Читать книгу A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - Emil Schürer - Страница 16

The following survey embraces—1. All special works on the Jewish history of our period known to us only through quotations or fragments, whether they are used by Josephus or not; and 2. Those of the more general historical works now lost, to which the exposition of Josephus is directly or indirectly indebted. To one or other of these categories belong all the works enumerated in the following paragraphs:—

1. Jason of Cyrene

He wrote a work in five books on the history of the Maccabean rising, from its beginning down to the victory of Judas over Nicanor in B.C. 161. All this period is treated of in one book in our so-called Second Book of Maccabees: “All these things being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we shall essay to abridge in one volume,” 2 Macc. 2:23. He is supposed to have lived not long after the events which he narrates, somewhere about the middle of the second century B.C.; comp. Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 211.

2. The History of John Hyrcanus

A history of John Hyrcanus was known to the writer of the First Book of Maccabees: “The chronicle of his priesthood,” 1 Macc. 16:24. This book, in a style similar to that of the First Book of Maccabees, described his long and honourable career. It seems to have got lost at an early date, for it was evidently unknown even to Josephus. Comp. Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 13.

3. Posidonius of Apamea

The celebrated Stoic philosopher and historian Posidonius, from Apamea in Syria, lived chiefly in Rhodes, where he founded a Stoic School. He is hence called “the Rhodian.” Since he was also a scholar of Panätius, who at latest must have died B.C. 110, he cannot have been born later than B.C. 130. In the seventh consulship of Marius, B.C. 86, he went as ambassador to Rome, and there saw Marius shortly before his death (Plutarch’s Marius, chap. xlv.). Immediately after Sulla’s death (B.C. 78), Cicero heard him in Rhodes (Plutarch’s Cicero, chap. iv.). Pompey visited him there repeatedly. During the consulship of Marius Marcellus, B.C. 51, he went once more to Rome (Suidas, Lexicon, art. Ποσειδώνιος). He may therefore be described as having flourished between B.C. 90 and B.C. 50. According to Lucian. Macrob. chap. xx. he lived to the great age of eighty-four years. Of his numerous writings, it is his great historical work that here interests us. It is frequently quoted in the historical sketches of Athenäus, Strabo, Plutarch, and others. From the criticisms in Athenäus it would appear to have consisted of at least forty-nine books. It is not, therefore, open to doubt that Suidas (Lexicon, under the word Ποσειδώνιος) has this work in view when he makes the erroneous remark about the Alexandrian Posidonius: ἔγραψεν Ἱστορίαν τὴν μετὰ Πολύβιον ἐν βιβλίος νβʹ. The extant fragments, too, make it probable that the work begins where Polybius ends, with B.C. 146. How far down it carried the history is uncertain. It went on, according to Suidas, ἕως τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ καὶ Πτολεμαίου. Müller (Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 250) believes that instead of this we ought to read ἕως τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ, that is, down to Ptolemäus Apion of Cyrene, who died B.C. 96. The fact, too, that the fragments that have been preserved from the 47th and 49th books refer to the period from B.C. 100 to B.C. 90, goes to confirm this supposition. But, according to a fragment of considerable extent quoted by Athenäus, it appears that Posidonius also gave a detailed account of the history of the Athenian demagogue Athenio or Aristion, B.C. 87–86. And further, according to a notice in Strabo (xi. 1. 6), he also treated of the history of Pompey: τὴν ἱστορίαν συνέγραψε τὴν περὶ αὐτόν. From this Müller concludes that Posidonius had dealt with the period after B.C. 96 in a “second part,” or a continuation of his great work. This elaborate hypothesis, however, has no substantial support in the evidently corrupted words of Suidas. The fifty-two books may have quite easily embraced the period from B.C. 87–86, and the work, as Scheppig maintains, may have been brought down to that time. Arnold would have it carried down even to B.C. 82. Much further it certainly could not have extended, since in the 47th and 49th books the writer had got no farther than the period B.C. 100–B.C. 90. The history of Pompey must therefore have formed a separate work.

The great work of Posidonius was held in high esteem by later historians, who seemed to have used it as they did Polybius, as a principal source for the period of which it treats. It is certain that Diodorus has drawn upon it (Müller, Fragmenta, t. ii. p. 20, t. iii. p. 251). But even Trogus Pompeius refers to it as an authority (see Heeren in: Com. Soc. Sc. Gött. t. xv. 1804, pp. 185–245; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 258. 4, and the literature given there). And so probably it was used by most who treated of this period. It is therefore highly probable that the passages in Josephus which deal with that time are essentially based upon Posidonius,—not indeed directly, but indirectly, as he had found him quoted and used by Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus.

Josephus used Strabo and Nicolas as authorities of the first order for the period referred to. That Strabo had made use of Posidonius in the composition of his history is abundantly evident, for he quotes him frequently and with great respect in his Geography (ii. 102, xvi. 753). In Nicolaus Damascenus, too, there are unmistakeable traces of use having been made of Posidonius (Müller, iii. 415).—Josephus mentions Posidonius only once, in his Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. Strongly marked resemblances, however, are discernible between his exposition and that of Diodorus and Trogus Pompeius. Compare the account of the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2–3, and in Diodorus, xxxiv. 1; and that of the Parthian war of Demetrius II. in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, and in Justin, i.e. Trogus Pompeius, xxxvi. 1. 3. If, then, these two—Diodorus and Trogus Pompeius—rely upon Posidonius, then so also does Josephus. Further details in Nussbaum, Observ. in Fl. Jos. Antiq. xii. 3–xiii. 14; Destinon, Die Quellen, § 52; J. G. Müller on Josephus “Against Apion,” 214 ff., 258 f.

The historical and geographical fragments of Posidonius are collected by C. Müller, fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 245–296. Compare generally, Fabricius, Bibliothec. graec. ed. Harles, iii. 572–574, iv. 34.—Bake, Posidonii Rhodii reliquae doctrinae, Lugd. Bat. 1810.—Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. under years 143, 86, 78, 62, 60, 51.—Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, i. 1842, 357–363.—Toepelmann, De Posidonio Rhodio rerum scriptore, Bonnae 1867.—Scheppig, De Posidonio Apamensi rerum gentium terrarum scriptore, Halis Sax. 1869.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 182 f., 242 f.—Blass, De Gemino et Posidonio, Kiel 1883.—Arnold, Untersuchungen über Theophanes von Mytilene und Posidonius von Apamea, in Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 13 Supplementalband, 1884, pp. 75–150 (seeks to prove that Appian in his Mithridatica has used both of these authors).—Schühlein, Studien zu Posidonius Rhodius, Freising 1886; a careful sifting and arranging of biographical detail. Zimmermann in: Hermes xxxiii. pp. 103–130; on the use made of Posidonius in the Geography of Strabo.—On Posidonius as a philosopher, see Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, vol. i. pp. 185, 189; and Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, London 1869. Also: Wendland, Posidonius Werk περί θεῶν (Archiv für Geschichte der Philos., Bd. i 1888, pp. 200–210).

