Abstract
For many years, the fragmentary writings by Artapanus, Demetrius, and Philo the poet were insufficiently acknowledged for their profoundly illuminative content on Jewish thinking and acculturation. These fragments shed light on the perspectives of Egyptian-Jewish writers who sought not only to preserve their distinct Jewish roots but also to forge a connection with the intellectual and cultural milieu of Egypt. Central to this endeavor, yet hitherto somewhat insufficiently recognized in scholarly discussions, is the figure of the biblical Joseph, who conspicuously serves as an intermediary between these two objectives. As Jews deeply embedded within their adopted Egyptian culture, these authors endeavor in the extant fragments to provide a distinct perspective on the process of Jewish acculturation to foreign Egypt. Furthermore, they offer unparalleled insights into the reception of the figure of Joseph and his narrative in the third and second century BCE.
The famous story of Joseph and his brothers in Gen 37–50 has received much attention in recent years.1 Yet, the lively reception history from Genesis on all the way to the New Testament and beyond has been somewhat neglected. This comes as a surprise, as the figure of Joseph over time became a role model for Jewish life in Egyptian diaspora contexts. Joseph’s story was received in major Second Temple writings like Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and, of course, Philo and Josephus.2 In addition, certain small, but intriguing references to the figure of Joseph can be found within fragments relayed indirectly in Eusebius’s Praeparatio evangelica. Eusebius, in turn, cites the summaries of Alexander Polyhistor, who, presumably with significant brevity, aimed to distill the extensive writings of his sources to a singular essence, adapting them for his own intellectual objectives.3 Consequently, one is presented with fragments of an otherwise unknown writer which demand interpretation without their original (or any additional) context, having already undergone at least two editorial revisions (Polyhistor, Eusebius). Yet, each of these fragments offers a distinct perspective from the late third and early second century BCE on the reception of Joseph. Therefore, I shall undertake a comprehensive examination of these fragments, specifically focusing on the character of Joseph, and their implications for the shaping of Diaspora Jewish identity in Egypt.4
1 Artapanus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.23.1–4)
Artapanus, known exclusively through the accounts of Alexander Polyhistor, remains elusive regarding precise categorization. Given the frequent references to the country in his fragments, it is reasonable to situate his milieu within Egypt.5 The consensus perceives him as a deeply acculturated6 Jew7 who, while possibly harboring apologetic intentions, predominantly sought to highlight the distinctiveness of Hebrew-Jewish heroes—Abraham, Joseph, and Moses—in relation to the Egyptian territory and its inhabitants. This perhaps served as a counter-narrative to the prevalent exaggeration or negative portrayal of these pivotal figures.8 The genre of his extant fragments remains, like many facets of his work, elusive.9 Nonetheless, Artapanus might be appropriately characterized as “an imaginative raconteur with a deft touch, who liberally modified Scripture and transposed Gentile traditions to foreground Jewish figures.”10 This characterization is palpably evident in his interpretation of Joseph. Thus, among those cited by Eusebius, Artapanus occupies a unique position, oscillating between an independent literary figure and a transposer of Jewish history into the Egyptian milieu. This is especially noteworthy, as he presumably composed his treatise
Despite the manifestly fragmentary nature of Artapanus’s writings, fragment 2 introduces Joseph congruently with the Genesis narrative, presenting him as a descendant of Abraham and the son of Jacob.13 This connects fragment 2 with fragment 1, where Abraham is briefly depicted. Specifically concerning Egyptian matters and the Egyptian territory, Abraham is depicted as the individual who, during his twenty-year sojourn in Egypt, tells the Egyptian king Pharethothes14 about astrology (who has heard about astrology for the first time, it seems15). Diverging from the Genesis account, the famine prompting Abraham’s escape is omitted, as is the inappropriate misrepresentation of Sarah’s status.16 Here, Artapanus markedly deviates from the biblical account: Abraham arrives—seemingly of his own volition—without any baggage and assumes the role of instructor to the Egyptians.17 Given the amenable conditions of the land, many who accompanied him opted for a prolonged stay in Egypt. Among them was probably not Jacob, who is mentioned again while still in Syria. Among Jacob’s sons, Joseph appears to be particularly prominent:
