Harvard Theological Review

http://journals.cambridge.org/HTR

Additional services for Harvard

Theological Review:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

A Note on Theodotus' Description of

Shechem

Robert J. Bull

Harvard Theological Review / Volume 60 / Issue 02 / April 1967, pp 221 - 227

DOI: 10.1017/S0017816000003539, Published online: 10 June 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/

abstract_S0017816000003539

How to cite this article:

Robert J. Bull (1967). A Note on Theodotus' Description of Shechem.
Harvard Theological Review, 60, pp 221-227 doi:10.1017/
S0017816000003539

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/HTR, IP address: 194.95.59.195 on 28 Feb 2014

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 60 (1967), 221-28.

A NOTE ON THEODOTUS'
DESCRIPTION OF SHECHEM

A FRAGMENT of Theodotus' Hcpl 'Iov8alu>v preserved by Alexander Poly-

histor and quoted in the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cesarea
contains a description of the city of Shechem and its environs.1 This
poetic account cast in hexametrical verse and generally moulded after
Homeric example contains details about Shechem which invite compari-
son with the archaeological remains as they are known today.
Theodotus's account of the city is as follows:
1 *H 8' ap' trjv ayaOri re teal alywop.O'S Kal v
2 ovSe ph ecrxev 680s SoAt^r; TTO\IV c.i<Ta<piKf.(r6ax
3 aypodtv ovBe irort hpla \a\viqevTa irovtvaiv.
4 t£ aVTrjs Se fj,d\' ay^t Sv' ovpta tpaivcr' ipvfwd,
5 iroirj's re TrXrfBovTa Kal v\rp- T£>V 8e fiear/yv
6 arpairiTCKs rirfirp-ai apaitj [ av\S>Tn<i ] • Iv 8' €Tep<i>6i
7 17 Suprj %iKifjM>v KaTa(j>aivtTai, Upov aarv,
8 vepOtv VTTO pt£r) Se&firjfitvov, afi<j>l 8e Ttl^oi
9 Xicrcrov V7rd>peiav V7ro&£8po/ji.ev alirvOtv epxos.

r. fjS' Codex Neapolis IIAA16 2. law ] IOT; IV Codex Paris Graec.

