Manetho (first half of the third century) sketches aportrait of the Exodus that diverges widelyfrom that of Hecataeus.The Jews possess arather positive imageinHecataeus’ narrative,although, as we have seen, that does not explain the author’sobjective.Manetho, by contrast, supplies an account thatearned him the label of the first of the pagan antisemites, sourceofthe Egyptian coun- ter-history of the Exodus.Itwill paydividendstoexamine how the legend fares in the handsofManetho—or,more properly, what form it takes in atext which has been ascribed, on disputed authority,toManetho. Awelter of textual, biographical, source-critical, and historical problems confront anyresearcher who treads on this slippery terrain. We focus mercifully upon those elements of Manetho’sworkthat bear on the Exodus and its variants. Little enough is known of his life, and not all of thatfullyreliable. AHellenized Egyptian intellectual, he attained priestly rank in the reign of PtolemyISoter or PtolemyIIPhiladelphus, probablyatHeliopolis, and took part in establishing or developing the cult of Sarapis in Alexandria. Most important,heauthored influ- ential works in Greek, notablyhis Aigyptiaka, addressed to Philadelphus, apo- litical and religious history of his native land from its beginningsdown to the eve of the Hellenistic period.⁴⁸ Twolong extracts in Josephus purportedlyderive from that work and appear to relateversions that connect to the Exodus of Hebrews from Egypt.Both are miredincontroversies that cannot here be settled. Nor is it necessary to settle them in order to discern the texts’ value in illuminating per- ceptions of the Exodus story. The first extract,from Josephus, can in fact be disposed of briefly. Manetho recounts an assault on Egypt by invaders of obscure origin from the east who conquered the land without ablow.They overcame the rulers of the country, burned cities ruthlessly, destroyed temples, oppressed the natives, installedgar- risons, and exacted tribute. Their king Salitis established acapital at Avaris, for- tifying it to protect the frontier.The invaders ruled through six generations of kings, theirrace known as Hyksos, which connotes some form of shepherds,

to review his incisive and attractive but ultimatelyunpersuasivearguments.Ifheisright,of course, this would onlystrengthen the case made here.  Areliablesummary of whatisknown or conjecturedabout Manetho’slife and career in W. G. Waddell’sLoeb edition, Manetho (Cambridge,Mass., ), vii-xxvii. See also R. Laqueur, “Manetho,” Real-encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol.  (), – ;Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. , –;Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, –.Scholarship is usefullysummarized by Pucci ben Zeev, –.See also the inter- estingthesis by D. Mendels, “The Polemical CharacterofManetho’s Aegyptiaca,” Studia Hellen- istica  (): –. 212 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story and their aim was to stamp out the Egyptian stock. The “shepherds” held sway for more than five centuries, until the Egyptians rose up to overthrow their op- pressors,drive them to confinement in Avaris,and eventuallyarrangetheir de- parture from Egypt through anegotiated treaty.The shepherds then migrated en masse, 240,000 strong, and crossed the desert to Syria, wherethey built the city of Jerusalem in Judaea.⁴⁹ Whether this narrativehas anything whatever to do with the Biblical Exodus is questionable. In essence, Manethosimply retails the Hyksos’ invasion and oc- cupation of Egypt,acentral feature of his nation’shistory.Josephus, not Mane- tho, makes the connection with the Jews. And Josephus has aspecial axeto grind. He proposes to dispel Greek doubts about the antiquity of the Jews by pointing to Egyptian and Phoenician writingsthat attest to his people in the re- mote past.Manetho serves as primeexhibit for Josephus’ partisan purposes.⁵⁰ Manetho himself, it bears repeating, makes no explicit identification of Hyksos with Jews in the quoted fragment.That is left to Josephus. The referencetoJer- usalem does, to be sure, evoke an association with Jews.⁵¹ But even if it belongs in Manetho’soriginal text (a disputed proposition), this hardlyaffects the prin- cipal issue. His story of Hyksos departing for Judaea under anegotiated truce carries not the faintest resemblancetothe Book of Exodus.For our purposes, it can safely be set aside.⁵² Manetho’ssecond excerpt has greater relevance and higher significance.The narrativeisdrawn, accordingtoJosephus, not from priestly records but from in- vented stories and rumors.⁵³ The Jewishhistorian introduces this segment by as-

