Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jaddus the High Priest and Alexander the Great – Fact or Fiction? Religion, Politics and Historiography in Late Seventeenth-Century England

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. In the years 1688–1694, over 2000 pamphlets on various topics related to the Revolution were printed. Of them, about 200 dealt exclusively with the question of the allegiance requirement (M. Goldie, ‘The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 83, 1980, pp. 473–564 [478]).

  2. There are many problems and questions concerning the sources of Josephus’s story. See most recently: A. D. Tropper, A Legend Reinvented: Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature, Leiden, 2013, pp. 113–56.

  3. Many accounts of the events of the final months of James II’s regime have been written, see, recently: T. J. G. Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720, London, 2006, pp. 239–363.

  4. Regarding the constitutional imbroglio see Harris, Revolution (n. 3 above), pp. 311–28. Regarding the assortment of confused responses to the constitutional crisis, see H. Nenner, The Right to be King: The Succession to the Crown of England 1603–1714, Basingstoke, 1995, pp. 184–6.

  5. Harris, Revolution (n. 3 above), pp. 320–25.

  6. On the events leading to Sancroft’s removal see W. Gibson, The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord, London, 2001, pp. 34–8.

  7. G. Burgess, ‘The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered’, English Historical Review, 107, 1992, pp. 837–61 (847). The assertion of the divine right of kings to rule was common to all who engaged with the question of the right to kingship. The dilemma was, as Howard Nenner put it, "How God’s choice was to be known" (Nenner, Right [n. 4 above], p. 7).

  8. The problem of complete allegiance to the king was at the centre of the controversy between Whigs and Tories during the exclusion crisis (1679–1682). One of the chief reasons proffered by the Tories, who included the heads of the Church of England and Archbishop William Sancroft among them, was the Divine right of kings and his legal successor (Nenner, Right [n. 4 above], pp. 120–46; T. Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society, 1660–1715, London, 1993, pp. 96–7).

  9. Gilbert Burnet, A Sermon Preached in the Chappel of St. James’s, Before His Highness the Prince of Orange, the 23rd of December, 1688, London, 1689. On the place of the Glorious Revolution in the scheme of the end of days see pp. 20–22 in particular. For exegesis of Burnet’s sermon see T. Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 28–52.

  10. On Sancroft’s activity see P. Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft: Essays on English Religion in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, London, 2006, pp. 190–96.

  11. J. Overall, Bishop Overall’s Convocation Book MDCVI, London, 1690. The book’s title-page bears the imprimatur 24/6/1689 while it was published in 1690. However, the Convocation Book was available for consultation in Durham prior to publication and a few copies of the manuscript had been circulated as Sancroft himself noted in his introduction to the Convocation Book. Henceforth, quotations of the Convocation Book are given from the critical and annotated edition The Convocation Book of MDCVI, ed. J. H. Parker, Oxford, 1844.

  12. A. Milton, ‘“Anglicanism” by Stealth: The Career and Influence of John Overall’, in Religious Politics in Post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke, ed. K. Fincham and P. Lake, Woodbridge, 2006, p. 175, n. 69.

  13. For citations from Josephus and the Books of Maccabees (1 and 2) see Convocation Book (n. 11 above), chaps 30–34, pp. 54–70.

  14. Ibid., chap. 30, p. 55.

  15. P. Harrison, ‘Religion’ and the Religions in the English Enlightenment, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 130–31.

  16. D. R. Woolf, The Idea of History in Early Stuart England, Toronto, 1990, pp. 196, 210; N. Popper, ‘An Ocean of Lies: The Problem of Historical Evidence in the Sixteenth Century’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 74, 2011, pp. 375–400 (377).

  17. The Political Works of James I, ed. C. H. McIlwain, Cambridge, MA, 1918, pp. xxxvi–xxxvii; L. L. Peck, ‘Kingship, Counsel and Law in Early Stuart Britain’, in The Varieties of British Political Thought 1500–1800, ed. J. G. A. Pocock et al., Cambridge, 1993, pp. 87–8.

  18. Convocation Book (n. 11 above), Canon 28, p. 59.

  19. Ibid.

  20. J. J. Scaliger, Opus de emendatione temporum, Leiden, 1598, p. xvii.

  21. In his methodological work on historiography, Degory Whear recommends studying the biblical period from the Bible itself together with Josephus (D. Whear, The Method and Order of Reading Both Civil and Ecclesiastical Histories, transl. E. Bohun, London, 1685, pp. 227–8).