After introducing the two main points, they are closely linked to the country of Egypt and applied to the conditions there. Again, Joseph is the main agent, as indicated by the semantic activum
Consistently, Joseph marries an Egyptian woman, Aseneth. While she is the daughter of the non-Jewish priest of Heliopolis (as in the LXX), this fact is not problematized, consistent with Genesis and later interpretations of Gen 41:45.29 Later, his brothers and father join him, bringing many assets (
The narrative concludes, after a brief summary about Joseph’s agricultural policy in parallel to Genesis, with Joseph’s death. His demise is closely linked with the death of the king of Egypt. This is consistent with the last piece of information about Joseph in the fragment:
Artapanus emphasizes the harmony and integration of Joseph, as a descendant of Abraham and Jacob, with Egypt and its people. He devotes less space to Joseph’s background in Syria and more on the blessing Joseph brings to Egypt. Egypt benefits from him as an inventor, a wise manager, and an astute leader. He brings abundant blessings, both through his knowledge and the wealth of his family. In doing so, he himself becomes an Egyptian. Along with his family, he transcends ethnic, behavioral, and cultural boundaries to the Egyptians’ benefit. As an honorable and powerful
Artapanus’s agenda is thus found in his apologetic approach: with great openness to theological and ethical compromises, even if they include non-biblical narrative elements, the Egyptians owe a great deal to the Syrians. Just as they once deeply loved Joseph, they are now encouraged to love his descendants. In his narration, Artapanus offers a remarkably independent story that converges with the well-known tale only at a few points. In some places, especially in the third fragment and its hyperbolic portrayal of Moses, the narrative is so free, forming a “cultural synthesis,”35 that it can stand alone among the diaspora writings preserved. Bowley rightly emphasizes, “Artapanus presents these heroes in unique and colorful ways.”36 Behind this seems to be something more than zealous apologetics More likely, Artapanus’s cultural and theological views are representative of “a large segment of Diaspora Jews who did not find pagan traditions threatening or compromising to fidelity to their religious traditions.”37 We might simply no longer know much about this kind of Jewish belief. Thus, in this respect, Artapanus remains the sole witness to “the possibility of being both a proud Egyptian and a self-conscious Jew.”38
2 Demetrius, the Chronographer (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.21.1–18)
In Demetrius’s work, one encounters some of the oldest Greek testimonies to ancient Jewish receptions of Joseph.39 Predominantly, the fragments we have of his work40 are dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator, placing them proximately in both time and location to the completion of the Pentateuch-LXX.41 His viewpoint contrasts starkly with that of Artapanus. From the fragments, no signs of Artapanus’s strong acculturation can be deduced, nor are there any evident reinterpretations. Recently, Dhont demonstrated that Demetrius was indeed proficient in Greek, potentially qualifying him formally as a historian.42 However, whether this assertion stands robust, especially considering the transmission (and alterations) by Alexander Polyhistor and by Eusebius, remains questionable to me. Distinctively, an educational intent is discernible from the fragments, answering chronological and content-based questions in a Hellenistic style of
In keeping with his historiographic-chronological expositions, Demetrius primarily investigates Joseph concerning datable life events. Even though we have already noticed the inherent chronology of the Joseph narrative to be somewhat deficient, Demetrius begins with the seventeen-year-old Joseph from Gen 37:2. Drawing from the age reference of thirty years in Gen 41:46, he calculates a thirteen-year interval (frag. 2:11) that Joseph supposedly spent entirely in prison. How the extensive accounts from Gen 37:12–36, 39:1–20 fit chronologically remains unaddressed. Of more significance to him is explaining the 430 years in Canaan and Egypt promised in Exod 12:40 (Proto-MT posits these 430 years solely in Egypt). Under the tight premise that “chronology and genealogy were complementary,”46 Demetrius ardently attempts to validate this exact duration. Consequently, fragment 2:11 is deeply engaged in arranging the lifespans of the patriarchs accordingly.47 In this framework, Joseph is just one of the many genealogically significant figures.
