In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 Patriarchal Fictions Thus far we have surveyed a wide variety of Jewish fictions about the past, ranging from self-contained fictional narratives like Esther and Judith to fictions embedded in larger works, such as those found in Daniel, 2 Maccabees , and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. While the fictions found in Josephus in particular required special handling because of the problems of transmission involved, all the fictions treated so far have in common a setting in the relatively recent past, either in the Hellenistic period, with a primarily Greek cultural context (3 Maccabees, the Letter of Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, Alexander, the Tobiads), or in an Assyrian (Tobit), Babylonian (Daniel), or Persian (Esther, Judith) exilic setting. We have seen that while fictions with a Hellenistic setting tended to draw upon Greek models , the exilic fictions were more likely to base themselves upon the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, such as Kings and Chronicles, or the apparently fictional Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10.2). Curiously, no fictions survive that were set in the period of the monarchy. However, there are some fictions set in a yet earlier period, stretching back to the age of the patriarchs. In this chapter, I will briefly consider two Jewish fictions that take their inspiration, in greater or lesser degree, from the narratives of Genesis and Exodus: the fragments of Artapanus , and Joseph and Aseneth. As in the case of the earlier fictions, we will see that in terms of genre and purpose these two are more different than alike; both, however, again combine the manipulation of details from historical tradition (in this case, Genesis and Exodus) with an innovative use of contemporary Hellenistic literary genres to support their diverse purposes. 94 artapanus Of Artapanus’s work, entitled On the Jews (Peri; jIoudaivwn),1 we have only three fragments quoted in the work of Alexander Polyhistor. The title suggests that Artapanus classified his work (misleadingly) as a straightforward historical and ethnographic narrative,2 akin to that of his contemporary(?) Eupolemus.3 The fragments span the period of the patriarchs: fragment 1 deals with Abraham; fragment 2, Joseph; and fragment 3, by far the longest, most vivid, and most detailed of the three, Moses. Although it is difficult to be certain about fragments, Artapanus seems to have treated the patriarchal narrative rather selectively, focusing closely on the adventures of each figure in Egypt. Whether Artapanus’s history continued beyond the ExoPatriarchal Fictions / 95 1. Polyhistor actually gives two titles, both of which would be appropriate for a general history of the Jewish people: Judaica (F 1 = Euseb. PE 9.18.1, ejn toi'" jIoudai>koi'") and On the Jews (F 2 = Euseb. PE 9.23.1; F 3 = Euseb. PE 9.27.1–37). Assuming that both titles refer to the same work, the second title is certainly the correct one, as it is attested independently by Clement (F 3b = Strom. 1.23.154.2), who gives an abbreviated account of one portion of the third fragment.Cf.Holladay 1983: 189. Fragments of Artapanus are cited in this volume by fragment and section number , as given in Holladay: thus F 3.5 = fragment 3, section 5 = Euseb. PE 9.27.5. 2. Alexander Polyhistor’s own work was itself titled Peri; jIoudaivwn (Holladay 1983: 8). Aristeas and Hecataeus (or rather pseudo-Hecataeus) were also credited with historical and ethnographic accounts entitled On the Jews (Holladay 1983:261, 278). Eupolemus’s work, which focused largely on the period of monarchy and exile , was apparently called Concerning the Kings in Judaea (Peri; tw`n ejn th'/ jIoudaiva/ basilevwn; Holladay 1983: 93). Holladay (1977: 215–16) rightly points out that the title of the work implies a claim to compete with elite historians, although he himself regards Artapanus’s literary pretensions as “comical.” Because scholars have traditionally seen historical and other inaccuracies as a sign of ignorance,Artapanus’s creativity has been widely underestimated (so, rightly, Gruen 1998: 156). Whether Artapanus is pulling our leg throughout (as Gruen [1998: 155–60] is inclined to believe ) or whether he is engaged in a sincere polemic with a light touch (as I see it), it is high time to reconsider the traditional view of Artapanus as an incompetent hack from the sticks of Memphis. (See discussion in Braun 1938: 4–5; Fraser 1972: 1.704–6; Holladay 1977: 212–14; Barclay 1996: 127; Collins 2000: 39). 3. The date of Artapanus...

Share