10

Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis

ABRAHAM WASSERSTEIN

Rabbinic literature written in Hebrew and Aramaic is a largely untapped

source for the history of the ancient world. Here and there it has been used
with some measure of success for the critical reconstruction of literary, legal
— —
and to some extent social history of ancient Jewry in Babylonia,
Palestine and some adjoining regions by, e.g., Gedalya Alon, Saul
Lieberman and, more recently, Martin Goodman. But, on the whole, the
difficulties inherent in the sources seem to have deterred ancient historians
from systematically examining and exploiting for their purposes what is one
of the largest bodies of literature surviving from antiquity. The reasons for
that are varied: There are superstitious fears about linguistic difficulties and
superstitious delusions no less unjustified and deceptive about the allegedly
narrow range of rabbinic literature. One glance at the works of learned
scholars like Paul de Lagarde and Eduard Schwartz suffices to make one
aware of the loss of opportunities due not only to prejudice, animosity and,
occasionally, wilful and hence invincible ignorance, but to a general lack of
awareness of the breadth and depth of the materials to be found in the
records of ancient rabbinic Jewry. In this paper I shall confine myself to
examining a problem of no more than minuscule, local, toponomastic
interest in early Byzantine Egypt. I shall argue that even what is obviously
a mistake in a rabbinic source may, in one way or another, contribute to our
knowledge.
Few things are as certain about Jewish attitudes to liturgical
arrangements in the late biblical period and in proto-rabbinic Judaism as the
exclusive attachment to the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was not only
the primary centre of divine worship but the one place in which sacrifices
could be offered. It was strictly and strenuously distinguished from pagan
and sectarian cult locations, the more so if the latter pretended to be
authentically Jewish like, for instance, the Samaritan temple on Mount
Gerizim.^ Pagan gods, even though they might have a special connexion

'
This was destroyed, according lo Josephus, by John Hyrcanus, apparently in 129/8 B.C.
See Josephus, AJ 13. 254 ff.; cf. Megillai Ta'anit, cap. IX sub 21 Kislew. See also E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des jUdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi I (4ih ed., Leipzig 1901) 264 (Engl,
tr.: G. Vermes and F. Millar [edd.]. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
120 Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993)

with a particular, perhaps pre-eminent, shrine or place, would have temples

and altars in many places. Not so the God of Israel: It was in Jerusalem
that He had promised to dwell with His people forever, in Zion that there
would be the habitation of His honour and the seat of His throne. And as
God was jealous of other gods, so was He also jealous for Jerusalem, the
abode He had chosen in which to set His name. No other place was worthy
to be His dwelling.^
For the Persian period, we have, of course, the well-known
papyrological sources concerning a temple at Elephantine near Syene
(Assuan) in Upper Egypt.^ Of this temple we have no archaeological
remains and it has left no traces in ancient literature. Our evidence indicates
that it was used by the small military colony of Aramaic-speaking Jews and
their families; but it cannot have had any more than local significance.
In the Hellenistic period the evidence for Jewish shrines outside
Jerusalem is meagre. Apart from the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim
mentioned above and the temple of Onias in Egypt, the location of which is
the subject of this paper, recent work enables us to conclude that substantial
literary or archaeological information about Jewish shrines outside
Jerusalem is practically non-existent.''
Two sites are principally concerned, at Lachish and at 'Araq el-Emir.
The so-called Solar Temple at Lachish, which Aharoni had thought was a
Hellenistic structure used for Jewish cult purposes, probably was, in the
Hellenistic period, not a Jewish sanctuary at all;^ it therefore need not detain
us here any further.

Christ,175 B.C. -AD. 135 I [Edinburgh 1973] 207). We learn from Josephus. AJ 12. 257 ff..
and from 11 Maccabees 6. 2 ihal the temple had already in 167/6 B.C., at the request of the

SamariUns themselves (but see on this Alt, quoted by Habicht; see below), been consecrated
by Antiochus IV Epiphanes to the cult of Zeus Xenios; cf. R. Marcus in LCL Josephus, VII
132-35. See also C. Habicht in 2. Makkabderbuch, Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-
romischer Zeit, Bd. I, Lieferung 3 (Giitersloh 1979) 229, ad loc, and literature there cited.
2See, e.g.,Jer. 3. 17. 17. 12. Ez. 43. 7-9. Joel 4. 17. 4. 21. Zach. 2. 14-15. 8. 3, Ps. 26. 8.

