Alexander Polyhistor Research Articles

ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR AND THE BABYLONIACA OF BEROSSOS

Abstract All the works of the prolific encyclopaedic author Alexander Polyhistor have only been preserved in fragments: only his ‘On Jews’ and ‘Chaldaica’ are better known. In his ‘On Jews’, Polyhistor brought together various sources on Jewish history. The ‘Chaldaica’ addressed Babylonian as well as Assyrian history, and apparently consisted of an epitome Polyhistor had made of the Babyloniaca of Berossos combined with the classical account of the Assyrian kings. In the extant text of his epitome of Berossos' work, as it has been preserved by Jewish and Christian authors, there are clearly insertions – passages that do not derive from Berossos' Babyloniaca. Was Alexander Polyhistor responsible for them? In most cases it is difficult to give an answer, but some insertions can be ascribed to Polyhistor.

Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. By SABRINA INOWLOCKI.

This is a welcome in-depth treatment of Eusebius of Caesarea's citation and use of non-biblical Greek-language Jewish prose writers in his apologetic magnum opus, the Apodeixis, more commonly known by the titles of its two component parts, Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica. The Jewish writers are Aristobulus, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and the so-called ‘minor’ Jewish authors, who, according to Inowlocki, were known to Eusebius only through the compilation of Alexander Polyhistor. Inowlocki also examines Eusebius’ use of Pseudo-Aristeas, although she notes that Eusebius erroneously believed him to be a pagan. Despite her focus on Jewish authors in the Apodeixis, Inowlocki also makes frequent comparison with Eusebius’ citation of pagan authors in the Apodeixis, and with his citation of Jewish authors in Historia Ecclesiastica and Eclogae Propheticae. Inowlocki's study of Eusebius’ citation technique is prompted by several philological concerns, among which are that he played an important role in the transmission of manuscripts of Philo and Josephus; that he is our sole extant source for some fragments of the minor Jewish authors and some lost works of Philo; and that some manuscripts of Philo and Josephus have been corrected against Eusebius’ quotations of these authors. Inowlocki criticizes scholars who have engaged in the latter process without sufficient philological justification. But she also counsels against excessive focus on narrow philological issues surrounding Eusebius’ faithfulness in citation. Comparing Eusebius’ citation technique to that of other ancient authors, she argues, perhaps controversially, that in antiquity modifications of quoted material did not indicate unfaithfulness on the part of the citing author, and that ‘the talent of an author resides in altering the initial meaning of quoted material’ (p. 7). Thus some earlier characterizations of Eusebius as either duplicitous in citation or an unoriginal editor of quotations are, according to her, unjustified. Inowlocki aims to treat Euseblus’ citation of Jewish authors as a ‘rhetorical process in its own right’ (p. 4) rather than to focus almost exclusively on the citations themselves.

Eusebius, Polyhistor and Ezekiel

Careful analysis of Eusebius’ technique in quoting historical sources, and accurate assessment and translation of the Greek he used in introducing such quotations, indicates beyond doubt that he did not quote Ezekiel’s play Exagoge directly, but through the mention of Alexander Polyhistor. Recognition of this state of affairs demonstrates that the Moses-exaltation motif in Ezekiel’s drama is properly to be located in the Hellenistic, rather than in the Christian, period.

The Epic of Theodotus and The Hellenism of the Hasmoneans

In view of the enormous expansion of biblical studies in the last century it is highly exceptional when a book published more than a hundred years ago remains today the basic work on its subject. Such is Jakob Freudenthal's study of the Hellenistic Jewish writers preserved by Alexander Polyhistor. Like any classic which remains influential for a long time, Freudenthal's work has not only laid the foundations for further study but has also perpetuated a number of misconceptions. One case where Freudenthal's opinion has distorted subsequent research is the epic poem of Theodotus, preserved in Eusebius'Praeparatio Evangelica9.22.1–11. Freudenthal classified Theodotus with the so-called Ps. Eupolemus, Cleodemus Malchas, and Thallus, all of whom he regarded as Samaritans and all of whom have strongly syncretistic features. This view of Theodotus has persisted in much of the literature, from Schürer down to the recent reviews by Denis, Hengel, and Wacholder. We will argue, on the contrary, that the surviving fragments present a rigidly exclusive view of Judaism and reflect the anti-Samaritan propaganda of the Hasmoneans. The combination of a distinctively Hellenistic form with a militant and exclusive Judaism provides an interesting example of the blending of Judaism and Hellenism in the period following the Maccabean revolt.