 Jos. C. Ap. .–.  Ibid., .–, .–, ..  Ibid., ., .,cf. ..  Josephus could plausiblyseize upon the term “shepherds” for his objectives, sincethe He- brews in the time of Joseph’smigration to Egypt were shepherds; cf. Genesis, –, .. And it is possible that the name of the Hyksos’ first ruler,Salitis,reflects the title of shalit that Joseph took as governor of Egypt; Genesis, ..But the absenceofany mention of Jews by Manetho in this passageremains the central fact.Ittakesareal stretch to find contact with the Exodus tale. Avaluable review of earlier scholarship appears in L. Troiani, “Suifram- menti di Manetone,” Studi classici eorientali  (): –,n..Some of the morerecent literatureiscitedbyPucci ben Zeev, –.The case for aconnection between Manetho’s Hyksos and the Hebrews is made, among others,byTcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, –;Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, vol. , –;Sevenster, Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism, –;Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, –;Pucci ben Zeev, –;Bar-Kochva, Image of the Jews. The skeptics include Laqueur, –; A. Momigliano, “IntornoalContro Apione,” Rivista di Filologia,  (): –;Jacoby, Fragmente III C, , ;Troiani, –;Gabba, –;Aziza, –.  Jos. C. Ap. .: τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα;cf. .. 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story 213 serting that Manethomaliciouslyamalgamated Jews with the mob of Egyptian lepers and thosewith other afflictions who were banished from Egypt.He then proceeds to reproduceasubstantial text ascribed to Manetho. The text has the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenophis, of uncertain date and place in the se- quence of kings, manifest adesire to witness the gods themselvesdirectly. That feat would be possible, awise counselor advised him, onlyifhepurged Egypt of all lepers and other polluted persons. The king thereupon gathered the afflicted people, 80,000 of them, set them to work in the stone quarries wherethey would not contaminate the rest of the population, then later allowed them to occupy the abandoned city of Avaris, sacred to the pernicious godTy- phon, enemyofOsiris. The impure then appointed as their leader acertain Osar- siph, one of the priests of Heliopolis,who bound his people by oath and promul- gated legislation forbidding them to worship Egyptian gods and indeed enjoining them to sacrifice and feast upon all animals sacred to the Egyptians. The aggressive enactments issued in even greater aggressiveaction. Osarsiph prepared his followers for rebellion and war,summoningtotheir aid the shep- herd people, 20,000 strong, former occupants of Avaris and now dwelling in Jer- usalem. Together the rebels and the shepherds forced Amenophis onto the defen- sive.The king,fearful because of aprophet’sprediction, declined battle and withdrew his army, his family, as manysacred animalsashecould collect, and amultitude of Egyptians across the border to Ethiopia wherethey dwelled in exile for thirteen years. In the meanwhile, the polluted Egyptians and their al- lies from Jerusalem went on arampage, plunderingthe land,burningcities and villages, robbingtemples, defacing images of the gods, persecuting priestsand prophets,and using the sanctuaries themselvestoroast the sacred animalsof the Egyptians.Osarsiph, the Heliopolitan priest who had taken his name from Osiris and who authored aconstitution and laws,chose to adopt the new appel- lation of Moses. And Manetho concludes the tale with apostscript,adding that at alater time Amenophis with his now grown son returnedfrom Ethiopia with large forces, defeated the shepherds and their polluted comrades, driving them out of Egypt to the borders of Syria.⁵⁴ Such is the gist of Manetho’s—or perhaps pseudo-Manetho’s—presentation. How should one interpret or characterize it?For manyscholars, it represents an exemplarofEgyptian anti-semitism, ahostile twistonthe Exodus tale, areversal of that story,anupside-down Exodus in which the Jews serveasthe powers of evil and the Egyptians as the innocent and victimized, Moses the tyrant who tramples upon tradition and terrorizes the land of Egypt until he and his villain-

 Ibid., .–. 214 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story ous compatriots are drivenout by the resurgent and ultimatelytriumphantEgyp- tians. Manetho’stext thus delivered astingingreplytothe Book of Exodus and generated the counter-tradition that flowed into tracts like those of Lysimachus, Chaeremon, and Apion.⁵⁵ That thesis, widelyadopted and influential, is less than compelling. Areconsideration is warranted. Authorship of the second fragment itself has stimulated controversy,along- standing dispute. Is it genuine Manetho or pseudo-Manetho?⁵⁶ The debate can be happilyavoided. Decision on the question does not affect the main issue. Does the extract,infact,constituteaninverted Exodus,anantisemitic responsetothe Biblical tale? Acloser look raises doubts. The Jews as such do not appear in the narrative. The polluted persons are Egyptians,placed in the quarries to segregate them from other Egyptians;indeed some of the lepers wereEgyptian priests.⁵⁷ Manetho’sreferencetothe Σολυμιται̂ need mean no more thanthe inhabitants of Jerusalem; the text refrains from indictingJews as anation.⁵⁸ Explicit associ- ation of the Jews with lepers and the impure is attributed to Manetho by Jose- phus but does not surface in the quoted text.⁵⁹ Manetho indeed explicitlydistin- guishesthe polluted persons who are Egyptians from the Jerusalemiteswho come to their aid.⁶⁰ The equation of Osarsiph with Mosesmight seem decisive for Manetho’sattitude. But the equation itself is ajarring intrusion in the narra-

 So, e.g., Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, –;Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, ;Sevenster, Roots of PaganAnti-Semitism, –;Kasher, “The Propaganda Goals of Manetho’sAccusations in the Matterofthe LowOrigins of the Jews,” in B. Oded et al. (eds.), Studies in the Historyofthe JewishPeople and the Land of Israel (Haifa, ), vol. , – (Hebrew); idem, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, –;Funkenstein (n.), ;idem, Perceptions of JewishHistory, –;Aziza, –;Mendels, “Creative History in the Hellen- istic Near East in the Third and Second Centuries BCE: The Jewish Case,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha,  (): ;idem, “Polemical Character,” –;Pucci ben Zeev, ;Bar-Kochva, Image of the Jews. Asomewhat peculiar twist on this theory occurs in A. Catastini, “Le testimonianze di Manetone ela‘storia di Giuseppe’ (Genesis –),” Henoch  (), –,who has Manetho respond to the Exodus story but then sees the Joseph tale in Genesis as acounter-retort in the polemic.  Doubts about authenticity have been expressed, e.g.,byE.Meyer, Aegyptische Chronologie (Berlin, ), ;Laqueur, –;Momigliano, –;Gabba, –;Bicker- man, Jews in the Greek Age, –.  Jos. C. Ap. .–: τῶν ἄλλων Αἰγυπτίων εἶεν κεχωρισμένοι. εἶναι δέ τινας ἐναὐτοῖςκαὶ τῶνλογίων ἱερέων φησὶ λέπρᾳ συνεχομένους.  Ibid., .: οἱ δὲ Σολυμῖται κατελθόντες σὺντοῖςμιαροῖςτῶνΑἰμυπτίων;cf. .: ποι- μένας εἰςπόλιν τὴνκαλουμένην Ἱεροσόλυμα.  Ibid., .–: ἀναμῖξαι βουλόμενος ἡμῖνπλῆρθος Αἰγυπτίων λεπρῶνκαὶἐπὶἄλλοις ἀρρωστήμασιν.  Ibid., .–, .. 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story 215 tive,aglaringanomalythatsurelydid not belong in the original. Manetho had alreadyintroduced Osarsiph earlier in the story as priest of Heliopolisand law- giver. The second introduction with achangeofname is mere repetition, unnec- essary,and out of place.⁶¹ The very concept of antisemitism as applied to Manetho grosslyoversimpli- fies the matter.EvenJosephus, who goes to great lengths to refute Manetho’snar- rative,pointingout its inconsistencies, chronological blunders, and self-contra- dictions, stops short of branding him with anti-Jewishprejudice. He takes Manetho to task for thatpart of his narrative that abandoned written records and relied on fictitious stories and rumors, thus inducinghim to confuse the Is- raelites with Egyptian lepers and the generallypolluted. Manetho did not miss truth by much, according to Josephus, when he relied on the ancient chronicles, but when he turned his attention to inauthentic legends, he either framedim- plausible tales or trusted those motivated by bias.⁶² This does not amount to ani- mus against the Jews, even in Josephus’ eyes.⁶³ Nor is it likelythat awork ad- dressed to PtolemyIIwould set out an assault on Jews. The reign of that king has come down, at least in Jewish tradition, as one most generous and favorable to the Chosen People.⁶⁴ The point can be drivenhome even more sharply. Does Manetho’syarn con- stitute aretort to the biblical Exodus at all?Infact it shares little or nothing with the Scriptures.Onlyacommitted prejudgment could read Manetho as acounter- blast to the Jewish tradition. Departure of the “Shepherds” from Egypt in the first fragment came underanegotiated treaty,not as flight or escape. And the second excerpt has the Jerusalemitesreturn to Egypt rather thanseek release from it.

