Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible
HELLENISTIC CULTURE AND SOCIETY General Editors: Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A . A . Long, and A n d r e w F. Stewart I. Alexander to Actium: T h e Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic A g e , by Peter Green II. Hellenism in the East: T h e Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, edited by Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White III. T h e Question of "Eclecticism": Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edited by J. M . Dillon and A . A . L o n g V A History of Macedonia, by R. M a l c o l m Errington, translated by Catherine Errington V I . Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., by Stephen V Tracy V I I . T h e Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora V I I I . Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, by Julia Annas I X . Hellenistic History and Culture, edited by Peter Green X . T h e Best of the Argonauts: T h e Redefinition of the Epic Hero in Book O n e of Apollonius' Argonautica, by James J. Clauss X I . Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics, by A n d r e w Stewart X I I . Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, edited by by A . W. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A . A . Long, and A . Stewart X I I I . From Samarkhand to Sardis: A N e w Approach to the Seleucid Empire, by Susan Sherwin-White and Amelie Kuhrt X I V Regionalism and C h a n g e in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314-167 B.C., by G a r y Reger X V Hegemony to Empire: T h e Development of the R o m a n Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C., by Robert Kallet-Marx X V I . Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius, by Arthur M . Eckstein X V I I . T h e Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, T h e Islands, and Asia Minor, by Getzel M . Cohen X V I I I . Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., by Sheila L. A g e r X I X . Theocritus's U r b a n Mimes: Mobility, Gender, and Patronage, by Joan B. Burton X X . Athenian D e m o c r a c y in Transition: Attic Letter Cutters o f 340 to 290 B.C., by Stephen V Tracy X X I . Pseudo-Hecataeus, " O n the Jews": Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, by Bezalel Bar-Kochva X X I I . Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic Period, by K e n t J. Rigsby X X I I I . T h e Cynics: T h e Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, R. Bracht Branh a m and Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze, editors
XXIV
T h e Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their K o i n o n in Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C., by Joseph B . Scholten
X X V T h e Argonautika by Apollonius Rodios, translated, with introduction, commen tary, and glossary, by Peter Green X X V I . Hellenistic Constructs: Culture, History, and Historiography, edited by Paul Cartledge, Peter Garnsey, and Erich Gruen X X V I I . Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, by Louis H . Feldman X X V I I I . Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, by K a t h r y n J. Gutzwiller X X I X . For Health and Safety: Religion in Hellenistic Athens, by Jon D. Mikalson X X X . Heritage and Hellenism: T h e Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, by Erich S. Gruen X X X I . T h e Beginnings of Jewishness, by Shaye D. C o h e n X X X I I . Thundering Zeus: T h e M a k i n g of Hellenistic Bactria, by Frank L. Holt
JOSEPHUS'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE
LOUIS
H.
BIBLE
FELDMAN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley
Los Angeles
London
University o f California Press Berkeley and L o s Angeles, California University o f California Press, Ltd. London, England © 1998 by T h e Regents o f the University o f California
Library o f C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Feldman, Louis H . Josephus's interpretation o f the B i b l e / L o u i s H . Feldman. p.
cm.—(Hellenistic culture and society)
Includes bibliographic references and index I S B N 0-520-20853-6 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. criticism.
2. J u d a i s m — A p o l o g e t i c works
3. J e w s — H i s t o r y — T o 70 A.D.—Historiography.
Biography.
I. Title.
DS116J744.F45
History and
4. Heroes in the B i b l e —
II. Series
1998
22i.6'o92—dc2i
97-36613 r97
Printed in the U n i t e d States o f A m e r i c a 9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
T h e p a p e r used in this publication meets the m i n i m u m requirements o f A m e r i c a n National Standards for Information S c i e n c e s — P e r m a n e n c e o f Paper for Printed L i b r a r y Materials, A N S I Z39.48-1984.
To our children and their spouses: Moshe
and Nova, Sara and Eddie, Leah and
Brad,
who have brought us and, we are confident, will continue to bring us so much n a c h a s , through their love of and devotion to our Torah
tradition.
c
Veheshiv lev-^avoth al-banim MALACHI
c
velev banim al ^avotham. 3:24
CONTENTS
PREFACE
/
xiii
PART ONE •GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS i. Josephus's Historiographical Predecessors
/
2. Josephus as Rewriter of the Bible
/
14
3. T h e Qualities of Biblical Heroes
/
74
4. Josephus as Apologist to Non-Jews and to Jews 5. Stylistic and Other Changes P A R T T W O -J O S E P H U S ' S
/
/ 3
/
132
163
BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
6. A B R A H A M
/
223
7. I S A A C
/
290
8. J A C O B
/
304
9. J O S E P H
/
3
10. M O S E S
/
374
11. J O S H U A
/
3
5
443
12. S A M S O N
/
461
13. S A M U E L
/
490
14. S A U L 15. D A V I D
/
509 /
537
/
/
221
xii
CONTENTS
16. S O L O M O N
/
17. D A N I E L
/
CONCLUSION
/
570 629
659
ABBREVIATIONS
/
671
BIBLIOGRAPHY
/
6>J
INDEXES
/
703
Passages from A n c i e n t Writers a. Jewish Scriptures
/
703
b. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls c. New Testament d. Josephus e. Philo and Pseudo-Philo, f.
/ /
g. Rabbinic Literature, Medieval Jewish
Writers
/
/
i. Inscriptions and Papyri
/ /
773
/
775
k. Classical Latin Authors
/
789
G e n e r a l Index
/
793
Greek, Latin, and H e b r e w and A r a m a i c Words M o d e r n Scholars
/
771
Greek Authors
Classical
753
759
Works, Samaritan Literature
h. Christian Church Fathers
j.
721
727
Biblical Antiquities
Other Graeco-Jewish
/
725
/
831
/
811
761
PREFACE
T h e J e w s , as F e r g u s M i l l a r (1987, 147) h a s r e m a r k e d , w e r e the o n l y p e o p l e u n d e r R o m a n rule w h o n o t o n l y h a d a l o n g r e c o r d e d history b u t k e p t it, r e i n t e r p r e t e d it, a n d a c t e d o n it. T h o s e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
are t o b e f o u n d in s u c h w r i t e r s as
Demetrius, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus, Cleodemus Malchus, A r i s t e a s , P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s , T h e o p h i l u s , T h a l l u s , a n d Justus o f T i b e r i a s , d a t i n g f r o m the t h i r d c e n t u r y B.C.E. t o the first c e n t u r y C.E.; b u t these survive o n l y i n frag m e n t a r y f o r m . T h e r e are r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e x t a n t in the n u m e r o u s treatises in the A p o c r y p h a a n d the P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , as w e l l as in the N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d the S a m a r i t a n tradition; b u t these consist g e n e r a l l y o f c o m m e n t s o n i n d i v i d u a l p a s sages a n d a r e h a r d l y s y s t e m a t i c . T h e r e are m a n y c o m m e n t s to b e f o u n d in t h e D e a d S e a Scrolls, b u t a g a i n these d e a l w i t h i n d i v i d u a l p a s s a g e s ; a n d e x c e p t for the Genesis Apocryphon, w h i c h exists in a v e r y f r a g m e n t a r y f o r m , t h e y d o n o t d e a l i n a s y s t e m a t i c w a y w i t h the historical b o o k s o f the B i b l e . P h i l o d o e s c o m m e n t at l e n g t h o n the B i b l e , b u t his c o n c e r n is m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h a n historical; a n d , i n a n y c a s e , h e restricts himself, at least in the e x t a n t treatises, t o the P e n t a t e u c h , w i t h o n l y the briefest allusions to the o t h e r b o o k s o f the B i b l e . T h e r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m d o c o v e r the h i s t o r i c a l p o r t i o n s o f the B i b l e ; but, b e i n g , o n the w h o l e , s e r m o n i c i n n a t u r e , t h e y d o n o t p r o c e e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n d often digress. M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h t h e y d o u b d e s s c o n t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l , w h a t is p r o b a b l y the earliest o f t h e m , Genesis Rabbah, is a p p a r e n t l y n o t r e c o r d e d until the b e g i n n i n g o f the fifth century. O f s y s t e m a t i c r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o n e m i g h t say t h a t the earliest a n d m o s t c o m p l e t e is the S e p t u a g i n t , the translation o f the P e n t a t e u c h into G r e e k , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to the Letter of Aristeas, w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d b y K i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s o f E g y p t a b o u t the y e a r 270 B.C.E., a l t h o u g h s o m e h a v e t h o u g h t it to d a t e f r o m a c e n t u r y later. O f a similar n a t u r e are the A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e s k n o w n as t a r g u m i m ; b u t t h o u g h they, like the S e p t u a g i n t , c o n t a i n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l , t h e earli est w a s a p p a r e n d y n o t r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g until the s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E. It is signiXlll
xiv
PREFACE
ficant t h a t J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f (Ant. 1.10-12) cites the S e p t u a g i n t as the p r e c e d e n t for his Antiquities. S i n c e h e a p p a r e n t l y f o u n d its style deficient a n d its m e t h o d uncriti c a l , h e d e c i d e d to d o , in effect, a s e c o n d e d i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , the S e p t u a g i n t a n d the t a r g u m i m are, for the m o s t p a r t , v e r y close translations o r p a r a p h r a s e s o f the text a n d m a k e relatively little a t t e m p t to e x p l a i n o r i n t e r p r e t it. A w o r k m o r e c o m p a r a b l e to J o s e p h u s ' s revision o f the B i b l e is the Biblical An tiquities o f P s e u d o - P h i l o , g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t to b e a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s . B u t it is m u c h briefer, b e i n g a b o u t one-fifth t h e l e n g t h o f J o s e p h u s for the p e r i o d t h a t it c o v e r s . P s e u d o - P h i l o e n d s w i t h the d e a t h o f S a u l , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s c o v e r s the entire historical p e r i o d o f the B i b l e ; m o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s to c o v e r the entire b i b l i c a l h i s t o r y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n d t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e s u c c e e d s in d o i n g so, P s e u d o - P h i l o m a k e s n o s u c h p r o m i s e a n d , in fact, o m i t s o r a b b r e v i a t e s drastically n u m e r o u s p o r t i o n s . T h u s J o s e p h u s e m e r g e s as the earliest systematic c o m m e n t a t o r o n t h e B i b l e a n d is c o n s e q u e n d y o f the g r e a t e s t v a l u e . T h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is a n a t t e m p t to e x a m i n e this w o r k a n d to d e t e r m i n e t h e p r i n c i p l e s t h a t g u i d e d J o s e p h u s in his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the B i b l e . T w o b a s i c q u e s t i o n s t h a t this w o r k addresses are the e x t e n t to w h i c h , in his r e w r i t i n g o f the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e his o w n c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n , a n issue t h a t h a s b e e n p o i n t e d l y raised in a r e c e n t a n d carefully b a l a n c e d w o r k b y P e r B i l d e (1988, 1 4 1 - 5 0 ) , a n d the e x t e n t to w h i c h h e h a s a m a r k e d a n d g e n e r a l l y consistent p o i n t o f view, c o n s o n a n t w i t h c e r t a i n t h e m e s in his w o r k . I n the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , J o s e p h u s w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d as the o n l y h i s t o r i a n w h o p r e s e n t s a c o n n e c t e d a c c o u n t o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y f r o m the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. t o the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e in the y e a r 70, a n d as a w r i t e r i n d i s p e n s a b l e for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t e r a . N e v e r t h e less, h e w a s g e n e r a l l y v i e w e d as a n e n c y c l o p e d i a o f d a t a a n d as a c o m p i l e r o f s o u r c e s r a t h e r t h a n as a n intelligent author. T h e s u s p i c i o n a t t a c h e d t o his c h a r a c ter, p a r t i c u l a r l y his role in the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , w a s e x t e n d e d to his a i m s a n d ability as a w r i t e r ; a n d s c h o l a r s h i p c o n c l u d e d t h a t h e m u s t h a v e b o r r o w e d v i r tually e v e r y t h i n g a n d w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d i s c e r n i n g w h a t those s o u r c e s w e r e . It w a s t h o u g h t t h a t s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y o b v i o u s in the first h a l f o f his m a j o r w o r k , t h e Jewish Antiquities, c o n t a i n i n g his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . T h e p o s sible v a l u e o f this study e x t e n d s b e y o n d the B i b l e e x e g e s i s t h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as it m a y g i v e us s o m e c l u e s for e v a l u a t i n g J o s e p h u s as a h i s t o r i a n a n d the factors t h a t i n f l u e n c e the w a y in w h i c h h e w o r k s w i t h his sources, this b e i n g the o n l y p a r t o f his w o r k (together w i t h his p a r a p h r a s e o f the Letter ofAristeas a n d the First B o o k o f M a c c a b e e s ) w h e r e w e c a n c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s w i t h his p r e s u m e d sources at s o m e l e n g t h . T h e p r e s e n t w o r k falls into t w o g e n e r a l divisions. I n the first p a r t , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e t o u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e s a n d t e c h n i q u e s in retelling the B i b l e . I n the s e c o n d p a r t , c a s e studies o f t w e l v e k e y b i b l i c a l figures are p r e s e n t e d to test the d e g r e e t o w h i c h these p u r p o s e s a n d t e c h n i q u e s are fulfilled. If, as is h e r e c o n t e n d e d , J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k is, t o a g r e a t d e g r e e , a p o l o g e t i c , it s h o u l d n o t b e surpris-
PREFACE
xv
