Against Apion

About the originality of Judaism (also Contra Apionem " Against Apion ") is an end of the 1st century AD by Flavius ​​Josephus authored apologetic work. It is in the manuscripts survived only incomplete and bad. The work undertaken since 1720 attempts to reconstruct the original text have been problematic, as only individual passages were detached from the improved overall context, complemented with content guesses. A deeper insight into the full range of texts that go back to the work, therefore, was not possible until the revision took place in 2008.

The individual in different plants historians of Hellenism, such as Manetho, assigned to anti-Jewish settings can be maintained due to the consideration of all textual witnesses for the most part no more. Those anti-Semitic tendencies have their roots originated mainly in post-processing by unknown authors that went into original historical sources or as a standalone pseudo plants grown in Roman times.

• 3.1 Jewish sources
• 3.2 Non-Jewish sources

Title and objective of the work

The oldest documented quotes from Eusebius and Origen wrote of Josephus described the work as The age of the Jews. The only introduced by Hieronymus Convention Contra Apionem is incorrect, since Josephus only a quarter of his texts (Book 2.2 to 144 ) Apion devoted. In the Latin tradition the work is delivered with De Judaeorum vetustate, the designation Contra Ap ( p) ionem was also used here only as an attachment. This results in the several centuries in use was -been Latin title De antiquitate. The literal translation is incomprehensible in German language, since it ostensibly is not about people, but for age, origins and originality of the Jewish people together with the associated religion and culture in the Josephus texts. Therefore, the title is translated to fit over the originality of Judaism.

Flavius ​​Josephus wrote his book with the aim not to defuse the open in his epoch religious dispute, but to decide him in favor of Judaism. He undertook, in particular, the attempt to disqualify other faiths as " false religion " and worshiped by him Judaism as "true conception of God " and to present " truest piety ". Other religions he saw as a "disorder" to. Only indirectly did Josephus already in antiquity - especially between Jews and Egyptians - existing mutual cultural rejections in his work incorporated. In addition, he combined his apology thematically with the prevailing state of war in his time, who made a public Jewish life impossible. Because of this situation Flavius ​​Josephus tried to represent in his work for him, the existing core question of a separate Jewish state in the Roman Empire, but without this dangerous issue for him to openly articulate.

Main cause of the partially written in Egypt anti-Jewish writings was the Jewish side made ​​contemptuous depiction of the Egyptian people because of the religious traditions of Judaism. About who returned to Egypt Alexandrian Jews came those egypt hostile reports in circulation. As Egyptian reaction carried negative counter-narratives that have been recorded and circulated by numerous authors. Flavius ​​Josephus, the content was also of an anti- Egyptian attitude, therefore, to refute the evidence given by him anti-Semitic reports with his Apology tried. A spread of the anti-Jewish writings to Rome should be prevented.

Tradition

Greek tradition

Codices

The Codex Laurentianus 69.22 from the 11th century contains only 38 leaves. In Codex Eliensis from the 15th century, only the content of Book 1, and is proportionally obtained from Book 2, 1-51 and 114-133; also here the text passage from book 2, 52-113 missing. The Codex Schleusingensis was written before 1544 and contains only a very much reduced tradition. For only indirectly traditional content of Book 2, 134-296 corresponding codices are not available.

On Benedict Nieses assessment was based the prevailing until 2007 scientific belief that it is the Codex Laurentianus RELATES to the only self- preserved traditional Greek text version of Josephustexte and represent the later codices only copies from the Codex Laurentianus. The in 2005 by Dagmar Labow and in 2007 published by Heinz Schreckenberg text-critical treatises have Nieses view also still accepted. Folker Siegert's text studies, however, show that it is independent from the Codex Laurentianus textual witnesses in the codices Eliensis and Schleusingensis.

Excerpts

From the 9th century dates the Byzantine excerpt of the Anecdota, which has the same poor quality as the Eusebius lore and only the passage of Book 1, 106-127 contains. The Excerpta Constantiniana were made ​​913-957 on behalf of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and exist only in fragmentary condition. The currently located in Florence or the Vatican codices M and V contain traditional quotes Manetho and Berossus and Phoenician Chronicles, which are set out in Book 1, 73-159. As with the codices in the excerpts lack the reports of Book 2, 160-296.

Indirect traditions

For its traditions of Manethonian Aegyptiaca Eusebius AD was based at Caesarea in the 4th century in longer sweeps of a hand in its comprehensive 15 books Praeparatio evangelica on the Apology About the originality of Judaism and the other in Book 1 of Chronicles of further excerpts of texts by Flavius ​​Josephus. Book 1 has been preserved only in Armenian. Book 2 of Chronicles is largely preserved only in written in Latin tradition of Jerome; individual fragments of the original text are in the quotation form. The traditional Eusebius quotes are because of their high accuracy to the important historical textual witnesses. The Greek original text has not yet been subjected to a critical examination so far as the used quotes from subsequent further processing would have to be separated out. This, however, makes a decision as problematic passages impossible. To this extent, the first part of Eusebius Chronicle only a present in very bad repair source dar.

Georgios Synkellos handed down by about 800 AD in Greek fragments of the Chronicle, which he took over the intermediate stage of the Panodorus of Alexandria. Theophilus of Antioch, in itself a valuable textual witness, quoted in the third book of the Ad Autolycum ( 3:20-22 ) shortening a passage from Book 1, 93-126. Basis of Josephus texts used by him made ​​his interest to connect the biblical story of the ancient Egyptian chronology.