465 6. [ ] Gaisford, Dindorf y\v<j>U Ludwich (De Theodoti Carmine
Graeco-Iudako, Univ. Konigsberg, 1899) 7. 17 Siepr} Grotius, Gifford
fj 8* Uprj Codex Marco 341, Migne 17 8' Upq Codex Bononiens. 3643,
Codex Neapolis IIAA16, Dindorf. 9. W* u>petav Codex Bononiens. 3643,
Codex Neapolis IIAA16. wroSe'Spoynev Gifford Wo 8' ISpo/tev Codex Marco
341, Codex Bononiens. 3643, Codex Neapolis IIAA16. two 8' ISpafiev
Dindorf, Migne. aiirvw Scaliger.2
After a turbulent history of almost two millennia, Shechem was cap-
tured ca. 107 B.C. by John Hyrcanus. There is some archaeological
evidence that after he laid the city waste the Maccabean conqueror
covered the defense walls of Shechem with great mounds of earth.3
Whether because he destroyed the city, buried it, or both, the result
of John Hyrcanus's effort was terminal; no subsequent major occupa-
tion of the site occurred. As a result, from the second century B.C.
1
KARL MRAS, ed., Eusebius Werke: Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Die Griechi-
schen Christlichen Schriftsteller (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954), Band 8, Teil 1.
IX.22.1 (Si2f.)-
'Loc.cit.
"G. ERNEST WRIGHT, Shechem (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 184.
222 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
until the beginning of the twentieth century A.D. the whereabouts of
the first capital of Israel and what was later a chief city of the Samar-
itans was lost to historical record. It was long assumed that the ruins
of Shechem lay beneath Nablus, the Neapolis of Vespasian, founded
ca. 72 A.D. But it was not until the German scholar, Hermann Thiersch,
in June of 1903 identified the tell, directly north of the village
Balatah, as the remains of Shechem, that the location of that ancient
city was known with any degree of certainty.4 Since that identification,
Tell Balatah has been excavated by both German and American archae-
ologists, the location of Shechem verified and some of its history deter-
mined.6 We are now able to compare, with a degree of detail not hither-
to available, the location and remains of Shechem as they may be seen
ca. three miles east of Nablus, Jordan, with the account which Theo-
dotus includes in the lines of his poem given above.
The first six lines of the description present no translation difficulties.
Theodotus indicates that the land about Shechem was good, well
watered, near the city, and near two steep forest- and grass-covered
mountains between which ran a narrow valley. This is an accurate
description of the area about Shechem as it may be seen from Tell
Balatah. The remains of the city itself are located east of the water-
shed of a comparatively narrow east-west pass between two steep moun-
tains, Jebel et Tur (Mt. Gerizim) and Jebel Ebal (Mt. Ebal). A fertile
alluvial plain, Sahel Askar, begins well within the valley between the
two mountains beside Tell Balatah and widens eastward into broad
fields which are at present under intense cultivation. Water, from not
less than ten springs on the slopes of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal
and from nearby Bir Yakub (Jacob's Well), is abundant.
In line 6 the words lv 5" Irepwdi have been taken to indicate the
location of the city at the base of Mount Ebal as seen from the per-
spective of an observer standing on the other of the two mountains,
Mount Gerizim. However, iv 8' iripwOi, understood to mean "on the
other side (of the high point of the pass between the two mountains),"
seems a more accurate translation and more in line with the Homeric
mode of observation. This assumes that Shechem was observed by one
travelling from west to east through the pass and who upon arriving
at the watershed of the pass was able to observe the city below him and
to the east of him. In point of fact, the city can be clearly observed
from either perspective.
4
G. ERNEST WRIGHT, Part III, The Archaeology of the City, The Biblical
Archaeologist 20 (1957), 20.
5
WRIGHT, Shechem. See Chapters 3 and 4 for a history of the excavations.
 NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 223
In line 7, if the reading ^S" Upy is accepted, the redundant use of
an<
Upij and Upov in ij8' Upy "S,ucifuav ^ Upbv 3.O-TV must be understood as a
somewhat awkward device used by Theodotus to emphasize the sacred
character of the city. This is the reading favored by Dindorf, Migne
and a majority of the codices. If, on the other hand, the reading 17
Steprj following Mras is accepted, one may translate Siepds, "wet" or
"liquid" and, as Gifford does, translate 77 Siepr] 2,IKIIWV, "well watered
Shechem." 6 Since, however, in line 1 Shechem has already been de-
scribed as vSpriXrj, we do not need further indication that the city
is "well watered." Such redundancy also runs counter to archae-
ological evidence. Eight German and five American expeditions at
Tell Baldtah have failed to find any water supply in the remains of
Shechem. Within the perimeter of the city's defense walls no well,
cistern, spring or water works has been encountered. The probable
reason is indicated by the remains of a conduit discovered in 1962,
buried at the foot of Mount Gerizim, which suggests that Shechem had
its water led by underground channel from one of the springs, Ein
Baldtah, on the slopes of Mount Gerizim under the southern defense
wall and into the city.7 In any case a less complex solution to the
problem is afforded, if, following the critical text of Mras, 17 Sieprj is
accepted and allowed to bear its early Homeric freight of meaning,
namely, "active" or "alive." Used in this manner at least twice in
Homer, it was known in this sense as late as the third century A.D. 8
Theodotus, who was sensitive to Homeric style, would certainly have
known this use of the word. Thus it is suggested that y Suprj %KI/J.<OV
be translated "active Shechem," "lively Shechem" or "bustling She-
chem."
Also in line 7 the words Upov ao-rv are used to describe the city of
Shechem. This led Schiirer to conclude that the author, Theodotus,
was a Samaritan, since Shechem had been for the last three centuries
of its existence a chief city of the Samaritans.9 Further, it was beside
Shechem that Mount Gerizim stood and it was on that mountain that
the Samaritans had built their temple. The fact, however, that Theo-

* See footnote 15 below.

