^{page 70 note 1} The title is very variously given: there are two basic forms: It is unlikely that the author attached much importance to the title.Joseph and Asenath is convenient and has become conventional.

^{page 70 note 2} e.g. Denis, A. M., Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d' Ancien Testament (1970), 40Google Scholar fr. For a concise introduction to this branch of literature, see Hengel, M., ‘Anonymiät, Pseudepigraphie und “literarische Falschung” in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur’, Pseudepigrapha i, Entretiens Hardt xviii (1972), 231 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} In particular, Kilpatrick, (Novum Testamentum xii [1970], 233 ff.),Google Scholar Brock (.7. T.S. xviii [1967], 179 ff., xx [1969[, 588 ff.), Holtz, (Theologische Literaturzeitung xciii [1968], 837Google Scholar Burchard (ibid. xcv [1970], 253 if.), Lohse, (Gnomon xxxviii [1966], 516Google Scholar ff.); Burchard, , ‘Zum Text von “Joseph and Aseneth”’ Journal for the Study of Judaism i. 1 (1970), 3 ff., discusses Philonenko's work constructively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} I must concede that Asenath's costume consists of a trouser suit ( combined with a [3. 9]) which sounds Persian rather than Egyptian or Jewish.

^{page 72 note 1} No doubt the heroine of the Metiochus and Parthenope Romance (Pack² 2622) was another such determined virgin; her name suggests it, as does the saga recorded by Eustathius (on Dionys. Peri. 358): .

^{page 72 note 2} Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-literature, T381 (virgin imprisoned to prevent knowledge of men), cf. J147 (child confined to keep him in ignorance of life).

^{page 72 note 3} The legend of the Buddha offers a striking parallel. The motif is also found in Christian hagiography, where, however, it is probably due to the influence of JA itself.

^{page 72 note 4} as a masculine is not otherwise attested before the New Testament, Apoc. 14: 4, cf. I Cor. 7: 25, where perhaps refers to men as well as women.

^{page 73 note 1} Philonenko comments on ‘locution empruntée à la langue amoureuse, voir Kerenyi, K., Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur ², pp. 69–70.’ But the idea expressed in this last sentence is certainly not a commonplace of prose romance, though it is not difficult to find parallels in poetry: see Kroll on, Cat. 64. 158ff.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Confirmèd by Herodotus (2. 41).

^{page 73 note 3} Whether as professional prostitutes or more innocently: cf. Gow on Theocr. 3. 7, W. Fauth, ‘Aphrodite Parakyptusa’, Abh. Mainz, Ak. vi (1966), 359 ff. (31 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Theagenes is unusual among the heroes of Greek romance in not yielding to his seductress; Clitophon gives way to Melite (A.T. 5. 27), Daphnis to Lycaenion (Longus 3. 18); Habrocomes resists Manto (Xen. 2. 3 ff.), but practically gives in to Cyno (3. 12).

^{page 74 note 2} The stratagem is reminiscent of romance (e.g. A.T. 2. 16. 1), but can be paralleled from the Old Testament.

^{page 74 note 3} In view of the manifold symbolic connotations of bees in ancient thought the incident offers plenty of scope for speculation; cf. Koep, R.A.C. ii. 274 ff. The bees are described as : it seems worth publicizing this apparent exception to the usual ancient belief that the leaders are male (slight minority support from Xen. Oec. 7. 3. 33, Arist. H.A. 5. 21).

^{page 74 note 4} Cf. Kilpatrick, , ‘The Last Supper’, The Expository Times lxiv (1952), 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., Jeremias, ibid. 91 ff., Kuhn, ‘The Lord's Supper’, The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Stendahl, 1957), 65 ff., Richardson, R. D., appendix to Lietzmann, Mass and Lord's Supper (1964), 335Google Scholar ff., Burchard, , Untersuchungen, 121 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} Burchard, , Der dreizehnte Zeuge (1970), 59Google Scholar ff.; much interesting comparative material in Nock, ‘A vision of Mandulis Aion’, H.Th.R, . xxvii (1934), 53 ff. (= Essays on Religion and the Ancient World i. 357 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} These complementary visions are obviously comparable to the double dreams narrated in the Greek romances: cf. Charit. 1. 12. 5–10: 2. I. 2; Long. 7; A.T. 4. I. 4–8; Hld. 3. 11 f.: 3. 18 and 4. 14; 9. 25: 10. 3. But it is a commonplace of contemporary religious belief, not something markedly characteristic of romantic fiction: cf., e.g., Herzog, , Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros (Philol. Suppl. xxii, 1931), 16Google Scholar, No. 21; D.H. 1. 57.4;Livy 8. 6. g;P. Oxy. 1381; Aristid. Or. 48. 30–6; Lib. Or. II. 114; further examples in Wikenhauser, ‘Doppeltrāume’, Biblica xxix (1948), 100 ff. The only instance of this motif in Jewish literature appears to be Jos. A.J. 325–35, where, however, the corresponding dreams are years apart.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} A theme elaborated in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and very popular in Jewish legend: cf. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, ii passimGoogle Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Cf. Apul. Met. 8. 1 ff.

^{page 76 note 1} See in particular Kilpatrick, , Novum Testamentum xii (1970), 233 f.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} It scarcely matters for the purpose of this discussion whether the concluding verses of Ruth were added by a later hand.