4. Timagenes of Alexandria

Timagenes, by birth probably a Syrian, had been taken prisoner in Alexandria by Gabinius during his Egyptian campaign in B.C. 55. He was then carried off to Rome, where he continued ever afterwards to reside (Suidas, Lexicon, under the word Τιμαγένης). He was notorious for his loose tongue, on account of which he was forbidden by Augustus to enter his house. He was nevertheless held in high esteem, and enjoyed the intimate friendship of Asinius Pollio. Seneca in his de ira, iii. 23, says: Timagenes in contubernio Pollionis Asinii consensuit, ac tota civitate dilectus est: nullum illi limen praeclusa Caesaris domus abstulit. His numerous works were much prized on account of their learning and their elegant rhetorical form. Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 9, speaks of Timagenes as et diligentia Graecus et lingua. Even Quintilian, x. 1. 75, names him among the most famous historians. The few extant fragments are not sufficient to lead us to form any definite judgment upon the contents and style of his work.—The quotations in Josephus are confined to the history of Antiochus Epiphanes (Treatise against Apion, ii. 7), of the Jewish king Aristobulus I. (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3), and of Alexander Jannäus (Antiq. xiii. 12. 5). It is evident, however, that Josephus did not use the work of Timagenes at first hand, but borrowed his references from other historians. In Antiq. xiii. 11. 3, he introduces a quotation in this fashion: “as Strabo bears witness in the name of Timagenes, who says thus.” So, too, the quotation in Antiq. xiii. 12. 5 is taken from Strabo, who is himself immediately afterwards quoted in Antiq. xiii. 12. 6.

The fragments of Timagenes are collected by C. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, iii. 317–323. Comp. also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 2nd ed. p. 573 ff.—Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 1971, and the literature quoted there.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgesch. ii. 188.—Gutschmid in a paper on “Trogus and Timagenes,” in Rhein. Museum, vol. xxxvii. 1882, pp. 548–555, seeks to show that Trogus Pompeius is only a Latin reproduction of an original Greek work, and assumes that the latter was the work of Timagenes.

5. Asinius Pollio

C. Asinius Pollio, the well-known friend of Caesar and Augustus, composed, besides other works, a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, in 17 books, in the Latin tongue. This, at least, is the most probable rendering of the confused statements in Suidas’ Lexicon, under the names Πωλίων and Ἀσίνιος (see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221. 3). Plutarch, Appian, and others made use of the work (Plutarch. Pompeius, c. 72; Caesar, c. 46; Appian. Civ. ii. 82). Since it was an authority of the first order, as being the work of a contemporary man of affairs, an investigator like Strabo naturally did not allow it to escape him. From a notice in Josephus it would appear that Strabo had used it and quoted from it in the history of Caesar’s Egyptian campaign. In his Antiq. xiv. 8. 3, Josephus thus introduces a quotation: “Strabo of Cappadocia bears witness to this, when he says thus in the name of Asinius.”

Compare on Asinius Pollio generally, Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. i. 2, 2 Aufl. pp. 1859–1865; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221, and the literature quoted in both places.—Something may also be found in Hübner, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die römische Literaturgesch. 1878, p. 181.—On the history of the Civil War, Thouret, De Cicerone, Asinio Pollione, C. Oppio rerum Caesarianarum scriptoribus (Leipz. Stud. zu class. Philol., Bd. i. 1878, pp. 303–360; on Asinius Pollio, pp. 324–346). A discussion is being carried on in regard to the authorities used by Appian, but nothing definite has been reached as to how far he may have employed the work of Asinius Pollio.

6. Hypsikrates

Hypsikrates, a writer otherwise unknown, is quoted twice by Strabo in his Geography. The one quotation refers to the history of Asander, a governor of the Bosporus under King Pharnaces II., in the time of Caesar (Strabo, vii. 4. 6). The other quotation refers to the ethnology of the Caucasian nations (Strabo, xi. 5. 1). In a third passage a quotation about the natural history of Libya is attributed to Iphikrates, but this name is most likely to be read Hypsikrates (Strabo, xvii. 3. 5). According to Lucian. Macrob. c. 22, Hypsikrates was a native of Amisus in Pontus, and lived to the age of ninety-two years. Since he treats of the times of Caesar he cannot have been much older than Strabo.—According to a statement in Josephus, Strabo had borrowed from this Hypsikrates in his account of the Egyptian campaign of Caesar: “The same Strabo says thus again, in another place, in the name of Hypsikrates,” Antiq. xiv. 8. 3.

Compare generally, Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 493 ff.—Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 1560.

7. Dellius

Dellius, a friend of Antonius, wrote a work on the Parthian campaign of Antonius, in which he had himself taken part. (Strabo, xi. 13. 3, p. 523: ὥς φησιν ὁ Δέλλιος ὁ τοῦ Ἀντωνίου φίλος, συγγράψας τὴν ἐπὶ Παρθυαίους αὐτοῦ στρατείαν, ἐν ᾗ παρῆν καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. Plutarch. Anton. c. 59: πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων οἱ Κλεοπάτρας κόλακες ἐχέβαλον … ὧν καὶ Μάρκος ἦν Σιλανὸς καὶ Δέλλιος ὁ ἱστορικός).

It is possible, as Bürcklein and Gutschmid surmise, that all the accounts of later historians regarding the Parthian campaign of the years B.C. 41–36, and so, too, that of Josephus, are drawn either directly or indirectly from this work. Josephus mentions Dellius in Antiq. xiv. 15. 1; xv. 2. 6; Wars of Jews, i. 15. 3; not, however, as a historian, but as a comrade of Antony.

Compare Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römischparthischen Feldzüge in den Jahren, 713–718. An Inaugural Dissertation, 1879 (on Josephus, pp. 41–43).—Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 97. Generally, Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 899. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 255. 3.