Berossus and Babylonian Eschatology

A recent article in this journal shows a most welcome interest in Berossus, who has suffered a most undeserved neglect, especially in the English language, over the last century. Further, the writer of this article has for the first time tackled the problem of Pseudo-Berossus which Felix Jacoby posed in his text in FGrH by assigning certain fragments to “(Pseudo-)Berossos”. Jacoby's death before the commentary on this section was written has deprived us of knowledge of the grounds for this editorial procedure. The matters involved are highly important for the history of Babylonian ideas and the recent treatment of the problem merits critical scrutiny.The agreed facts are that Berossus wrote his Babyloniaca in three books, and that genuine excerpts are quoted in Josephus and Eusebius, though these may not be the ipsissima verba of the author, having perhaps been taken from some sort of digest made by Alexander Polyhistor. The original work seems to have had a remarkably limited circulation in antiquity. These excerpts deal with mythology, legend and history relevant to the Old Testament. Of course Berossus may have written other works which are not quoted by Josephus and Eusebius because they lacked any Biblical interest. Some Greek and Latin authors, especially Vitruvius, Seneca, Pliny the Elder and Censorinus, cite Berossus on astrological matters, and it is these which Jacoby assigned to “(Pseudo-)Berossos”. Drews is entirely correct when he refuses to reject Josephus’ testimonium about Berossus’ reputation for astronomy, and since Berossus had no knowledge of the best contemporary Babylonian mathematical astronomy, as Neugebauer has remarked, the older traditional astronomy cum astrology must be meant. So far so good. No doubt Berossus did write on this subject, either in his Babyloniaca or elsewhere. But some statements in the Latin writers are so erroneous as to raise serious doubts whether they had themselves read Berossus.

Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian's Exagôgê

In the recent critical edition of Eusebius' Prœparatio Evangelica lines 180–186 of Ezekiel the Tragedian's Exagōgē, as Eusebius (Pr. Ev. IX 20, 13 [443d] Mras I, 53325–5346) quotes them from Alexander Polyhistor, run;

The Name of Plato

JN THE life of Plato by Diogenes Laertius we are told that Plato learnt gymnastics under Ariston, the Argive wrestler. And from him he received the name of Plato on account of his robust figure, in place of his original name which was Aristocles, after his grandfather, as Alexander informs us in his Successions of Philosophers. But others affirm that he got the name Plato from the breadth of his style or from the breadth of his forehead, as suggested by Neanthes.I In his account Diogenes Laertius mentions three sources for the name of Plato: (1) Alexander Polyhistor, the source of the Ariston anecdote; (2) Neanthes of Cyzicus, who associates the name with the breadth of Plato's forehead; (3) unnamed sources (ivtot) which derive the name from the breadth of his style. All these three sources date from the Alexandrian period of biography which got much of its information from its Peripatetic forerunners.2 That the unnamed sources of Diogenes Laertius also date from the Alexandrian period is evident from Cicero and Pliny, who evidently were aware of the association of lX4Tcov with rXarV'4r-qs T's 'pp1nv'las. In Orat. i. 1 Cicero refers to Platonis and in Epistle I 10. 5 Pliny refers to Plato's genius as Platonicam illam sublimitatem et latitudinem. The association of amplitudo and latitudo, the Latin equivalents of wXari-rs,3 with Plato are an indication that this phase of the tradition had penetrated into Latin literature during Cicero's lifetime.4 These sources about Plato's name became a biographical rubric

The Cuneiform Account of the Deluge

That the old Babylonians were acquainted with a myth of a flood, which resembles, in the most striking way, even in details, the two accounts of the deluge contained in chaps. VI.-ix. of Gen., which have been worked over by an editor into one story, and which especially resembles the so-called Jehovistic account, was known long ago from the fragments of a history of Babylon which was written in Greek by a Chaldean priest named Berossus in the reign of Antiochus Soter, between 280 and 270 B. C. According to the extracts from this work, which have been preserved for us in Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus, the course of events connected with this great flood, was as follows: Kronos made known in a dream to the tenth king of Babylon, Xisuthros, or Sisithros, that, on the fifteenth of the month Daesios, there would occur great rains, and all mankind would be destroyed by a great flood. He commanded him to bury in Sippara, the city of the sun, all the records of antiquity engraven on stone, to build a ship in which he should embark with his family and his nearest friends, to provide for himself food and drink, and to take with him in the ship the birds and the four-footed beasts. Xisuthros obeyed; built the ship, 9000 feet long and 2000 feet wide; gathered every thing together as he had been commanded; and embarked in the ship with his wife, and his child, and his nearest friends. When the flood had poured in, and then immediately ceased, Xisuthros sent out some birds to see if they could discover land anywhere, which had already emerged from the water. But, as they found neither food nor resting-place, they came back to the ship. After some days, Xisuthros sent them out a second time, and they returned with mud upon their feet. But, when he sent them out for the third time, they did not return again. Then Xisuthros knew that the earth had become dry again. He made an opening in the ship, and saw that it was stationary upon a mountain. Then he disembarked with his wife, his daughter, and his helmsman; erected an altar; offered a sacrifice; and disappeared, together with the others who had disembarked with him. When the others, who had remained in the ship, sought for him, and called him by name, they heard a voice from the skies, telling them that they should lead a godly life; that he, on account of his piety, had been taken away to the gods, and that his wife, his daughter, and his helmsman had been made sharers in this honor. The land where they were, they were told, was Armenia; and they were bidden to return from here to Babylon, and to dig up the writings buried at Sippara. When they heard this, they offered sacrifices to the Gods, returned on foot to Babylon, dug up the holy writings, founded cities and temples, and built again Babylon. Of the ship, however, there are still remains in the mountains of Kardua in Armenia. Many people scrape the bitumen from these, and use it as a protection against sickness. The points of resemblance between this Babylonian account of a flood, and the Jehovistic portions of the Biblical account of the deluge, are very striking. So 77