i n g t h a t h e p l a c e s p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s o n a n s w e r i n g t h e c h a r g e s o f s u c h influential w r i t e r s as A p i o n (Ag. Ap. 2.135) a n d A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (Ag. Ap. 2.148) t h a t t h e J e w s h a d failed t o p r o d u c e r e m a r k a b l e m e n o r e m i n e n t sages a n d h a d c o n t r i b u t e d n o useful i n v e n t i o n to c i v i l i z a t i o n . H i s t r e a t m e n t o f s u c h i m p o r t a n t figures in J e w i s h h i s t o r y as A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a m s o n , S a m u e l , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d D a n i e l is c r u c i a l in his r e s p o n s e t o these c h a r g e s . T h e r e a d e r m a y w o n d e r w h y it is n e c e s s a r y in t h e first p a r t o f the p r e s e n t w o r k t o r e h e a r s e a l a r g e n u m b e r o f e x a m p l e s o f the qualities o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s w h e n e a c h c h a p t e r in the s e c o n d p a r t is g o i n g to c o v e r this g r o u n d . T h e r e a r e t w o r e a sons for this. I n t h e first p l a c e , it is useful to c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f v a r ious p e r s o n a l i t i e s so far as i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r traits a r e c o n c e r n e d , so as to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e consistent p a t t e r n s . S e c o n d l y , t h e e x a m p l e s in t h e first p a r t a r e d r a w n n o t m e r e l y f r o m t h o s e p e r s o n a l i t i e s w h o a r e d i s c u s s e d in t h e sec o n d p a r t b u t also f r o m m a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l figures as w e l l , so t h a t t h e r e a d e r m a y j u d g e to w h a t e x t e n t t h e p a t t e r n s t h a t a r e m e n t i o n e d a r e a p p l i c a b l e t h r o u g h o u t Josephus's paraphrase. T h e r e a d e r will n o t e that I h a v e r e s e r v e d for a n a p p e n d i x to c h a p t e r 2 m y c o m m e n t s o n J o s e p h u s ' s r e l a t i o n to t h e traditions t h a t a r e f o u n d r e c o r d e d at a m u c h later t i m e in t h e r a b b i n i c c o r p u s . M y v i e w s o n this m a t t e r r u n c o u n t e r to t h e view, d o m i n a n t in m a n y circles, t h a t r a b b i n i c literature h a s a g e n d a o f its o w n p e r t a i n i n g to its t i m e o f c o m p o s i t i o n a n d t h a t it w o u l d b e a n a c h r o n i s t i c to use it d i r e c t l y for i l l u m i n a t i o n o f a first-century w r i t e r s u c h as J o s e p h u s . B u t w h e t h e r m y v i e w is c o r r e c t o r n o t o n this m a t t e r is r e a l l y n o t d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to m y m a j o r thesis, n a m e l y , t h a t J o s e p h u s is, o n t h e w h o l e , a c r e a t i v e a n d consistent historian. T h e first p a r t o f this b o o k a p p e a r e d in a p r e l i m i n a r y f o r m as " U s e , A u t h o r i t y , a n d E x e g e s i s o f M i k r a in t h e W r i t i n g s o f J o s e p h u s , " in Mikra:
Text,
Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, e d . M a r t i n J. M u l d e r a n d H a r r y S y s l i n g (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, sect. 2, v o l . 1; A s s e n : V a n G o r c u m , 1988), 4 5 5 - 5 1 8 . It h a s b e e n v a s d y e x p a n d e d a n d g r e a d y r e v i s e d . P r e l i m i n a r y studies o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s h a v e b e e n p u b l i s h e d , a n d I a m grateful to the p u b l i s h e r s for p e r m i s s i o n t o utilize t h e m h e r e i n a c o n s i d e r a b l y r e v i s e d f o r m : " A b r a h a m t h e G r e e k P h i l o s o p h e r in J o s e p h u s , " TAPA 9 9 (1968): 1 4 3 - 5 6 ; " A b r a h a m t h e G e n e r a l in J o s e p h u s , " in Nour ished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, e d . F r e d e r ick E . G r e e n s p a h n , E a r l e H i l g e r t , a n d B u r t o n L . M a c k ( C h i c o , Calif.: S c h o l a r s Press, 1984), 4 3 - 4 9 ; "Josephus as a B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t e r : t h e Aqedah," JQR
75
(1984-85): 2 1 2 - 5 2 ; " H e l l e n i z a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities: T h e Portrait o f A b r a h a m , " in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, e d . L o u i s H . F e l d m a n a n d G o h e i H a t a (Detroit: W a y n e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1987), 5 9 - 8 0 ; " J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f I s a a c , " RSLR
29 (1993): 3 - 3 3 ; " J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f J a c o b , " JQR
" J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f J o s e p h , " RB99 o f M o s e s , " JQR
J
J
79 ( 1 9 8 8 - 8 9 ) : 1 0 1 - 5 1 ;
1
( 992): 3 7 9 - 4 ? , 5 0 4 - 2 8 ; " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t 0
82 ( i 9 9 - 9 2 ) : 2 8 5 - 3 2 8 ; 83 (1992-93): 7~5 > 3^33^
P o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , " HTR
"Josephus'
82 (1989): 3 5 1 - 7 6 ; " J o s e p h u s ' V e r s i o n o f S a m s o n , " JSJ
xvi
PREFACE
19 (1988): 1 7 1 - 2 1 4 ; " J o e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t o f S a m u e l , " Abr-Nahrain "Josephus'
P o r t r a i t o f S a u l , " HUCA
D a v i d , " HUCA
30 (1992): 1 0 3 - 4 5 ;
53 (1982): 4 5 - 9 9 ; "Josephus'
Portrait o f
60 (1989): 1 2 9 - 7 4 ; "Josephus as a n A p o l o g i s t to the G r e c o - R o m a n
W o r l d : H i s P o r t r a i t o f S o l o m o n , " HUCA
6 6 (1995): 1 - 6 5 ; a n d " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t
o f D a n i e l , " Henoch 14 (1992): 3 7 - 9 6 . I a m grateful t o t h e G u g g e n h e i m F o u n d a t i o n , w h i c h g r a n t e d m e a f e l l o w s h i p in 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 to b e g i n this w o r k , a n d to the A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society, the M e m o r i a l F o u n d a t i o n for J e w i s h C u l t u r e , the A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o f L e a r n e d S o cieties, the W u r z w e i l e r F o u n d a t i o n , the A n n e n b e r g R e s e a r c h Institute, t h e Insti tute for A d v a n c e d S t u d y in P r i n c e t o n , t h e L i t t a u e r F o u n d a t i o n , a n d t h e A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y for J e w i s h R e s e a r c h for assistance in h e l p i n g m e to c o m p l e t e it. I w i s h to e x p r e s s m y s p e c i a l t h a n k s to C h r i s t o p h e r B e g g , S t e v e M a s o n , a n d the r e a d e r s o f this m a n u s c r i p t for the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, as w e l l as P e t e r D r e y e r , w h o e d i t e d it for p u b l i c a t i o n , for v e r y m a n y helpful suggestions. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d , citations o f the B i b l e in this b o o k are to c h a p t e r a n d verse in the H e b r e w text.
PART ONE
General Considerations
C H A P T E R
O N E
Josephus's Historiographical Predecessors
THE
SCHOOLS OF ISOCRATES AND ARISTOTLE
J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y i n f l u e n c e d b y the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l ideals o f his G r e e k p r e d e cessors. T w o s c h o o l s , in particular, v i e d for J o s e p h u s ' s a l l e g i a n c e , the first the r h e t o r i c a l s c h o o l a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the n a m e o f Isocrates ( 4 3 6 - 3 3 8 B.C.E.), t h e s e c o n d the scientific s c h o o l f o u n d e d b y A r i s t o d e (384-322 B.C.E.) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 5 1 , 2 3 - 5 2 ) . T h e f o r m e r e m p h a s i z e d the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f fictitious s p e e c h e s i n t o the n a r r a t i v e , the use o f digressions often l o o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the m a i n t h e m e , the 1
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s t r o n g strain o f t r a g e d y , a n d the stress o n m o r a l i z i n g a n d o n p s y c h o l o g i z i n g . I n particular, Isocrates, as a n orator, insisted o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f o b s e r v i n g p r o p r i e t y in the use o f historical e x e m p l a (Panegyricus 9; cf. Helen 11). H e p i o n e e r e d in the w r i t i n g o f eulogistic b i o g r a p h y in his Evagoras, the p u r p o s e o f w h i c h w a s t o s h o w t h a t E v a g o r a s , k i n g o f S a l a m i s in C y p r u s , s u r p a s s e d e v e n the l e g e n d a r y p r i n c e s o f a n c i e n t t i m e s in valor, piety, a n d j u s t i c e — t h r e e k e y qualities that, as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s singles o u t for praise in his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s .
2
A r i s t o d e ' s interest in scientific investigation e m b r a c e d e v e r y a s p e c t o f life, in c l u d i n g h i s t o r y a n d b i o g r a p h y . I n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the g e n r e o f h i s t o r y f r o m t h a t o f
1. Despite his championship of propriety in discourse, Isocrates included in his orations (e.g., Panathenaicus 121-22; cf. Archidamus 8,10) certain exaggerated rhetorical and poetic effects a n d devices, w h i c h were later carried over into the historical prose of his pupils. S u c h a passage as the vivid enumeration of all the crimes perpetrated in cities other than Athens (Panathenaicus 121-22) surely introduced some thing o f the feeling o f horror a n d sensationalism that he elsewhere deplored. Isocrates sounds like a prose tragedian w h e n he moralizes that, despite the m a n y ills incident to man's nature, m a n has brought m o r e u p o n himself than necessity has imposed u p o n him by engendering wars with his fellow m e n and factionalism within his o w n g r o u p (Panegyricus 167-68). Instead o f lamenting the calamities fabricated b y the poets, says Isocrates, people should w e e p at the tragedy of real life resulting from war. 2. Avenarius 1956 demonstrates that Lucian's Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit illustrates the fusion of critical and rhetorical historiography. 3
4
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
poetry, h e cites, as a n e x a m p l e o f the c o n c e r n o f history, w h a t A l c i b i a d e s d i d o r 3
h a d d o n e t o h i m (Poetics 9.1451B10). H i s focus h e r e is o n h i s t o r y as b i o g r a p h y . O n e o f the c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e s o f A r i s t o t l e ' s s y s t e m is t h a t m a n is free to c h o o s e a m o n g several t y p e s o f life. T h i s l e d his followers, t h e Peripatetics, starting w i t h his suc cessor, T h e o p h r a s t u s , to try to classify t y p e s o f lives, j u s t as t h e y d i d t y p e s o f a n i m a l s a n d plants; a n d this n a t u r a l l y l e d t h e m t o w r i t e b i o g r a p h i e s illustrating these v a r i o u s t y p e s o f life. T o this e n d , t h e y u s e d a n e c d o t e s a n d historical incidents. I n r e s e a r c h into the h i s t o r y o f philosophy, the Peripatetics u s e d b i o g r a p h i c a l details as offensive a n d defensive w e a p o n s ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971b, 14). T h e schema o f A r i s totelian ethics w a s u s e d as a n i n s t r u m e n t to classify the m o d e s o f c o n d u c t o f indi v i d u a l s . V o n Fritz h a s a r g u e d t h a t b i o g r a p h y , w h i c h , as a g e n r e , b e c a m e so p o p u lar d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , is d i r e c d y i n d e b t e d to the Peripatetics a n d t h a t w i t h o u t A r i s t o t e l i a n ethics as its g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e , H e l l e n i s t i c b i o g r a p h y is u n i n telligible a n d a l m o s t i n c o n c e i v a b l e (von Fritz 1958b, 8 5 - 1 4 5 ) . T h i s is h a r d to p r o v e , since H e l l e n i s t i c b i o g r a p h y s h o w s a far g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f t y p e s t h a n the t h e o r y o f 4
its Peripatetic o r i g i n w o u l d a l l o w ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971b, 14); b u t t h e r e is significance in the fact t h a t N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o w a s J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n s o u r c e , n o t o n l y for the l a r g e p a r t o f the Antiquities p e r t a i n i n g to H e r o d , b u t also, p e r h a p s , for m u c h 5
else, w a s a Peripatetic p h i l o s o p h e r w h o w r o t e a b i o g r a p h y , n o w lost, o f A u g u s t u s . T h i s b i o g r a p h y u n d o u b t e d l y i n f l u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s a p p r o a c h t o the c h a r a c t e r s o f his history, in t h a t N i c o l a u s ' s w o r k w a s , t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , a n e t h i c a l trea tise in the Peripatetic t r a d i t i o n a n d h a d a h i e r a r c h i c a l s y s t e m o f v a l u e s b a s e d o n the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s a r o u n d w h i c h , as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s built s e v e r a l o f his b i b l i c a l p o r t r a i t s ( W a c h o l d e r 1 9 6 2 , 46). N i c o l a u s m a y w e l l h a v e i n f l u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s p r a c t i c e , in his e a g e r n e s s t o e m p h a s i z e a lesson, o f i n s e r t i n g m o r a l i z i n g a c counts. A n d y e t , A r i s t o d e , u n l i k e d o c t r i n a i r e p h i l o s o p h e r s , d i d n o t try to i m p o s e a sin-
3. H o m e y e r 1962, 75-85, suggests that Aristode m a y have been thinking o f the digression on A l cibiades in bk. 10 o f T h e o p o m p u s ' s Philippica. 4. H o m e y e r 1962, 75-85, contends that biographies are already to be found in Herodotus, w h o , in deed, organized his material according to the principles o f formal biography. M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 39, argues that biography goes b a c k to the fifth century B.C.E. and hence antedates Aristode. V o n Fritz 1958a, 130, on the other hand, maintains that there is no true biography before Aristode, and that what looks like biography, for example, X e n o p h o n ' s Agesilaus, is really only an e n c o m i u m , and lacks the unity and the description o f the formation o f character that characterize a true biography. 5. W a c h o l d e r 1962 argues that Nicolaus w a s Josephus's source, not only for the H a s m o n e a n and Herodian periods, but also for earlier Jewish history as well. Nicolaus apparendy used a panegyrical approach to H e r o d , as well as perhaps in the rest o f his huge universal history, consisting o f 144 books. A s to Josephus's alleged use o f Nicolaus for earlier Jewish history, Nicolaus's interest in the earlier p e riod is, so far as the few extant fragments indicate, based on his connection with his native city o f D a m ascus. It w o u l d seem strange for Josephus, learned as he claimed to be, to use a non-Jewish source for the biblical period, except occasionally to provide external evidence for the historicity o f its narrative.
JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS
5
gle f u n d a m e n t a l i d e a o r p r i n c i p l e o f e x p l a n a t i o n u p o n the w h o l e c o u r s e o f h i s t o r y b u t , scientist t h a t h e w a s , v i e w e d t h e v a r i o u s p h a s e s o f the historical p r o c e s s e m p i r i c a l l y (von Fritz 1958a, 1 3 4 - 3 5 ) . T h i s g a v e h i m g r e a t e r credibility, a n d c o n s e q u e n d y his i n f l u e n c e o n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s p r o f o u n d . A f t e r I s o c r a t e s a n d A r i s t o d e h a d d e f i n e d their r e s p e c t i v e attitudes t o w a r d his t o r i o g r a p h y , their successors c h o s e to identify t h e m s e l v e s p r e d o m i n a n d y w i t h o n e o r t h e o t h e r s c h o o l . I s o c r a t e s w a s definitely t h e m o r e p o p u l a r o f t h e t w o ; a n d o n e o f his successors, T h e o d e c t e s , a c t u a l l y w r o t e fifty t r a g e d i e s , i n c l u d i n g a n e n c o m i astic o n e o n M a u s o l u s , the k i n g o f C a r i a . P r e s u m a b l y , i f t h a t d r a m a w e r e e x t a n t , o n e m i g h t h a v e b e e n a b l e to see the i n f l u e n c e o f h i s t o r y a n d r h e t o r i c o n tragedy. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e line d i v i d i n g t h e I s o c r a t e a n s f r o m t h e Peripatetics w a s n o t so c l e a r - c u t ; a n d w e h e a r t h a t this s a m e T h e o d e c t e s f o l l o w e d his father f r o m t h e I s o c r a t e a n to t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n s c h o o l . A n o t h e r o f t h e p u p i l s o f Isocrates, E p h o r u s , w a s n o t e d for the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f s w e e p i n g p a n e g y r i c s , p r e c i s e l y w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t s o f his m a j o r b i b l i c a l figures, a n d tirades, s u c h as w e p e r c e i v e in his a c c o u n t s o f p o s t b i b l i c a l l e a d e r s s u c h as H e r o d . I n his h a n d s , h i s t o r y b e c a m e , like o r a t o r y a n d poetry, e p i d e i c t i c a n d d e s i r e d to s h o w o f f the v i r t u o s i t y o f t h e a u thor. A n o t h e r o f I s o c r a t e s ' disciples, T h e o p o m p u s , is c r i t i c i z e d b y P o l y b i u s (2.8.10) for b u i l d i n g his h i s t o r y a r o u n d a m a n , P h i l i p II, r a t h e r t h a n a r o u n d
Greece.
T h e o p o m p u s ' s m a j o r a c h i e v e m e n t , as D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s so e l o q u e n t l y r e m a r k s , w a s t o e x a m i n e c r i t i c a l l y t h e h i d d e n m o t i v e s o f t h e a c t i o n s o f his histor i c a l figures a n d to p r o b e b e n e a t h t h e surface o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s (Epistula ad Pompeium 6). " I n d e e d , " h e says, "it s e e m s t o m e t h a t t h e f a b l e d e x a m i n a t i o n in H a d e s o f souls w h o h a v e b e e n s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e i r b o d i e s b e f o r e t h e j u d g e s o f t h a t d r e a d p l a c e is n o t so e x a c t i n g as t h a t in t h e w r i t i n g o f T h e o p o m p u s . " W i t h T h e o p o m p u s , t h e g o a l o f h i s t o r y w a s n o l o n g e r restricted to t h e n a r r a t i o n a n d e x p l a n a t i o n o f g r e a t e v e n t s b u t also i n c l u d e d a n d e v e n e m p h a s i z e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e feelings a n d m o t i v e s o f m a j o r c h a r a c t e r s in h i s t o r y ( C o n n o r 1 9 6 7 , I33-54)-
6
It is p r e c i s e l y this t e n d e n c y to a b a n d o n the t i m e - h o n o r e d distinction b e t w e e n 7
h i s t o r y a n d b i o g r a p h y a n d to c o n v e r t h i s t o r y into b i o g r a p h y (cf. P o l y b i u s 10.24 a n d P l u t a r c h , Alexander 1 . 2 ) — o n e is a l m o s t t e m p t e d to say p s y c h o - h i s t o r y — t h a t w e shall see in J o s e p h u s t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n in t h e B i b l e itself. T h e v e r y
6. C o n n o r contends that T h e o p o m p u s sees not only the strengths but also the weaknesses o f his main character, Philip. Yet, as he notes, T h e o p o m p u s is important for introducing a personal, almost a biographical, history; and this approach h a d a profound influence u p o n Josephus, w h o similarly, as w e shall see, c a n discern the strengths and the weaknesses o f a personality such as Saul. 7. M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 1-7, stresses that the distinction during the Hellenistic period between his tory and biography has been less than generally accepted, and that instead biography c a m e to be rec ognized as a type o f history.
6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
title, Philippica, o f T h e o p o m p u s ' s w o r k i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e h a d d e p a r t e d f r o m the in terest in t r a d i t i o n a l h i s t o r y a n d h a d t u r n e d to b i o g r a p h y a n d p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i z i n g — t h a t is, a n analysis o f p e o p l e ' s t r u e m o t i v e s , e s p e c i a l l y the role p l a y e d b y fear a n d e n v y — i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l . M o r e o v e r , this s c h o o l f r e q u e n d y s o u g h t to r e v e a l the c o n s c i o u s , r a t i o n a l m o t i v e s t h a t lie b e h i n d m e n ' s actions. I n particular, T h e o p o m p u s is f o n d o f c o m p a r i n g the r e a c t i o n o f t w o his t o r i c a l figures t o similar o c c u r r e n c e s . It w a s this c o m p a r a t i v e a p p r o a c h
that
P l u t a r c h m a d e f a m o u s , a n d t h a t w e see, for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m p a r i s o n o f A g r i p p a I a n d H e r o d (Ant. 1 9 . 3 2 8 - 3 1 ) . T h i s e m p h a s i s u p o n t h e p e r s o n a l e m o t i o n s o f the c h a r a c t e r s o f h i s t o r y is t o b e s e e n e v e n in t h e o p p o n e n t s o f I s o c r a t e s ' s c h o o l , t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s . T h u s , D u r i s o f S a m o s , o n e o f the p u p i l s o f A r i s t o d e ' s successor, T h e o p h r a s t u s , s h o w s in his n o w - l o s t h i s t o r i c a l w o r k s t h e s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o f tragedy. It w a s a l m o s t as i f h e h a d b e e n i r k e d b y A r i s t o d e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t p o e t r y is m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h a n h i s t o r y (Poetics 9 . 1 4 5 1 B 5 - 1 1 ) ; a n d so h e t r i e d t o c o r r e c t this i m b a l a n c e b y m a k i n g h i s t o r y m o r e p o e t i c a l (von Fritz 1 9 5 8 a , 133). H e m o v e s t h e f e e l i n g s o f his r e a d e r s with the most ornate pathetic scenes, precisely materials similar to Saul's seance w i t h t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r (1 S a m . 2 8 : 7 - 2 5 ) , w h i c h J o s e p h u s b u i l d s u p to a h i g h d e gree. T h e fact t h a t A r i s t o d e s h a r p l y
distinguishes
tragedy and
h i s t o r y (Poetics
9 . 1 4 5 1 A - B ) l e a d s U l l m a n to c o n c l u d e t h a t D u r i s , w h o w r o t e h i s t o r y in t r a g i c t e r m s , m i g h t h a v e d e s e r t e d f r o m the Peripatetic to the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l ( U l l m a n 1942, 2 5 - 5 3 ) ;
D U t
m
o
r
e r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h i p h a s q u e s t i o n e d this h a r d a n d fast dis
t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the t w o schools. A c t u a l l y , d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , w i t h the sole e x t a n t e x c e p t i o n o f P o l y b i u s , historians, b o t h I s o c r a t e a n a n d
Peripatetic,
w r o t e w o r k s full o f r h e t o r i c . H e n c e , w e c a n n o t , as W a l b a n k , S a c k s , a n d S t e r l i n g h a v e n o t e d , a c c e p t U l l m a n ' s thesis t h a t the origins o f tragic h i s t o r y a r e t o b e f o u n d in Isocrates ( W a l b a n k i 9 6 0 , 2 1 6 - 3 4 ; S a c k s 1 9 8 1 , 1 4 4 - 7 0 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 6 - 7 ) . It m a y b e t h a t the p o p u l a r i t y o f t r a g i c h i s t o r y in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d w a s o w i n g , in p a r t at least, to the fact t h a t f e w t r a g e d i e s w e r e p u t o n the stage d u r i n g this e r a , a n d t h a t r e a d e r s l o o k e d for their t r a g e d y in a n o t h e r s o u r c e , n a m e l y , r e a l l i f e — t h a t is, b i o g r a p h y o r b i o g r a p h i c a l history. W a l b a n k , to b e sure, a r g u e s t h a t the " t r a g i c h i s t o r y " s h o u l d b e d i s c a r d e d , i n a s m u c h as the e x i s t e n c e o f a
term
separate
s c h o o l o f tragic history, w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r o r i g i n a n d history, is a figment o f i m a g i n a t i o n . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e r e h a d l o n g existed a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d tragedy, since b o t h w e r e b a s e d u p o n a c o m m o n subject matter, the G r e e k m y t h s , w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , w e r e r e g a r d e d as historically true ( W a l b a n k 1972, 38). B o t h a p p e a l e d t o the e m o t i o n s w h e n r e a d a l o u d (for history w a s also so read), b o t h e m p h a s i z e d the m o r a l lessons t o b e c o n v e y e d , a n d b o t h h a d a c o m m o n r h e t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d . T h e t e r m " t r a g i c h i s t o r y " is e m p l o y e d m e r e l y t o g i v e a w o r k a b a c k h a n d e d c o m p l i m e n t r a t h e r t h a n to classify it a c c o r d i n g to a p a r t i c u l a r
genre
( D o r a n 1979, 1 0 7 - 1 4 ) . Similarly, P h y l a r c h u s , a n o t h e r A r i s t o t e l i a n , is c e n s u r e d b y P o l y b i u s for a i m i n g
JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS
7
to m o v e his r e a d e r s to tears (2.56.63). A c c o r d i n g to P l u t a r c h , P h y l a r c h u s , as i f i n a tragedy, all b u t e r e c t e d a stage m a c h i n e for his a c c o u n t o f T h e m i s t o c l e s ' f u n e r a l (Themistocks
32.3). H e n c e w e c a n see t h a t these historians, b o t h I s o c r a t e a n a n d
e v e n P e r i p a t e t i c , tried t o a r o u s e these e m o t i o n s o f p i t y a n d t e r r o r w h i c h A r i s t o d e felt to b e p e c u l i a r t o t r a g e d y (Poetics 9 . 1 4 5 2 A 1 - 2 ) .
8
JOSEPHUS AND DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS D u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d t h e g a p b e t w e e n historical e n c o m i u m , b i o g r a p h y , a n d h i s t o r y h a d n a r r o w e d , so that, in effect, it b e c a m e i m p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e m ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 83). H e n c e , despite C i c e r o ' s a t t e m p t to justify s t r e t c h i n g the t r u t h in a p r o p o s e d m o n o g r a p h a b o u t his c o n s u l s h i p (Ad Familiares 5.12), for p r a c tical p u r p o s e s the difference h a d d i m i n i s h e d . E v e n P o l y b i u s himself, w h o is so crit i c a l o f the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l , w r o t e a n e n c o m i u m o f P h i l o p o e m e n , w h i c h h a s a n e m o t i o n a l a n d t r a g i c c o m p o n e n t . P r e s u m a b l y , h e felt t h a t his e n c o m i u m w a s justified so l o n g as the p a n e g y r i c w a s n o t i n c l u d e d in his history. J o s e p h u s , like D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , s e e m s to h a v e fused the t w o . 9
A s s e v e r a l s c h o l a r s h a v e n o t e d , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e f o l l o w i n g in a n u m b e r o f respects in the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l footsteps o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , w h o w r o t e a w o r k w i t h a similar tide, Roman Antiquities, in t w e n t y b o o k s , w h i c h n a r r a t e d the fortunes t h a t befell his p r o t a g o n i s t s (TLGL xpyoaiievoi 1.6, a n d TLGL Tvxais
7
G
L JL€V0L
XP 1 ^ I
i
n
TVX
in J o s e p h u s , Ant.