  22. Convocation Book (n. 11 above), Canon 30, pp. 55–6.

  23. Ibid., chap. 31, pp. 56–7.

  24. Ibid., Canon 31, pp. 57–8.

  25. Henceforth, the discussion will revolve around different authors’ understanding of the Convocation regarding Alexander and Jaddus, and on the affinity between the Convocation and Josephus’s story. However, Edward Stillingfleet wrote already in October 1689 (the Convocation Book was published only in early 1690) that the transfer of Jaddus’s allegiance from Darius to Alexander elucidates that the duty of allegiance pertains to whomever Providence has granted de facto authority (E. Stillingfleet, A Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, on Account of the Oaths with an Answer to the History of Passive Obedience, So Far as Relates to Them, London, 1689, pp. 36–7).

  26. Z. Taylor, Obedience and Submission to the Present Government, Demonstrated from Bishop Overall’s Convocation-Book, London, 1690, p. 5. Although in the pamphlet itself it is referred to as canon 36, Wagstaffe, who responded to the assertion, assumed the reference was to Canon 30 (Thomas Wagstaffe, An Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Entituled, Obedience and Submission, London, 1690, pp. 3–4). This was corroborated by Taylor in his response (Z. Taylor, The Vindication of a Late Pamphlet [Entituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government, Demonstrated from Bp. Overal’s Convocation-book]: From the False Glosses and Illusive Interpretations of a Pretended Answer, London, 1691, p. 10).

  27. Although the date might actually be a bit later, see s.v. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=34690.

  28. C. F. Mullett, ‘A Case of Allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 10, 1946, pp. 83–103; M. S. Zook, ‘Turncoats and Double Agents in Restoration and Revolutionary England: The Case of Robert Ferguson, the Plotter’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 42, 2009, pp. 367–8.

  29. Goldie, ‘Revolution’ (n. 1 above), pp. 480–82, 557.

  30. W. Sherlock, The Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers, Stated and Resolved, According to Scripture and Reason, and the Principles of the Church of England, London 1690, preface [p. iv]. However it seems that the actual historical event which caused Sherlock to change his mind was James II’ defeat at the battle of the Boyne (July 1690), see K. Padley, ‘Rendering unto Caesar in the Age of Revolution: William Sherlock and William of Orange’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 59, 2008, pp. 680–96 (681).

  31. Sherlock, Case (n. 30 above), p. 3.

  32. Ibid., p. 6.

  33. On the transition from reliance on tradition to historical precedent see J. M. Levine, ‘From Tradition to History: Chillingworth to Gibbon’, in Historians and Ideologues: Essays in Honor of Donald R. Kelley, ed. A. T. Grafton and J. H. M. Salmon, Rochester, 2001, pp. 181–210. This conception increasingly gained credence during the English Revolution, especially in the Church of England. See Id., ‘Matter of Fact in the English Revolution’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 64, 2003, pp. 317–35. On the importance of historical precedent in the controversy between Jurors and Nonjurors see J. A. I. Champion, The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies, 1660–1730, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 25–52.

  34. This converged with the empiricist approach to natural sciences – the quest for facts as they are or as they were- which also came to govern historical inquiry, see B. J. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720, Ithaca and London, 2000, pp. 35–59.

  35. Wagstaffe, Answer (n. 26 above). Although anonymous, the pamphlet’s ascription to Wagstaffe is certain (Padley, ‘Rendering’ [n. 30 above], p. 681, n. 3). On Wagstaffe’s carrier see R. D. Cornwall, ‘Wagstaffe, Thomas (1645–1712)’, ODNB, online edn, Jan. 2008.

  36. Wagstaffe, Answer (n. 26 above), p. 6.

  37. Some of the chronographers of the period are mentioned by Wagstaffe and his detractors. On Scaliger’s attempts to reconstruct the chronology of the Persian period, see A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, II, Oxford, 1993, pp. 301–12.

  38. Modern scholars are still debating the issue, see D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period’, JSJ, 21, 1990, pp. 175–99.

  39. Wagstaffe, Answer (n. 26 above), p. 10.

  40. Ibid., p. 10.

  41. B. J. Shapiro, Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-Century England: A Study of the Relationships between Natural Science, Religion, History, Law, and Literature, Princeton, 1983, pp. 119–54.

  42. Champion, Pillars (n. 33 above), p. 42.

  43. Ibid, pp. 44–5.

  44. Seventeenth-century historiography and the refinement of methods of historical inquiry have generated extensive literature. In addition to Barbara Shapiro’s two books that I already cited (see nn. 34 and 41 above), see also A. Grafton, What was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, 2007, and the bibliography in Popper, ‘An Ocean of Lies’ (n. 16 above), p. 377, n. 1. On the beginning of critical historiography in England see the classical work of F. S. Fussner, The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought, 1580–1640, New York, 1962. Fussner’s thesis was adopted be many others for bibliography and critique. See D. R. Woolf, ‘A High Road to the Archives? Rewriting the History of Early Modern English Historical Culture’, Storia della storiografia, 32, 1997, pp. 33–59. For recent critique see A. Hadfield, ‘Sceptical History and the Myth of the Historical Revolution’, Renaissance and Reformation, 29, 2005, pp. 25–44.