74.2, 132. 13-14, 135. 21,Neh. 1. 9, 1 Chr. 23. 25. H Chr. 6. 6 ff. For the general tendency in
the Hebrew Bible to confine the sacrificial cult to one place, cf. Dl. 12. 5 ff.. 1 1-14. 18, Jos. 22.
10 to end of chapter. And 1. 67, Josephus, Ap. 2. 193 (see on this
see Philo, Spec. leg.
especially the note ad loc. by G. MiJller, Des Flavius Josephus Schrifi gegen den Apion
J.

(Basel 1877; repr. HUdesheim-New York 1969] 314) and AJ 4. 200-01.

^ E. Sachau, Aramdische Papyrus und Oslraka in einer jiidischen Milildrkolonie zu

Elephantine (Leipzig 1911); A. E. Cowley, Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra (Lx)ndon
1919); idem, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1923); E. G. H. Kraeling, The
Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven 1953); B. Porlen, Archives from Elephantine:
The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley 1968); for a fuller bibliography see
EJ VI 610.
*
See, e.g.. E. F. Campbell, Jr., "Jewish Shrines of the Hellenistic and Persian Periods," in F.

M. Cross (ed.). Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 1900-1975 (Cambndge, MA 1979) 159-67 and
literature quoted there.
See for this Campbell (previous note) 166.
 Abraham Wasserstein 121

Excavations at 'Araq el-Emir in Jordan have uncovered what some

scholars^ have thought to be the remains of an unfinished temple built by
one of the Tobiads, Hyrcanus the son of Joseph, in the second century B.C.
The arguments adduced do not seem to be convincing; but in any case, even
ifwe accepted the dating and the identification of the structure as a temple
we should still have to ponder the relationship of this building to one that is
mentioned by Josephus (AJ 12. 230; see Campbell 162-63) as having been
built by that same Hyrcanus and called a "fortress," papiq iax^)pa. It was
pointed out long ago by Amaldo Momigliano that the Tobiads had, even in
the Persian period, been hostile to Jerusalem; that the papi<; had been in
existence as early as the third century; and that its construction should be
attributed not to Hyrcanus in the second century but to another Tobiad, a
contemporary of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (regn. 285-46).' The unreliability
of Josephus or his source^ in this matter, combined with the weakness of the
archaeological evidence, allows us to discount, in any inquiry on Jewish
shrines outside Jerusalem in the period of the Second Commonwealth, the
case made for the existence of a Jewish temple at 'Araq el-Emir.^ There is
no need to conclude (with Campbell 163) from the evidence that "the
building must have been used by Jews if a Tobiad built it, and furthermore it
probably had more than purely local significance." It is indeed interesting
that Campbell refers (ibid.) to the likelihood that "vestiges of the old
Tobiad-Samaritan association persisted." But it is not clear why Campbell
is so certain that in this region "there must have been a large number of

Jews increasingly disenchanted with the Jerusalem temple and pohtically

opposed to the Jerusalem alignments, for whom the 'Araq temple would
have become the religious center." We have nothing here that could
strengthen an argument purporting to show that there were in the Hellenistic
period any significant Jewish shrines in the Palestinian region outside
Jerusalem.
We come now to the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim. From the
point of view of mainsfi-eam Judaism the building of that temple must have
signalled the separation of the Samaritans from the people of God. This
judgment is supported both by explicit rabbinic statements and by historical

See Campbell (above, note 4) 162-64 for details and literature; for other, earlier, scholars
who have identified the structure on the site as a temple, see Momigliano, Quinlo contributo
(next note) 605 with notes.
"I Tobiadi nella preisloria del moto maccabaico," Alii delta Reale Accademia delle Scienze
di Torino 67 (1931-32) 165-200 = Quinlo contributo alia storia degli sludi classici e del
mondo antico I (Rome 1975) 597-628.
See on this also D. Gera, "On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads," in A. Kasher,
*

U. Rappaport and G. Fuks (edd.), Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel (Jerusalem 1990) 21-38,
esp. 24 f. and nn. 15 f.
^ Even were one to assume that at some lime in the early Hellenistic epoch there existed a

"Jewish" temple on the site of 'Araq el-Emir, there can be no doubt that it would have been a
dissident temple; see Momigliano, Quinlo contributo (above, note 7) 606.
 ,