'ROBERT J. BULL, Water Sources in the Vicinity (Appendix 4), in WRIGHT,
Shechem, 214-28.
"HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL and ROBERT SCOTT, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1948), I, 425.
* EMIL SCHURER, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
5 vols., trans, by J. Macpherson et al. (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1891), Div. II,
VOl. 3, 224f.
224 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
dotus' poem was entitled Uipl 'IouSaiW has caused Freudenthal 10 and
Ludwich 11 to doubt that Theodotus was a Samaritan. This is based
on the intense antagonism which was supposed to have existed between
Jew and Samaritan with the consequent assumption that no Samaritan
would ever call or allow himself to be called a Jew. Yet, this is precisely
what Samaritans did, according to the report of Josephus. When it
was politically expedient to do so, the Samaritans called the Jews their
kinsmen, finding relation to them in their common ancestor, Joseph.12
More specifically Josephus notes that the Samaritans, seeing that Alex-
ander the Great had so highly honored the Jews, decided to profess
themselves Jews (zyviaoav avrovs 'Iov8aiov<s oij.o\oye.lv) , 13 In light of this,
apparently there was a time when it was quite possible for a Samaritan,
especially a Hellenized Samaritan, to compose a work entitled Iltpl
'Iov8at.<ov and include within it an account of the Samaritans and the
Samaritan sacred city. Schiirer's assertion that Theodotus's use of Upbv
ao-Tv is an indication that Theodotus was a Samaritan, therefore, seems
all the more probable.
In line 8 Shechem is described as vlpdtv Wo pL^y StS/w^eW. This
conforms to the fact that the remains of Shechem are located on a low
mound or shoulder at the base of Mount Ebal.
The last three words of line 8 and line 9 of Theodotus' description
of Shechem are by any account difficult Greek which almost defy trans-
lation. Mras, recognizing the difficulty, gives in a footnote to his critical
text a quite literal translation of lines 8 and 9 as follows:
ringsum lauft als Umfriedung eine glatte Mauser
am Fuss des Gebirges hin von der Hohe her.14
The only trouble with this accurate translation is that it does not make
good sense. Gifford's15 similar effort is even less successful, and
Muller's 16 translation only slightly better. Much of the problem hinges
10
J. FREUDENTHAL, Alexander Polyhistor, Hellenistische Studien (Breslau: H.
Skutech, 1875), Heft 1 & 2, ggt.
U
A. LtrowiCH, De Theodoti Carmine Graeco-Judaico (Regimontii, 1899), s6£f.
12
JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, IX, 29of.
13
Ibid., XI, 340ft. and 344.
"MRAS, op. cit., 513.
15
EDWIN H. GUTORD, trans., Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, 2 parts
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), Part i, 457.
" the sacred town
Of Sikima mid sparkling streams is seen
Deep down the mountain's side, around whose base
E'en from the summit runs the well-built wall."
"KARL MULLER, trans., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris: 1883), III,
217.
"qua circum laevi consurgunt moenia saxo,
atque infra supraque urbem munimine cingunt."
 NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 225
on just where the T«X°S fowov is understood to have run. Any asser-
tion that it ran around the base (so Gifford) of either Mount Ebal or
Mount Gerizim must be rejected. The sheer size of the base of either
mountain discounts this possibility. Nor is there any evidence of the
remains of such a wall about the base of either mountain. Further,
while there are archaeological remains on top of both mountains, there
is no trace of a "well-built wall" running from either summit down to
the city (so Gifford), nor is it easily envisaged how a wall built in
such a manner would serve a meaningful purpose. Coins of the Neapolis
mint dating from the second and third centuries A.D. do depict a stair-
way running up the side of Mount Gerizim to its summit, but this is
clearly shown to be a flight of steps and not a defense measure.17
On the other hand, the most striking of the archaeological remains at
Tell Balatah is the wall which runs around the ruins of the city of
Shechem. This massive "Cyclopean" structure which has formed part
of the defense perimeter about Shechem at almost every stage of its
history suggests itself as the rdx°s A.unrov of Theodotus' description.
If then in line 8 a/t$i is understood as having been used without case
as an adverb and either "acrrv" or 'Vo'Aiv" is understood as its referent,
the description of the course of the wall can be brought into conformity
with archaeological fact, namely, that the wall runs about the city. In
line 9 the words mriipuav moSeSpofiev indicate that the TCI^OS AIO-OW
"runs in under the mountain's foot." In light of the peculiar location
of the city of Shechem this somewhat difficult phrase presents an image
of the course of the wall which is figuratively, if not literally, accurate.
Shechem, unlike many ancient cities, was not founded on top of a
mountain or hill but on a low shoulder or rock out-cropping at the foot
of a mountain. The city wall, especially the northern course of the wall,
runs close beside the rising steep southern slopes of Mount Ebal. Thus
an observer, viewing the city from the high point of the pass or from
Mount Gerizim, would see the slopes of Mount Ebal looming beside
and above the city wall and it would appear to him that, in a sense,
the wall ran "in under the foot of the mountain." Dindorf's reading,
wrb 8' tSpa/xev compounds the difficulty already inherent in the passage
and must be rejected.