D i o n y s i u s , Ant. Rom. 1.5.1). B a l c h h a s c a l l e d at
t e n t i o n t o the fact t h a t D i o n y s i u s , in p r a i s i n g R o m e (Ant. Rom. 1.9-2.29), a n d J o s e p h u s , in p r a i s i n g the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 ) , b o t h follow t h e s a m e p a t t e r n , as later c o d i f i e d b y t h e t h i r d - c e n t u r y r h e t o r i c i a n M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (Ilepl
eirioeiK-
TLK(X)V 346.26) ( B a l c h 1982, 102-22); a n d w h i l e this d o e s n o t p r o v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y D i o n y s i u s , this similarity d o e s i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d . J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.326) is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f D i o n y sius's a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f A e n e a s a n d o f R o m u l u s (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4, 2.56.2) ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 5 6 - 5 8 ) .
1 0
I n the k i n d o f a d d i t i o n s t h a t D i o n y s i u s m a k e s t o the
8. C o n n o r 1985, 468, notes that the theory that tragic historiography stemmed from Aristotelian distinctions in the Rhetoric, developed by Theophrastus and the Peripatetic school, is n o longer fashion able, inasmuch as it has b e e n pointed out that m a n y elements o f tragic historiography precede the Peri patetics a n d inasmuch as, after all, Aristode himself drew a sharp distinction between poetry a n d his tory. H e suggests that the increase in interest in this type o f history is to be explained b y the rise o f emphasis on T y c h e , or Fortune. 9. Cf. T h a c k e r a y 1929, 5 6 - 5 8 ; Foakes-Jackson 1930, 247-48; H e i n e m a n n 1939-40,
180-203;
Richards 1939, 36; Schalit 1944-63, i : x x - x x v i ; B i c k e r m a n 1952, 68, 70-71; Shutt 1961, 9 2 - 1 0 1 ; A l t shuler 1976; Attridge 1976a, 43-60; D o w n i n g 1980, 8:46-65, 9:29-48; id. 1981, 5 4 4 - 6 3 ; id. 1982, 5 4 6 - 5 9 ; a n d Sterling 1992, 284-90. 10. T h a c k e r a y 1929, 57, thinks that it was from Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.48.1, 1.48.4, 2.40.3, 2.70.5, 3.35.5) that Josephus derived the formula, frequendy found in his Antiquities, usually after the descrip tion o f a miraculous event, " L e t every one [of m y readers] j u d g e as he w i l l " (see, e.g., 1.108, 2.349, 3-8i,
8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s o u r c e s t h a t h e shares w i t h Livy, h e is often similar to J o s e p h u s w h e r e the latter a d d s to the B i b l e . It is t r u e t h a t D i o n y s i u s p o l e m i c i z e s a g a i n s t T h u c y d i d e s , w h e r e a s T h u c y d i d e s is J o s e p h u s ' s m o d e l for his Jewish War. M o r e o v e r , m o s t o f the a l l e g e d i n s t a n c e s o f v e r b a l b o r r o w i n g s f r o m D i o n y s i u s are n o t c o n c l u s i v e ,
11
and
D i o n y s i u s ' s p u r p o s e is v e r y different f r o m t h a t o f J o s e p h u s , in t h a t h e is s e e k i n g to p e r s u a d e his G r e e k a u d i e n c e t o a c c e p t t h e R o m a n s since t h e y a r e a c t u a l l y G r e e k s , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the u n i q u e n e s s o f the J e w s . Y e t , t h e y h a v e several p o i n t s in c o m m o n : the justification o f the s e l e c t i o n o f their s u b j e c t ( D i o n y s i u s , Ant. Rom., i . 2 . 1 - 3 . 6 ; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 1.5), the a d d r e s s t o the G r e e k a u d i e n c e to r e m o v e their p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t a n o n - G r e e k p e o p l e , their m o r a l i z i n g , their criticism o f their p r e d e c e s s o r s , their e m p h a s i s o n their sources, their similar s c o p e , their p l e a s a n t style, a n d their p r e p a r a t i o n for their task (Sterling 1992, 289). I n particular, D i o n y s i u s (e.g., Ant. Rom. 2.68) p l a c e s a stress o n p i e t y similar to t h a t f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ( D o w n i n g 1980, 64, n. 8). D i o n y s i u s ' s stress o n trust in di v i n e p r o v i d e n c e a n d o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f r e p e n t a n c e (yueravo ia) is likewise freq u e n d y f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s in the B i b l e . M o r e o v e r , the m o r a l i z i n g a n d p s y c h o l o g i z i n g t o n e , as w e l l as the m o t i f t h a t p o w e r c o r r u p t s , is strikingly p r e s e n t in D i o n y s i u s (Ant. Rom. 10.54). It is p r e c i s e l y this k i n d o f p h i l o s o p h i c reflection a g a i n s t w h i c h L u c i a n i n v e i g h s (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 17); b u t J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n t l y a d o p t s t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f D i o n y s i u s , w h o praises the historian w h o scatters p h i l o s o p h i c reflections t h r o u g h o u t his history (Ant. Rom. 6.7) a n d w h o , in particular, l a u d s T h e o p o m p u s for n u m e r o u s fine o b s e r v a t i o n s o n j u s t i c e , piety, a n d the o t h e r v i r t u e s (see A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 173, n. i ) .
1 2
3.269, 3.322, 4.159, 8.262, 10.281), but it is found in m a n y other authors, from Herodotus (3.122.1) to L u c i a n (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 60). 11. A s to the similarities in language and style between Dionysius and Josephus, as mentioned by Shutt 1961, 9 4 - 1 0 1 , L a d o u c e u r 1977 and 1 9 8 3 , 1 8 - 3 8 , has noted that o f the 47 words that Shutt cites as particular instances o f Josephus's dependence u p o n Dionysius, at least 22 m a y be found in classical lit erature o f the fourth century and earlier. O f the rest, more than half m a y be cited from the Septuagint, Strabo, and the Letter of Aristeas. A t least 15 occur in Polybius. Josephus's use o f 1810s in place o f the re flexive pronoun, w h i c h Shutt asserts is derived from Dionysius, m a y actually be found in Polybius and in Attic inscriptions o f the first century B.C.E. Josephus's use o f periphrases such as Sid TWOS ^W
and
his use o f c o m p o u n d verbs with two prepositions prefixed occur not merely in Dionysius but also in Polybius and in Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , as well as in the Septuagint. A s to declensional a n d conjugational forms, Josephus, far from b e i n g dependent u p o n Dionysius, fluctuates more freely than does Dionysius between classical and postclassical usage. From the fact that Shutt's argument is thus unten able, Bilde 1988, 203, concludes that the theory o f Josephus's dependence u p o n Dionysius m a y be re garded as having b e e n rejected; but despite this, as Sterling 1992, 286, concludes, there c a n be little doubt that Josephus k n e w Dionysius's work. 12. Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 4.777-78) likewise lauds X e n o p h o n for selecting subjects befitting a philosopher: the Cyropaedia, w h i c h contains "the portrait o f a g o o d and prosperous king," a n d the Ex pedition of the Younger Cyrus (Anabasis), w h i c h praises the bravery o f the G r e e k mercenaries. H e extols X e n o p h o n himself (Ant. Rom. 4.778) for displaying, first o f all, the virtue o f piety, and, secondly, the qual ities o f rectitude, resolution, and geniality.
JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS
H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y I N T H E WAR V S . T H E
g
ANTIQUITIES
A t t r i d g e , f o l l o w e d b y Sterling, contrasts the p r o g r a m m a t i c s t a t e m e n t s o f the War ( i . 1 3 - 1 6 ) a n d the Antiquities (1.5-6) ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 4 3 - 5 3 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 4 0 - 4 5 ) . I n the former, J o s e p h u s c o m m i t s h i m s e l f to critical historiography, w h e r e a s i n t h e lat ter h e h a s shifted to r h e t o r i c a l historiography. A t t r i d g e b e l i e v e s t h a t this shift f r o m critical to r h e t o r i c a l h i s t o r i o g r a p h y m a y a c c o u n t for t h e d e c i s i o n to w r i t e the his t o r y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e i n a p o l o g e t i c f o r m f r o m its b e g i n n i n g s . M a s o n , in reply, h a s c o g e n d y n o t e d t h a t b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , v i r t u a l l y all h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s , as I h a v e also p o i n t e d o u t , a c t u a l l y r h e t o r i c a l ( M a s o n 1 9 9 1 , 3 7 6 - 8 3 ) . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s lays e q u a l e m p h a s i s in his War ( 1 . 1 - 2 , 6, 9) a n d i n his Antiquities (1.4, 17; 20.260) o n t r u t h as c r u c i a l t o h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . I n d e e d , w e m a y n o t e t h a t at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the Antiquities (1.2), h e c l e a r l y attacks those w h o w r i t e h i s t o r y r h e t o r i c a l l y w h e n h e s p e a k s o f t h o s e w h o are e a g e r to d i s p l a y their literary talent a n d to w i n f a m e t h e r e b y b y r u s h i n g (opfjLcoaiv) into the w r i t i n g o f history. J o s e p h u s h i m self (War 1.17), i m m e d i a t e l y after the p r o g r a m m a t i c s t a t e m e n t c i t e d a b o v e , e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y h e h a d n o t earlier w r i t t e n a n e x t e n s i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s is n o t t h a t h e o p p o s e s s u c h a n u n d e r t a k i n g in p r i n c i p l e b u t r a t h e r t h a t o t h e r s h a v e d o n e so accurately. W h e n h e finally d o e s w r i t e his e x t e n s i v e history, h e a d m i t s t h a t h e h a d a c t u a l l y c o n t e m p l a t e d w r i t i n g s u c h a h i s t o r y at the t i m e t h a t h e w a s c o m p o s i n g his a c c o u n t o f the War (Ant. 1.6). H e r e h e says n o t h i n g a b o u t b e i n g d e t e r r e d b y b e i n g o p p o s e d at t h a t t i m e to w r i t i n g r h e t o r i c a l history; r a t h e r h e says t h a t h e w a s d e t e r r e d b y the s h e e r c o m p a s s o f the u n d e r t a k i n g a n d w a s p e r s u a d e d y e a r s later b y the e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f his p a t r o n E p a p h r o d i t u s (Ant. 1.7). I n this c o n n e c t i o n , I m a y call attention to the d e b a t e c u r r e n t d u r i n g the H e l lenistic a n d R o m a n p e r i o d s as to w h e t h e r the historian s h o u l d r a t h e r w r i t e a m o n o g r a p h o n a single w a r o r e v e n t o r a n extensive history o f a p e o p l e ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 1 , 180-94). I
n
a
letter to his friend L u c i u s L u c c e i u s , C i c e r o u r g e s h i m to w r i t e a m o n o
g r a p h o n the annus mirabilis, the y e a r 63 B.C.E., in w h i c h C i c e r o a b o r t e d the c o n s p i r a c y o f C a t i l i n e (Ad Familiares 5.12). H e m a k e s the frank r e q u e s t that L u c c e i u s e u l o g i z e his a c t i o n s " w i t h e v e n m o r e w a r m t h t h a n p e r h a p s y o u feel, a n d in t h a t r e s p e c t to d i s r e g a r d the c a n o n s o f h i s t o r y " a n d to e x a g g e r a t e C i c e r o ' s merits " a lit tle m o r e t h a n m a y b e a l l o w e d b y t r u t h " (AdFamiliares 5.12.3). T h i s , it w o u l d s e e m , is r h e t o r i c a l historiography. A s p r e c e d e n t s for s u c h f r e e d o m w i t h the t r u t h C i c e r o cites several m o n o g r a p h s — C a l l i s t h e n e s ' Phocian War, T i m a e u s ' s War of Pyrrhus, a n d e v e n Polybius's Numantine War (Ad Familiares 5.12.2). It will b e n o t e d t h a t all o f these are a c c o u n t s o f w a r s , a n d b y that s t a n d a r d J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish War c o u l d b e r e g a r d e d similarly. B u t this is the v e r y o p p o s i t e o f A t t r i d g e ' s r e a d i n g o f J o s e p h u s , since a c c o r d i n g to h i m , it is the m o n o g r a p h o f the War that is to b e classed as critical his t o r i o g r a p h y , w h e r e a s the e x t e n d e d history o f the Antiquities is to b e classed as " r h e t o r i c a l h i s t o r i o g r a p h y " (Attridge 1976, 47). For J o s e p h u s , clearly, at least p r o g r a m m a t i c a l l y , t h e r e w a s n o s u c h distinction. A n d , i n d e e d , at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the history o f historiography, w e find H e r o d o t u s w r i t i n g a history o f u n i v e r s a l
io
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
5
s c o p e , w h i c h is m u c h m o r e r h e t o r i c a l t h a n is T h u c y d i d e s history o f m u c h n a r r o w e r s c o p e , the P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r , w h i c h is surely m o r e c r i t i c a l .