In addition to the times in Canaan and prison, Demetrius recounts the episode of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams and Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth. Notably, he mentions her pagan-priestly lineage and the birth of their children. All these events, especially the marriage, are retold from Gen 41:45. Accordingly, there is no critique.48 Unlike the prominent narrative in Joseph and Aseneth, Demetrius sees no issue in Joseph marrying a non-Jewish woman—at least not in the text available to us. Perhaps, the issue Joseph and Aseneth addresses simply did not exist in Demetrius’s time, place, and milieu.
In the chronological recapitulation that fragment 2 rigorously deals with, a question is addressed that has also spurred academic discussion:49 why didn’t Joseph, after his rise to power, immediately send for his father to bring him (and his family) to Egypt?50 This question is explicitly tackled by Demetrius in fragment 2:13, a unique approach among ancient Jewish texts. His explanation hinges on the occupation of the father, and thus the entire family. Jacob was a shepherd (
The next conundrum is introduced by
Demetrius’s reflections undeniably highlight real logical, chronological, and moral inconsistencies in the biblical text. Concerning Joseph, Demetrius strives for credibility and consistency in the scriptures foundational for the Jewish diaspora’s existence. Utilizing the instructive style of problem and solution, as observed in the fragments on Joseph, Demetrius likely addresses questions from his academic circle or community. Whether these solutions are satisfactory remains uncertain. However, as we have noted, they are scarcely utilizable for apologetics.57
Nevertheless, Demetrius provides noteworthy insights in several respects. His account serves as a testament to the early utilization of the LXX-Genesis.58 Simultaneously, his handling of the issues showcases an exegetical practice that, while not altering the text, transcends it. He perceives symbolism in numbers, augments the text with elucidative details, and discerns a deeper meaning behind seemingly plain narratives, like the Joseph novella. In this sense, Demetrius can be seen as the pioneer of Alexandrian hermeneutics, undoubtedly preceding the similarly intricate yet more elaborate exegesis of Philo of Alexandria.59 He embodies a diaspora Jewish, Greek-speaking interest in historiographical questions, which elevate the Genesis narrative as foundational mythos while conveying intellectual integrity. This can be interpreted as “an attempt to shape the self-understanding of the Jewish community,”60 which generally sought to trace its origins far back in history to establish primacy and authoritative interpretation.61 This was particularly necessary given the challenges of Hellenism.62 By structuring Jewish history and demonstrating its logical (?) consistency, Demetrius facilitated a self-perception between some sort of Jewish thought and acculturation to a new cultural milieu. In what way and to what extent this acculturation became a reality, of course, remains unclear. However, it would be presumptive to claim that Demetrius addresses the marriage of Moses and Zipporah in fragment 3 to affirm Moses’s adherence to the law.63 The opposite seems true. Once again, Demetrius’s query pertains to plausibility within Alexandrian hermeneutics, which he substantiates through chronological considerations.64 Were the question about exogamous sexuality and marriage pertinent, Demetrius would need to address the union of Joseph and Aseneth, which he pointedly does not. As in Artapanus, such concerns, it appears, were not (yet?) deemed significant.