122 Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993)

parallels. We II, ad fin., that it is by

are told in Massekhet Kuttim, cap.
giving up their attachment to Mount Gerizim that the Samaritans can gain
re-admission to the fold,^^ and we are, I submit, entitled to compare
Samaritan separatism (as exemplified in the building of their own temple) to
the hostility of the Qumran sectarians towards the Temple in Jerusalem. It
was this, rather than their idiosyncratic messianic and apocalyptic doctrines,
that the latter off as sectarians who would in the end sever
marked
themselves from the community of the House of Israel." The temple on
Mount Gerizim was the clearest possible monument to the separation of the
Samaritans from the body of the Jewish people.
In view of the strong evidence for the concentration of the sacrificial
cult in Jerusalem it is all the more noteworthy that at the very time of the
religious and national re-awakening associated with the resistance to
Seleucid rule in Palestine there existed a Jewish temple in Egypt established
by a member of the high-priestly family descended from Simon Justus.
This temple was founded, in the second century B.C., under Ptolemy VI
Philometor (c. 186-45; regn. 180-45) by a son of the High Priest Onias III.
This man is conventionally referred to as Onias IV, although he did not, in
fact, serve as High Priest in Jerusalem. ^^ j^e had fled to Egypt (c. 162-60)
for reasons which are not wholly clear. Josephus reports fear of the
Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes.^^ Tcherikover suggests the enmity
towards Onias of Jewish hellenizers in Jerusalem as motivating his flight.^'*
According to rabbinic accounts, his flight was occasioned by an intra-family
feud about the succession to Onias III.'^ In Egypt Onias was hospitably

10
-i:]! D'''7\i;n''n mm
tDn-'-ii inn na3WD?Dn'iK fViriQ ''rid''KD.
*'
We must not be misled by ihe romanticising, archaeology -fed nostalgia and enthusiasm
aroused by the discoveries in the Judean desert into thinking that the sectarians there were
authentically Jewish. They had strong Jewish roots, like the Samaritans and the Christians;
like both these offshoots of Second Commonwealth Judaism they developed intense enmities
to the normative stream of the religion of Israel. Since we have gained from these discoveries
so much that enriches our knowledge of the period as well as a good deal of literature written
in the ancient language of the Jews, we tend, sometimes unthinkingly, to adopt these securians
as authentically Jewish and to forget that they were inveterate heretics and enemies of the
Jemsalem establishment.
'^See on this, e.g., V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia
1959; repr. New York 1970) 276 ff. and M. Stem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism I (Jerusalem 1974) 405 f.; but see also B. Schaller, "Onias," in Der Kleine Pauly IV
(Munich 1979) 303-04; Schaller, Uke some other scholars before him, argues that the Onias
who founded the temple in Leonlopolis was Onias HI, and that Onias IV may never have
existed ("ist wahrscheinUch eine fingierie Crosse").
'3 Josephus, BJ 1. 33, 7. 423, AJ 12. 387. Antiochus IV had died in 164/3. In the BJ
though not in the AJ, Josephus may have been thinking of Onias III; see Tcherikover (previous
note) 276.
'^ See Tcherikover, CPJ I
(1957) 2, who, however ([above, note 12] 44), points out that
Onias IV may himself have been a hellenizer in spite of his opposition to the heUenistic party
in Jemsalem.
*^ PT Yoma 43d and BT Menahoi 109b ff.
 Abraham Wasserstein 123

received by Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who granted him some land in the nome
of Heliopolis. There he founded a military colony for Jewish settlers and a
temple for their use. These settlers may have come with him from Palestine
or he may have raised a Jewish military force after his arrival in Egypt;
indeed he may have founded the colony and the temple as late as 145 B.C.,
shortly before Ptolemy's death. '^ There is no foundation for the suggestion
that Ptolemy Philometor intended to found a cultic centre for the Jews in the
Delta to counterbalance the importance and attraction of the temple in
Jerusalem,^'' and there is no evidence whatsoever that the temple of Onias
had at any time more than merely local significance.'^ The temple at
Leontopolis existed until after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem; it
was demolished on the orders of Vespasian in A.D. 73. '^
Apart from the rabbinic references (see below), our main source for the
history of Onias and his temple is Josephus.^^ The temple is never
mentioned by Alexandrian writers and it seems that Egyptian Jewry was not
much interested in this Palestinian immigrant foundation. ^^
We have a number of rabbinic reports referring to the shrine of Onias.-^^
These regularly describe the temple of Onias asVlJlh JT"!. The word
JT'l, though it does not univocally = temple, naturally is capable of being
used in a phrase referring to a temple; cf., e.g., 'h JT"!, D''pl'7K i:i^'2.,

'^ See Tcherikover (above, note 12) 279 f.