13
I n his interest in a n c i e n t h i s t o r y in t h e Antiquities, J o s e p h u s allies h i m s e l f w i t h a n t i q u a r i a n c o n c e r n s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d n o t o n l y D i o n y s i u s b u t also o t h e r r h e t o r i c a l historians o f t h e e a r l y e m p i r e , s u c h as Livy, w h o , as it h a p p e n s , is the o n l y L a t i n a u t h o r w h o m h e m e n t i o n s b y n a m e (Ant. 14.68). I n d e e d , w e s h o u l d stress the significance o f t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s c h o s e to call his w o r k Jewish Antiquities (liter ally (Jewish Archaeology) r a t h e r t h a n Jewish History, since in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d t h e w o r d " a r c h a e o l o g y " d i d n o t h a v e t h e b r o a d m e a n i n g t h a t it h a d in the w o r k as c r i b e d t o P l a t o (Hippias Maior 2 8 5 D ) , for e x a m p l e . I n d e e d , it h a d c o m e t o m e a n ei t h e r h i s t o r y f r o m t h e origins o r a r c h a i c history; a n d the tide o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d to i n d i c a t e t h a t it w a s a h i s t o r y f r o m t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e J e w ish p e o p l e d o w n t o his o w n t i m e s ( M o m i g l i a n o 1 9 6 6 , 1-39). T h a t t h e apXcuoXoyla
term
n e v e r t h e l e s s h a d a b r o a d e r significance s e e m s to b e i n d i c a t e d b y J o s e
p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t his w o r k w i l l e m b r a c e (rrepie^eiv) the entire apx
and
77oAtTeu/xaro?) (Ant. 1.5). W h e r e a s in a n
c i e n t times, historians w e r e e x p e c t e d to w r i t e in a c h r o n o l o g i c a l order, a n t i q u a r i a n s w r o t e in a s y s t e m a t i c order, p r o c e e d i n g t o p i c a l l y a n d l o g i c a l l y ( M o m i g l i a n o 1966, 4 ) .
1 4
H i s t o r i a n s o r g a n i z e d their m a t e r i a l t o illustrate o r e x p l a i n a p a r t i c u l a r
situation, w h e r e a s a n t i q u a r i a n s , w i t h their b r o a d e r interests, c i t e d all d a t a c o n n e c t e d w i t h their subject. T h e tide ApxaioXoyia
w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e , i n a s m u c h as the p r i n c i p a l
s o u r c e for s u c h a w o r k w a s m y t h , as w e c a n see, for e x a m p l e , e v e n in T h u c y d i d e s ' ApxaioXoyia
(1.2-21). T h e w o r d apxcuoAoyos,
w h i c h o c c u r s in a n i n s c r i p t i o n (In-
scriptiones Graecae 22.2153), refers to a n a c t o r a n d is a p p r o p r i a t e , since t r a g e d i e s w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f m y t h ; a n d " m y t h , " in t h e b r o a d e s t sense, w a s the s o u r c e m a t e r i a l o f t h e first h a l f o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k ( R a j a k 1 9 8 2 , 4 6 7 ) . T h a t the g r e a t a n d h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d T h u c y d i d e s d i d n o t l o o k w i t h disdain u p o n a n ApxcuoAoyla
b u t felt justified in l o o k i n g for historical d a t a (to b e sure, o f c o u r s e ,
critically) i n H o m e r a n d in the m y t h s g a v e status to the g e n r e . It w a s w r o n g o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s in his study o f T h u c y d i d e s to say t h a t T h u c y d i d e s h a d a l t o g e t h e r e x c l u d e d the m y t h i c a l f r o m his history (De Thucydide 7) ( R a j a k 1 9 8 2 , 4 6 8 ) . " A r c h a e o l o g y " i n c l u d e d m u c h o f the s a m e k i n d o f m a t e r i a l f o u n d in t h e w o r k s o f the l o g o g r a p h e r s , namely, the study o f g e n e a l o g i e s , f o u n d a t i o n s o f cities, festivals, rituals, l a w s , c u s t o m s , c h r o n o l o g i c a l systems, a n d the like ( M o m i g l i a n o 1978, 6). H e n c e , it w a s difficult for t h e G r e e k s , after t h e transition f r o m the l o g o g r a p h e r s
13. Similarly, M a s o n 1991, 380, calls attention to the principle enunciated by A r r i a n in w h i c h he actually gives greater credence to accounts written by eyewitnesses after Alexander's death than to c o n temporary statements, since in later compositions there is less o f a tendency to lie (Anabasis 1.1-3). 14. T h i s m a y explain w h y Josephus, as noted by C o h e n 1979, 40-42, although normally following the order o f the Bible, from time to time departs from it in order to produce a coherent, thematic nar rative.
JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS
//
s u c h as C a d m u s o f M i l e t u s t o t r u e h i s t o r i a n s s u c h as H e r o d o t u s , t o a t t r i b u t e t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s t o r y i n t h e fullest s e n s e t o s u c h a w o r k . Finally, t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f a n t i q u a r i a n s i n c l u d e d n o t o n l y p o l i t i c a l history, w h i c h w a s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p r o v i n c e o f history, b u t a l s o p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , as w e l l as r e l i g i o u s a n d p r i v a t e life. It is this 15
b r o a d e r p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s t o stress i n h i s Antiquities.
In contrast
t o t h e War, w h i c h f o l l o w s t h e m o d e l o f T h u c y d i d e s i n its i n t e r e s t i n c o n t e m p o r a r y e v e n t s a n d i n its c r i t i c a l , scientific a p p r o a c h t o t h e w r i t i n g o f history, a n d s h a r p l y c r i t i c i z e s t h e i n c l u s i o n i n h i s t o r y o f i n v e c t i v e s o r e n c o m i a (War 1 . 1 - 2 ) , i n t h e Antiquities
a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n his p o r t r a i t s o f g r e a t h e r o e s ,
precisely such elements (Attridge 1 9 7 6 , 4 4 - 5 1 ) .
1 7
1 6
Josephus
incorporates
I n this, J o s e p h u s d e p a r t s f r o m t h e
i n j u n c t i o n o f P o l y b i u s , w h o asserts t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t e x a g g e r a t e i n e i t h e r r e v i l -
15. R a j a k 1982, 465-77, argues that the similarity between Josephus's dp^aioAoyia a n d other works, such as Dionysius's, with that tide, is a superficial one. Josephus's method, she insists, differs, in that his task is not to rearrange a n d criticize ancient memories but to transmit the texts unaltered, a n d that the justification for Josephus's rewriting o f biblical history, in contrast with the goal o f p a g a n his tories, w a s that it h a d b e e n ignored b y others. In response I w o u l d note that while it is true that Jose phus himself says that he has transmitted the biblical history unaltered (Ant. 1.17), the fact is that h e adds and subtracts a n d rearranges o n almost every page. 16. Polybius, History 8.8-11. See also L u c i a n , Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 7, w h o emphatically asserts that history a n d e n c o m i u m are separated by a high wall. T o b e sure, despite his disclaimer, Jose phus in the War includes invectives, such as his castigation o f the rebels (War 7.254-74), a n d e n c o m i a , notably his c o m m e n t s about A n a n u s
(War4.319-22).
17. Sterling 1992, 240-41, calls attention to the passage in w h i c h Josephus states that there are only two methods by w h i c h one m a y acquire accurate knowledge in historical writing, namely, through hav ing b e e n in close touch with events (Trapy] KoXovdrjKora rot? yeyovooiv) or b y inquiry from those w h o k n e w t h e m (7ra/od
T&V CLSOTCOV
Trvvdavo^ievov) (Ag. Ap. 1.53). From this, he concludes that the Antiquities
is a n e x a m p l e o f the first, since it is a translation, whereas the War is a n example o f the second, since Josephus w a s a n eyewitness. T h e verb rrapaKoXovBeoi, as Rengstorf indicates in his c o n c o r d a n c e (ad l o c ) , here means "to b e present at," a n d hence the reference w o u l d appear to b e to Josephus's m e t h o d in the War, since he was present at some o f the events, whereas he was not present at the events d e scribed in the Antiquities. B u t Josephus himself indicates that he w a s not present at all (or even most) o f the events that he describes in the War, a n d that he learned o f them from other, presumably (at least from his point o f view) reliable, sources. Josephus himself says that he has fulfilled the duty o f the his tory to present accurate facts in both o f his works; hence, h e does not wish to m a k e a distinction b e tween them in this matter, namely, as to h o w he arrived at a c c u r a c y (Ag. Ap. 1.54). Clearly, Josephus is m o d e l i n g himself o n T h u c y d i d e s ' famous programmatic statement (1.22.2) that he considered it his duty to give the facts " n o t as ascertained from a n y chance informant n o r as seemed to m e probable, but only after investigating with the greatest possible a c c u r a c y each detail, in the case both o f the events in w h i c h I myself participated a n d o f those regarding w h i c h I g o t m y information from others." For b o t h T h u c y d i d e s and Josephus, the goal in any historical work is accuracy, a n d it makes n o difference whether the facts are arrived at from personal observation or from information supplied b y others. For Josephus, the first half o f the Antiquities is just as accurate as the War, since its a c c u r a c y is guaranteeed by the prophets (Ag. Ap. 1.37). Sterling is, therefore, unwarranted in his conclusion that Josephus's state ment (Ag. Ap. 1.53) implies that the War and the Antiquities b e l o n g to two different historiographical tra ditions; n o r is he war r anted in his statement (241, n. 69) that it is a great weakness o f Villalba i V a r n e d a that he does not recognize this point.
12
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
4ng o r e x t o l l i n g k i n g s in o n e ' s h i s t o r y .
18
I n this respect, J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e b e e n
i n f l u e n c e d b y the R o m a n (and J e w i s h ) p r a c t i c e o f d e l i v e r i n g f u n e r a l o r a t i o n s , w h i c h d o e s n o t s e e m t o h a v e b e e n i m p o r t e d f r o m G r e e c e a n d c o m e s closest to the n o r m o f f o r m a l b i o g r a p h y , as the a n c i e n t s , w i t h less r i g o r o u s s t a n d a r d s t h a n o u r s , u n d e r s t o o d it (Stuart 1928, 2 0 9 ) .
19
It is this d u a l I s o c r a t e a n - A r i s t o t e l i a n t r a d i t i o n o f historiography, c u l m i n a t i n g in D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , t h a t J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e f o l l o w i n g in his r e c a s t i n g o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e in the first h a l f o f the Antiquities. I n particular, h e a p p e a r s to b e f o l l o w i n g the Peripatetic t r a d i t i o n o f stressing the role o f g r e a t m e n in history (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , i;lvii). W h e t h e r h e f o l l o w e d t h e P e r i p a t e t i c o r the I s o c r a t e a n t r a d i t i o n o r c o m b i n e d t h e m , J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y is d e p a r t i n g f r o m the b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h a t h e w r i t e s o r w i s h e s t o r e a d e r to t h i n k that h e w r i t e s critically. L i k e w i s e , h e differs f r o m the r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n in w r i t i n g systematic h i s t o r y at a l l .
20
SUMMARY I n his a p p r o a c h to the w r i t i n g o f the h i s t o r y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s is in d e b t e d to the traditions o f the t w o g r e a t G r e e k s c h o o l s o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , the I s o c r a t e a n a n d the A r i s t o t e l i a n . H e follows the f o r m e r in his a d o p t i o n o f fictitious s p e e c h e s , digressions, m o r a l i z i n g , p s y c h o l o g i z i n g , a n d p a i n t i n g o f e v e n t s w i t h e p i c , r h e t o r i c a l , a n d , a b o v e all, tragic h u e s . B u t h e is also i n d e b t e d to the latter, w h i c h stressed scientific, e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d the classification o f t y p e s o f lives, w i t h e m p h a s i s o n the s t u d y o f c h a r a c t e r for its o w n sake. I n particular, in his e m p h a s i s o n the b i o g r a p h y o f g r e a t m e n , h e is i n f l u e n c e d b y the a p p r o a c h
and
m e t h o d o l o g y o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . A l t h o u g h the I s o c r a t e a n t r a d i t i o n w a s the m o r e p o p u l a r o f the t w o , the lines d i v i d i n g I s o c r a t e s ' followers f r o m those o f A r i s t o d e in this m a t t e r h a d l o n g since b e c o m e less t h a n c l e a r - c u t . I n particular, t h e r e w a s a t e n d e n c y , in a n I s o c r a t e a n w r i t e r s u c h as T h e o p o m p u s , to a b a n d o n the dis t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d b i o g r a p h y . A r i s t o t e l i a n s s u c h as D u r i s o f S a m o s a n d P h y l a r c h u s e m p h a s i z e the p e r s o n a l e m o t i o n s o f their historical c h a r a c t e r s a n d in t r o d u c e a s t r o n g t r a g i c strain in their w o r k s . I n fusing the I s o c r a t e a n a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n strains, J o s e p h u s w a s a n t i c i p a t e d b y D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s . T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f similarities: D i o n y s i u s in p r a i s -
18. Note, however, that Josephus's practice, notably in the case o f Saul, o f inserting eulogies after the mention o f the death o f major characters in the Antiquities, is not anticipated b y either Dionysius o f Halicarnassus or the latter's contemporary D i o d o r u s Siculus. 19. M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 24, notes that C i c e r o credits pre-Solonian A t h e n s with the custom o f deliv ering orations in praise o f the dead (De Legibus 2.63), but that there is n o evidence that anything like a biography evolved directly from these ceremonial performances. 20. See M o m i g l i a n o 1978, 1. R a b b i n i c literature, despite its great mass a n d variety, with the possi ble exceptions o f the Seder Olam, w h i c h is really a chronological work rather than a history, and o f oc casional brief uncritical digressions, very infrequendy includes historical discussions.
JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS
13
i n g R o m e a n d J o s e p h u s in p r a i s i n g the J e w s a d o p t t h e s a m e p a t t e r n ; b o t h often m o r a l i z e a n d p s y c h o l o g i z e a n d stress p i e t y a n d the role o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e ; a n d t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n s u c h s c e n e s as D i o n y s i u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f A e n e a s a n d R o m u l u s a n d J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e d e a t h o f M o s e s a r e striking. T h e fact t h a t b o t h e n t i d e d their w o r k s Antiquities indicates t h a t t h e y a i m e d t o o r g a n i z e their m a t e r i a l s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r a t h e r t h a n c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y ; in b o t h cases, their p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e w a s " m y t h " ; a n d in b o t h cases, their s c o p e r a n g e d far b e y o n d m e r e p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y to p o l i t i c a l institutions, religious a n d p r i v a t e life.
C H A P T E R T W O
Josephus as Rewriter of the Bible
JOSEPHUS'S M O D E L F O R R E W R I T I N G T H E BIBLE A s a m o d e l for, r e w r i t i n g t h e B i b l e , J o s e p h u s h a d at his d i s p o s a l b o t h J e w i s h s o u r c e s — n o t a b l y t h e B i b l e itself, t h e S e p t u a g i n t , t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h a ,
Philo,
P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m , a n d t a r g u m i m — a n d n o n Jewish
works—notably
Hecataeus
of Abdera,
Berossus, M e g a s t h e n e s ,
and
M a n e t h o . I n a d d i t i o n , h e m a y h a v e c o n s u l t e d a n u m b e r o f historians w h o s e J e w ish identity h a s b e e n q u e s t i o n e d — n a m e l y , D e m e t r i u s , P h i l o t h e Elder, E u p o l e mus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, a n d Artapanus. If, i n d e e d , J o s e p h u s is t o b e t a k e n at his w o r d , his c o m p a t r i o t s a d m i t t e d t h a t in Jewish learning
(77a/)'
rjfxiv TraiSeiav), h e far e x c e l l e d t h e m (Ant. 20.263). J o s e p h u s
w o u l d t h u s p r e s u m a b l y h a v e b e e n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e e x e g e s i s t h a t w a s c u r r e n t at the time. S u c h e x e g e s i s b e g i n s w i t h t h e B i b l e itself, i n a s m u c h as t h e b o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y is, t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , a r e w r i t i n g o f E x o d u s a n d N u m b e r s , a n d the books o f Chronicles are a rewritten version o f S a m u e l a n d K i n g s (Bloch 1978, 2 9 - 5 0 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s is, o n t h e o n e h a n d , m u c h m o r e s y s t e m a t i c a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n his p a r a p h r a s e
o f the Bible than are D e u t e r o n o m y or
C h r o n i c l e s , w h e n t h e latter a r e c o m p a r e d t o their p r e d e c e s s o r s ; h e is also m u c h m o r e interpretive, m o r e critical, a n d m o r e e x p a n s i v e i n i n c l u d i n g m i d r a s h i c - l i k e elements. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s m o d e l for J o s e p h u s w a s t h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h is, i n d e e d , o n the b o r d e r l i n e b e t w e e n a translation a n d a close p a r a p h r a s e o f S c r i p t u r e b u t w i t h modifications in v a r y i n g amounts from biblical b o o k to book. Indeed, w e m a y re call t h a t in t h e p r o e m t o t h e Antiquities, J o s e p h u s cites as justification a n d p r e c e d e n t for his w o r k t h e fact t h a t his a n c e s t o r s w e r e w i l l i n g t o u n d e r t a k e t h e S e p t u a g i n t translation o f the P e n t a t e u c h at t h e r e q u e s t o f P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s (Ant. 1.10-12). J u s t as J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e h a s n e i t h e r a d d e d t o n o r o m i t t e d a n y t h i n g f r o m S c r i p t u r e (Ant. 1.17), so, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Letter of Aristeas (308-11), w h e n t h e trans14
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
75
lation o f the S e p t u a g i n t w a s c o m p l e t e d , it w a s r e g a r d e d as perfect; a n d a c u r s e w a s p r o n o u n c e d u p o n a n y w h o s h o u l d alter the text o f the translation in a n y way, w h e t h e r b y a d d i t i o n , m o d i f i c a t i o n , o r o m i s s i o n . A n d y e t , despite his p r o m i s e , J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e n u m e r o u s c h a n g e s in his p a r a p h r a s e , as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t . I n particular, for e x a m p l e , w e m a y n o t e t h a t c h a p t e r s 35 to 40 o f the S e p t u a g i n t for E x o d u s differ m a r k e d l y f r o m the H e b r e w text; a n d t h e r e is a c o n s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n at the e n d o f M o s e s ' final s o n g ( D e u t . 32:43). B u t aside f r o m the fact t h a t the c h a n g e s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n are c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n those o f the S e p t u a g i n t , t w o m a j o r differences are t h a t J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s to w r i t e a critical history, c i t i n g s u p p o r t f r o m e x t e r n a l s o u r c e s f r o m t i m e to t i m e , a n d w r i t e s w i t h a specific a p o l o g e t i c g o a l in a n effort to a n s w e r the c h a r g e s o f c a l u m n i a t o r s o f the J e w s . P e r h a p s w e m a y find J o s e p h u s ' s m o d e l in s u c h J e w i s h w o r k s as Jubilees,
the
D e a d S e a Genesis Apocryphon, the D e a d S e a P e s h a r i m , P h i l o , P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m , o r t a r g u m i m . A s t o the P s e u d e p i g r a p h i c Jubilees, w h i c h m a y b e d a t e d t o the m i d d l e o f the sec o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. ( v a n d e r K a m 1992, 3:1030), it d o e s , in p a r t , s u m m a r i z e G e n e s i s a n d the first h a l f o f E x o d u s , o m i t t i n g s o m e m a t e r i a l a n d a d d i n g a g o o d d e a l , s u c h as details o f the w a r b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d E s a u , in the m a n n e r that r e m i n d s o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s m e t h o d o f r e w r i t i n g the B i b l e . B u t it is o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y t h a t the a u t h o r r e m a i n s c o m p l e t e l y faithful to the b i b l i c a l narrative, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ' s
Antiquities
often is v e r y faithful. T h e r a t i o o f a d d e d , m o d i f i e d , a n d d e l e t e d m a t e r i a l to the o r i g i n a l t e x t is m u c h h i g h e r t h a n it is in J o s e p h u s . T h e n e w a g g a d i c a n d h a l a k h i c m a t e r i a l is relatively m u c h greater. For these reasons, a n d also b e c a u s e the b o o k a d o p t s a solar c a l e n d a r , it is u n l i k e l y that J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d it as a m o d e l for w r i t ing the Antiquities. The
Genesis Apocryphon, i n A r a m a i c , d a t i n g f r o m the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. o r first
c e n t u r y C.E. ( W h i t e 1992, 2:932), in the relatively s m a l l f r a g m e n t ( c o v e r i n g G e n . 12-15) t h a t h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d , d o e s at times a d h e r e closely to the H e b r e w a n d d o e s at t i m e s s e e m like the r e w r i t i n g o f the B i b l e t h a t w e h a v e in the Antiquities, b u t it is m u c h t o o free t o qualify as a p a r a p h r a s e o f the G e n e s i s n a r r a t i v e a n d often seems m o r e like a m i d r a s h . T h e fact t h a t several o f the events a r e n a r r a t e d in the first p e r s o n leaves t h e r e a d e r w i t h a r a t h e r different stylistic i m p r e s s i o n f r o m w h a t o n e g a t h e r s f r o m the b i b l i c a l t e x t o r a p a r a p h r a s e s u c h as J o s e p h u s ' s . J o s e p h u s ' s t e x t b e a r s a r e s e m b l a n c e t o the D e a d S e a P e s h a r i m in the g e n e r a l sense t h a t b o t h a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the B i b l e . B u t t h e r e are b a s i c differences in their p a t t e r n s a n d p u r p o s e s . T h e P e s h a r i m are c o m m e n t a r i e s ; J o s e p h u s is p a r a p h r a s i n g the t e x t itself. T h e l e m m a t i c p a t t e r n o f P e s h a r i m serves t o differentiate b e t w e e n the w o r d o f G - d a n d the h u m a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f it, w h e r e a s t h e r e is n o such differentiation in J o s e p h u s . A b o v e all, the P e s h a r i m a p p l y the b i b l i c a l t e x t t o the historical c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y a n d , in particular, v i n d i cate the l e a d e r o f the c o m m u n i t y , the T e a c h e r o f R i g h t e o u s n e s s , a n d his f o l l o w e r s in their s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t their o p p o n e n t s ( D i m a n t 1992, 5:250), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ostensibly is m e r e l y s u m m a r i z i n g the B i b l e .
16
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
T h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t o f the B i b l e in G r e e k p r i o r to J o s e p h u s w a s t h a t o f P h i l o . J o s e p h u s c e r t a i n l y k n e w o f P h i l o a n d m e n t i o n s h i m as a p h i l o s o p h e r a n d as the h e a d o f the J e w i s h d e l e g a t i o n to the e m p e r o r
Gaius Caligula
(Ant
1 8 . 2 5 9 - 6 0 ) ; a n d t h e r e is r e a s o n to b e l i e v e , as w e shall n o t e , t h a t h e w a s i n d e b t e d to P h i l o for several o f his interpretations, p a r t i c u l a r l y the a l l e g o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s o f the T e m p l e cult. F o r s o m e o f his treatises p a r a l l e l i n g the B i b l e , P h i l o , like J o s e p h u s , h a s a p o l o g e t i c a i m s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , P h i l o is a p h i l o s o p h e r r a t h e r t h a n a historian, a n d , in a n y case, h e h a r d l y p r e s e n t s a s y s t e m a t i c a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . H e u s u a l l y g o e s far afield f r o m the b i b l i c a l text itself, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y a d h e r e s c l o s e l y to it. W e m a y w e l l b e t e m p t e d t o l o o k u p o n P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities as J o s e p h u s ' s m o d e l , e s p e c i a l l y i f the d a t e o f t h a t w o r k , as m o s t s c h o l a r s a g r e e , is s h o r d y b e f o r e o r ( m o r e likely) s h o r d y after the g r e a t revolt a g a i n s t the R o m a n s .