 Ibid., .–: ἡγεμόνα αὐτῶνλεγόμενόντινα τῶν Ἡλιοπολιτῶν ἱερέων Ὀσάρσιφον ἐστήσαντο…τοιαῦτα δὲ νομοθετήσας; .: λέγεται δὲὅτι <ὁ> τὴνπολιτείαν καὶ τοὺςνόμους αὐτοῖςκαταβαλόμενος ἱερεὺςτὸγένος Ἡλιοπολίτης ὄνομα Ὀσαρσὶφ… μετετέθη τοὔνομαι καὶ προσηγορεύθη Μωυσῆς.Cf. Gager, Moses, ;Schäfer, ;A.J.Droge, “Josephus between Greeks and Barbarians,” in L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (eds.), Josephus’ ContraApionem: Studies in its Character and Context with aLatin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Lei- den, ), –; contra: Troiani, .The insertionof<ὁ>inthe abovetext might make the idea of an interpolation alittle less likely. But that insertion is itself morethan questionable. The fact that Osarsiph has to be identified againnot onlyaslawgiverbut as Heliopolitan priest points almost inescapablytointerpolation.Whether “Osarsiph” is actuallyaform of “Joseph” need not here be investigated. See Gager, ,n.;Troiani, –;Catastini, –.  Jos. C. Ap. .–, .: Μανέθως ἕως μὲν ἠκολούθει ταῖς ἀρχαῖαις ἀναγραφαῖς, οὐ πολὺ τῆς ἀληθείας διημάρτανεν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ἀδεσπότους μύθους τραπόμενος ἢ συνέθηκεν αὐτοὺς ἀπιθάνως ἢ τισι τῶνπρὸςἀπέχθειαν εἰρηκότων ἐπίστευσεν.  Contrast Josephus’ moreexplicit blast against Lysimachus; Jos. C. Ap. .: συντεθεικὼς κατὰ πολλὴν ἀπέχθειαν.Noted also by Troiani, .  Let. Aris., passim; Jos. A. J. .–. 216 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story

Their eventual expulsion, together with the leprous and diseased Egyptians,ap- pears as an afterthoughtand epilogue to the story,not at the heart of it.Asa twist or parodyofthe Hebrew Exodus it would fall flat. One maygofurther still. An Egyptian rejoinder to the biblical version pre- sumes circulation of the latter in Gentile circles. Yetthe Septuagint,evenif trust be placed in the legend conveyedbythe Letter of Aristeas, dates no earlier than the time of PtolemyIIhimself. Itseffect upon Egyptian intellectuals literate in Greek, if ever it had any, could hardlyhavebeen so swift and powerful as to requirearefutation by Manetho. One can, of course, postulate earlier versions or oral propagation of portions of the Pentateuch—perhaps even noisy celebrations of the Passover.But such conjectures border on circular reasoningand do not advance matters. The Jews of Egypt had no motivation for disseminating the tale in Gentile circles—nor indeedtoemphasize theirescape from aland in which they now resided. The version as we have it in Josephus’ second extract either belongstoalatertime, foisted upon Manetho in order to give it greater authority or,ifitisauthentic Manetho, has no relation to the Book of Exodus. In fact,Manetho’snarrative fits within an established Egyptian tradition. A potent strain in Egyptian literature fastens blame for evils suffered by the pop- ulace upon the impure and the diseased, carriersofpollution. The gatheringof the impure in acity devoted to the rival godTyphon or Seth, enemyofOsiris, reinforcesthe contrastbetween the good and the wicked. The ravaging of land, pillagingoftemples,and sacrilegious sacrificing of the animal deities rep- resent the malevolent enemyincharacteristic fashion.The subsequent expulsion of the foreigner givesfinal victory and vindication to the native forces. Similar sentiments receivedexpression in Middle Kingdom Egypt,and the echoes reso- nate in Hellenistic textslikethe Demotic Chronicle, the Potter’sOracle, and the Prophecyofthe Lamb. The traditions had special relevance in the late Egyptian period when inhabitants of the country had suffered acomparable form of reli- gious oppression at the hands of the Persians. Nationalist overtones ring out clearly.⁶⁵ The Manethonian tale does not derive from the Exodus or some garbled form of it.Inits essentials, it has nothing whatever to do with Jews.