Latin translation

Equally important is the Latin translation of De Judaeorum vetustate immersive Contra Apionem. It was built in the 6th century as a commissioned work and survives in numerous manuscripts. From the Latin translation but only vague impressions can be gained because it was only made ​​fleeting. Since the passage of text in book 2, 51-113 is characterized by loss of some leaves since the 2nd century AD no longer exists in its original form and is missing in all Greek codices, is for this part only the Latin translation as textual witness before.

The Latin translation is partly associated with considerable problems. In the earlier editions numerous smoothing were not mentioned, particularly those of Sigismund Gelenius. In addition, corrections to the content of the humanists and added assumptions. Designed by Robert J. H. Shutt in 1987 made ​​an attempt to reverse translation from the Latin into the Greek language shows deviations from the linguistic style of Flavius ​​Josephus and harbors in the text-critical area numerous errors. In the new edition of Folker Siegert tradition error and added assumptions were identified and discussed in the text-critical part.

Substantive deviations Book 2, 163- 228a

The versions of Greek texts in Book 2, 163- 228a, which have been preserved in the Codex and Codex Laurentianus Schleusingensis, have over the text of Eusebius traditions on large deviations; to a lesser extent also in the Latin translation. After assessment, the different versions of a text, a design intent in the sources Laurentianus Codex, Codex Schleusingensis and in the Latin translation is apparent why Folker Siegert gave preference to play the Texts Book 2, 163- 228a of Eusebius tradition.

Stemma

Printed Texts

The coming of Benedict Niese from the 1889 versions of the text contain numerous Korruptelen. In addition, Niese wrote in this connection on codices without it existed him. He knew the Armenian version only from a Latin "translation of a translation ." The accompanying manuscripts had previously included only Niese in the edits.

The Praeparatio evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea were revised by Karl Mras and partially corrected and issued 1954-1956, which is why evangelica after an assessment by Folker Siegert, Professor of Jewish Studies and New Testament at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster, the output of Praeparatio of Karl Mras as " largely true " and the information Nieses are to be regarded as obsolete.

Dagmar Labows German translations from the year 2005 was the beginning of a new recording, but without taking into account all sources. Therefore Folker Siegert since Nieses complete edition in 2008 took the first time a revision of all available sources.

Sources of Flavius ​​Josephus

Jewish sources

When Jewish sources called Flavius ​​Josephus, the following documents, which are listed in alphabetical order: Hebrew and Greek Bible ( 1:37-43.154.217; 2:151-219 ), Jerusalem chronicles and lists ( 1:36 ), Jewish sources among non-Jewish name ( 1:218 ), pseudo - Aristaeos ( 1:10-13.44-47; 2:42-47 ), Pseudo - Hecataeus I ( 1:183-205.213-214 ), Pseudo - Hecataeus II ( 2:43 ) Hiram's correspondence with Solomon ( referierend ) ( 1:107-111 ), Anonymous Enkomien of Judaism ( 2:151-219 ) and Flavius ​​Josephus himself ( 1:47-56 ).

Non-Jewish sources

Flavius ​​Josephus drew on numerous non-Jewish sources for his work. The naming is in alphabetical order: Agatharchides of Knidos ( 1:205-211 ), Alexander polymath ( 1:218 ), Anaxagoras ( 2:168.265 ), Apion ( 2:2-144 ), Apollonius Molon ( 2:79.145-150 ), Berossus ( 1:107.128-131.135-141 ) Chaeremon ( 1:288-293; 2:1), Choerilos ( 1:172-175 ), Dios ( 1:112-115 ), Hecataeus of Abdera (1: 183.186.190.204.213-214; 2:43 ) Hermippus ( 1:162-164 ), Herodotus ( 1:168-170 ), Homer ( 1:12; 2.14.155.240-249.256 ), Kastor of Rhodes (1: 184-185; 2:83-84 ), Clearchus of Soli ( 1:176-183 ), Lysimachus ( 1:304-311; 2:16.20.145.236 ), Manetho ( 1:73-105.228-287; 2:16 -17 ), Menander of Ephesus ( 1:116-126.155-160 ) Mnaseas ( 1:216; 2:112-114 ), Plato ( 2:168.223-225.256-257 ), Posidonius ( 2:79 ), Pythagoras of Samos ( 1:162-163 ), Strabo ( 2:84 ), Theophrastus ( 1:166-167 ). Thucydides ( 1:18.66 ), Timagenes of Alexandria ( 2:84 ) and Tyrian Chronicles ( 1:106-111.121-126 b).

Content structure

The content structure corresponds, as in a court case, the characteristic of an apology. In the introduction, first the " core of the problem ", the " charge", described. It follows with the " evidence" the presentation of the " enemy position " and the description of the " own point of view". Finally, the " closing argument " prompts thereafter to reach a " verdict".

Reception

In Jewish literature was the work " About the originality of Judaism " no consideration. It looks similar to the Greek and Roman literature; a reaction to the publication of Josephus texts came. In contrast, however, the situation of the Christians, the writings in the 2nd century AD - recordings are interested in - at that time because of their similar role as a minority in the Roman Empire.

The intended effect of Josephus, which should reach his lyrics with his audience, however, failed to materialize. Neither Jews, Christians and non-Christians participated in the substantive objectives of Josephus, the writings of other authors were instead used in any other way.