  45. Ibid., p. 12.

  46. Taylor, Vindication (n. 26 above), p. 10.

  47. W. Sherlock, A Vindication of The Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers: in Reply to An Answer to a Late Pamphlet, London, 1691, p. 18.

  48. In 1683, Lloyd published an historical account of the Church of England. Later, in 1701, he would publish the Bible with a revised version of James Ussher’s chronology. On his career and writings see A. T. Hart, William Lloyd 1627—1717: Bishop, Politician, Author and Prophet, London, 1952.

  49. The conversation between Sancroft and Lloyd was recorded by John Evelyn and is quoted in W. Johnston, ‘Revelation and the Revolution of 1688–1689’, The Historical Journal, 48, 2005, pp. 351–89 (351).

  50. Hart, William Lloyd (n. 48 above), pp. 235–9.

  51. W. Lloyd, A Letter to Dr. Sherlock, in Vindication of that Part of Josephus’s History, Which Gives an Account of Iaddus the High-Priest’s Submitting to Alexander the Great While Darius was Living, London, 1691, p. 2.

  52. Ibid., p. 2.

  53. Shapiro, Probability (n. 41 above), pp. 147–57; ead., Culture (n. 33 above), pp. 56–8.

  54. Champion, Pillars (n. 33 above), p. 27.

  55. Lloyd, Letter (n. 51 above), p. 18.

  56. Ibid., p. 14.

  57. Ibid.

  58. E. H. Carr, What is History, Cambridge, 1961, p. 12.

  59. Lloyd, Letter (n. 51 above), p. 15. 300 years later the Israeli historian Aryeh Kasher would propose the same solution, ‘Further Revised Thoughts on Josephus’ Report of Alexander’s Campaign to Palestine (Ant. XI 304–347)’, in Judah Between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE), ed. L. L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits, London, 2011, pp. 140–42.

  60. R. Marcus (ed. and transl.), Josephus VI: Jewish Antiquities Books IX–XI (LCL), Cambridge, 1937, p. 474, n.a.

  61. Lloyd, Letter (n. 51 above), pp. 25–6.

  62. Ibid, p. 26.

  63. To this, one might also add the 10 pages written by John Milner on the chronological aspect alone: J. Milner, A Brief Examination of Some Passages in the Chronological Part of a Letter, Written to Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication, London, 1691.

  64. Thomas Wagstaffe, An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock: Written in Vindication of that Part of Josephus’s History Which Gives the Account of Jaddus’s Submission to Alexander Against the Answer to the Piece Entituled, Obedience and Submission to the Present Government, London, 1692, p. 6.

  65. Ibid., p. 14.

  66. Ibid., p. 59.

  67. Ibid., p. 66.

  68. Wagstaffe, Answer (n. 26 above), p. 3.

  69. Ibid., postscript, p. 3.

  70. Wagstaffe, Answer to a Letter (n. 64 above), p. 85.

  71. Ibid.

  72. Sherlock, Case (n. 30 above), p. 6.

  73. Ibid.

  74. Thomas Wagstaffe, An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, London, 1692, p. 80.

  75. D. R. Woolf, ‘From Hystories to the Historical: Five Transitions in Thinking about the Past, 1500–1700’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 68, 2005, pp. 33–70 (37).

  76. Ibid., pp. 63–7.

  77. Robert Jenkin, The Title of a Thorough Settlement Examined; In Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers, London, 1691, p. 23.

  78. See for instance G. M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688–1689, Oxford, 1965, p. 8.

  79. Nenner, Right (n. 4 above), pp. 217–18.

  80. The Nonjurors and the Jacobites are, of course, not one and the same. However, over time some merged into the Jacobite movement, see P. K. Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 139–45.

Acknowledgments

I'd like to thank Prof. Avihu Zakai for his invaluable comments. This paper is dedicated to the memory Prof. Michael Heyd, with whom I discussed many of the issues dealt with in it.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Shaanan College, Kiryat Shmuel, Israel

    Meir Ben Shahar

  2. Department of History of the Jewish People, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Meir Ben Shahar

Authors
  1. Meir Ben Shahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meir Ben Shahar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben Shahar, M. Jaddus the High Priest and Alexander the Great – Fact or Fiction? Religion, Politics and Historiography in Late Seventeenth-Century England. Int class trad 23, 290–306 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-016-0410-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-016-0410-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation