Thomas Nelson, University of Oxford
In this paper, I analyse the fragments of two Hellenistic epics which both retell Jewish biblical tradition through the medium of epic poetry: Philo’s On Jerusalem (SH 681-685) and Theodotus’ On the Jews (SH 757-764). Both poems are dated to the second century BCE, and both appropriate the epic genre to set biblical tradition on a par with – or even above – the canonical works of Homer and Greek myth.
To date, most scholarship on these fragments has focused on their adaptation of biblical tradition (Collins, Holladay), on issues of textual criticism (Faulkner, Sørensen), and on the stark stylistic differences between the two poets (the ‘Homeric’ Theodotus vs. the ‘Lycophronic’ Philo: Kuhn). In this paper, I build on past scholarship by focusing on how these two poems engage with their broader Greek literary heritage. I compare their allusive strategies with those of other Hellenistic poems, and I explore how they self-consciously position themselves between the competing cultural models of Homeric epic and the Septuagint.
First, I focus on Philo fr. 1 (SH 681), which obliquely retells the Binding of Isaac from Genesis (a foil to Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia). The fragment is linguistically difficult, replete with multiple novel coinages, but a close analysis of its seven verses reveals its continuities with the allusive techniques of other Hellenistic poets. For example, the opening ἔκλυον (‘I have heard’) can be understood as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’, acknowledging the biblical tradition on which Philo draws; I suggest that this fragment may derive from the start of Philo’s poem, pointedly effacing the Greek Muse and replacing her authority with that of the Pentateuch. In verse five, meanwhile, Philo employs the rare adjective βριήπυος (‘thunderer’), a Homeric hapax legomenon that describes Ares in the Iliad (Il. 13.521). I argue that Philo redeploys this Homeric rarity to evoke the broader resonance of the original Homeric passage, where Ares has unknowingly lost his son Ascalaphus on the battlefield. This episode stands as a foil to the experience of Abraham, who ultimately does not lose his son, while the ignorant Ares offers a contrast to the Jewish god, who remains in full control of the situation. Philo draws on his Greek literary heritage to accentuate the superiority of the Jewish god.
Second, I turn to Theodotus’ Homeric reframing of the rape of Dinah. Basic similarities have been proposed between this episode and the theft of Helen and the Trojan war (Kahane), but here I build on those who see stronger links with the Odyssey (especially Whitmarsh 243–6). I argue for a sustained parallel with Odysseus’ nostos: Shechem is a new Ithaca (SH 757), Deinah is a new Penelope (SH 759.14–15), and the Shechemites are Cyclopes-cum-suitors who deserve to be punished (SH 763). Here, I examine what impact the uneasy ending of the Odyssey has on our understanding of the destruction of Shechem.
Ultimately, these two epics evidence the complex negotiations of culture and identity at the heart of the Hellenistic world.