^{page 76 note 3} Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud u. Midrasch i. 928 (on Matt. 23: 15): ‘Rabbi Bun hat gesagt: Die Gerechten (Israeliten) gehen dorthin (wo Proselyten erstehn sollten) and (dann) kamen sie (Pr.); so ging Joseph zur Asnath, Josua zur Rahab, Mose zu Chobab (vgl. Nu. 10, 29).’ Burchard (Untersuchungen, 99) comments ‘Dass Joseph and Aseneth als Beispiel genannt werden, ist kein Reflex von JA, sondern R. Bun erschliesst Aseneths Übertritt wie bei den anderen Beispielen aus der Tatsache, dass die Bibel eine nicht jüdische Person in eine enge Lebensbeziehung zu einem gläubigen Juden setzt: da muss sie sich bekehrt haben.’

^{page 76 note 4} There is, it may be noted in passing, another objection to the marriage:despite her conversion, Asenath remains a descendant of Ham, and so subject to the curse pronounced by Noah on him and his descendants (Gen. 9: 25). Ingenious rabbinic casuistry invented a legend which made Asenath the illegitimate daughter of Joseph's half-sister Dinah: see Aptowitzer, ‘Asenath, the wife of Joseph: a haggadic literary-historical study’, Hebrew Union College Annual i (1924), 239 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} Cf. Altheim-Stiehl, , Die aramāische Sprache unter den Achaemmiden, (1959- ), 182ff. The influence of Ahikar on the Life of Aesop is of course undeniable.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} For a fuller discussion of this topic, see Burchard, op. cit. 112 ff.

^{page 78 note 1} Indirect evidence of a slightly earlier date is provided by P.S.I. 27, a fifth-century papyrus of the Passion of St. Christina, a work which has much in common with JA and must have been influenced by it.

^{page 78 note 2} The graphic comment of Charles on Christian interpolations in the Test. xii Pats. (op. cit. ii. 282 n. I) is worth citing: ‘The dogmatic Christian interpolations are patches differing alike in colour and texture from the original material, stitched on at times where originally there was no rent at all, and at others rudely thrust in where a rent has been deliberately made for their insertion.’

^{page 78 note 3} e.g. the description of Joseph as (21. 3) is most easily explained in terms of the familiar view of Joseph as a type of Christ (though Burchard [p. 115] argues otherwise). The most problematic passages are those reminiscent of the Eucharist, of which there are several. See further Holtz, , ‘Christliche Interpolationen in “Joseph u. Aseneth”’, New Testament Studies xiv (1967/1968), 482ff.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} He argues (40 ff.) that the structure of JA and certain details in the narrative indicate that the author was familiar with the Egyptian story of the Doomed Prince (see Lefebvre, G., Romans et contes égyptiens de l'époque pharaonique [1949], 154Google Scholar ff., Brunner-Traut, E., Altägyptische Märdzen [1963], 24 ffGoogle Scholar., or Erman, , The Ancient Egyptians [Harper Torchbooks, 1966], 161 ff.), which relates how the king of Naharina (Syria) built a tower for his daughter, with a window a hundred feet up, and announced that he would marry her to the first man to reach the window; the ‘doomed’ prince (who, so far as our fragments extend, does not seem unduly oppressed by knowing in advance that he is destined to be killed by a dog, a snake, or a crocodile) succeeds, and marries her. But apart from the common Märchen-motif of the girl in the tower (see p. 72 n. 2) the similarities between the two stories are slight. Several reviewers have commented with approval on Philonenko's suggestion that Asenath's prayer implies at one point a distinctively Egyptian cosmogony: (12. 2–3) … La formule est surprenante… elle est étrangère a l' Ancien comme au Nouveau Testament et les Pseudépigraphes n'en attestent nul exemple. En revanche, et le fait est capital, “soulever” ou “élever le ciel” est un des traits les plus caractéristiques de la cosmogonie égyptienne, tout particulièrement héliopolitaine.' This presses rather hard; it obviously produces a more forceful antithesis to than a neutral word like icricas or the verb commonly used in such contexts, . But the idea is something of a cosmogonical commonplace.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} 1 This is not the place to discuss the dates of Chariton and Achilles Tatius, though the latter can scarcely be earlier than the second century.

^{page 80 note 2} On these works, and on general trends in Jewish literature under the Ptolemies, see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i. 687 ff., ii. 955 ff., where further bibliography may be found. Ezekiel's Alexandrian connections are not guaranteed: the argument rests on general probability, and is no stronger than it is for JA.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 3} Cf. Hengel, op. cit. 257 ff, Judentum u. Hellenismus (1969), 55 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} ….

^{page 81 note 2} ‘Aristeas’ 182 f.: the writer seems somewhat defensive: he goes out of his way to emphasize that Jews are no more peculiar than many other minorities. JA also shares with ‘Aristeas’ a taste for opulence: thus, the detailed description of the interior decoration and furnishings of Asenath's tower (2) and of her clothes (3, 9–11) seems disproportionately lengthy, while ‘Aristeas’ account of the reversible gold table presented by Philadelphus (57 ff.) is absurdly comprehensive in its detail (unless the author intended to stimulate the manufacture of reproductions).

^{page 81 note 3} There is no reason for regarding the Ninus romance as earlier than JA. Our papyri (Pack² 2616, 2617) are dated to the first century A.D. At the time when the first fragment was published this seemed, in view of Rohde's work, a sensationally early date, but there is no justification for prolonging the excitement artificially by maintaining that the date of composition must be at least as early as 100 B.C. There is no rule in these matters, but nothing like this interval can have elapsed between the composition of the fourth gospel and our earliest evidence for it, the fragment now in the Rylands Library, dated to the first half of the second century.

^{page 81 note 4} I read an earlier version of this paper to the Oxford Philological Society in February 1973, and profited greatly from the ensuing discussion; I would particularly like to thank Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, Professor A. Momigliano, Oswyn Murray, Peter Parsons, and my husband.