1^
H. Kees."'Ov{o\)."/?£XVffl.l (Stuttgart 1939)477-79.
'*
This should be weighed in any consideration of the argument put forward by A.
MomigUano (Aegyptus 12 (1932] 161-72. and esp. 170-71) that there existed or that there may
have existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament in the Temple of Leonlofx^lis different
from the Septuagint; that this version ("accolta o curata dai sacerdoti leontopolilani") was
circulating in Egypt in competition with the LXX; and that the legend of the Greek translation
of the Bible propagated by the author of the Letter ofAristeas had a polemical purpose directed
against the Leontopolitan temple. I know of no evidence that would support any part of this
argument. In any case, it is to be noted that MomigUano relies not only on a fairly late dale for
the work of Ps.-Arisleas but, more seriously, on what seems to me a vastly inflated estimate of
the importance of the Leontopolis temple; we cannot even say that the population for whom
this temple was built was Greek -speaking rather than Aramaic-speaking; for all we know they

spoke Egyptian. Though there is evidence that the Greek Bible was read in the countryside in
the second century B.C.. it seems clear on the whole that the Jews living in the chora were

assimilating fast to their Egyptian-speaking neighbours. See Tcherikover, CPJ I (1957) 43^6.
'"Josephus, 57 7.421.
2° fly 1. 33, 7. 421-36, AJ 12. 387-88. 13. 62-73. 285. 20. 236. Ap. 2. 5. 2 f. On the

problems that arise from a collation of these passages, see Tcherikover (above, note 12) 275 ff.
et aUbi, e.g.. 392 ff.
^'
We
may disregard Sibylline Oracles 5. 501, 507, where some scholars have seen an
allusion to the temple of Onias; see Tcherikover (above, note 12) 499 n. 28 and, more
generally, idem in CPJ I (1957) 20 f. and 44 ff., with notes (and hlerature cited in his n. 1 17)
and idem, Jews and Greeks in the Hellenistic Period (Tel Aviv 1963) 220 ff. and nn. (Hebrew).
Cf. P. M. Eraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972) 1 83 with nn. 301 ff. (in vol. II, pp.
162 f.).

"Mishna Menahot 13. 10, PT Yoma 43d, BT Menahot 109a ff., BT Megilla 10a, BT
AZ 52b.
124 Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993)

\£; Tpbn For 1 U 1 n we sometimes find the spelling ( 1) 1 3 1 h IP

JT' n. •' ''

Interestingly, where the actual construction of the temple is reported, the

word hUTD = altar is used, thus making it quite unmistakable that the
reference is to a foundation meant to be used for the performance of
sacrifices.-^'* Similarly, Josephus speaks of the temple as a veox; or vao^ and

lepov; and in the same context he refers to Isaiah 19. 19 f. as predicting the
KaTaaKE\)fi xot>5e xot) vaot).^ Isaiah actually has there Kinn dl"*!!
d''^>td yiK linn 'n*? nntd n''ri\ it is interesting that this same
passage is quoted also in both Talmudim, in the same context.^^ The LXX
and Josephus, too, knows that
translates ri!lTd correctly as G-uoiaaxTipiov,
text: eoxai Gvaiaorripiov ev Aiyuntcp K-upio) tw Bew (AJ 13. 68). A few
paragraphs earlier (AJ 13. 64) Isaiah is said to have foretold that a vaoq
would be built in Egypt. Occasionally Josephus mentions a Pcoiioq.^^
There can be no doubt that both the rabbinic sources and Josephus are
speaking about a temple, i.e. a cult place in which sacrifices were
performed, not merely a meeting house for prayer and study, i.e. a
synagogue.-^^
The temple of Onias is known to us as having been located at

Leontopolis. Josephus mentions Leontopolis (in the nome of Heliopolis),

by that name, only in AJ 13. 65, in Onias' petition addressed to Ptolemy VI
Philometor and Cleopatra, and in 13. 70, in the sovereigns' reply. The other
passages in the works of Josephus refer only to the nome of Heliopolis
without further specification of the place. The repetition of the phrase
containing the place-name in the royal reply to the petition simply conforms
to what is a natural feature of chancery style, namely to repeat the
formulations contained in the original petition. We are thus left with what
is, in effect, a single occurrence of the name Leontopolis.-^^ Now, it is