 The Egyptian background to Manetho’sstory and others similar to it is wellbrought out by Yoyotte(n. ), –,and Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, –.But Yoyotteretains the notion that Jews werecast into this villainous role. So also, J.-W.Van Henten and R. Abusch, “The Jews as Typhonlans and Josephus’ StrategyofRefutation in ContraApionem,” in Feldman and Levison (eds.), Josephus’ ContraApionem, –.For discussions of these texts and oth- ers, see C. C. McCown, “Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature,” Harvard Theological Re- view  (): –;S.K.Eddy, TheKingisDead (Lincoln, ), –;J.G.Griffiths, “Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Era,” in D. Hellholm, Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story 217

How then did Jews enter this tangle of stories?Why should Osarsiph, other- wise arenegadeHeliopolitan priest,become identified with Moses?Why should the polluted prisonersatAvaris have receivedassistance from persons dwelling in Jerusalem?Eventhose scholars who takethe line thatdirect or indirect allu- sions to Jews in the narrativeare accretions or interpolations, tacked on at alater time, nevertheless agree that the additions stem from antisemitic Egyptians or Greeks eager to set Jews in the guise of the conventional polluter,oppressor, and purveyor of impiety.⁶⁶ But what would prompt Graeco-Egyptian writers to cast Jews in this particular mold?Why would they care? Jewishmercenaries in the armyofthe Persians have been reckoned as the culprits. But the suggestion thatthey provoked ahostile misrepresentation has little plausibility.Itwould not easilyexplain the longevity of the portrait.⁶⁷ The Elephantine garrison, to be sure,could be asourceoftrouble. Friction arose between the Egyptian priests of the ram-godKhnum and the Jews of Ele- phantine,resulting in the destruction of the Jewish temple in 410B.C.E.⁶⁸ Didthe celebration of the Passover and an emphasis on the Exodus generate this reac- tion?Soitmight be surmised.⁶⁹ But Passover had certainlybeen celebratedfor some time before the end of the fifth century.⁷⁰ And no other evidence exists for strife of this sort during the two or more centuries of the Jewishcommunity at Elephantine. The conflict in 410may indeed have been connected with an Egyptian revolt against Persian authority.⁷¹ Adifferent argument traces the negative characterization to friction between Jews and Greeks over citizenship privileges in Alexandria.⁷² Even if the friction is real, however,ithardly accounts for afable thatequates Jews with invaders who

and the Near East (Tübingen, ), –,with useful bibliography;D.Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt (Minneapolis, ), –.OnSeth as godofforeigners and emblematic of the enemies of Egypt,atleast sinceAssyrian times,see H. te Velde, Seth. God of Confusion (Lei- den, ), –.OnPersian oppression in Egypt,exaggerated by Greek sourcesbut by no means negligible and punctuated by Egyptian uprisings,see E. Bresciani, “The Persian Occupa- tion of Egypt,” in I. Gershevitsh, (ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryofIran (Cambridge, ), vol. , –, –.  So, e.g., Laqueur, –;Gager, Moses, –;Gabba, .  The suggestion is that of Yoyotte, –.  A. Crowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth CenturyBC(Oxford, ), #, , –, –.  Cf. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, –;idem, in W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, TheCambridgeHistoryofJudaism (Cambridge, ), vol. , –;Mélèze-Modrzejewski, TheJews of Egypt, –.  See Porten, Archives from Elephantine, –.  See Crowley, Aramaic Papyri, #.The reconstruction of Porten, Archives from Elephantine, –,ishighlyspeculative.  Cf. Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, –. 218 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story devastated the land, terrorized the populace, and assaulted the venerated gods of Egypt.Ifaquarrel over citizenrights produced so elaborate ascenario, it was surelyover-kill. Indeed, the Alexandrian Greeks are most unlikelyperpetra- tors of the portrait.They would have had little incentive to champion the legacy of anative people whom they did not even permittoshare their own privileges and prerogatives.⁷³ The idea that Egyptians themselvesfelt resentment over the hostilerepresen- tation of their ancestors contained in the Book of Exodus might seem to make more sense. But not upon scrutiny. How manyofthem ever had occasion to read the Book of Exodus?Nointelligible version circulated in the time of Man- etho. And it helps little to resort to alater “pseudo-Manetho.” The Septuagint did not have anydiscernible impact outside the Jewish communities—let alone among the indigenous inhabitants of Egypt.⁷⁴ Moreover,asnoted above, Jews had no obvious reason for spreadingtoGentile communities alegend that glo- rified their evacuation of Egypt—aland in which they now sought to establish roots.The idea that the story in the Scriptures rousedpatriotic passions or ethnic retaliation lacks anysound basis. An alternative possibility demands ahearing:that introduction of the Jews into Manetho’snarrative,asinto Hecataeus’,came from Jewishsources them- selves. Aparadoxical idea on the face of it,evenaltogether implausible one might assume.Would Jews reallyrepresent themselvesinsoruthlesslynegative afashion? Presumablynot.But further probingalters the picture. We need to bear in mind that the story went through at least two or three versions before it reached its present form. We see Manetho’stext onlyasitcame to Josephus and through the latter’seyes. That point must be stressed. From the Jewish his- torian’sperspective,Manetho’swork was the first of several Egyptian tracts that set out to slander the Jews, distortingthe truth bothabout the Israelites’ en- trance into Egypt and their evacuation of it.⁷⁵ In fact,however,Josephus’ specific criticisms of Manetho’sversion confine themselvestopointing out internal in-

 Cf. Jos. C. Ap. .–.  See V. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos  (), –; cf. A. D. Nock, Conversion: TheOld and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, ), ;A.Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: TheLimits of Hellenization (Cam- bridge, ), .  Jos. C. Ap. .: τῶνδ᾽εἰςἡμᾶςβλασφημιῶν ἤρξαντο μὲνΑἰγύπτιοι. Βουλόμενοι δ᾽ἐκείνοις τινὲςχαρίζεσθαι παρατρέπειν ἐπεχείρησαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Οὔτε τὴνεἰςΑἴγθπτον ἄφιξιν ὡς ἐγέ- νετο τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων ὁμολογοῦντες, οὔτε τὴν ἔξοδον ἀληθεύοντες. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 219 consistencies, implausibilities, and absurdities. None of them has anything to do with entrance into or exit from Egypt.⁷⁶ Still moresignificant are Josephus’ subsequent remarks.Heproceeds to ex- cogitate the motivesofthose authorswhom he seeks to refute: jealousyand ha- tred of his ancestors because they had ruled Egypt and because they then pros- pered after return to theirown land.⁷⁷ These are striking remarks rarelynoted or commented upon. Josephus in shortaccepts the tradition that Jews had taken control of the country of Egypt! That tradition, set in anegative light by the text of Manetho which Josephus sought to ridicule, also has afundamentally positive side which the Jewish historian found quite acceptable.⁷⁸ To put the matter more pointedly. One can envision an earlier layerslanted to the benefit of the Jews. The coalition of shepherds and rebels overthrew Egyp- tian rule, drovethe Pharaoh and his minions across the border,and held ascend- ancy for an extended period in that land, asignificant military success in which the Jerusalemites could take pride. The most likelyfashioners of such atale are surelyJews themselves. The story,itistrue, has the victors plunder and ravage the land, actions painted in lurid colors by Manethoorpseudo-Manetho. But that would not preclude aJewish origin for the narrative.The destructive deeds inflicted humiliation upon the Egyptians,ademonstration of the conquer- ors’ power.Jewish writers would find satisfaction in recounting or embellishing those elements of the tale. Accordingtothe Book of Exodus itself,after all, God authorized the Hebrews to despoil the Egyptians before departing from the land —which they proceeded to do.⁷⁹ Desecration of the temples and slaughter of the animalsworshipped by Egyptians would alsoannounce the triumph of the Chos- en People and their faith. Taking actionagainst rival cults and abhorrent practi- ces had along tradition among Jews, asign of supremacy,not asourceofshame. One need cite onlythe imperatives of Deuteronomy, enjoining the Israelites to drive out their foes, destroy them utterly, smash their altars and sacredobjects,