3 Philo, the (Epic) Poet (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.24.1)
Our last fragment is also preserved only through the collection of Alexander Polyhistor, and his citation in Eusebius’s Praep. ev. 9.24.1. In total, six fragments have survived,65 written by an otherwise unknown Philo, who is neither identical with the well-known Philo of Alexandria (because Alexander Polyhistor compiled his work based on sources much earlier than Philo’s) nor with Philo the Elder, as the linguistic style differs significantly.66 As the geographically-polis-oriented title of his work
In the few verses about Joseph, Philo deals with the history of the patriarchs, which he conceives as preparation for the ultimate goal, the blessed place (
What is more important is that the emphasis of Joseph’s description lies in the explanatory postscript of fragment 3:6, where dream interpretation is explicitly detailed in parallelism. The translation is: “by76 turning [i.e., revealing] the mysteries of time in the flood of fate.” In this, Philo understands dream interpretation within the mindset of Hellenistic conceptions of fate. From Philo’s perspective, Joseph’s correct dream interpretations reveal things hidden in fate, things that in a linear concept of time would have happened later. Given the pompous language of the fragment, the quite commonplace Hellenistic talk of
Overall, the brief reference to Joseph in Philo’s work is not revolutionary. However, it provides insight into the assimilative tendencies of an ancient Jewish author who fit well into the Alexandria of the third to second century BCE.81 A clear apologetics like in Artapanus or a doctrinal record like in Demetrius are not evident, nor is there an “attempt to glorify tradition,”82 as the fragments simply provide too scanty a source for such far-reaching interpretations. Therefore, caution is also advised in placing Joseph particularly in the spotlight.83 We simply do not know to what extent the context of Philo’s work also took into account the other patriarchs. But the fact that Joseph, the otherwise neglected main character of Genesis, appears among the book’s forefathers, as already with Artapanus and Demetrius, is noteworthy.
4 Conclusion
With Artapanus on one side and Demetrius on the other, we may have before us the entire spectrum of diaspora Jewish, Egypto-centric interpretations of Joseph from the late third or early second century BCE. All these authors utilize different forms to locate and solidify their own history, while at the same time keeping an eye on adapting to new circumstances. Through various linguistic forms, from Artapanus and Demetrius to the epic poet Philo, the figure of Joseph took on a significant role for diaspora Jewish life and thought. Of course, all three works and sections fulfil their own roles and cannot simply be compared. Nevertheless, it is striking how strongly all three authors show the Homeric influence dominant in Alexandria within their hermeneutics.84 The author’s writings can be compared primarily due to the fact that Joseph occupies an important position for the few fragments that still exist. He is both a role model and an individual with his own story of coming from Syria to Egypt and building a life there. Through references back to the biblical story of Joseph, his actions are located in the world of Jewish thought, but Artapanus in particular includes countless independent elements that emphasize the importance of Jewish existence for the Egyptians and thus open up a channel of dialogue at eye level (or even with a hint of superiority). This autonomy in simultaneous connection to the tradition of the Hebrew Bible may provide an exemplary insight into the process of acculturation of Jewish life in Egypt, without, of course, generalizing it. The character of Joseph within these writings is the portrayal of one possible, nonetheless important, way to preserve some Jewish customs and ideas, while at the same time being as open as possible to other influences, thus facilitating life in the diaspora by following their respective interpretations of Joseph as a biblical model.
I would like to thank my anonymous reviewers who have devoted considerable time and energy to improving this paper in a number of ways. For recent literature on the study of Joseph and the Joseph story see Rabel, “Developing.”
On some scattered works of the reception of Joseph in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism, see Brongers, Jozefsgeschiedenis; Docherty, “Joseph”; Emadi, Prisoner, 101–120; Goldberg, “Joseph”; Hilscher, “biblische Joseph”; Jovanovic, Joseph; Kugel, House; Lisewski, Studien, 39–76; Niehoff, Figure, 54–110; Frey and Rabel, “Joseph” (forthcoming); Feldman, “Portrait I”; Feldman, “Portrait II”; Oertelt, Herrscherideal; cf. Gruen, Heritage, 74: “Genesis … supplies an intricate tale, a multifaceted personality, and rich material to be exploited by Hellenistic Jews.”
See the still fundamental study by Freudenthal: Alexander.
So far there have only been minor, incidental investigations into the figure of Joseph in these sources. See Gruen, “Twisted,” who nevertheless states: “Two of the fragments, those on Abraham and Joseph, are too brief for extended comment” (437). See also some comments in Zellentin, “End,” 27, 30, 61–62, 66–71. See especially some helpful remarks in Holladay, “Acts,” 38–43.
Refer, e.g., to Holladay, Historians, 190: “Egyptian provenance is virtually certain”; also, Collins, “Artapanus,” 891. For other discussed possibilities, consult Oertelt, Herrscherideal, 50 n. 63.