8. Strabo

Besides his Geography, which has come down to us, and will be treated of under § 3. D, among extant authorities, Strabo was the author of a large historical work which, with the exception of a few fragments, has been lost. It had been completed before Strabo began his Geography. In the introduction to this latter work he refers to his history: Διόπερ ἡμεῖς πεποιηκότες ὑπομνήματα ἱστορικὰ χρήσιμα, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνομεν, εἰς τὴν ἠθικὴν καὶ πολιτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν. From another quotation which he makes, it appears that the 5th book of that history began where the work of Polybius ended, i.e. with B.C. 146: εἰρηκότες δὲ πολλὰ περὶ τῶν Παθικῶν νομίμων ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ τῶν ἱστορικῶν ὑπομνημάτων βίβλῳ, δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν μετὰ Πολύβιον. This overlapping of the narrative explains how it is that the character of the first four books is different from that of the books μετὰ Πολύβιον; the former being summary in the style, the latter detailed and full. In the earlier books the times of Alexander the Great must have been treated of, for Strabo says in a third passage that he had come to see the untrustworthiness of the reports about India when he was engaged upon the history of Alexander the Great: καὶ ἡμῖν δʼ ὑπῆρξεν ἐπὶ πλέον κατιδεῖν ταῦτα ὑπομνηματιζομένοις τὰς Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις. According to an explanatory note by Suidas, Lexicon, under the name Πολύβιος, the work “after Polybius” was composed of forty-three books: “Strabo,” it is said, “wrote the μετὰ Πολύβιον in forty-three books;” while the whole work was made up of forty-seven books. From the quotations in Josephus it may be concluded that the history had been carried down at least to the conquest of Jerusalem by Herod in B.C. 37. It may therefore have closed with the establishment of sole and absolute monarchy under Augustus. The most of the quotations are made by Josephus, who evidently used this work as his main authority for the history of the Asmonaeans from John Hyrcanus to the overthrow of Antigonus, B.C. 135–37, because he culls from this large general history the passages and allusions that have reference to the history of Palestine. Such notices will be found in Antiq. xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2. Compare also a statement with reference to Autiochus Epiphanes in the Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. This history of Strabo is also expressly cited by Plutarch, Sulla, c. 26; Lucull. c. 28; Caesar, c. 63; and by Tertullian, de anima, c. 46. But much as the loss of this work is to be regretted, it is at least some satisfaction to know that Josephus used it along with Nicolaus Damascenus as one of his principal authorities. For Strabo was a thoroughgoing investigator, who employed the best sources with circumspection, subjecting them to a careful critical examination. Even in the few fragments preserved in Josephus he three times cited his authorities by name, Timagenes, Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates. That he made use of the great work of Posidonius cannot be doubted. And though his name is not once mentioned, we cannot say how much Strabo may have been indebted to him for the information given in his comprehensive work. Josephus frequently calls attention to the agreement between Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus. “Now Nicolas of Damascus and Strabo of Cappadocia both describe the expeditions of Pompey and Gabinius against the Jews, while neither of them says anything new that is not in the other,” Antiq. xiv. 6. 4. But it is not probable that the one had made use of the other, seeing that they were contemporaries. Nicolaus Damascenus is quoted by Strabo in his Geography (xv. 1. 72, 73). On the other hand, the historical work of Strabo is rather older than that of Nicolas. The agreement between them to which Josephus calls attention must therefore have resulted from their using the same authorities.

It was a decided mistake on the part of Lewitz (Quaest. Flav. specimen, 1835) to describe Strabo the historian and Strabo the geographer as two different persons. Josephus does indeed speak of his authority as a Cappadocian, whereas the geographer belonged to Amasia in Pontus. But the district of Pontus is also called by Strabo ἠ πρὸς τῷ Πόντῳ Καππαδοκία (xiii. 1. 4); and Pliny names Amasia among the cities of Cappadocia (Nat. Hist. vi. 3. 8). Mithridates, king of Pontus, is styled on an inscription: Μιθραδάτης Καππαδοκί[ας βασιλεύς]. See Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, iii. 136a. Kuhn, Die Städtische und bürgerlich Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 148.

The fragments of Strabo’s historical work are collected by Müller, Fragmenta historicum graecorum, iii. 490–494.

9. Commentaries of Herod

Like other royal personages of that age, such as Augustus and Agrippa (Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 220), Herod the Great wrote Commentaries or Memoirs, which are once referred to by Josephus. “This account we give the reader as it is contained in the Commentaries of King Herod,” Antiq. xv. 6. 3. Whether Josephus had actually seen them himself is extremely doubtful, since in his own history of Herod he follows Nicolaus Damascenus as his chief authority, and besides him used only a source that was unfavourable to Herod. The preterite περιείχετο awakens the suspicion that the work cited did not then lie before the writer, but was known to him only at second hand.

On the philosophical, rhetorical, and historical studies of Herod, see the fragment from the Autobiography of Nicolaus Damascenus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 350.—The view which I had myself at one time advocated, that Josephus had made a direct use of the Commentaries of Herod, does not now appear to be tenable. This is the opinion also of Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, 1882, 121 ff. But we have not the materials for arriving at any final and definite result.

10. Ptolemäus

In the work of Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, the following statement is made under the word Ἰδουμαῖοι: “Idumaeans and Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) differ from one another, as Ptolemäus says in the first book of his Life of King Herod. For the Jews are the original inhabitants; but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews, but Phoenicians and Syrians.” The work of one Ptolemäus on Herod, here referred to, is otherwise quite unknown. The statements quoted about the semi-Judaism of the Idumaeans are without doubt taken from an independent and unbiassed investigation as to the descent of Herod, such as a royal historiographer would never have ventured to publish. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 3. The author cannot therefore have belonged to the court officials of Herod, among whom we meet with two men of the name of Ptolemy. One of these was a brother of Nicolaus Damascenus, who, after Herod’s death, took the side of Antipas, as we are told in Antiq. xvii. 9. 4, and Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3. The other, after Herod’s death, joined the party of Archelaus along with Nicolaus Damascenus, and is spoken of in Antiq. xvii. 8. 2, 9. 3, 5, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8; ii. 2. 1, 4. Seeing that our author can be neither of these two, one naturally thinks of the grammarian Ptolemy of Ascalon, the only writer of the name of Ptolemy mentioned by Ammonius in De adfin. vocab. differentia in any other passage than the one above quoted. Stephanus Byzantinus indeed (s.v. Ἀσκάλων) speaks of this Ptolemy as a contemporary of Aristarchus; and if this were so, he must have lived in the second century before Christ. But Bäge (De Ptolemaeo Ascalonita, 1882) has made it highly probable that this statement of Stephanus is erroneous, and that Ptolemy had lived rather in the early part of the first century after Christ. In that case he would be, in respect of time, in the very best position for writing a biography of Herod.

Many accomplished scholars, as Fabricius in Biblioth. graec., v. 296, Ammon in his note on the passage from Ammonius, and Westermann in his edition of Vossius, De historicis graecis, p. 226, regard Ptolemy of Ascalon as the author of Herod’s biography. Compare in regard to him generally, the literature given in Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 28, 29.—Müller, Fragm. hist. graec., is inclined to look for the author among the courtiers of Herod.

The statement about the Idumaeans, quoted above, is found also in an abbreviated form in a writing ascribed to Ptolemy of Ascalon, περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων, which has recently been published in a complete form by Heylbut in Hermes, vol. xxii. 1887, pp. 388–410. In this work the passage runs as follows: “Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) and Idumaeans (Ἰδουμαῖοι) are not the same; for the Jews are the original inhabitants, but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews, but Phoenicians and Syrians.” But this passage, as well as all the rest of this reputed work of Ptolemy, appears to be nothing else than an extract from Ammonius, who had on his part quoted from the genuine work of Ptolemy of Ascalou.