 Ibid., .–.  Ibid., .: αἰτίας δὲ πολλὰς ἔλαβον τοῦ μισεῖνκαὶφθονεῖν, τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὅτι κατὰ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν ἐδυνάστευσαν ἡμῶνοἱπρόγονοι κἀκεῖθεν ἀπαλλαγέντες ἐπὶ τὴνοἰκείαν πάλιν εὐδαιμόνησαν.  Cf. ibid., .: δέδωκε γὰροὖτος [Manetho] ἡμῖνκαὶὡμολόγηκεν ἐξ ἀρχῆςτὸμὴεἶναι τὸ γένος Αἰγυπτίους, ἀλλ᾽αὐτοὺς ἔξωθεν ἐπελθόντας κρατῆσαι τῆςΑἰγύπτου καὶ πάλιν ἐξαὐτῆς ἀπελθεῖν.  Exodus, ., ..Onlymuch later did apologetic Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus feel the need to justify or denythe plundering; Philo, Moses, .–;Josephus, Ant. .. Cf. I. Lévi, “La disputeentreles Égyptiens et les Juifs,” Revue des Études Juives  (), – . 220 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story and burntheir idols.⁸⁰ Such commands weredulyfulfilledbyJoshua who left a trail of total destruction wherever he went.⁸¹ Andthe later prophecies of Isaiah included the forecast that the land of Judahwould bringterror to the Egyptians themselves.⁸² On this reconstruction, therefore, the identification of Osarsiph with Moses and the introduction of Jerusalemites into the story,far from injecting antisemitic elements, represent Jewish expropriation of an Egyptian tradition, thus to establish the claims of Jews to aplace of eminence in the history of Egypt.⁸³ The rendition, as we have it,mustbeacomposite. At least twoquite inde- pendent strands are here interwoven: first,atale of lepers and contaminated persons herded and confined to the city of Seth; and, second, anarrativeofJer- usalemites who invaded, conquered, and pillaged the land of Egypt.Who put them together,and when, remains beyond our grasp. But the second strand could easilyderivefrom aJewishconstruct. Aform of the story seems to have found its wayevenamong the traditions of Jewishorigins reported by Tacitus. One of the tales ascribed by the Romanhis- torian to unidentifiedsources has the Jews as Assyrianrefugees whose paltry land-holdingsinduced them to leave their country.They migratedtoEgypt wherethey achieved dominance in part of thatland.⁸⁴ The idea of an assault by Israelitesupon Egypt can, in fact,befound in a Jewish-Hellenistic source. Afragment of Artapanus,little known or commented upon, provides some startling information. The author,aHellenized Jewfrom Egypt,writing probablyinthe second century B.C.E., was quite uninhibited in his recreation of biblical tales—and he was by no means alone.⁸⁵ In Artapanus’

 Deut. .–, ., .–.  E.g. Joshua, .–, .–, .–.  Isaiah, .–.  Asimilar view was profferedlong agobyMomigliano, –,and largely ignoredinsub- sequent literature. Momigliano, however,indulgesinexcessive speculation when seekingto identify separate strands derivingfromEgyptians,Jewish interpolators,anti-semites, and philo-semitic refutations.Just which particulars can be assigned to Jewish writers remains un- knowable, especiallyasthe surviving versions have comethrough so manyhands.Presumably, however,Jews did not designedlyassociatethemselveswith lepers,the diseased, or the adher- ents of Seth. It is noteworthy,aswehaveseen, that even Manetho clearlydisassociates the lepers from the people of Jerusalem; Jos. C. Ap. .–, ..  Tacitus, Hist. ..: “sunt qui tradant Assyrios convenas,indigumagrorum populum, parte Aegypti potitos.”  On Artapanus,his date, and provenance, see J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, ), –;C.Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula, ), –; Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, –. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 221 version, the voice from the burning bush instructed Moses to lead an army against Egypt.Moses took heart from this command and determined to assemble aforceand make war on the Egyptians.⁸⁶ The fragment breaks off shortlythere- after and the outcomeisunreported.⁸⁷ But it provides direct testimonyfor aJew- ish tradition on mobilizationagainst Egypt. Hellenistic testimonyexists alsofor the razing of alien temples and altars by Jews. The smashing of pagan shrines, indeedpre-Greek shrines, by the Macca- bees is amplyattested.⁸⁸ Further,apreserved text refers to similar actions in the Persian period evidentlyinPalestine, and the author explicitlyexpresses admiration.⁸⁹ There can be little doubt thataJewcomposed thattale, wrongly ascribed by Josephus to Hecataeus.⁹⁰ And, whatever its historicity,itdemon- strates afavorable Jewish tradition on the destruction of foreign shrines, an ac- tion still worthyofpraise in the Hellenistic era.⁹¹ One might recall also that the literatureofthe Jews in that eradid not shrink from recordingand applauding what we might regard as Jewishatrocities. In the Book of Esther,Mordecai re- ceivedpermission from the Persian king for his countrymen to slaughter all the people hostile to them in his domains, including women and children, and to plunder theirproperty.The Jews proceeded to cities in various satrapies of the empire and massacred 75,000 people—although they did refrain from the plunder.The event prompted inauguration of acommemorative celebration.⁹² In acloselyparallel case, III Maccabees portrays triumphant

