The story of Alexander the Great travelling to Jerusalem, making obeisance to the High Priest, presiding over sacrifices to one God and granting privileges to Jews, is among the best-publicized (semi-)legendary tales of Alexander. For most readers, its canonical rendition, generally regarded as the earliest, is that of Josephus (AJ 11.321–39). Its history and meaning are the topic of the newest book of Ory Amitay, who believes (viii) that the epsilon recension of the Alexander Romance harbours a trace of the pre-Josephus story of ‘Alexander in Jerusalem tradition’ (AIJ). In his opinion, Josephus was the last, not the first, in the AIJ tradition (135–36).

Many a historian may begin reading Amitay’s book with Chapter 5, ‘From Myth to History’ (163–80), concerned with the historicity of Alexander’s trip to Jerusalem. Amitay observes that denying it solely on the silence of major sources is untenable (171). In fact, Pliny’s account (HN 12.117) of balsam production brings a supporting argument for Alexander’s presence in the area (172–75), so the statement concluding Chapter 5, ‘The surest answer to the question whether Alexander the Great ever visited Jerusalem is that we do not know’ (180), comes as a surprise.

In chapters 1–4, Amitay identifies four storylines in the AIJ tradition: one in epsilon, two in rabbinic literature, and one in Josephus. Chapter 1 (7–64) is the most significant in Amitay’s endeavour to uncover the roots of Josephus’ AIJ story. Amitay places the origin of epsilon in the age when the Seleukid Empire flourished (29–32). He is certainly right that the prominence of Seleukos and Antiochos in epsilon can be explained only if we agree that the eighth/ninth-century Byzantine compiler made use of a much earlier pro-Seleukid source. In Amitay’s opinion, this source was the early second-century BCE Seleukid Romance penned by a Jewish author who introduced biblical elements into the AIJ story (34–35).

Chapters 2, ‘Alexander and Gviha Ben-Psisa’ (65–99), and 3, ‘Alexander and Simon the Just’ (100–34), are concerned with the role Alexander plays in rabbinic literature as illustrated by the stories of Gviha Ben-Psisa and Simon the Just. He makes the case for identification of Alexander with Pompey in the Gviha story (78–86). In Amitay’s reading, the story of Alexander and Simon the Just was invented in response to a crisis in Jerusalem caused by Samaritans polluting the Temple with human bones (115–25). In Amitay’s opinion, one aim of the story was to bolster the position of High Priest in the eyes of the Roman authorities by making a clever reference to Alexander (127–29).

In Chapter 4, ‘Josephus’ (135–62), Amitay comes back to the position of Josephus within the AIJ tradition, stating that the core stories of the rabbinic writings discussed in the previous chapter were available to Josephus and that by his time Alexander was an element of Jewish oral tradition (135–36). In Amitay’s analysis, Josephus introduced Alexander into his narrative of the history of Judea to present Alexander as the predecessor and role model of Rome (157–62).

In ‘Conclusions’ (181–84), Amitay repeats the basic premise of his book, that the Seleukid Romance was at the core of the AIJ tradition, by building a peripety-based story out of divergent historical and myth-historical elements. To Amitay, the AIJ tradition is negligible in the history of Alexander but fundamental in the Jewish intellectual approach to major powers exercising control over Eretz Israel: the Seleukids, Pompey, the Roman Empire. In Amitay’s reconstruction, Alexander was the role model for foreign powers on how to treat the small nation of Judea and its Temple.

Devoting one short chapter to the authenticity of Alexander’s visit in Jerusalem, Amitay obviously wants to steer away from the historicity issue, concentrating instead on the development of this motif in literature and oral tradition in Judea. The cornerstone of his discussion is the hypothesis that all known renditions of this episode were underpinned by the unattested Seleukid Romance. Regretfully, Amitay does not place this issue in the context of various semi-historical romances, not even the Seleucus Romance (see P.J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge MA, 2014), although he basically agrees that there was a, now lost, popular literature promoting the Seleukid cause. Amitay wants his Seleukid Romance to be associated with Antiochos III, correlating this king with Alexander the Great (43). His argument is not fully convincing, for example in associating the epsilon stories of foundations with Antiochos III (33), even if he was not nearly as famous as a founder of cities as Antiochos I. What is lacking in Amitay’s analysis of epsilon is discussion of the prominent role of Seleukos in it. The pair Seleukos I and his son Antiochos (I) would fit much better than Antiochos III, among other things because Alexander was the principal point of reference for Seleukos I. Another unfinished point is Amitay’s treatment of the story of the gates built by Alexander to enclose northern nations, Gog and Magog among them, in the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius and in epsilon, leading to the conclusion that the direct or indirect source for ps.-Methodius was the Seleukid Romance (56–57). It seems to be divorced from the discussion on Gog and Magog and ps.-Methodius in modern academic literature (G. Tamer, A. Mein and L. Greisiger (eds), Gog and Magog: Contributions toward a World History of an Apocalyptic Motif (Berlin, 2023)).

In general, the book is well-researched and carefully edited. It demonstrates Amitay’s mastery in handling both rabbinic and other biblical sources. Amitay presents to the reader the peculiarity of these literary genres, their way of handling history and multiple reasons why they employ seemingly odd names for political entities. To most classically educated readers, this will be the lasting value of Amitay’s book. His approach to the tradition of Alexander’s visit in Jerusalem is fresh, innovative and openly polemical with the established majority views, even if not totally convincing on all points.