11. Nicolaus Damascenus

No writer has been used by Josephus who yields such abundance of good material for the post-Biblical period as Nicolas of Damascus, the trusted friend and counsellor of Herod. He belonged to a distinguished non-Jewish family in Damascus. His father, Antipater, held the highest official appointments there. Since Nicolas, immediately after the death of Herod, in B.C. 4, speaks of himself as about sixty years of age, he must have been born about B.C. 64. He acquired a thorough Greek education, and in his philosophical views followed mainly Aristotle. Hence in the Fragments collected by Müller he is called “Nicolas the Peripatetic,” “one of the Peripatetic philosophers.” According to Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem in the beginning of the seventh century after Christ, he is said to have been the tutor of the children of Antony and Cleopatra. When Augustus was in Syria in B.C. 20, Nicolas saw in Antioch the Indian ambassadors who came there (Strabo, xv. 1. 73). Probably even then, but at the very latest by B.C. 14, he lived in the closest intimacy with King Herod, by whom he was employed in some important diplomatic negotiations. In B.C. 14 he was in the retinue of Herod when he visited Agrippa in Asia Minor. At a later period he went with Herod to Rome. When Herod, on account of his proceedings in Arabia, had fallen into disfavour with Augustus, Nicolas was sent to Rome as his ambassador. Also in his conflicts with his sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, Nicolas occupied a prominent place as counsellor of the king. After the death of Herod he represented the interests of Archelaus before the emperor at Rome. All these particulars are derived from his autobiography, as given in Müller’s Fragments and the corresponding sections of Josephus. He seems to have spent his last years in Rome.

Of the tragedies and comedies which Nicolas is supposed to have written, no single vestige now remains. Even of his philosophical productions very little has been preserved. Undoubtedly by far the most important of his writings were his historical works, regarding which Suidas, in his Lexicon, under the name Νικόλαος, makes the following remark: “He wrote a general history in eighty books, and an account of the life of Caesar, and also of his own life and career.” Besides these three works, he wrote, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 189, a παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή. Of all the four works we possess fragments of greater or less extent.

We owe the greater number of the fragments that are preserved to the great undertaking of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, A.D. 912–959, who had the most trustworthy statements of the old historians collected into certain volumes. There were in all fifty-three volumes or heads among which those collections were distributed. Only a few of those fifty-three books have been preserved, and of those that are extant, only two come into consideration at present (1) The extracts De virtutibus et vitiis, edited by Valesius in A.D. 1634; and (2) the extracts De insidiis, first edited by Feder, from a codex Escurialensis, in A.D. 1848–1855, with other extracts, in 3 vols. At the same time, and independently of Feder, Müller edited the same manuscript in his Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 1849.—Compare on the undertaking of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus generally, Fabricius-Harles, Biblioth. graec. viii.; Schulze, De excerptis constantinianis quaestiones criticae, Bonn 1866. De Boor, Zu den Excerptensammlungen des Konstantin Porphyrogennetos (Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 123–148).

1. The great historical work of Nicolas contained 144 books (Athenaeus, vi. p. 249). When Suidas speaks of only eighty books, this must be explained either by assuming an error in the MSS. of Suidas, or by supposing that only eighty books were known to Suidas. The extensive fragments preserved in the Constantine excerpts, de virtutibus and de insidiis, are taken exclusively from the first seven books, and refer to the early history of the Assyrians, Medes, Greeks, Lydians, and Persians, down to the times of Croesus and Cyrus. Of books 8–95 we possess as good as nothing. Of book 96 some fragments have been preserved by Josephus and Athenaeus. Books 96, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 114, 116, 123, 124 are distinctly quoted. In books 123 and 124 an account is given of the negotiations with Agrippa in Asia Minor in favour of the Jews residing there, in which Herod and Nicolaus Damascenus represented the Jewish interests (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 2; comp. xvi. 2. 2–5). These negotiations were carried on in the year B.C. 14. The remaining twenty books would undoubtedly treat of the following ten years, down to the beginning of the reign of Archelaus, in B.C. 4. One only requires to read Josephus connectedly in order to see immediately that the uncommonly complete and detailed authority which he follows in books xv.–xvii. on the life of Herod, breaks off at the beginning of the reign of Archelaus. What he tells regarding that reign in book xviii. is so desperately poor and meagre, that it is utterly impossible that he could have had at his disposal a document like that upon which he drew for books xv.–xvii. But this complete and detailed authority can have been no other than the work of Nicolas of Damascus, who is expressly cited in Antiq. xvi. 7. 1, and who in his autobiography gives a historical statement that reads almost like an extract from Josephus. Hence it is evident that it gives in briefer form the story of the events recorded at greater length by the author in his larger historical work.—But the historical work of Nicolas is used by Josephus, not only for the history of Herod, but also for the history of the Asmonaeans, in a similar way to that in which he uses the historical work of Strabo (Antiq. xiii. 8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 4. 3, 6. 4). Josephus also expressly cites Nicolas’ work for the history of primitive times (Antiq. i. 3. 6, 3. 9, 7. 2), for the history of David (Antiq. vii. 5. 2), and the history of Antiochus Epiphanes (Treatise against Apion, ii. 7).

2. Of the biography of Augustus, Βίος Καίσαρος, there are still extant two large fragments, of which the one in the Constantine excerpts, de virtutibus, treats of the history of Octavian’s youth and education; while the other, which is particularly extensive, in the Constantine excerpts, de insidiis, refers to the time immediately subsequent to Caesar’s assassination, there being added to it, in the form of a large note or excursus, c. 19–27, a complete account of the conspiracy against Caesar, and of the circumstances that preceded his murder. This second fragment, which was first made known in the publications of Feder, Müller, and Piccolos, makes it possible fairly to estimate the historical value of the work, which, notwithstanding its general panegyristic character, is considerable.

3. The autobiography, of which several fragments are preserved in the excerpts de virtutibus, and upon which probably Suidas mainly relies for the facts given in his Lexicon articles on the names Ἀντίπατρος and Νικόλαος, is interesting on account of the undisguised self-complacency and conceit of its author, which he shows in the unbounded praise lavished upon all his own achievements.

4. The collection of “Remarkable Habits and Customs,” Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή, which was seen by Photius (Biblioth. cod. 189), is known to us only from the extracts in the Florilegium of Stobaeus.

A complete collection of the fragments of Nicolas, with the exception of the philosophical fragments, was first issued by Müller in his Fragmenta historicorum graecomm, iii. 1849, pp. 343–464, and iv. pp. 661–664. Compare generally, Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 574 f.—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 483, note 20, proving that Nicolas was not a Jew.—Nicolai, Geschichte Literaturgeschichte, ii. 536 f.—On his exposition of early history, books i.–vii.: Steinmetz, Herodot und Nicolaus Damascenus, Lüneburg 1861.—On Nicolas as an authority with Josephus: Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 106–116. Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1882, pp. 91–120.