"Cf.,c.g.,PTYoma43d.
^ PT Yoma 43d and BT Menahot 109b.
"E.g. fly 7. 424. 431 and 432.'
^ Above, noie 24.
AJ 13. 72: Onias built iepov Kal Pcojiov xw 0c(p. Compare also BJ 1. 428.
^^ Fraser's repeated references to a "synagogue" at Leontopolis-Tell el-Yahoudiyah
([above, note 21) I 83, II 162-63 nn. 302 and 306) must be due to a lapsus calami; the point is

that a synagogue is not a temple: The two serve different functions and have always had a
different sutus from each other. This confusion is found also in the index (but not in the text
or in the English original) of the French translation of E. R. Bevan's Hisloire des LMgides
(Paris 1934) 438. In rabbinic literature I know of only one passage in which il appears that the
writer has confounded a synagogue with a temple: In the late JTl''l'7l 1\if^ WlTD
(version II), published by A. Jellinek in Bel ha-Midrasch (3rd ed., repr. Jerusalem 1967) V
113-16 (see 115 and also [version I] IV 135), the language used is unmistakably conflated with
that of the famous description of the great Alexandrian synagogue in Tosefla Sukka 4. 6 el alibi
(see below, note 31); the author mentions an altar (in Alexandria) and speaks of sacrifices
being performed there.
^^ The correspondence quoted by Josephus is generally regarded as a Hellenistic forgery;

see Tcherikover (above, note 12) 499 n. 30, who, though for a different purpose and in a
different context, rightly notes that even a forged document may contain some kernel of
 Abraham Wasserstein 125

interesting that those rabbinic sources thatdo name the location of the Onias
temple speak of it as having being located in Alexandria?'^ The Rabbis are
certainly not confusing theVilh n**! with the Alexandrian Synagogue
which is mentioned elsewhere in talmudic literature;^' on the contrary, in a
number of passages they make it quite clear that they understand that the
Onias foundation was a temple, a cult place in which sacrifices were
performed, and we even find the opinion expressed that, whatever the status
of that temple may have been, it was not an idolatrous temple, and some of
the sacrificial acts performed there were, under certain circumstances, to be
regarded as valid. ^^ It is thus inconceivable that the Rabbis might have
confused the temple with the Alexandrian Synagogue.
On the other hand, though the possibility of a simple mistake
concerning the location of the temple arising from guesswork or ignorance
cannot be discounted, it is certainly possible that the Rabbis drew on their
own contemporary knowledge that Leontopolis was in the early Byzantine
age an alternative designation for Alexandria.^^ The equation Leontopolis =
Alexandria lends itself to confusion in both directions.
We are told by Stephanus of Byzantium (fl. probably c. 528-35) that
"Alexandria was called Rhakotis, and Pharos, and Leontopolis ." . .

Similarly, Eustathius of Thessalonike (12th century) reports that

Leontopolis was one of a number of alternative names for Alexandria.^'*

historical irulh; thus, the name Leontopolis may well be correct. In any case, there seems to be
no doubt about the reliability of the references to the location of the temple in the Heliopolitan
nome, and it is generally accepted that the Onias temple was in fact located in the countryside,
quite possibly at a place to be identified with the modem Tell el-Yehudiyeh, at a distance of ca.
30 miles NE of Memphis. See R. Marcus on Josephus, A/ 13. 65 (LCL VII 258-59), with the
literature there quoted, esp. Schiirer (above, note 1) 3rd ed., HI (1898) 97 ff. with note 25
(Engl.tr.:ffl.l 145 f., esp. n. 33).
3° PT Yoma 43d, BT Menahot 109b.
^'
Tosefta Sukka 4. 6, BT Sukka 51b, PT Sukka 5. 1 = 55 a-b; cf. S. Krauss. Synagogale
AUerlumer (Berlin-Vienna 1922) 261 ff., 336.
^2 See, e.g.,Mishna Menahot 13. 10, BT Menahot 109a-b, BT AZ 52b, BT MegUla 10a.
^^ RE s.v.
"Leontopolis 10" and A. Calderini, Dizionarlo del nomi geografici e lopografici
ckll'Egitto greco-romano I (Cairo 1935) 58.
^* Slephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunl ex recensione August i Meinekii I (Berlin
1849; repr. 1958)70: 'AXe^dv6peiai 7i6A,eii; 6)cxcoKai6eKa. npiovi] r\ Aiyvnxia f{Xoi Ai^vaaa,
djq 01 Tto^oi, anb 'AA,e^dv5pou to\) <I>iA.in7tov. 'Idocov Se 6 xov Piov xf\q 'EXA^Sot; ypdvi/aq
ev 6' PiPXicp cprioi "tov jiev oijv totiov -0]^ noA-ecoq ovap e%pTiono6oxfi9ri omot;

vT\aoc, CTteixd xiq eoti Tio^uKXiiaTcp evi Ttovtcp

Aiy\)7ixo\) TtpoTtdpoiGe, 4>dpov 8e e laicXfiatcouaiv.
(Homer, Od. 4. 354 f.)