 Eus. PE, ..–: φωνὴνδ᾽αὐτῷθείαν εἰπεῖνστρατεύειν ἐπ᾽Αἴγυπτον… τὸνδὲθαρρή- σαντα δύναμιν πολεμίαν ἐπάγειν διαγνῶναι τοῖςΑἰγυπτίοις.Cf. also Jos. A. J. .: καὶ θαρροῦντα ἐκέλευεν εἱςτὴνΑἴγυπτον ἀπιέναι στρατηγὸνκαὶἡγεμόνα τῆς Ἑβραίων πληθύος ἐσόμενον.  Artapanus has Moses go directlytomeet Aaron after the burningbush episode. And the scene then shifts abruptlytothe summoningofMoses by Pharaoh; Eus. PE, ...Abreak in the text is rightlynotedbyN.Walter, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Güter- sloh, ., ), ,n.a.  See, e.g.,  Macc. ., ., .–;  Macc. ..  Jos. C. Ap. .: ἔτι γε μὴντῶνεἰςτὴνχώραν, φησί, πρὸςαὑτοὺς ἀφικνουμένων νεὼςκαὶ βωμούςκατασκευασάντων ἅπαντα ταῦτα κατέσκαπτον… ὅτι δίκαιον ἐπὶ τούτοις αὐτούς ἐστι θαυμάζειν.  See Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, –,with bibliography.  Notealso the Jewish destruction of apagan altar at Jamnia in  CE; Philo, Leg.adGaium, –.  Esth., .–, .–.Not that Hellenistic Jews abstained from plunder when they had the opportunity.Eventhe author of  Maccabees revels in the fact that Judas Maccabaeus’ forces ravagedthe whole country and put barbarian hordes to flight;  Macc. .: τὴν ὅλην χώραν… λεηλατεῖνκαὶτὰβάρβαρα πλήθη διώκειν.And he does not hesitatetorecord other Jew- ish savagingofthe Gentiles;cf. II Macc. ., –, .–. 222 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story

Jews in the time of PtolemyIVpetitioning and obtaining from the king the right to execute all the apostates from within their ownranks. They murdered more than 300 wayward Jews in asingle day, exulting in the punishment and estab- lishing the dayasanannual festival.⁹³ As is clear,Jewish writers of the Hellen- istic agequite comfortablyrecorded (or invented) sanguinary attacksontheir foes, destruction of shrines and holyplaces,and brutalassertionoftheir own religious supremacy. These examples help to set the various versions of the Exodus legend in proper perspective.The violent and aggressive features of the tale indeed occu- pied its central segment.Sointegralhad they become that they demanded incor- poration in the Egyptian version of Manetho or pseudo-Manetho. The Egyptian author,infact,had to supplyanaddendum thatbroughtAmenophis and his supporters back into power after Egypt had long been at the mercyofits con- querors. Of course, once thoseelements entered the tradition, they could be reshaped and twisted to different purposes. As we have seen, in the hands of Lysimachus, the lepers and other diseased folk werethemselvesJews, the very persons who polluted the country and had to be expelled from it.That hostile version circu- lated alreadybythe mid first century B.C.E., for it appears in atale reported by Diodorus Siculus.⁹⁴ Even in Lysimachus’ text,however,the strength of their conviction and the potent leadership of Moses allowed the Israelites not only to survive but to plunder the lands which they traversed. That central aspect ad- hered to the tradition. And it did not originatewith antisemites. If this be so, one might ask, whyare there so few traces of the tale in Jewish writingsthemselves? Afair question. But wherewould we expect to find them? Extant Jewish-Hellenistic writingsonthis subject,itmust be emphasized, are very fragmentary prior to the Roman period. And by that time the story of Israel- ite occupation of Egypt had been reinterpreted by antagonistic authors as aslan- derous drama of evil and diseasedvillains who conducted sacrilegious rapine. Philo and Josephus deniedbyimplication thatJews could have committed such acts. They suppressed the Deuteronomic prescriptions and even claimed that Mosaic lawprohibitedblasphemyofother gods or plunderingofalien temples.⁹⁵ To that end they could claim scriptural authority—or rather that of the Septuagint.Exodus,22.28,simply forbidsthe revilingofGod.The Septuagint version of that text,however,renders Elohim as the plural θεούς,perhaps as a

  Macc. .–.  Diod. /..–.Cf. Schäfer, –.The source for Diodorus’ tale is much disputed. See discussionand bibliography in Bar-Kochva, TheImage of the Jews.  Philo, Moses, .; Spec.Leg. .;Jos. C. Ap. .;Jos. A. J. .. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 223 gesture toward Gentiles,perhaps as defense against Gentile criticism.⁹⁶ Philo and Josephus, in adapting the passage, certainlyhad the latter motive.Other Jewishwriters took amore militantline, magnifyingthe misdeeds of Egyptians and emphasizing the vengeance of the Lord.⁹⁷ One need not be surprisedthat few signs of the earlier story survive. Subsequent instances of the hostile version can be treated with brevity.The Graeco-Egyptian writerApion had aclear grievancewith the Jews. Agrammari- an, Homeric scholar, and author of afive-volume work on Egyptian history, Apion obtainedcitizenprivileges in Alexandria and served as representative of the city on an embassy to the emperor Caligula. There he firmlyopposed the claims of Jewish envoys who complained of theirmistreatment at the handsof Alexandrians. Apion included some harsh comments about Jewishhistory and traditionalcustoms in his Aigyptiaka, thus providingastimulus for Josephus’ lengthycounter-treatise, the Contra Apionem.⁹⁸ Apion himself, oddlyenough, re- ceivesrelatively little attention in Josephus’ tract,with few quotations and even less on his recreation of the Exodus.What survives, however,indicates that his version has affinities with those alreadydiscussed. Apion cites the elders of Egypt for the reportthat Moses was aHeliopolitan who evidentlytook great lib- erties with ancestral practices,buildingoutdoor synagogues, erectingcolumns instead of obelisks, and installing the imageofaboat to serveasasundial.⁹⁹ The significanceofall this is unclear,but the identification of Moses as aHelio- politan connects with Manetho’sversion. More significantly, Apion has Moses lead the lepers, the blind,and the lame out of the country.¹⁰⁰ That statement par- allels the presentation of Lysimachus.The Jews themselveswerethe lepers and the handicapped who successfullydeparted from the land. The tale, Egyptian in origin but modified and transformed by Jews, had been refashioned again by Egyptian intellectuals to suit theirown ends.Apion, it appears,had access to