Some also refer to Artapanus’s views as “syncretism.” Especially noted are the links between biblical heroes and Egyptian and Greek figures, see Barclay, Jews, 127–132. But the question must be asked: “syncretism” with regard to which form of normative Judaism? Furthermore, he is often labelled “both a monotheist and a polytheist,” cf. Barclay, Jews, 132; also, Kugler, “Hearing.” It should be mentioned here that almost all inferences regarding Artapanus, his situation, and his concerns relate to the third and longest fragment. As we will see, the brief comment in fragment 2 about Joseph is also significant in this context. Indeed, for a definitive judgment on possible “syncretistic” elements in the fragments of Artapanus, more material and a normative reference would be required, hence discussing strong acculturation into Egyptian thought patterns would be more apt.
The prevailing consensus on Jewish identity is contradicted exclusively by Jacobson, “Artapanus,” who heavily relies on the fragmentary evidence which has, admittedly, passed through at least two hands, to decisively argue against a Jewish authorship. Whether this is inherently evident given the limited source material is, in my estimation, less clear-cut. A rejection of Jacobson’s arguments can be found in Collins, “Revisited,” 59–62.
The writings of Manetho and his portrayal of Moses seem to be particularly referenced. See, e.g., Collins, “Artapanus,” 892; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 39–41; Walter, Historiker, 125 n. 20; Holladay, Historians, 195 n. 10. Whether there exists a connection beyond thematic proximity appears debatable to me. Concerning the apologetic-historiographical writings of Berossos and Manetho, cf. Sterling, Historiography, 103–136, among which Artapanus’s fragments can also be classified.
Gruen, “Twisted,” 437.
Gruen, “Artapanus,” 676.
The secondary citation by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.23.154.2) titled
The terminus a quo is marked by the LXX translation for Genesis, approximately situated in the mid-third century. Except for recent (noteworthy!) arguments from Hitchcock (“Septuagint”) this position has remained largely uncontested, following the influential early study of Freudenthal: Alexander, 143–174. See also, e.g., Zellentin, “End,” 32–33. The terminus ad quem coincides with the time Polyhistor penned his work, conclusively before his sudden demise in 35 BCE, cf. Sterling, Historiography, 168; Gruen, “Artapanus,” 676. Collins, “Artapanus,” 891; Collins (Athens and Jerusalem, 38) originally argued for a dating in the late third century, though later revised this position (cf. Collins, “Revisited,” 62), aligning more closely with Holladay, Historians, 190, dating the fragments during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor. Zellentin (“End,” 52–63) proposes a notably specific date range between 118 and 116 BCE, considering an apparent reference to the Ptolemaic decree of 118 BCE. Collins (“Revisited,” 62–63) dismisses this link, deeming it possible but restrictively precise.
The foundation of my remarks is the critical edition by Holladay: Historians, 204–225.
The translations presented by Gruen (“Artapanus,” 677) and Collins (“Artapanus,” 897) appear imprecise. The text claims that Egypt learned of astrology through Abraham, which is accentuated by the otherwise pleonastic specification
Concerning the figure of Sarah and her transformations in ancient Jewish receptions, consult McDonald, Searching.
Cf. Gruen, “Artapanus,” 677: “These writers plainly endeavor to transform Abraham into a bringer of culture who transmits learning to Near Eastern peoples on a broad front beyond the framework of the biblical traditions.”
“He excelled all the other sons of Jacob in wisdom and understanding.” All English translations derive from DiTommaso, “Demetrius.”
Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie, Greek, s.v.
Bertram, “
Cf. Rabel, “Softening a Malicious Report”; Rabel, “Developing.”
While translating
“For the kings of the Arabs, being the sons of Abraham and brothers of Isaac, are descendants of Israel.”
There is no imperative to dismiss the possibility of a scribal error, as moving both “sons” and “brothers” to the singular would then be necessitated, as posited by Collins, “Artapanus,” 897. The matter pertains to the sheer logic of descent, whereby the collective of Arabs would have become sons and brothers. The argument for the interchange of letters was first advanced by Freudenthal, Alexander, 232.