EKeXcuae 6e 5iaYpd<peiv to oxfi}xa xouq dpxitCKTOvaq- ouk exovxeq 8e A-cuktiv yfjv dXtpixoic;
5ie7pa<pov, 6pvi6e<; 6e Kaxanxdvxeq xd dA.(pixa al'cpvrif; 5ifip7taaav. xapaxQexc, ouv
'AXe^av6poq (sic) oi jidvxeiq Gappeiv eXcyov Ttdvxcov ydp xfiv noXiv xpocpov yevrioeoBai."
xavxa Kai 'Appiavoi;. eKA.ri9ri 8e 'PaKcoxK; xal Odpoq Kal AcoyxonoXic; 5id x6 xnv xfjq
OA.\)n7tid5o(; yaoxepa eocppayiaBai Xeovxoq eiicovi. Cf. Arrian, Anab. 3. 1-2, Plut. Alex. 2.
126 Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993)

Eustalhius clearly draws, directly or indirectly, on Slephanus of Byzantium

(or his source?).^^ It is thus evident that we have here not two teslimonia
but what is in fact one. Such papyrological evidence as we have consists of
the single letter lambda in a fourth-century papyrus, where we read dc, tt^v
'AA.e^dv5pEiav titoi A[eovx67ioA.iv].^ It is manifest that this reading of the
papyrus, so far from establishing or confirming the identification of
^'^
Alexandria with Leontopolis, is itself based on that identification.
The evidence for the alternative name of the great city is thus seen to be
extremely meagre; but if the Rabbis indeed confused Alexandria with
Leontopolis this very confusion, though leading them into error, would
paradoxically enable us to see in it a further piece of evidence, both for the
use of Leontopolis as an alternative name for Alexandria and for the placing
of the Oniad temple in Leontopolis (the latter, as we have seen, attested
otherwise only by Josephus, AJ 13. 65-70). Since our Greek evidence is so
poor on both these points any additional evidence from rabbinic sources is
to be welcomed, more especially as our talmudic texts are completely
independent of the Byzantine tradition. We must, of course, remember that
neither the Jerusalem Temple nor that of Onias at Leontopolis existed any
longer at the time the Rabbis discussed the sacrifices performed there. Their
discussions are thus purely academic, and though they will have been
nourished by plentiful and zealously preserved information about the
activities of the Jerusalem priesthood, they cannot have drawn on more than
scattered memories of the Oniad foundation. Hence, since in their period
Leontopolis was known to be an alternative name for Alexandria, the great
city with its vastly numerous Jewish population, any fleeting memory of the
name Leontopolis in connexion with the temple of Onias, or any mention in

4—5. My colleague Dr. Deborah Gera has reminded me of Herodotus 6. 131, where a
somewhat similar motif occurs in a story concerning the mother of Pericles; cf. Plut. Per. 3. 2.

Eustathius (C. Miiller [ed.], Geographi Graeci Minores U [Paris 1882] 261) writes on the
words Maicn66viov 7tTO^{e9pov (which appear in the text of Dionysius Periegetes, line 254 =
Geographi Graeci Minores II 1 16): o eaxiv ti xo\> MaKe56vo<; 'AX,eE,dv5po-o bjicovujiot; noXit;,
Ev Ti Kul exdcpTi dpiBnovvxai 6e ev xaic; laxopiait; 'AXe^dvSpeiai UTtep xdq ScKaoKxco.
. . .

xoiixcov (i{a Kai a\ixT|, noXic, Ai^vcaa t\xo\ Aiyvnxia. xat)XT|v 6e Kai dXXoii; ^ev ovonaai
6ia<j)6poiq KX,ri9fivai (paoi tioxe, ovo^aoBfivai 5e Kai AcgvxotioXiv 6id xov xf\c, 'OX\)fi7tid8o(;
Kai xoiixo 'AA,e^av8pov (?), i\c, r\ yaaxfip iaifpayioQax. Xiovzoc, eiKovi Xiyctai, k.x.X. For the
possible sources of Stephanus, for the question why the great city was called l^onlopoUs, and
for related matters, see C. Miiller (ed.), Pseudo-Callislhenes (Paris 1865) xix f., with notes;
also C. MiiUer (ed.), Scriplores Alexandri Magni (Paris 1865) 160 (lason Argivus, fr. 2).
^^ We have only an epitome, dating from between the sixth and the tenth centuries, of the
Elhnica; it has been suggested (J. F. Lockwood in OCD s.v. "Eustathius") that Eustathius may
in fact draw in his commentary on the complete text of Stephanus. R. Brownmg in the same
work (2nd ed., p. 1012) suggests that Eustathius used the surviving epitome of the Elhnica.
^^Pap. Oxy. 1660, line 2, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XIV (London 1920) 1 1 4-1 5.
The reading A[eovx6TcoA,ivl, though attractive and quite possibly right, does not by
necessity impose itself and is not universally accepted: see P. J. Sijpestcijn, "Notes on Two
Papyri," ZPE 87 (1991) 257-58, who suggests eiqxfiv 'AA.e^dv6peiav fixoi A.|ifieva jieyav tou
EijvoGxou].
 Abraham Wasserstein 127