 Cf. G. Hata, “The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism,” in L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus,Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit, ), – ;P.W.van der Horst, “‘Thou Shalt Not Revile the Gods”:The LXX Translation of Exod. :,” Studia Philonica Annual  (): –.  Wis. Sol. ., –: .–; .–; .–; .–; .–; .–; .–;Sib. Or. .–, –, –, –.  On Apion, see Gager, Moses, –;Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, –;Good- man, –;Aziza, –.The hostile comments on Jews to which Josephus responds all derive from the Αἰγυπτιακά.Clement of Alexandria claimed that Apion wroteanentirework κατὰἸουδαίων, Strom. ...–.But that maybenomorethan an erroneous inference from Josephus.  Jos. C. Ap. .–.  Ibid., .: φησι τὸνΜωσῆν ἐξαγαγεῖντοὺςλεπρῶντας καὶ τυφλοὺςκαὶτὰςβάσεις. 224 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story more than just Egyptian traditions. He knew of Moses on Mt.Sinai and asojourn of forty days before he descended with the laws.¹⁰¹ The Septuagint,ofcourse, was now available, but thereisnothing to suggest thatApion read it.Pompeius Trogus, doubtless among others, had alreadyplaced Moses on Mt.Sinai. Apion could gethis information elsewherethan in the Scriptures. But he clearlywove the tales into his narrative.And, whatever his animus, Jewishsources indirectly provided many of the ingredients for his reconstruction.¹⁰² Acontemporary of Apion, the Hellenized Egyptian priest and Stoic intellec- tual Chaeremon, offers avariant on the story in Manetho but one intermingled with still additional Jewish elements. Chaeremon, who wroteonEgyptian history and mythology, combined the training of aGreek philosopher with adeep en- gagementinnative religious traditions. Later report has it that he was ateacher of Nero and,ifheisthe Chaeremon who appearedonanembassy to Claudius, he maywell have shared Apion’sanimosity toward Alexandrian Jews.¹⁰³ Jose- phus, in anycase, brackets him with Manetho,Lysimachus,and Apion as Egyp- tian writers whose representations of the Jews he is determined to controvert. Chaeremon’sversion, however,oratleast those fragments of it that Josephus had access to and chose to transmit,disclose more confusionthan hostility. He has king Amenophis provoked by the goddess Isis in his sleep and then ad- vised by asacred scribe to purge the land of its contaminated populace.Ameno- phis thereupon gathered and banished 250,000 infected persons who wereled by twoscribes named Moses and Joseph, each of whom also had an Egyptian name—perhaps implying achangeofappellation, as with the purported Osar- siph-Moses. The exiles left for Pelusium, wherethey joined 380,000 would-be im- migrants whose entrance had been blocked by Amenophis. Their combined

 Ibid., .;cf. Exodus, .–.  ForTrogusonMoses and Mt.Sinai, see Justin, ...Acurious tale repeated by three later and obscurewriters, Nicharchus, PtolemyChennus,and Helladius,all preserved by Pho- tius, maintainsthat Moses was called “Alpha” by the Jews because he had manyleprous spots, alphoi, on his body; text in Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, vol. , ;vol , , .The report is generallyconnected with the negativeAlexandrian tradition that associates Jews with lepers as part of the Exodusstory;Gager, Moses, –;Feldman, Jewand Gentile, –;but see Aziza, –.That would not,however,explain whyMoses receivedthe name fromthe Jews.One might recall the famous passage in Exodus . regarding Moses’ lep- rous hand. Cf. also the storyofMiriam,Aaron’swife, as leper; Num. .The tale of Moses as “Alpha” mayindeed have come through aJewish rather than an anti-Jewish route.  On Chaeremon and the meager sources related to his career,see H. R. Schwyzer, Chairemon (Leipzig, ), –;Gager, Moses, –;Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, –; Goodman, –,with bibliography; P. W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (Leiden, ), ix–xiv,  – ;Aziza, –. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 225 forces allowed them to invade the land, drive Amenophis into Ethiopia,and evi- dentlyholdthe country for manyyears until Amenophis’ son, borninexile, reached maturity,chased the Jews to Syria, and restored his father.¹⁰⁴ Thenarra- tive has obvioussimilarities with that of Manetho’ssecond extract,but also marked differences. There is little convergencewith Lysimachus’ account,and still less with what is known of Apion’s. In Chaeremon’sfragment,itisnot even clear with whom the Jews are to be identified: the exiles, the blocked mi- grants, or some combination thereof. Josephus exploits the confusiontodiscred- it the account.¹⁰⁵ But Chaeremon’spresentation doubtless had afuller tapestry than the fragmentreveals—and perhaps than Josephus himself saw. The diver- gences in anycaseindicate thateveninthe earlyEmpire the tradition was splin- tered and subjecttorepeated variations.¹⁰⁶ The Egyptian substratum, however, remains evident.And the Jewish accretions, represented here by both Moses and Joseph, as well as by Jews enjoying conquest and dominance, still held cen- tral place. The foregoing analysis sets other pagan versions of the Exodus in anew light.Itisnolonger surprising thatanauthor like Pompeius Trogus could report that Jews wereevicted from Egypt as lepers and diseased persons, who purloined sacred objects as they left,while at the same time characterizingtheir leader Moses as aman of consummatewisdom and great beauty.Indeedthe form of the story even as it came down to Tacitus, usually regarded as the chief of pagan antisemites, shared these mixed elements. He supplies atale on which, he claims, most authorities agree. Aplague had struck Egypt,ravaging the bod- ies of its inhabitants and inducingthe Pharaoh Bocchoris, on recommendation of the Oracle of Ammon, to purge his kingdom by banishingthe Jews, reckoned as hateful to the gods. The exiles, abandoned in the desert,nearlygaveway to despair but wererallied by Moses who exhortedthem to courageand self-reli- ance and led them to safety,culminating in their seizure of new lands, expulsion

