Form and Content in Jewish-Hellenistic Historiography

Abstract

Were Jewish historians who wrote Greek historians no different from other Greek historians but in their descent and in the contents of their works, or were they Jewish historians who resorted to Greek rather than to one of the Jewish languages because of the specific historical circumstances of their times? It is a well-known characteristic of ancient literature that it was divided into a number of genres. The literary genre and the way it defines works may serve to guide us in investigating the scattered remains of some works of Jewish historians who wrote in Greek. Once a Jewish author writing in Greek made up his mind to write a book, inevitably he had to make a decision as to the genre to which his work was to belong. His decision would influence the structure and contents of the work. Moreover, since the requirements of Greek literary genres did not correspond to the requirements of biblical and post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic literature, a Jewish writer could not compose a Greek work whose essential characteristics were those of Hebrew literature. The inevitable discrepancy between the Greek form and Jewish contents is a phenomenon that was to characterize much of Jewish Hellenistic literature.  Thus a rift was created in Jewish literature, most easily demonstrated by the differences between I Maccabees and II Maccabees: the former a Hebrew or Aramaic work, by chance preserved only in Greek translation, written by a conscious adherent to biblical historiography; the latter a Greek work, though one that displays the ideals and beliefs of contemporary Judaism. The extent of Greek influence on the various aspects of Jewish life and literature can be estimated only by means of detailed investigations of specific issues. This survey of certain points of Jewish Hellenistic historiography strongly supports the view that the influence of Greek literary forms on Jewish writings was great indeed.