some recondite source of the location of that temple in that place, could
easily explain the confusion — ^but only if the temple was really located in
Leontopolis.
There are further facts to be considered: Leontopolis was located in the
Heliopolitan nome. By a curious and in itself unremarkable coincidence the
city of Heliopolis (in Hebrew called I'X)^^ bore the Egyptian name ywnw. It

is manifest that to the eyes and ears of users of Aramaic or Hebrew this
would constitute an irresistible invitation to confuse the Egyptian name with
the Semitic name for "Greek" or "Greece," ywn, which itself was sometimes
confused with Alexandria: See the passages cited below from Tosefta
Nidda 4. 17 and BT Nidda 30b.
The Hebrew/Jewish Aramaic/Syriac ( n) K TT 5 D !] *? K, like the Greek ''

'AA,e^dv5peia and the Latin Alexandrea (-ia), can refer to towns other than
the great city: Thus, e.g., an Egyptian city called K!l, mentioned a number

of times in the Hebrew Bible,^^ is generally identified by the Septuagint

translators with Diospolis (Thebes in Upper Egypt). Some rabbinic sources

^* Gen. 41. 45, 41. 50, 46. 20. Cf. also Ez. 30. 17. where the vocalization is different, but
see Symmachus and Theodotion for the Greek transcription Avv. (The Septuagint has
"Heliopolis.")
" Jer. 46. 25: Hebr. K3(Q); for LXX. see Jer. 26. 25; Syr. K''Cl(T)! It may be oT interest
that in Ez. 30. 17 f IK "'1111^ the LXX has veavioKoi 'IRiox) noXctix,. The vocalization of

nK need not detain us here; but it is noteworthy that the Peshitta translates K''D V^l
KTITl Tnni My colleague Professor Jonas Greenfield has pointed out to me that the

Peshitta reading K''£3 in Ez. 30. 17 may be due to a misreading of the Hebrew C]Cl1\ the last
word in the preceding verse Qeil untranslated there). Ez. 30. 14: Hebr. K3(;i); LXX
Ai6o7toXi<;; Syr. 13(1)- Ez. 30. 15: Hebr. Ki; LXX Mejicpiq; Syr. 13(1). Ez. 30. 16: Hebr.

K3(1); LXX Ai6onoA.i(;; Syr. 13(1). Nah. 3. 8: Hebr. pDK k!i(C3); LXX Ajicov; Syr. (TO
TiDKT n*-
See also the citations in R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus I (Oxford 1879) s.v. '(^'*
PDKX coll. 1579-80 (from medieval Syriac-Arabic lexicographers): e.g., Tl flbK^ P''
K"''TnD:]'7K "-m Kn'lD^i''ini K'-m
KT\"nyT. (The reference is clearly to our
passage in Nah. 3. 8.) For other identifications with Alexandria, see ibid. Mejicpiq in Ez. 30.
15 seems to be based on the reading ^3 (instead of the masoretic K3), borrowed from 30. 13
(Hebr. n'l3;Syr. D9D ^tl), which is translated there by Mencpic; (LXX). The LXX translation
in Nah. 3. 8 is,of course, no more than a transcription of the second part of the double name in
the Hebrew Vorlage. It is to be noted that rabbinic sources understand the reference in Nah. 3.
8 too to be to Alexandria (see Pesikta Rabbati 156b. cited below). Note also that extra-
septuagintal Greek Hebrew name K3 in one way or
translators did not hesitate to transcribe the

another rather than to give a Greek equivalent for it: No (Symmachus in Ez. 30. 14, 15). Noiu;
(Theodotion. ibid.), Nco (Aquila in Ez. 30. 15); compare also Aquila: Bavco for K3(l) in Ez.
30. 14. (The place-name Mejicpiq stands variously for f]D. K3 or ^3 in the Septuagint; for

examples see Supplement to Hatch and Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint 112b, .y.v.