As suggested by Walter, Historiker, 127 nII 1a.
Regarding the translation of Gruen, “Artapanus,” 678, of
See Niehoff, Figure, 49: “In this way, Joseph becomes the founder of the Egypt’s social and economic structure.” Refer also to Gruen, Heritage, 87–89.
Gruen, “Artapanus,” 678.
With the well-known exception of Joseph and Aseneth which at least partly is a novelistic treatise to resolve questions of intermarriage.
Gruen, “Artapanus,” 678.
This is likely a creative formation by Artapanus from
Zellentin, “End,” 67 n. 82.
Cf. Gruen, “Artapanus,” 678.
Gruen, “Artapanus”; also, Walter, Historiker, 128 nII 4c.
Barclay, Jews, 132.
Bowley, “Artapanus,” 387.
Holladay, Historians, 193.
Barclay, Jews, 132.
Hanson, “Demetrius,” 844; Walter, “Fragmente,” 282: “der älteste datierbare jüdisch-alexandrinische Autor.” On Demetrius’s reception of Joseph see some remarks in DiTommaso, “Note.”
The foundation of my remarks is the critical edition by Holladay, Historians, 62–79.
Representing the majority view are, e.g., DiTommaso, “Demetrius,” 669; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 33. Clancy (“Demetrius”) stands alone in proposing a composition date of 141 BCE. However, this is at best a possibility, which in my estimation is scarcely supported by the drawn parallels.
Dhont, “Greek.” Regarding the way he works and argues in a “historical” manner see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis.
Among others, Walter (“Fragmente,” 281) categorizes Artapanus among historians and Demetrius among exegetes. See also Holladay, Historians, 51. A compilation of various classifications can be found in Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 33. A solution that, in my perspective, is apt is proposed by Sterling (Historiography, 166) who describes Demetrius as an “exegetical chronographer.” On the issue of Alexandrian hermeneutics and Jewish authors see again Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis.
Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 34; Sterling, Historiography, 162.
See, e.g., Rabel, “Developing.”
DiTommaso, “Demetrius,” 671.
This is only feasible through a mathematical sleight of hand, as demonstrated by DiTommaso, “Demetrius,” 670–671.
Likewise missing is Joseph’s new name, which already varies between the Proto-MT and LXX and holds no significance in subsequent chapters of the Joseph story in Gen 42–50.
Cf., e.g., Ages, “Why Didn’t Joseph.”
For rabbinic perspectives addressing these and subsequent questions surrounding Joseph in Demetrius, with relevant parallels, see Ron, “Exegesis.” However, they do not clarify Demetrius’s stance on these matters.
DiTommaso, “Demetrius,” 671. Demetrius’s way of arguing could also indicate the value he places on a (possible) text from Genesis that he has in front of him, which he assumes is accessible to his readers and which he assumes transcribes Joseph’s own thinking. This, of course, remains highly speculative. On traces of text criticism in Alexandria see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 112–129.
More recent studies, such as Oertelt, Herrscherideal, 48, seem to consider Demetrius’s explanation as sufficient, even though it does not actually resolve the raised question. On the question whether historically, shepherding was disgraceful to some Egyptians, as well as eating with shepherds or farmers (Gen 43:32), see Rabel, “Vereintes.”
Cf. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis.
Hanson, “Demetrius,” 851.
The manuscripts read
On the pragmatics of the meal scene in Gen 43:31–34 see Rabel, “Missing.”
While it might be accurate to assert broadly across the fragments that “the credibility of the biblical record had to be established in the face of the growing critical awareness of the Hellenistic Jews themselves,” as suggested by Collins (Athens and Jerusalem, 35) the logical frailty of Demetrius’s arguments concerning Joseph is all the more remarkable.
See already in Freudenthal, Alexander, 40–41; later also in Walter, “Fragmente,” 281; Holladay, Historians, 52, and others.
Holladay, 53–54; Hanson, “Demetrius,” 845, lean towards this interpretation.
Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 35.
Cf. Sterling, Historiography, 163–164.
Sterling, 166.