The Βίος Καίσαρος was separately edited by Piccolos, Nicolas de Damas., vie de César, fragment récemment découvert, etc., Paris 1850.—It is discussed by the following: Bürger, De Nicolai Damasceni fragmento Escurialensi quod inscribitur Βίος Καίσαρος, Bonnae 1869; and O. E. Schmidt, who writes in the Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 1884, pp. 666–687, on Nicolaus Damascenus and Suetonius Tranquillus, supporting, in opposition to Bürger, the historical importance of the Βίος Καίσαρος, and seeking to show that Suetonius had made use of it.

The fragments of the Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή have also been collected and edited in a separate issue by Westermann, Παραδοξογράφοι, 1839, pp. 166, 167.—On the passage referring to the Lacedaemonians, see Trieber, Quaestiones Laconicae, pars I.: De Nicolai Damasceni Laconicis, Berol. 1867.

Of the philosophical writings of Nicolas there remain only a number of titles and short fragments. See Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, iii. p. 574 ff.—Roeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae, Danzig 1844, pp. 27, 35–43.—Müller, Fragm. histor. graec. iii. 344.—Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, London 1869.—Zell in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1679 f., art. “Aristoteles.”—Diels, Doxographi graeci, 1879, p. 84, Anm. 1.—The pseudo-Aristotelian writing de plantis has been ascribed by E. H. F. Meyer to Nicolaus Damascenus, and published under his name.—Another pseudo-Aristotelian tract, περὶ κόσμου, has been by several scholars in earlier and later times attributed to Nicolas. The grounds for so doing are very insufficient. Becker, Bernays, and Zeller, however, still incline to ascribe it to our author. On its later reproduction by Apuleius, see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 367. 6.—So far as we can judge from the quotations and fragments of the philosophical works of Nicolas, they are closely related to those of Aristotle, and were not so much independent works as short expositions or compendia and illustrations of the several departments of the Aristotelian philosophy. Roeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae, pp. 35–43, and Usener in: Bernays’ Ges. Abhandlungen, ii. 281. Roeper gives the most complete collection of quotations and fragments. This is the view also taken of them by Ueberweg in his History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 184.

12. The Commentaries of Vespasian

In the 65th chapter of his Life, Josephus refers to the Commentaries of Vespasian as vouching the correctness of his statements: “Nor is it only I who say this: but so it is written in the Commentaries of Vespasian the emperor.” At the same time he brings the charge against his opponent, Justus of Tiberias, that he could not have read those commentaries, since his statements are in direct contradiction to this in the emperor’s work: “For neither wast thou concerned in that war, nor hast thou read the Commentaries of Caesar, of which we have evident proof, because thou hast contradicted those Commentaries of Caesar in thy history.” In the Treatise against Apion he engages in a polemic against those who judged unfavourably of his History of the Jewish War, and denies to them the right of making such a criticism: “How impudent must those deserve to be esteemed who undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs, who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperor’s own memoirs, yet they could not be acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.” These memoirs “of the emperor’s” are evidently identical with the Commentaries of Vespasian referred to in the Life. Nothing more than this is known about them. Compare Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 311. 2. Josephus evidently came to know them only after he had composed his work on the Wars of the Jews, since he does not mention them among his authorities for that work (Treatise against Apion, i. 9–10).

13. Antonius Julianus

Minucius Felix, in his Octavian. c. 33. 4, refers for proof of his statement that the Jews had brought their misfortunes upon themselves by their own evil deeds, to their own writings and those of the Romans: “Read again their writings, or if you prefer those of the Romans, look into those of Antonius Julianus, and you will find that their own wickedness has occasioned their calamities.” The work of Antonius Julianus treated probably of the war of Vespasian. For a Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος Ἰουλιανός is also mentioned by Josephus as Procurator of Judea during the time of the Vespasian war (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3).

Bernays (Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, 1861, p. 56) conjectures that this work of Antonius Julianus may have been used by Tacitus, on whom again the work of Sulpicius Severus depends. This is possible. But it should not be forgotten that there were yet other works on the Vespasian war. Josephus, indeed, distinguishes such books into two classes. To the one class belonged those who knew the events of the war at first hand from having themselves been engaged in it, but through prejudice in favour of the Romans or against the Jews, told the story in a false and garbled manner. To the other class belonged those who knew the matter only from report, and were often misled by the incorrect and inconsistent reports on which they relied. “Some men who were not concerned in the affair themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and those who were then present have given false account of things, and this rather out of humour of flattery to the Romans or of hatred to the Jews,” Josephus, Wars of the Jews, preface 1. Compare also the remarks at the end of the preface to the Antiquities, in the Treatise against Apion, 1. 8 at the end, and in the letter of Agrippa, quoted in chap. 65 of the Life of Josephus.

14. Justus of Tiberias

About the life of Justus of Tiberias we know only what Josephus has told us in his Life (chaps. 9, 12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 65, 70, 74). He was a Jew who had received a Greek education (c. 9), and along with his father Pistus occupied a conspicuous position in his native city of Tiberias during the Jewish war of A.D. 66–67. Being a man of moderate tendencies, he attached himself more under compulsion than voluntarily to the revolution party, but quitted his native town even before the subjugation of Galilee, and fled to Agrippa (c. 70). Condemned to death by Vespasian, and given over to Agrippa for execution, he had his sentence commuted by him, through the intercession of Berenice, to a long period of imprisonment. He seems then to have gone again to reside in Tiberias, but led, according to Josephus, a rather mysterious and doubtful sort of life. Agrippa sentenced him twice to imprisonment, and had him repeatedly banished his native city. Once he pronounced against him sentence of death, and pardoned him only at the entreaty of Berenice. In spite of all this, Agrippa entrusted him with the τάξις ἐπιστολῶν. But in this office, too, Justus proved himself unserviceable, and was at last, for good and all, dismissed by Agrippa (Josephus’ Life, c. 65). He was still alive in the beginning of the second century after Christ, for his Chronicle reaches down to the death of Agrippa in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. His works are: 1. A History of the Jewish War, against which the polemic of Josephus in his Life is directed. The later writers who mention this work, Eusebius, Jerome, his translator Sophronius, and Suidas, obtained their knowledge of it only from Josephus. It is also very doubtful whether Steph. Byz. s.v. Τιβεριάς, drew directly from this work.—2. A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings from Moses to Agrippa II. It was known to Photius, and is briefly described by him (Biblioth. cod. 33). Also Julius Africanus, from whom the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and in Syncellus are borrowed, made use of it. A notice in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5. 41, has probably to be referred to another work of Justus.—3. The existence of the Commentarioli de scripturis, mentioned by Jerome in his de viris illustr. c. 14, is very questionable, since no other author knows anything about it.

