07.02 - THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS.

2. THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS. In 3Ma. 3:11 ff. is quoted a decree of Ptolemy IV. Philopator against the Egyptian Jews, according to which a reward is promised to every one who informs against a Jew. In our editions the Greek text of verse 28 runs thus: μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενονἐφ’ᾧτὴνοὐσίαντοῦἐμπίπτοντος ὑπὸτὴν εὔθυνανλήψεταικαὶἐκτοῦβασιλικοῦἀργυρίουδραχμὰς δισχιλίαςκαὶτῆςἐλευθερίαςτεύξεταικαὶστεφανωθήσεται. Grimm¹¹⁷¹ explains the ungrammatical (constructionslos) accusative at the beginning of the verse as an anacoluthon,—as if the writer had in his mind some such construction as εἰςτὴνἐλευθερίανἀφαιρησόμεθα. In that case we translate as follows: him, however, who is willing to inform against a Jew—he shall receive, in addition to the property of him upon whom the punishment falls, two thousand silver drachmae from the royal treasury, shall obtain his freedom, and shall be crowned with a garland. A most extraordinary proclamation,—extraordinary even for the third Book of Maccabees, which is by no means wanting in extraordinary things. “It cannot but seem strange that slaves only are invited to become informers, and that this fact is announced quite indirectly, and, what is more, only at the end of the statement.”¹¹⁷² But even this invitation, which, in the circumstances related in the book, is by no means impossible, does not appear so strange to the present writer as the proffered reward, which, in consideration of the great ease with which an information might be lodged against any individual Jew among so many,¹¹⁷³ is hardly less than horrifying: not so much, indeed, the monetary reward, as the declaration that the slave who acted as informer was to receive not only his freedom, but also the honour which was the special prerogative of distinguished men, viz., the being crowned with a garland. The passage thus awakes suspicion of its being corrupt, and, as a matter of fact, the Alexandrinus, as well as other manuscripts, omits τεύξεταικαὶ, and reads thus: καὶτὴςἐλευθερίαςστεφανωθήσεται. But nothing is really gained thereby, for this reading, as such, gives no sense—though, indeed, its very unintelligibility makes it probable that it represents the older, though already corrupt, form of the text, by which the received reading can be explained as being an attempt to make the statement more plausible. Hence Grimm gives it the preference, and “cannot hesitate for a moment” to accept the emendation of Grotius, viz., καὶτοῖςἘλευθερίοιςστεφανωθήσεται, i.e., and he shall be crowned at the feast of the Eleutheria. The alteration is certainly not extensive, and the conjecture has at all events the advantage of explaining away the invitation to the slaves, which seems so offensive to its proposer. Nevertheless, 0. F. Fritzsche¹¹⁷⁴ hesitates to accept it, and, as we think, not without good reason. We know nothing of any feast of the Eleutheria as a custom in Egypt under the Ptolemies, and it is extremely precarious to take refuge in a conjecture which, by introducing an entirely new historical consideration, would give the text such a very special meaning. The author believes that the following facts from Egyptian sources contribute something towards the elucidation of the verse. In the first place, for the supposed “construction-less” accusative μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον, reference might have been made to the similar, apparently absolute, infinitive at the end of the edict of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus which is given in the Epistle of Aristeas (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 17 f., viz., τὸνδὲβουλόμενονπροσαγγέλλεινπερὶτῶνἀπειθησάντων ἐπὶτοῦφανέντοςἐνόχουτὴνκυρίανἕξειν (p. 18 7f.); as a matter of fact, ἕξειν depends upon the technical διειλήφαμεν of the previous sentence. Similarly we might construe the μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον with the διειλήφαμεν of verse 26. We cannot but perceive that there is on the whole a certain similarity between the official formulae of the two edicts, and it seems very natural to suppose that, even if both are spurious, yet in form they fully represent the official style of the Ptolemaic period. In fact, a comparison of this Maccabean passage with Pap. Par. 10¹¹⁷⁵ (145 B.C.)—a warrant for the apprehension of two runaway slaves—raises the supposition to a certainty. The warrant first gives an exact description of each fugitive, and then sets forth a reward for their recapture, or for information concerning their whereabouts. When we place the two passages in parallel columns as below, we see at once the remarkable similarity between the formula employed in each ; be it noted that the Maccabean passage has been correctly punctuated.

In reference to the absolute μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον of the Papyrus, the French editor¹¹⁷⁶ remarks that the infinitive does duty for the imperative, as in similar formula generally. It would perhaps be more accurate, especially as the imperative infinitive is itself to be explained as a breviloquence, to make the infinitive depend upon a verb of command which the edict tacitly presupposes.¹¹⁷⁷ We must, in any case, reject the hypothesis of an anacoluthon in the Maccabean passage; it would destroy the impression given bythe peculiarly official style of the edict. The words μηνύειν δὲτὸνβουλόμενον are a complete sentence in themselves: he shall inform, who so desires. Hence the comparison instituted above is not without interest for the criticism of the third Book of Maccabees; while, conversely, it may be maintained that the Ptolemaic edicts in Jewish-Alexandrian literature, even if they were each and all spurious, and were without value as sources for the facts, are yet of great historical importance, in so far, that is,¹¹⁷⁸ as they faithfully represent the forms of official intercourse. What, then, shall we say of the “extraordinary” proclamation at the end of v. 28? There is no necessity whatever that we should connect the passage itself (according to the ordinary reading) with slaves; the present writer is surprised that Grimm did not perceive the much more obvious explanation, viz., that the invitation is really directed to the Jews. The edict threatened their freedom and their lives, as may not only be inferred from the circumstances of the case, but as is also confirmed by the expression of their feelings once the danger had been happily averted: they felt that they were ἀσινεῖς,ἐλεύθεροι, ὑπερχαρεῖς.¹¹⁷⁹ Hence when those who appeared as king’s evidence against their proscribed brethren were thereby promised the freedom which was otherwise in danger, the bargain was an exceedingly tempting one. It is, finally, quite unnecessary to speak of a crowning of the informer. Assuming that the reading of the Alexandrinus, καὶτῆςἐλευθερίαςστεφανωθήσεται, is the older—though itself a corrupt—form of the text, the author would propose to make a trivial alteration, and read καὶτῇἐλευθερίᾳστεφανωθήσεται.¹¹⁸⁰ The verb στεφανόω has not infrequently the general meaning reward,¹¹⁸¹ and this is what it means here.