1
In
P s e u d o - P h i l o , the focus is o n the s a c r e d h i s t o r y k n o w n b o t h t h r o u g h the B i b l e a n d o t h e r traditions ( M u r p h y 1 9 9 3 , 4 - 5 ; J a c o b s o n 1 9 9 6 , 1:224-41), a n d in this r e s p e c t is c l o s e r to J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities
t h a n a r e the r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m , w h i c h seek
m e r e l y to e x p l a i n the w r i t t e n b i b l i c a l text. B u t the v e r y fact t h a t P s e u d o - P h i l o refers t o b i b l i c a l b o o k s s e v e r a l t i m e s is a c l u e to the fact t h a t it is n o t m e a n t to re p l a c e t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t a n d , i n d e e d , a s s u m e s a k n o w l e d g e o f t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f the B i b l e t h a t it c h o o s e s n o t to s u m m a r i z e , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e is m e a n t for the r e a d e r w h o d o e s n o t k n o w the B i b l e a n d w h o w i l l d e p e n d u p o n J o s e p h u s for a careful s u m m a r y o f its c o n t e n t s . M o r e o v e r , a n d especially, P s e u d o - P h i l o m a k e s n o a t t e m p t to b e s y s t e m a t i c a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e in his r e t e l l i n g o f the B i b l e a n d i n s t e a d focuses p a r t i c u l a r l y u p o n a f e w i n c i d e n t s a n d p e r s o n a l i t i e s , e x p a n d i n g t r e m e n d o u s l y for e x a m p l e , o n K e n a z , w h i l e a l m o s t totally o m i t t i n g the a c c o u n t s of Jacob and Joseph. T o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities s e e m s t o b e l o n g t o the g e n r e o f m i d r a s h , in t h a t it retells the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b y a r r a n g i n g a n d s u p p l e m e n t i n g it, b y e x p l a i n i n g difficult p a s s a g e s , a n d b y d e f e n d i n g the J e w s a g a i n s t c h a r g e s t h a t h a d b e e n m a d e a g a i n s t t h e m o n t h e basis o f the b i b l i c a l text. If, h o w e v e r , w e a c c e p t the definition o f P o r t o n , in m i d r a s h the o r i g i n a l v e r s e is e x p l i c i d y c i t e d o r c l e a r l y a l l u d e d t o (Porton 1 9 7 9 , 112). J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e m a y b e e x p l a i n i n g the verses as d o e s t h e M i d r a s h , d o e s n o t cite the o r i g i n a l v e r s e as s u c h . M o r e o v e r , m i d r a s h i m a r e n o t , o r at least o r i g i n a l l y w e r e n o t c r e a t e d t o b e , a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y b u t like m o d e r n s e r m o n s digress, f r e q u e n d y at l e n g t h . A l t h o u g h t h e y o m i t r e l a t i v e l y litde, t h e y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e l y s y s t e m a t i c a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e . F u r t h e r m o r e , it is t h e w a y o f the r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m t o p r e s e n t m o r e t h a n o n e c o m m e n t or interpretation o f a given incident, whereas Josephus merely paraphrases it in his o w n w a y a n d o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y presents a l t e r n a t e v e r s i o n s a n d e x p l a n a -
1. See Feldman 1971, x x v i i - x x x i ; B o g a e r t 1976, 2:66-74; and M u r p h y 1993, 6. Jacobson 1996, 1:199-210, convincingly concludes that there are n o cogent arguments in support o f a pre-70 date and that the arguments for a post-70 date are overwhelming.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
iy
tions. T h e r a b b i n i c c o m m e n t s are g e n e r a l l y a s s i g n e d t o specific r a b b i s , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s is the a u t h o r o f all the c o m m e n t s a n d n e v e r cites a n y r a b b i s as s o u r c e s for his e x p l a n a t i o n s . P e r h a p s the closest a n a l o g u e to J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities, as w e shall see presendy, is t o b e f o u n d in t h e t a r g u m i m , w r i t t e n in A r a m a i c , the earliest d a t a b l e o f w h i c h are a t a r g u m o f J o b ( c o v e r i n g J o b 37:10-42:11) a n d s o m e f r a g m e n t s o f L e v i t i c u s 1 6 : 1 2 - 1 5 , 1 8 - 2 1 , f o u n d a m o n g the D e a d S e a Scrolls a n d a p p a r e n d y w r i t t e n in the first c e n t u r y C.E. I n t a r g u m i m , as in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e , it is i m p o s s i b l e , w i t h o u t l o o k i n g at the o r i g i n a l b i b l i c a l text, to d i s c e r n w h a t is the b a s e t e x t a n d w h a t h a s b e e n a m p l i f i e d o r o m i t t e d , so seamlessly h a v e the a d d i t i o n s , for e x a m p l e , b e e n m a d e to the b i b l i c a l text. T a r g u m N e o f i t i , d i s c o v e r e d in 1 9 5 6 , is a systematic, h i g h l y literal t r a n s l a t i o n into A r a m a i c o f the P e n t a t e u c h . Its date, as its first editor, A l e j a n d r o D i e z M a c h o a r g u e d , m a y w e l l b e first c e n t u r y (and h e n c e c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h J o s e p h u s ) , i f w e g i v e w e i g h t t o c e r t a i n r e a d i n g s t h a t s e e m to reflect a n o n - M a s o r e t i c t e x t a n d t o c e r t a i n l e g a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t d i s a g r e e w i t h the M i s h n a h ( D i e z M a c h o 1 9 5 9 , 2
2 2 2 - 4 5 ) . I n t e r s p e r s e d a r e a n u m b e r o f a d d i t i o n s e x p l a i n i n g the text. O f t e n the t w o aspects o f literal translation a n d a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t i v e m a t e r i a l a r e w o v e n t o g e t h e r so skillfully t h a t the a d d i t i o n s c a n o n l y b e identified t h r o u g h c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e H e b r e w t e x t (Flesher 1 9 9 5 , 44). T h i s , w e m a y r e m a r k , is similarly the c a s e w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e . A n o t h e r t a r g u m , that o f O n k e l o s , o f like n a t u r e , w a s , in its first stage, p r o b a b l y c o m p o s e d in Palestine b e f o r e 135 C.E. (Flesher 1 9 9 5 , 4 6 ) .
3
H e n c e , it s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e t h a t at the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , t a r g u m i m o f this o r similar t y p e existed; a n d since A r a m a i c w a s his n a t i v e l a n g u a g e , h e m a y w e l l h a v e f o u n d a m o d e l for his interpretative p a r a p h r a s e in s u c h t a r g u m i m . O n e m a j o r difference, h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n the t a r g u m i m a n d J o s e p h u s is t h a t J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o b e a critical h i s t o r i a n a n d supplies e v i d e n c e f r o m n o n b i b l i c a l s o u r c e s to buttress his c l a i m to the B i b l e ' s historicity. M o r e o v e r , h e d e p a r t s m u c h m o r e t h a n d o the t a r g u m i m in a r r a n g i n g the b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l , in s u p p l e m e n t i n g it, a n d in stressing a p o l o g e t i c e l e m e n t s . P e r h a p s J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e f o u n d a m o d e l in n o n - J e w i s h o r J e w i s h s o u r c e s t h a t a t t e m p t e d t o d o w h a t h e w a s e n d e a v o r i n g to d o — n a m e l y , to w r i t e a n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y for outsiders. A s o n e w h o l i v e d in t w o w o r l d s , t h a t o f his n a t i v e J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h h e h a d k n o w n since his y o u t h , a n d t h a t o f G r e e k culture, w h i c h h e says h e
2. Goshen-Gottstein 1975, 301-29, disputes D i e z M a c h o ' s dating and argues for a Renaissance date. H e thinks that the purpose o f the compiler was to remove midrashic expansions a n d to bring the targum into greater conformity with the original Hebrew. But as A l e x a n d e r 1992, 6:323, a p d y notes, Neofiti is an expansive targum, and the alleged editors missed obvious opportunities to remove midrashic additions. It appears, as he suggests, that Neofiti evolved over a l o n g period o f time, with its earliest version g o i n g b a c k to pre-Christian times. 3. C h i l t o n 1983 concludes that another targum, T a r g u m Jonathan, was c o m p o s e d in two stages, the first in Palestine between 70 a n d 135.
18
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
l a b o r e d s t r e n u o u s l y to m a s t e r (Ant. 20.263), o n e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e p h u s t o t u r n to t h o s e w h o b e f o r e h i m h a d w r i t t e n histories o f their n a t i v e p e o p l e s for a Greek audience. I n v i e w o f the c o m p l i m e n t J o s e p h u s p a y s to the E g y p t i a n a n d B a b y l o n i a n c h r o n i c l e r s for e n s u r i n g a c c u r a c y b y e n t r u s t i n g their r e c o r d s t o priests a n d C h a l d a e a n s r e s p e c t i v e l y (Ag. Ap. 1.28), o n e m i g h t t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e u s e d s u c h w r i t e r s o f their n a t i o n a l histories as his m o d e l s , e s p e c i a l l y since h e contrasts their p r a i s e w o r t h y t r a d i t i o n o f k e e p i n g c h r o n i c l e s o f a n t i q u i t y w i t h the failure o f the G r e e k s t o d o so (Ag. Ap. 1.58). I n the c o n c l u s i o n of his Antiquities, b o a s t i n g o f his k n o w l e d g e o f b o t h G r e e k literature a n d J e w i s h l e a r n i n g (Ant. 20.262-63), J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e us b e l i e v e t h a t h e g a v e e q u a l w e i g h t t o b o t h (Sterling 1992, 2 4 4 - 4 5 ) . S t e r l i n g t h e n q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r this is r e a l l y so, i n a s m u c h as o n five different o c casions in the Antiquities (Ant. 1.121, 8.253, 8 . 2 6 0 - 6 2 , 1 2 . 3 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 6 . 1 8 3 - 8 7 ) , h e is critical o f v a r i o u s G r e e k historians. F u r t h e r m o r e , h e n o t e s t h a t in the essay Against Apion ( 1 . 6 - 5 6 ) , J o s e p h u s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y attacks the G r e e k w r i t e r s , e s p e c i a l l y the his torians, for their u n t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . H e c o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s p r e f e r r e d
the
w r i t e r s o f the O r i e n t a l n a t i o n s , since t h e y k e p t m o r e a c c u r a t e r e c o r d s . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is q u e s t i o n a b l e , h o w e v e r . J o s e p h u s ' s praise is d i r e c t e d n o t t o w a r d the O r i e n t a l historians b u t t o w a r d the r e c o r d s u p o n w h i c h t h e y d r e w (Ag. Ap. 1.28), since these w e r e m a i n t a i n e d w i t h the g r e a t e s t c a r e b y priests in E g y p t a n d b y C h a l d a e a n s in B a b y l o n i a . H e w i s h e s t h e r e b y to d r a w a n a n a l o g y w i t h the r e c o r d s o f the J e w s , w h i c h w e r e similarly c a r e d for w i t h the greatest s c r u p u l o u s n e s s b y priests a n d p r o p h e t s . W e m u s t differentiate b e t w e e n the E g y p t i a n a n d B a b y l o n i a n c h r o n iclers, w h o m h e a d m i r e s for the c a r e w i t h w h i c h t h e y h a v e p r e s e r v e d t h e i r r e c o r d s , a n d the historians, s u c h as M a n e t h o a n d A p i o n , w h o u s e d these r e c o r d s for p e r v e r s e e n d s . It is o n l y in t e r m s o f the c o n c e p t o f w r i t i n g a p o l o g e t i c h i s t o r y t h a t J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e t a k e n his c l u e f r o m a w r i t e r s u c h as A p i o n , w h o " s o u g h t t o free f r o m b l a m e the rites o f his o w n p e o p l e , " as P l i n y says (Natural History 30.99). I n a n y case, w e d o n o t h a v e the o r i g i n a l s a c r e d texts t h a t these w r i t e r s u s e d , a n d e v e n i f w e d i d , w e h a v e relatively f e w f r a g m e n t s o f these w r i t e r s t h e m s e l v e s w i t h w h i c h to c o m p a r e their s o u r c e s to see w h e t h e r t h e y s u p p l y a m o d e l for J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t t e n Scripture. B u t w e m a y speculate that Josephus h a d noticed the lack o f influence o f s u c h w r i t e r s as B e r o s s u s a n d M a n e t h o a n d h a d c o m e to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the G r e e k historians s u p p l i e d a b e t t e r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l m o d e l ( B o w l e y 1994, 215). W h e n it c a m e to the w r i t i n g o f history, it w a s to the G r e e k s t h a t J o s e p h u s t u r n e d for m o d e l s in critical investigation o f d a t a . It is true t h a t h e is critical o f v a r ious G r e e k historians, i n c l u d i n g H e r o d o t u s (Ant. 8.253, 2 6 0 - 6 2 ; Ag. Ap. 1.16, 73) a n d e v e n T h u c y d i d e s (Ag. Ap. 1.18); b u t m o s t a n d the s h a r p e s t criticisms are re s e r v e d for m e n t i o n in the treatise Against Apion. T h e r e , as a n a p o l o g i s t for the J e w ish p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s feels t h a t h e m u s t a n s w e r in the strongest t e r m s o n e o f the m o s t p o w e r f u l a r g u m e n t s o f his o p p o n e n t s — n a m e l y , t h a t the G r e e k w r i t e r s w e r e far s u p e r i o r t o those o f the J e w s , a n d t h a t the J e w s h a d d e s e r v e d l y b e e n i g n o r e d b y t h e m . If, as J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , the G r e e k historians c o n s t a n d y c o n t r a d i c t o n e a n -
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
ig
o t h e r (Ag. Ap. 1.15-18), it is n o n e t h e l e s s p r e c i s e l y their critical m e t h o d t h a t h e c l a i m s to follow. H e says n o t h i n g , o n e w a y o r the other, a b o u t f o l l o w i n g t h e method o f the w r i t e r s o f O r i e n t a l history. O n e writer o f an Oriental history w a s H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (fourth-third cen t u r y B.C.E.), a u t h o r o f a n a p o l o g e t i c h i s t o r y o f E g y p t , as w e l l as o f a h i s t o r y f a v o r a b l e t o t h e J e w s ( a l t h o u g h s o m e h a v e r e g a r d e d this as b e i n g b y a J e w i s h f o r g e r ) .
4
J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s H e c a t a e u s o n six o c c a s i o n s (Ant. 1.108, 1.159; Ag. Ap. 1.183-205, 1.213, 1.214, 2.43), p a r d y to c o r r o b o r a t e b i b l i c a l d a t a , p a r d y to d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t c a n a r d s . B u t H e c a t a e u s , f a v o r a b l e as h e w a s to t h e J e w s , d o e s n o t p a r a p h r a s e a s a c r e d text a n d h e n c e c o u l d h a r d l y b e a m o d e l for J o s e p h u s for t h e first 5
h a l f o f t h e Antiquities.