As posited by Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 34.
On this see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 38–57.
The enumeration of fragments in various textual editions differs. In this work, I adhere to a method of counting by fragment and verse, wherein the Joseph torso is designated as fragment 3. This is in line with Attridge, “Philo OTP,” 783; Attridge, “Philo OTB,” 728; Holladay, Poets, 238–239. The foundational text follows Holladay, Poets, 234–245, which, with minor deviations and an independent textual-critical apparatus, is adopted by Kuhn-Treichel, Epiker, 22–27.
The most persuasive defense asserting that Philo the Elder and Philo the Epic Poet are two distinct authors remains that of Walter, “Epik,” 139–140. The majority of exegetes posit that this Philo already had access to the LXX version of Genesis. This was recently challenged (unconvincingly) solely by Kuhn-Treichel, Epiker, 38–49.
“Concerning Jerusalem,” see frag. 1:1, 3:1, 4:1.
Concerning style, refer to Kuhn-Treichel, Epiker, 62–72.
Attridge, “Philo OTB,” 726.
The most apparent interpretation would be that frags. 4–6 and the probable title of the work attest to a clear connection to Jerusalem. Alternatively, the term
Collins, “Philo,” 1080: “In Philo’s case, many passages are ambiguous and barely intelligible.”
Walter, “Epik,” 150: “[Joseph], der als der Träume Künder Herrscher auf Ägyptens Thronen (wurde).”
Holladay, Poets, 239; Kuhn-Treichel, Epiker, 27.
Attridge, “Philo OTP,” 784; “Philo OTB,” 728.
For more insights, consult Montanari, Brill Dictionary, s.v.
Certainly, one could also consider the causal resolution of the participle conjunction, as suggested by Walter, “Epik,” 150. Yet, by adopting a modal resolution, the explicative function of Joseph’s dream interpretation in frag. 3:6 becomes even more pronounced.
Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 55.
Attridge, “Philo OTB,” 726.
Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 57, seems to lean in this direction.
Collins, Athens and Jerusalem; see also Attridge, “Philo OTP,” 781.
This perspective is consistent with the prevailing scholarly consensus. See, e.g., Attridge, “Philo OTP,” 781; Holladay, Poets, 208–210; Attridge, “Philo OTB,” 726; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 57; Walter, “Epik,” 143–146.
Collins, 54.
Attridge, “Philo OTP,” 781 alludes to this. However, the emphasis on Joseph is omitted in Attridge, “Philo OTB,” 726.
On this see above and Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis.
Bibliography
Ages, Arnold. “Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” Bible Review 9 (1993), 42–46.
Attridge, Harold W. “Philo the Epic Poet.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 781–784.
Attridge, Harold W. “Philo, the Epic Poet.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:726–729.
Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323BCE–117CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).
Bertram, Georg. “φρήν κτλ.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. 10 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974), 9:220–235.
Bowley, James E. “Artapanus.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 386–387.
Brongers, Hendrik A. De Jozefsgeschiedenis bij joden, christenen en mohammedanen (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1962).
Clancy, Frank. “Demetrius the Chronographer and 141BCE.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (2005), 143–145.
Collins, John J. “Artapanus.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 889–904.
Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
Collins, John J. “Artapanus Revisited.” In From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition. A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Patricia Walters (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 59–68.
Collins, John J. “Philo the Epic Poet.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1080.
Dhont, Marieke. “Greek Education and Cultural Identity in Greek-Speaking Judaism: The Jewish Greek Historiographers.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 29 (2020), 217–228.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “A Note on Demetrius the Chronographer, Fr 2.11 (= Eusebius, “PrEv” 9.21.11).” Journal for the Study of Judaism 29 (1998), 81–91.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:669–672.
Docherty, Susan. “Joseph the Patriarch: Representations of Joseph in Early-Post-Biblical Literature.” In Borders, Boundaries and the Bible, ed. Martin O’Kane (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 194–216.
Emadi, Samuel. From Prisoner to Prince: The Joseph Story in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022).
Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Joseph.” Revue Biblique 99 (1992), 379–417.
Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Joseph (Continuation).” Revue Biblique 99 (1992), 504–528.
Freudenthal, Jakob. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau: Skutsch, 1875).
Frey, Jörg, and Magnus Rabel. “Joseph: An (Almost) Overlooked Migration Character.” In Characters in Mind, ed. Tobias Nicklas and Jan Rüggemeier (Bonn: Bonn University Press, forthcoming 2025).
Goldberg, Abraham M. “Joseph in der Sicht des Judentums der Antike.” Bibel und Kirche 21 (1966), 11–15.
Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
Gruen, Erich S. “Artapanus.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:675–685.
Gruen, Erich S. “The Twisted Tales of Artapanus: Biblical Rewritings as Novelistic Narrative.” In Gruen, The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism: Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 437–450.
Hanson, John S. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 843–854.
Hilscher, Eberhard. “Der biblische Joseph in orientalischen Literaturwerken.” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Orientalische Forschung 4 (1956), 81–108.
Hitchcock, Jason D. “Did Artapanus Use the Septuagint?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 51 (2020), 1–18.
Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1 Historians (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).
Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 2 Poets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
Holladay, Carl R. “Acts and Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors.” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011), 22–51.
Jacobson, Howard. “Artapanus Judaeus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006), 210–221.
Jovanovic, Ljubica O. The Joseph of Genesis as Hellenistic Scientist (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013).
Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper, 1990).
Kugler, Robert A. “Hearing the Story of Moses in Ptolemaic Egypt: Artapanus Accommodates the Tradition.” In The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. Anton Hilhorst and Geurt H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 67–80.
Kuhn-Treichel, Thomas. Die jüdisch-hellenistischen Epiker Theodot und Philon: Literarische Untersuchungen, kritische Edition und Übersetzung der Fragmente (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
Lisewski, Krzysztof D. Studien zu Motiven und Themen zur Josefsgeschichte der Genesis (Frankfurt: Lang, 2008).
Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003).
McDonald, Joseph. Searching for Sarah in the Second Temple Era: Images in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Antiquities (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2021).
Montanari, Franco, Madeleine Goh, Chad Schroeder, Gregory Nagy, and Leonard C. Muellner, eds. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
Niehoff, Maren. The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1992).
Niehoff, Maren. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Oertelt, Friederike. Herrscherideal und Herrschaftskritik bei Philo von Alexandria: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel seiner Josephsdarstellung in De Josepho und De Somniis II (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
Rabel, Magnus. “Developing Joseph’s Character: Narratological Reflections on the Dynamic Character of the Biblical Joseph.” Biblische Zeitschrift 68 (2024), 1–26.
Rabel, Magnus. “Vereintes Essen: Zur Funktion von Gen 43,31–34 für die Josephsgeschichte und diasporajüdische Tischgemeinschaft mit Nicht-Juden.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 100 (2024), 191–211.
Rabel, Magnus. “A Missing Meal of Reconciliation: The Consumption of Food as Deficient Motif in the Joseph Story and Its Resolution in Jubilees and Josephus.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 33 (2024), 317–336.
Rabel, Magnus. “Softening a Malicious Report: Genesis 37:2, a Grievous Censure, and the Old Greek’s Restraint.” Journal for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 57 (2024), 47–58.
Ron, Zvi. “The Exegesis of Demetrius the Chronographer.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 45 (2017), 153–160.
Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992).
Walter, Nikolaus. Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976).
Walter, Nikolaus. “Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas.” In Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form, ed. Werner Georg Kümmel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980), 257–296.
Walter, Nikolaus. “Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Epik.” In Poetische Schriften: Tragiker Ezechiel. Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Epik: Philon, Theodotos. Pseudepigraphische jüdisch-hellenistische Dichtung: Pseudo-Phokylides, Pseudo-Orpheus, gefälschte Verse auf Namen griechischer Dichter, ed. Werner Georg Kümmel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1983), 136–171.
Zellentin, Holger M. “The End of Jewish Egypt: Artapanus and the Second Exodus.” In Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Kevin Osterloh and Gregg Gardner (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 27–73.
