[95] philoxena, Hebr. xiii. 2.
[96] lgos paraklseos prs tn lan, Acts xiii. 15.
[97] Men. 99 b, towards the end.
[98] Jer. Chag. ii. 1; comp. Chag. 15.
[99] Jer. Sanh. x. 28 a.
[100] Yad. iv. 6.
[101] Through this literature, which as being Jewish might have passed unsuspected, a dangerous acquaintance might have been introduced with Greek writings - the more readily, that for example Aristobulus described Homer and Hesiod as having drawn from our books' (ap. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. xiii. 12). According to Hamburger (Real-Encykl. für Bibel u. Talmud, vol. ii. pp. 68, 69), the expression Siphrey Homeros applies exclusively to the Judæo-Alexandrian heretical writings; according to Fürst (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simply to Homeric literature. But see the discussion in Levy, Neuhebr. u. Chald. Wörterb., vol. i. p. 476 a and b.
[102] Gitt. 35 last line and b.
[103] Comp. Friedländer, Sitteng. Roms, vol. iii. p. 315.
[104] To these causes there should perhaps be added the attempt to introduce Grecianism by force into Palestine, the consequences which it may have left, and the existence of a Grecian party in the land.
[105] Aristobulus in Euseb. Præpar. Evang. ix. 6; xiii. 12. The doubts raised by Hody against this testimony have been generally repudiated by critics since the treatise by Valkenaer (Diatr. de Aristob. Jud. appended to Gaisford's ed. of the Præpar. Evang.).
[106] 286-284 b.c.
[107] Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Havercamp, vol. ii. App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical edition of this letter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' Archiv. i. pp. 252-310. The story is found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii. 4; Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. section 5-7. The extracts are most fully given in Euseb. Præpar. Evang. Some of the Fathers give the story, with additional embellishments. It was first critically called in question by Hody (Contra Historiam Aristeæ de L. X. interpret. dissert. Oxon. 1685), and has since been generally regarded as legendary. But its foundation in fact has of late been recognized by well nigh all critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, and full of fabulous details.
[108] This is also otherwise attested. See Keil, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T., p. 551, note 5.
[109] Meg. i.
[110] Meg. 9 a.
[111] It is scarcely worth while to refute the view of Tychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that the Jewish writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew words in Greek letters. But the word {hebrew} cannot possibly bear that meaning in this connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 31.
[112] According to Sopher. i. 8, by five persons, but that seems a round number to correspond to the five books of Moses. Frankel (Ueber d. Einfl. d. paläst. Exeg.) labours, however, to show in detail the differences between the different translators. But his criticism is often strained, and the solution of the question is apparently impossible.
[113] Böhl would have it, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin!'
[114] But the expression has also been referred to the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes.
[115] To my mind, at least, the historical evidence, apart from critical considerations, seems very strong. Modern writers on the other side have confessedly been influenced by the consideration that the earlier date of the Book of Sirach would also involve a much earlier date for the close of the O. T. Canon than they are disposed to admit. More especially would it bear on the question of the so-called Maccabean Psalms,' and the authorship and date of the Book of Daniel. But historical questions should be treated independently of critical prejudices. Winer (Bibl. Realwörterb. i. p. 555), and others after him admit that the Simon of Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed Simon the Just (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of the Prologue was the second of that name, Ptolemy VII., popularly nicknamed Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks of Fritzsche on this view in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. z. d. Apokr. 5te Lief. p. xvii.