Mcficpiq.)
 K

128 Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993)

on the other hand identify K 3 anachronistically with Alexandria:

Both the Greek and the Syriac traditions have preserved the mennory of
the multiplicity of places called Alexandria: Stephanus of Byzantium
(above, note 34): 'AXE^dv6pEiai tzoXeic, 6KTC0Kai6EKa (cf. Eustathius of
Thessalonike [above, note 34]: dpiGp-ovvxai 8e ev xaiq laxopiaK;
. . .

'A^E^dvSpEiai -uTiEp xojc, 6EKaoKTco).'*^ For Syriac, see Payne Smith, col.
209, s.v. K ^ 1 H D :i *? K for two towns called Alexandria: K IT 3 D !] *?
•'
"^

Knn'l = the city in Egypt and Kn'Tl^3T K''^T:iD!]'?K = Alexandretta

(Iskenderun).
It is also the case that, occasionally, Alexandria, in Greek, Hebrew and
Aramaic (both Jewish and Christian), may
whole land of Egypt,
refer to the
or, rather, may stand for it, pars pro toto. Thus, Payne Smith (ibid.) also
cites the use in Syriac of the name Alexandria pro tola Aegypto. Similarly,
in Lamentations Rabba 1. 5. 246 (p. 65 Buber) it seems easy to understand
nK*'"l'T!JD^'7KT DI^IT as referring to the commander of the troops
from Egypt as a whole and not only of those from Alexandria. So also, one
may wanttoreadinToseftaNidda4. 17 K'-ITUDriVK t\'2^h nitl5l'7l
(=K"ltdaiK''Vp) instead of M "I T U D 1] *? K of the older editions, or instead
"^

of D 1 "I T U D !] *? K or of n*' H 11 in the parallel passages (both in BT Nidda

"^

30b: D1^T:iD:d'7K ni^h K^tiaiK*'*7ti and, on the same page,

JT'111'' n-n^h Kltl^'pp); or instead of D ''^T:iD:]'7K as read by
Zuckermandel (p. 645)."*^
Note also that Rashi on BTAZ 8b (KH^'pd K^tia*?^! "'t!''!!) writes,
citing the passage in BT Nidda 30b, ^DKi:: K'^^TIDriVK *7\y
nTI n^DDin'paCim. This suggests either the ease with which the
place-name Alexandria insinuates itself into such a context or the possibility
that Rashi read a text different from that in our printed editions.
But all this does not, in the end, affect our problem: One is not
surprised that Alexandria may, as is so often the case elsewhere, stand for
the country of which it is the chief city;"*^ nor that its name may be applied
confusedly and thus wrongly, because of the great number of places that
bear the same name. What is argued here is simply that the confusion that
we are dealing with is of a peculiar kind, namely that occasionally the name
Alexandria, in our rabbinic sources, comes in place of another name which

^° Sec Pesikia 63b, with Ruber's note ad loc.. Pesikia Rabbali, cap. 17, p. 87a and see also
p.
156b (Friedmann-[Ish Shalom]). Gen. R. 1. 1 (p. 1 Theodor/Albeck), Targum to Ezekiel 30.
14-16, Targum lo Jeremiah 46. 25, Targum lo Nahum 3. 8.
"' RE has twenly-one entries for places called Alexandria.

*^ Such confusions are easy in our sources: Thus in Seder 01am Rabba some editions are

said (see Krauss, Lehnworler \ 55, s.v. DTTT3D:d*7K) to have in chapter 30 the spelling
m'TT5D3'7K for the proper name Dn'nC7:]'7K.
^^ Cf., in Arabic, Misr for Egypt and also for its capital; similarly al-Sham for Syria and its
capiul. See also Syriac P"I\JD, which is used both for the whole of Egypt and for any city
which may at any given time be its capital, e.g. Fustat (Old Cairo) or Alexandria.
 Abraham Wasserstein 129

is itself, in the early Byzantine age, an alternative name of the Ptolemaic

capital.
Considered by themselves the points made here are small and perhaps
insignificant. Nonetheless, if I am right in suggesting that the confusion of
the Rabbis arose out of the fact that Alexandria was also called, in their
time, Leontopolis, this would make it unnecessary to suspect the Rabbis of
completely uninformed guesswork. This alone would be a conclusion of
some value. But there is more: If the suggestion made here is indeed
acceptable, then this would add strength to the confidence with which we
expect to find in the recesses of rabbinic literature a good deal more such
material. Handled with discretion and discrimination, this is likely to
provide confirmation and corroboration of what we learn otherwise only
through remarks dispersed here and there over pagan and Christian writings
of antiquity and the early Byzantine age.

The Hebrew University, Jerusalem