Literally translated ahriiOev in line g means "from the heights." Thus
a'unJOev Ipicos can be understood to mean a "high or steep defense en-
closure" and would serve as an apt description of a city defense wall
seen from the point of view of an observer standing at the bottom of
the city's defenses. The sheer face of the IO m. high 5 m. thick remains
17
G. F. HILL, A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum (1914),
xxxviiif.
226 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
of Shechem's city wall which still stands at Tell Baldtah was one of
the most massive city defense systems in Palestine.18
Finally, the apposite use of relxo^ Ato-ow . . . a'mvdev 2/OKOS supports
the contention that Theodotus was describing a major defense measure.
If then one assumes that Theodotus in his account of Shechem was
describing a defense wall which runs about the city, the following
translation of the last part of Theodotus' description is possible.
6 on the other side (of the pass)
7 the bustling (city) of Shechem appears, a sacred town
8 built down below the base (of the mountain) and round it (the city)
9 a smooth wall runs in under the mountain's foot, a steep defense
enclosure.
The Drew-McCormick archaeological investigations at Tell Baldtah
indicate that after a period of abandonment of about one and one-half
centuries the city of Shechem was resettled about the time of Alexander
the Great (ca. 331 B.C.), an occupation marked by extensive rebuild-
ing and refortification.19 The subsequent two-and-one-quarter-century
history of the city, first under Ptolemaic and then under Seleucid dom-
ination, is evidenced in four archaeological strata:
Stratum IV 331 B.C. — ca. 250 B.C.
Stratum III ca. 250—190 B.C.
Stratum II ca. 190—150 B.C.
Stratum I ca. 150—107 B.C.
Part of the extensive refortification which marked Stratum IV was the
readaptation of the Middle Bronze Age city walls for Hellenistic Age
defense purposes. In spite of the refurbished city walls which consti-
tuted a well-prepared defense perimeter, sometime during the reign
of Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C.) the city was destroyed. In Stratum III
(ca. 250-190 B.C.) houses of the city were again rebuilt, and some on
an even more grand scale than before. A beaten, earth slope running
up to the wall was repaired and made steeper and harder than the
previous one. Generally, the defense walls of Stratum III appear to
have been similar to and at least as formidable as those of Stratum IV.
During the first part of the second century B.C., however, significant
changes occurred within the city. Since there is no evidence of a de-
struction of the city at this time and since the change seems to have
been a gradual one, the date of the end of Stratum III is indefinite.
The date ca. 190 B.C. tentatively assigned to mark the transition be-
18
WRIGHT, Shechem, syi.
™Ibid., 170-84.
 NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 227
tween Strata III and II is a round number "not to be taken too pre-
cisely." 20 The most significant change which marks the shift from
Stratum III to Stratum II is the extensive evidence of a disregard for
the great defense enclosure which encircled the city. The wall which
had been a major part of the defense perimeter in Strata IV and I I I
was in Stratum II not used for defense purposes at all. Stones appear to
have been robbed from it in order to build insubstantial guard towers
out in front of the line of the city wall. At the same time the lower
levels of the beaten earth slope were covered with earth and leveled up,
thus nullifying in great part any defense potential it may have had.
There seems to have been no need of, or no capacity for, building a
defense structure on a par with the earlier Hellenistic defense measures
found in Stratum III. In any case, some time in the first half of the
second century B.C. all attempts at a strong fortification of the city
of Shechem ceased. Weak fortifications continued to be the mark of
the city in both Strata II and I until at the hand of John Hyrcanus
ca. 107 Shechem was destroyed for the last time.21
The archaeological evidence thus indicates that there was a strong
defense enclosure about the city of Shechem from the time of its
Hellenistic reoccupation ca. 331 until the first half of the second cen-
tury B.C., at which time the defense wall fell into disuse. For Theodotus
to have described the defense measures of Shechem in the words "relxos
XUTCTOV . . . aiirvOcv 2pKo«," he would have had to have seen the city
in its full power and before the disuse of its defense wall. The accu-
racy with which Theodotus describes the location and details of the city,
noted above, suggests that he was describing a living Shechem, f) foepr)
%K'IIJMV, not a fictitious one. His description of the strongly defended
city, therefore, throws new light on the time in which he lived and
wrote. While the dates of Theodotus are not known, the fact that he
is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, whose floruit is ca. 50 B.C., has
served as the basis for assigning him the date of "before 50 B.C." 2 2
The above archaeological evidence enables us to assume that Theodotus
lived at least a full century earlier (i.e., sometime before the middle of
the second century B.C.) than we have been able to assume heretofore.
ROBERT J. BULL
DREW UNIVERSITY
MADISON, N J .

20
LAWRENCE E. TOOMBS and G. ERNEST WRIGHT, The Third Campaign at
Balatah (Shechem), Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 161
(February, 1961), 46.
a
WRIGHT, Shechem, 183.
^SCHURER, op. cit., 225 and 2221. F. JACOBY, ed., Die Fragmente der Griechi-
schen Historiker (Berlin, 1940), IIIA, 96-121. FREUDENTHAL, op. cit., 99f.