 Jos. C. Ap. .–.  Ibid., .–.  Chaeremon’sversion seems alluded to in athirdcentury C.E. papyrus that speaks of the anger of Isis, an attack on Jews (?), and the expulsion of the “lawless” from Egypt; CPJ, III, no. ;see the commentary ad loc.;also M. Stern, “AFragment of Greco-Egyptian Prophecy and the Tradition of the Jews’ Expulsion fromEgypt in Chaeremon’sHistory,” Zion  (), – (Hebrew); Greek and Latin Authors, vol. , .n..See discussion with bibliogra- phybyD.Frankfurter, “Lest Egypt’sCity be Deserted: Religion and ideology in the Egyptian Re- sponse to the Jewish Revolt, – CE,” Journal of JewishStudies,  (): –. G. Bohak, “CPJIII, :The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple,” Journal for the Study of Juda- ism,  (): –,speculatively associates the papyrus with an Egyptian reaction to Onias’ second-century BCE temple in Heliopolis. 226 9. The Useand Abuse of the Exodus Story of the conquered, and establishment of acity and temple.¹⁰⁷ The ingredients here can be found, each with adifferent mix, in one or more of the Egyptian writers alreadydiscussed. Eviction of the foreigner to relieveEgypt of divine wrath re- flects the indigenous legend, overlaid by Jewish supplementsthat celebrate an admired leader and his triumphant people. Tacitus does not stumble into incon- sistencyorincoherence. He transmits atradition that had itself been repeatedly manipulated, modified, and refashioned. Asummation would be salutary.The distortinglens of Josephus has slanted our vision for toolong.The Jewish historian relished the task of combatingGrae- co-Egyptian writers like Manetho, Lysimachus, Apion, and Chaeremon whose works he sawasmalicious and mendacious. That angle of sight helps to account for most subsequent interpretations of the texts as antisemitic perversions of the Exodus tale. But Josephus shows little sensitivity to the complexities imbedded in the narrativesheattacks. And he fails to see the combination of Egyptian leg- end and Jewish infiltration that lift thosenarrativesoutside the category of sim- plistic antisemitism. The Book of Exodus held profound meaning for Jewishidentity and memory. But thoseJews scattered in the Diasporaand particularlythose dwelling in Egypt had strongincentive to reshape the tale. To them the reasons for escape from Egypt were less important than the justification for their return. The self-esteem of Hellenistic Jews in Egypt could be bolstered by an enhancement of their an- cestors’ history in that land. Their new culturalmilieu presented Jews with a genre of Egyptian legends that depicted the foreigner as an alien presence who polluted the land,trampled upon native religion and traditions, and was eventuallyexpelled. Such narratives, taking diverse forms as framed by writers like Hecataeus and Manetho, did not originateasresponses to the Book of Exo- dus,nor were they initiallydirected against Jews. Instead, Jewishwriters and thinkers themselvesgrafted their people’spresenceonto thosestories,found an- alogues to Moses, set up their forefathers as conquerors, and took credit for the overthrow of false Egyptian idols. The Jews could reckon themselvesasformer rulers of the land—an edifying and comforting past.Such atwistonthe Egyptian legends gave them aproud presenceonthe Nile in its remoteantiquity. Pagans did not invert the Biblical story to construct acounter-history and ad- vancethe antisemitic cause.¹⁰⁸ Fewwould have anyfamiliarity with the biblical

 Tacitus, Hist. ..–.  Droge(n. ), –,who had access to an earlier version of this paper,agrees that the hostile pagan stories did not take an “anti-Exodus” form. But he oddlysees them as attacking Hecataeus’ representation of the Jews. 9. The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story 227 story,evenafter composition of the Septuagint.¹⁰⁹ And oral transmission would have provided very different variants.Egyptian lore about contests with the for- eign oppressor or the polluted alien is quite independent of the Scriptures. To put it boldly, the extant narratives do not derivefrom Egyptian distortionofthe Jew- ish legend, but exactlythe reverse. Jewish inventiveness expropriatedEgyptian myth in order to insert theirown heroes,their religious superiority,and even their military triumphs. Later Alexandrian writers like Lysimachus,Apion, and Chaeremon did have anti-Jewishaxestogrind. But they found themselvessaddled with stories that made Moses an effective leader and the Jews successful warriors, undetachable elements thatadhered to their ownversions.¹¹⁰ Josephus, in contending with them, sawonlytheir animusand strainedtounderminetheir credibility.He missed the traces of Jewishintrusion that held fast through all the variations. Henceheoverlooked what mayhavebeen apivotal step in the shaping of the tradition. The Jews freelyadapted the Exodus legend and infiltrated native fables in order to elevatetheirown part in the history of theiradopted land.¹¹¹

 Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” –,argues forcefullyfor the absence of Gentileinterest in or acquaintancewith Jewish-Hellenisticliterature. That would certainlyseem to be the case with regardtothe Septuagint which has left little mark on the pagan scene. But Tcherikover somewhat overstates the case in general, relyinglargely on an argumentum esilentio; see the criticisms of Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations,” – .Variants fashioned by Jewish intellectuals on familiar Egyptian folk-tales could readily have circulatedamong Hellenized Egyptians.  Asimilar idea, that traditions favorabletothe Jews could be retained even in hostile ac- counts,isexpressed (with regardtodifferent matters) by Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations,” ;idem, “ReadingBetween the Lines:Appreciation of Judaism in Anti-Jewish Writers,” in Feldman and Levison, Josephus’ ContraApionem, .  Author’snote: This article appears in acloselyparallel version as achapterinmybook, Heritage and Hellenism: TheReinvention of JewishTradition (University of California Press, Ber- keley ).