In regard to the part played by Justus during the Jewish war utterly false opinions have very widely prevailed, owing to the misleading statements of Josephus. He has generally been regarded as an extreme patriot and bitter foe of the Romans. So especially by Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, 1887. But a critical examination of all these assertions of Josephus affords us an essentially different picture. On the one hand, Josephus describes him as a chief agitator in pressing on the war, and affirms that he had moved his native city of Tiberias to revolt from Agrippa and the Romans (Life, 9, 65, 70). For proof of this Josephus adduces his campaign against the cities of Decapolis, Gadara, and Hippos, on account of which lie was accused by the representatives of those cities to Vespasian, and by him given over to be punished to Agrippa, so that he escaped death only through the intercession of Berenice (c. 9 at the end, 65, 74). Further, his connection with the revolutionary chiefs, John of Gischala (c. 17) and Jesus, son of Sapphias (c. 54), is advanced as evidence against him. But in spite of this effort to brand Justus as one mainly to blame for the revolutionary rising in Galilee, Josephus is yet guileless enough to confess even at the outset that Justus belonged neither to the Roman nor to the revolutionary party, but to a middle party which “pretended to be doubtful about going to war” (c. 9). And a whole series of facts prove that Justus was by no means enthusiastically in favour of war. His nearest relatives m Gainala were murdered by the revolutionary party (c. 35, 37). He himself was one of the prominent men who opposed the destruction of the palace of Herod in Tiberias (c. 12). Indeed, he was one of the councillors whom Josephus had put in prison just because they would not join in the revolution, to whom he also then declared that he did indeed know the might of the Romans, but that for the present they could do nothing else than join “the robbers,” that is, the revolutionists (c. 35. Comp. Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 8–10; Life, 32–34). Justus also left Tiberias when the revolution there was just at its height, and went over to Agrippa and the Romans (c. 65 and 70). He was therefore quite correct in his statement that Josephus was mainly chargeable with the revolutionary movement in Tiberias, and in affirming that Tiberias had been drawn into the revolt only under compulsion (c. 65). The real facts of the case are thus perfectly clear. Justus was a man of precisely the same style and tendency as Josephus. Both had taken part in the revolt, but both did so only under the pressure of circumstances. In reality neither of them wished to have anything to do with it, and so now the one seeks to throw the blame upon the other.

The work which Josephus in his Life so vehemently attacks cannot have been the same as the Chronicle described by Photius. For, according to Photius, that Chronicle was “very meagre and brief, and passed over much that was important and even necessary;” but the work referred to by Josephus evidently entered into minute details, and is simply characterized by Josephus as a History of the Jewish War. “For he was not unskilful in the learning of the Greeks, and in dependence on that skill it was that he undertook to write a history of these affairs” (Life, c. 9). “Justus, who hath himself written a history concerning these affairs.… Justus undertook to write about these facts and about the Jewish war” (c. 65). In this same chapter (Life, c. 65) Josephus speaks of his astonishment at the impudence of Justus, who claimed to be the best narrator of these occurrences; whereas he knew nothing at first hand, either of the proceedings in Galilee, or of the siege of Jotapata, or of the siege of Jerusalem. He therefore evidently treated in that work of the whole history of the war. It was not published by Justus until twenty years after it had been completed, when Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa II. were dead (Life, c. 65). It must therefore have been completed during the lifetime of Agrippa, and so, again, it must be distinguished from the Chronicle which reaches down to Agrippa’s death.—Eusebius, Jerome, and others derived their grounds of accusation against Justus from Josephus. He is charged (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 10. 8; Jerome, de viris illustr. c. 14) with having written a history of Jewish affairs in a distorted manner to suit his own personal ends, and is declared to have been convicted by Josephus of falsehood. The article in Suidas’ Lexicon on Ἰούστος is taken verbatim, from Sophronius, the Greek translator of Jerome. Probably also the notice in Stephanus Byzantinus on the name Tiberias is grounded upon Josephus.

On the Chronicle of the Jewish Kings, Photius in his Biblioth. cod. 33, remarks as follows: Ἀνεγνώσθη Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως χρονικόν, οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν. Οὗτος ἀπὸ πόλεως τῆς ἐν Γαλιλαίᾳ Τιβεριάδος ὡρμᾶτο. Ἅρχεται δε τῆς ἱστορίας ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως, καταλήγει δὲ ἕως τελευτῆς Ἀγρίππα τοῦ ἑβδόμου μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας Ἡρώδου, ὑστάτου δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίαν Βασιλεῦσιν, ὃς παρέλαβε μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, ηὐξήθη δε ἑπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ, τελευτᾷ δὲ ἔτει τερίτῳ Τραϊανοῦ, οὗ καὶ ἡ ἱστορία κατέληξεν. Ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν συντομώτατός τε καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων παρατρέχων.—From this work also are taken the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and those made by Georgius Syncellus, which undoubtedly made their way to Eusebius and Syncellus through the medium of Julius Africanus. In the preface to the second book of the Chronicle, Eusebius speaks as follows: “That Moses flourished in the times of Inachus is affirmed by such famous teachers as Clement, Africanus, Tatian from among ourselves, and by Josephus and Justus from among the Jews, each after his own fashion supporting the statement from primitive histories.” This passage from the preface of Eusebius is not only expressly quoted by Syncellus, but also made use of elsewhere in several other passages.—Eusebius further mentions Justus in his Chronicle, ad ann. Abrah. 2113, during the reign of the Emperor Nerva, as a well-known Jewish writer. In Syncellus again the same notice stands at the beginning of the account of Trajan’s reign. This also must have been the original position given to him in the Chronicle of Africanus. For undoubtedly the statement rests upon the assumption that the Chronicle of Justus reached down to the beginning of the reign of Trajan.—The notice in Scaliger, Thesaurus, ἱστοριῶν συναγωγή ad Ol. ΣΙΦ, Δ: ἐνταῦθα λήγει τὸ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως χρονικόν, rests only upon Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33.—If, then, it is rendered certain from what has been adduced that Julius Africanus made use of the Chronicle of Justus, the theory is thoroughly confirmed that certain notices about Jewish history in the Chroniclers dependent on Africanus, which are not derived from Josephus, are to be traced back to Justus. See below, § 10, note 3 and Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 246–265. Gutschmid had also previously guessed that Africanus had made use of Justus. See Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 222.

In the biography of Socrates in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5. 41, we meet with the following statement: “Justus of Tiberias tells that at his trial Plato went up to the platform and said, O men of Athens, being the youngest of those who have gone up to the platform, and that the judges cried out: Go down, go down.” It is extremely improbable that so special a notice regarding details in the history of Socrates and Plato should have had place in a brief chronicle of Jewish kings. But even a comparison of the wording of the title as given by Photius with that given by Diogenes Laertius, leads one to suppose that Justus had written other works besides the Chronicle of the Jewish Kings. The title (Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33): Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν, cannot mean: “History of the crowned kings of the Jews,” although στέμμα, usually means crown. But as στέμμα also means a genealogical table, this title is rather to be rendered: “History of the kings of the Jews enumerated in the Tables.” But what στέμματα are meant? The Chronicle of Julius Africanus consisted, it is well known, in great part of lists of kings, Greek, Oriental, and Roman. Is it not likely that the older work of Justus should have been similarly constructed? Then there would have been, only a part of the whole work known to Photius, namely, the history of the kings of the Jews designated in the στέμματα of Justus, while to Diogenes Laertius there was known another στέμμα, therefore another part of the whole work.

Compare on Justus generally, Vossius, De historicis graecis, 1838.—Fabricius, Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles, v. 61, x. 691.—Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 523.—Vaillant, De Historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere, Paris 1851.—Creuzer, Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, pp. 57–59.—Grätz, Das Lebensende des Königs Agrippa II., des Justus von Tiberias und des Flavius Josephus und die Agrippa-Münzen (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Jud. 1877, p. 337 ff.), gives an impossible explanation of the Photius passage. Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, sein Verhältniss zu den Parteien, insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II., Breslau 1877.

15. Aristo of Pella

On Aristo of Pella and his literary work we have only two independent witnesses, Eusebius and Maximus Confessor.—1. According to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iv. 6. 3, it was told in a work of Aristo of Pella, that after the conquest of Bitther and the overthrow of Barcochba, “it was enjoined by regular legal enactments of Hadrian upon the whole Jewish race, that they should on no pretext enter within the region round about Jerusalem, the emperor wishing that they should not be able, even from a distance, to look upon their native soil.” (τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα γῆς πάμπαν ἐπιβαίνειν εἴργεται, νόμου δόγματι καὶ διατάξεσιν Ἀδριανοῦ, ὡς ἂν μηδʼ ἐξ ἀπόπτου θεωροῖεν τὸ πατρῷον ἔδαφος ἐγκελευσαμένου. Ἀρίστων ὁ Πελλαῖος ἱστορεῖ.) On this passage in Eusebius is founded what is said in the Chronicon paschale, and by the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, respecting Aristo of Pella.—2. In the Scholia of Maximus Confessor on Dionysius the Areopagite, De mystica theologia, written about A.D. 630–650, we meet with the following notice: “I have also read the expression ‘seven heavens’ in the dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, which Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, says was written by St. Luke.” (Ἀνέγνων δὲ τοῦτο "ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς" καὶ ἐν τῇ συγγεγραμμένῃ Ἀρίστωνι τῷ Πελλαίῳ διαλέξει Παπίσκου καὶ Ἰάσονος, ἣν Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ἕκτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησιν ἀναγράψαι.) According to Maximus Confessor, therefore, Aristo was the author of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, which is also elsewhere quoted, but always as an anonymous work. He was already known to the heathen philosopher Celsus, as well as to Origen and Jerome. We obtain most information from the still extant preface to a Latin translation made by a certain Celsus, according to Harnack, belonging probably to the fifth century after Christ, contained in some manuscripts of the works of Cyprian. At the close of the main section, cap. 8, he names himself Celsus. According to the statement here given concerning it, Jason was the representative of the Christian view, Papiscus was the representative of Judaism. But the Christian so convincingly proves to the Jew the Messiahship of Jesus, that the latter is soon converted and baptized.

Seeing that the Dialogue, as it lay before Celsus, Origen, Jerome, and the Latin translator, was evidently anonymous, for no one is named by them as its author, it is very questionable whether the testimony of Maximus in favour of the authorship of Aristo is worthy of credit. Whence should a writer of the seventh century obtain correct information about the author of whom all earlier writers knew nothing? The guess of Maximus, however, is by no means improbable. In Tertullian’s work, adversus Judaeos, c. 13, at the beginning, we have the imperial edict forbidding the Jews to enter the environs of Jerusalem, given in terms almost literally identical with those of the passage quoted by Eusebius from Aristo (interdictum est ne in confinio ipsius regionis demoretur quis-quam Judaeorum.… post expugnationem Hierusalem prohibiti ingredi in terram vestram de longinquo eam oculis tantum videre permissum est). Since Tertullian brings this forward in an anti-Jewish controversial treatise, it is highly probable that he had extracted the notice from a similarly anti-Jewish work. But such precisely was the character of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus (comp. also Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1–2, p. 127 ff.).

If, then, on the basis of what has been adduced, it is conjectured that the notice in Eusebius is taken from the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, we cannot ascribe to Aristo a special history on the Hadrian war; and it is not probable that the other statements in Eusebius about the Hadrian war are drawn from Aristo, who rather makes only passing reference to that one edict.—As to the date of Aristo, he may be put down somewhere about the middle of the second century.

In the Chronicon paschale, on the year A.D. 134, the remark is made: “In this year Apelles and Aristo, whom (ὧν) Eusebius Pamphilus mentions in his Ecclesiastical History, presents (ἐπιδίδωσιν) the draft of an apology concerning our religion to the Emperor Hadrian.” Since the author refers expressly to Eusebius, his testimony has no independent value. The singular ἐπιδίδωσιν makes it probable that he wrote ὁ Πελλαῖος Ἀρίστων, out of which Ἀπελλῆς καὶ Ἀρίστων arose through corruption of the text.—At any rate, the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, derived his information from Eusebius. He indeed states that Aristo reports the death of King Artases, a contemporary of Hadrian; but then in his history of Barcochba he closely follows Eusebius. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. 101 ff. Langlois, Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie, t. i. [= Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. v. 2] p. 391 sqq. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1–2, p. 126.

The Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus was probably largely used in the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili christiani, published by Martène in his Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, vol. v., Paris 1717, and again rescued from oblivion by Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. i. div. 3, 1883, especially pp. 115–130.

On Aristo generally, compare Fabricius, Biblioth graec., ed. Harles, vii. 156 ff.—Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, ii. 127–133.—Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, i. 91–109.—Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, Edin. 1846, vol. i. 156.—Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, London 1877, vol. i. pp. 160, 161.—Pauly’sReal-Encyclop. i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1597.—Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 328.—Corpus apologetarum, ed. Otto, t. ix. 1872, pp. 349–363.—Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, 1882.—Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, vol. iii. 1884, p. 74.

16. Papyrus Parisiensis, n. 68

Among the Greek Papyrus texts of the Louvre at Paris we meet with certain fragments which refer to the revolt of the Jews in Alexandria during the time of the Roman Empire. The texts, however, are so fragmentary that it is quite impossible to determine with any exactness the date of the revolt referred to. Were they more complete, they would have afforded us invaluable historical information. For they had contained, as we can make out beyond question, among other things, one or two rescripts of the emperor addressed to the Jews of Alexandria with reference to the outbreak, as well as a letter addressed to the emperor by a man who had been already under sentence of death, and now, face to face with death, “will not shrink from telling the truth.”

The fragments are published as Papyrus Paris. n. 68, by Brunet de Presle, in Notices et extraits des Manuscrits … publiés par l’Institut de France, vol. xviii. part 2, Paris 1865, pp. 383–390. See also Atlas attached thereto, sheet xlv.

17. Teucer Cyzicenus

Suidas in his Lexicon, under the name Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνός, says that he wrote: “On the Gold-yielding Earth; on Byzantium; on the Mithridate war, in five books; on Tyre, in five books; on the Arabians, in five books; on Jewish History, in six books, and various other works.” (Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς, ὁ γράψας Περὶ χρυσοφόρου γῆς, Περὶ τοῦ Βυζαντίου, Μιθριδατικῶν πράξεων βιβλία εʹ, Περὶ Τύρου εʹ, Ἀραβικῶν εʹ, Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν βιβλίοις ςʹ, Ἐφήβων τῶν ἐν Κυζίκῳ ἄσκησιν γʹ καὶ τὰ λοιπά.) Of this Teucer Cyzicenus there are only two small fragments now extant, which discuss the etymology of the names of two places in Epirus and Euboea. Otherwise nothing whatever is known of him. Whether he is identical with some other writers of the name of Teucer who have been occasionally mentioned, must continue undetermined. Comp. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, iv. 508.

18. Various Works Ἰουδαίων

Special treatises on the history of the Jews were also written by the Jewish Hellenists, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Aristeas, Cleodemus-Malchus, and the classical Philo. But these can scarcely come under consideration here, since they mainly, if not exclusively, treat of the earlier periods of the history (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 200–210). The book of the pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews seems to have dealt in more detail than those just named with the condition of the people in his own days (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 302–306).—The five books of Philo on the persecution of the Jews under Tiberius and Caligula would have been an important document for the history of his times, which ought to be mentioned here, because the work is no longer extant (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 350–354).

Pagan authors, even from very early times, made passing allusions to the Jews. A collection of these may be found in Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, pp. 177–179, and in Josephus, Treatise, against Apion, i. 14–23. But from the beginning of the first century before Christ special works on the Jews by non-Jewish authors came to be written. 1. The oldest non-Jewish history of the Jews known to us is the συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων of Apollonius Molon (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 251–254).—2. Not much later is the learned compilation of Alexander Polyhistor, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, to which we are indebted for valuable excerpts from the writings of Jewish Hellenists (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 197–200).—3. In the age of Hadrian lived Philo Byblius, also called Herennius Philo, who, besides other works, wrote a treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. In it, according to the statement of Origen, he referred to the book of the pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews, and in regard to it expressed the opinion that either the book was not the work of the historian Hecateus, or that if Hecateus were indeed the author, he must have out and out accepted the Jewish doctrine (Origen, contra Celsum, i. 15; see the passage referred to in Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 304). Two fragments in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. i. 10, are avowedly taken from the same treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. The contents of those fragments, however, refer expressly to the Phoenician mythology, and the second of them is quoted by Eusebius in another place (Praeparatio evangel. iv. 16) with the formula, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου συγγράμματος τῆς Φίλωνος Φοινικικῆς ἱστορίας. It was therefore generally assumed that the treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was simply an excursus to the large work of Philo, Φοινικικὴ ἱστορία. So, e.g., Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. 34. But, when we consider the contents of the Eusebian fragments, this is not probable. It would rather seem that Eusebius, i. 10, inadvertently ascribed the passages taken by him from the Phoenician history to the treatise περὶ Ἰουδαίων, with which, too, he was acquainted. Comp. on Philo generally, Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 560–576. Baudissin, in art. “Sanchuniathon,” in Herzog, xiii. 364.—4. A treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was also written by a certain Damocritus. From the brief statement regarding it in Suidas, under the name Δαμόκριτος (comp. also Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iv. 377), this only seems clear, that its standpoint was one of deadly enmity to the Jews.—5. The same may be said of the work of a certain Nicarchus, περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Bekker, Anecdota, p. 380=Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 335).—6. As a writer on Jewish affairs, Alexander Polyhistor also mentions one Theophilus (Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. ix. 34), one Timochares, ἐν τοῖς περὶ Ἀντιόχου (Eusebius, ix. 35), and an anonymous Συρίας σχοινομέτρησις (Eusebius, ix. 36). But all the three had evidently spoken of Jewish matters only in passing. Theophilus treated of Solomon’s relation to the king of Tyre; the other two gave interesting details about the topography of Jerusalem. Comp. on all the three: Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 209; also on Theophilus, Müller, iv. 515 ff.

19. The Chronographers

For a detailed account of the plundering of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, Josephus refers, in his Treatise against Apion, ii. 7, among others to the chronographers Apollodorus and Castor. To Castor he also refers in order to determine the date of the battle of Gaza (Treatise against Apion, i. 22). Since it is possible that he also elsewhere derived various chronological information for these treatises, it is most important that we should here examine carefully the notices that we have regarding these two.

1. Apollodorus of Athens lived about the middle of the second century before Christ, and besides other works wrote the Χρονικά, which treated in chronological order of the most important events in universal history down to the time of King Attalus II. of Pergamum, in the middle of the second century before Christ.

A collection of the fragments of this historical work, which is not to be confounded with the extant Βιβλιοθήκη under Apollodorus’ name, is to be found in Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, i. 435–439. Compare also Müller, l.c. p. 43; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1302 f.

2. Castor’s Chronicle is known to us mainly through the quotations in the works of the Christian chroniclers Eusebius and Syncellus. The first book of the Eusebian Chronicle, extant now only in an Armenian translation, gives us particularly valuable extracts. What is therein contained makes it certain that the work of Castor was carried down to the consulship of M. Valerius Messala and M. Piso, B.C. 61; that is, down to the year in which Pompey celebrated his Asiatic triumph, by which the subjection of Further Asia was finally settled (nostrae regionis res praeclaraque gesta cessarunt). Since the author concludes at that particular point of time, his work cannot have been written much later than the middle of the first century before Christ. It consisted, according to Eusebius, of six books.—We meet with many individuals bearing the name of Castor during the time of Caesar and Cicero. But it is doubtful whether the chronographer is to be identified with any of these, and so nothing can with certainty be determined as to the circumstances of his life.

The fragments are collected by Müller in the Appendix to the edition of Herodotus, Paris 1844, Appendix, pp. 153–181.—Eusebius mentions the work in the list of his authorities in the following terms: “The six books of Castor, in which he collects materials for history from the ninth to the one hundred and eighty-first Olympiad.”—The termination of the work is precisely stated in passages expressly quoted by Eusebius. “We set down in order the consuls, beginning with Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and ending with Marcus Valerius Messala and Marcus Piso, who were consuls in the times of Theophemus, archon of Athens” (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 295).—“The archous of Athens end with Theophemus, in whose days the famous deeds and the renown of our land were brought utterly to an end” (Euseb. Chron. i. 183).

Compare generally, Müller, Herodotus, Paris 1844, Appendix, pp. 153–155.—Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 207 f.—Bornemann, De Castoris Diodori Siculi chronicis fonte ac norma, Lübeck 1878.—Stiller, De Castoris libris chronicis, Berlin 1880.—Gelzer, Julius Africanus, ii. 1, 1885, pp. 63–79; on the person of Castor, p. 70 ff.