A n o t h e r s u c h w r i t e r w a s B e r o s s u s (fourth c e n t u r y B.C.E.), like
J o s e p h u s a priest, a u t h o r o f a h i s t o r y o f B a b y l o n , w h o m J o s e p h u s cites o n n o f e w e r t h a n s e v e n o c c a s i o n s (Ant. 1.93, 1.107, 1.158, 10.20, 10.34, 10.219; Ag. Ap. 1.129-53), in o r d e r t o c o r r o b o r a t e d a t a f o u n d in t h e B i b l e . T h a t J o s e p h u s cites h i m for this p u r p o s e d o e s n o t m e a n , h o w e v e r , t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e l o o k e d to h i m as a historio g r a p h i c a l m o d e l . A n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e d i d n o t so r e g a r d h i m m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t (Ag. Ap. 1.128) t h a t it w a s t h r o u g h his w o r k s o n B a b y l o n i a n as t r o n o m y a n d p h i l o s o p h y t h a t B e r o s s u s w a s f a m i l i a r in G r e e k l e a r n e d circles. I n v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t h e cites B e r o s s u s for historical d a t a , o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e p h u s , as a h i s t o r i a n , to say t h a t B e r o s s u s w a s n o t e d as a historian; t h a t h e d o e s n o t m a k e s u c h a n assertion w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t h e d i d n o t r e g a r d B e r o s s u s as e x c e l l i n g in this a r e a . Still a n o t h e r w r i t e r o f a n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y w a s M e g a s t h e n e s (ca. 300 B.C.E.), a u t h o r o f a History of India, w h o m J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s o n t w o o c c a s i o n s t o c o r r o b o r a t e his d a t a a b o u t K i n g N e b u c h a d n e z z a r o f B a b y l o n (Ant. 10.227, Ag. Ap. 1.144). B u t M e g a s t h e n e s , like H e c a t a e u s , is a n e t h n o g r a p h e r r a t h e r t h a n a p a r a p h r a s e r o f s a c r e d l o r e a n d so is u n l i k e l y to h a v e s e r v e d as a m o d e l for J o s e p h u s ' s work. 6
M a n e t h o , w h o l i v e d d u r i n g t h e e a r l y p a r t o f the third c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d w h o w r o t e a h i s t o r y o f E g y p t , is c i t e d at l e n g t h b y J o s e p h u s for his distortion o f t h e role o f the J e w s i n E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y H i s h i s t o r y m i g h t h a v e s e r v e d as a m o d e l for J o s e p h u s , since h e , like J o s e p h u s , w a s a priest (indeed h e rose to t h e r a n k o f h i g h priest), a n d since h e , t o o , as J o s e p h u s says, translated (jxera^paaas)
from sacred
b o o k s i n t o G r e e k (Ag. Ap. 1.73). L i k e J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8.253, Ag. Ap. 1.16), M a n e t h o s h o w s t h a t h e is a critical h i s t o r i a n b y n o t i n g the errors o f H e r o d o t u s (Ag. Ap. 1.73). For J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , the c h i e f c r i t e r i o n o f the h i s t o r i a n is t h a t h e tells t h e t r u t h
4. See the discussion in Sterling 1992, 7 8 - 9 1 , w h i c h concludes that the work is substantially by Hecataeus. 5. O n Josephus's general reliability in reporting the views o f Hecataeus, as well as those o f M a n e t h o , see B e n Z e e v 1993, 215-34. 6. T h e text o f M a n e t h o , or w h a t has c o m e d o w n to us, presents tremendous problems. For the most recent discussion, see Sterling 1992, 119-23.
20
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
(see e.g., Ag. Ap. 1.3); a n d t h e w o r s t c h a r g e t h a t h e c a n m a k e a g a i n s t a h i s t o r i a n is t h a t h e h a s c o l l e c t e d m a t e r i a l u n c r i t i c a l l y f r o m m e r e h e a r s a y (War 1.1). T h i s is p r e cisely t h e c h a r g e t h a t h e m a k e s a g a i n s t M a n e t h o — n a m e l y , t h a t h e h a s d e r i v e d statements, n o t f r o m E g y p t i a n r e c o r d s , b u t , as M a n e t h o h i m s e l f a d m i t s , f r o m fa bles o f u n k n o w n a u t h o r s h i p (ddea-rroTcos (JLvdoXoyovfjLevwv) (Ag. Ap. 1.105, 229, 287); a n d J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to r e d u c e his a c c o u n t o f t h e E x o d u s t o a b s u r d i t y (Ag. Ap. 1.254-87). S i n c e , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e , J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d to a n s w e r t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e B i b l e is n o t trustworthy, it s e e m s u n likely t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e u s e d M a n e t h o as his m o d e l . Apparendy, w h e n Josephus
w r o t e his
War, h e c o n s i d e r e d it
superfluous
(7T€pLTTov, War 1.17) to n a r r a t e t h e entire h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s f r o m their v e r y b e g i n nings, since m a n y J e w s h a d a l r e a d y b e f o r e h i m a c c u r a t e l y (/ACT*
aKpifieias)
r e c o r d e d t h a t h i s t o r y a n d since s o m e o f t h e G r e e k s h a d t r a n s l a t e d these a c c o u n t s i n t o their native l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t d e p a r t i n g s i g n i f i c a n d y f r o m t h e t r u t h (ov ttoXv rfjs aXrjOetas). F r o m this s t a t e m e n t , it w o u l d s e e m t h a t these a c c o u n t s w e r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e in their n a t u r e , i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s speaks o f t h e i r e n c o m p a s s i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e J e w s , t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f their m i g r a t i o n f r o m E g y p t , their w a n d e r ings in v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s , their c o n q u e s t s , a n d the i n c i d e n t s l e a d i n g to their exile. I f so, it w o u l d s e e m likely t h a t w h e n , u p o n the e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f his p a t r o n E p a p h r o d i t u s , J o s e p h u s finally d e c i d e d t o w r i t e s u c h a h i s t o r y (Ant. 1.8), h e w o u l d h a v e m o d e l e d h i m s e l f o n these p r e d e c e s s o r s . J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t tell us t h e identity o f the J e w s w h o w r o t e s u c h histories, p r e s u m a b l y in H e b r e w , n o r d o w e k n o w w h o t h e G r e e k s w e r e w h o t r a n s l a t e d t h e a c c o u n t s into G r e e k . T h e fact, h o w e v e r , t h a t h e says t h a t h e w i l l b e g i n his War at t h e p o i n t w h e r e the historians o f these events a n d " o u r " p r o p h e t s c o n c l u d e (War 1.18) w o u l d s e e m to c o u p l e these historians w i t h t h e p r o p h e t s as g u a r a n t o r s o f t h e a c c u r a c y o f their a c c o u n t s , since, as h e says else w h e r e , t h e p r o p h e t s o b t a i n e d t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o f the m o s t r e m o t e a n d a n c i e n t his t o r y t h r o u g h t h e i n s p i r a t i o n t h a t t h e y o w e d t o G - d (Ag. Ap. 1.37). M o s t s c h o l a r s h a v e f o l l o w e d T h a c k e r a y in a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e G r e e k s referred to are D e m e t r i u s , P h i l o t h e Elder, a n d E u p o l e m u s , w h o m J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s as p r e s e n t i n g the facts o f t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s a n d as b e i n g e x c e p t i o n a l in their a p p r o x i m a t i o n to t h e t r u t h (Ag. Ap. 1.218) ( T h a c k e r a y 1927, 2:10, n. b). U n f o r t u nately, w e h a v e o n l y b r i e f f r a g m e n t s o f t h e w o r k s o f these w r i t e r s ; b u t , o n t h e basis o f w h a t w e d o h a v e , there a r e s e v e r a l p r o b l e m s i f w e a r e t o v i e w t h e m as m o d e l s for J o s e p h u s in his Antiquities. I n t h e first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d these w r i t e r s as 7
n o n - J e w s (Ag. Ap. 1. 218), since in the c o n t e x t of his discussion, h e h a s j u s t n a m e d
7. A s to w h y Josephus referred to these writers as Greeks, w h e n most scholars are convinced that they are Jews, Sterling 1992, 283, suggests that this is because Josephus k n e w t h e m only secondhand through A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor. H e thinks that Josephus did not wish to refer to them as Jews since this would have detracted from his accomplishment. However, Josephus nowhere indicates that he wishes the reader to believe that he is the first to write an extended history o f the Jews; on the contrary, he de clares in the War (1.17) that " m a n y Jews before m e have accurately recorded the history o f our ances-
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
21
e i g h t historians, all o f t h e m non-Jews, w h o h a v e r e f e r r e d to the J e w s , b u t w h o , h e says, m i s r e p r e s e n t e d the facts o f e a r l y J e w i s h history, since t h e y h a d n o t r e a d the s a c r e d b o o k s o f the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 1.216), w h e r e a s these t h r e e are e x c e p t i o n a l — t h a t is, different f r o m the e i g h t w h o m h e h a s n a m e d — i n t h a t t h e y a p p r o x i m a t e the truth. W h i l e p r a i s i n g the three, J o s e p h u s e x c u s e s their errors o n the g r o u n d s t h a t t h e y w e r e u n a b l e t o follow the m e a n i n g o f " o u r " r e c o r d s w i t h c o m p l e t e a c c u r a c y , presumably because they did not k n o w Hebrew. Secondly, Josephus
mentions
D e m e t r i u s as c o m i n g f r o m P h a l e r u m ; a n d w h i l e D e m e t r i u s o f P h a l e r u m w a s in s t r u m e n t a l in g e t t i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s to c o m m i s s i o n the translation o f the P e n t a t e u c h into G r e e k (Letter of Aristeas 9 - 1 1 ; Ag. Ap. 2.46), w e k n o w o f n o w o r k o f his o w n d e a l i n g w i t h the e a r l y h i s t o r y o f the J e w s . T h i r d l y , if, as m o s t s c h o l a r s 8
a g r e e , the P h i l o m e n t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s is P h i l o the e p i c p o e t , h e c a n h a r d l y b e classed as a historian. O f c o u r s e , J o s e p h u s c o u l d b e w r o n g w i t h r e g a r d t o these t h r e e w r i t e r s , o r h e m a y b e g u i l t y o f m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g the facts; b u t this is u n l i k e l y in a w o r k as w e l l crafted as the treatise Against Apion, w h e r e h e h a d to b e e s p e c i a l l y diligent in his r e s e a r c h b e c a u s e h e h a d t a k e n u p o n h i m s e l f the b u r d e n o f d e f e n d i n g his p e o p l e a g a i n s t the attacks o f the n u m e r o u s a n d v i c i o u s anti-Jewish b i g o t s o f his day. T h e s e J e w - b a i t e r s w o u l d h a v e r e d u c e d h i m to a b s u r d i t y i f t h e y c o u l d h a v e f o u n d h i m e i t h e r less t h a n a c c u r a t e in his citations o r g u i l t y o f m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e r e are s e v e r a l m a j o r o b j e c t i o n s t o v i e w i n g these w r i t e r s as f o r e r u n n e r s o f J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f the B i b l e , a l t h o u g h w e m u s t b e a r in m i n d t h a t w h a t w e h a v e o f their w o r k s is E u s e b i u s ' s q u o t a t i o n o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor's q u o t a t i o n , w h i c h m a y b e a s u m m a r y r a t h e r t h a n a v e r b a t i m a c c o u n t . I f w e are to j u d g e f r o m w h a t h a s c o m e d o w n to us f r o m these writers, t h e y w e r e h a r d l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e , as J o s e p h u s i n d i c a t e s his p r e d e c e s s o r s w e r e . I n o n e q u o t a t i o n , D e m e t r i u s c o v e r s the p e r i o d f r o m J a c o b ' s flight to H a r a n ( G e n . 27:41) to the d e a t h o f A m r a m ( E x o d . 9
6:20) in a m e r e 137 lines (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev 9 . 2 1 . 1 - 1 9 ) . T h e n a r r a t i v e , at least as w e h a v e it, consists o f a series o f often d i s c o n n e c t e d events, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s ' s
tors, and that these records have been translated by certain Greeks into their native tongue without se rious error." Pace Sterling 1992, 284, where it is suggested that Josephus does not cite Polyhistor as his source because he did not want to detract from the prestige o f his o w n work as the definitive history o f the Jews, one o f the chief aims o f Josephus's Against Apion was, in fact, to demonstrate that m a n y Greeks had a c k n o w l e d g e d the achievements o f the Jews. It w o u l d surely have contributed to this aim if a writer o f the stature o f Polyhistor had not only mentioned the Jews but had cited them at length and given nu merous instances o f the achievements o f their great leaders. Moreover, whereas Josephus explicidy states in the p r o e m to his War (1.1—3) that he has written his account because those w h o have written accounts o f the w a r before h i m have misrepresented the facts, he makes no statement in the long p r o e m to his Antiquities that he was dissatisfied with those w h o had written the history o f the Jewish people or that he sought to have his work b e c o m e the definitive account, replacing the efforts o f his predecessors. All he does say is that n o one, either J e w or non-Jew, if he should undertake the task, could p r o d u c e a treatise as accurate as his for the G r e e k world (Ant. 20.262). 8. Nevertheless, H o l l a d a y 1989, 2:216-17, n. 2, cites a number o f scholars w h o distinguish Philo the poet from Philo the Elder, as well as several w h o leave the question open. 9. I follow the text as printed in H o l l a d a y 1989, 2:62-74.
22
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
n a r r a t i v e , t h e e v e n t s a r e carefully c o n n e c t e d . H i s p r e o c c u p a t i o n is w i t h c h r o n o l o g y r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e n a r r a t i v e , w h i c h is the m a i n c o n c e r n o f t h e B i b l e itself a n d o f Josephus's paraphrase. Furthermore, D e m e t r i u s has several inconsistencies and errqrs,
10
a n d it s e e m s h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e u s e d D e m e
trius as a m o d e l o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . T o b e sure, in his a t t e m p t to a n s w e r difficulties arising f r o m t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s us o f D e m e t r i u s ' s
precedent.
M o r e o v e r , t h e r e is n o s y n c r e t i s m in J o s e p h u s s u c h as w e find in A r t a p a n u s a n d E u p o l e m u s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , as a s t u d e n t o f t h e h i s t o r y o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f D e m e t r i u s o n G r e e k h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , as B i c k e r m a n (1975, 3:79) h a s n o t e d , w a s nil. A l t h o u g h there a r e t h r e e i n s t a n c e s w h e r e D e m e t r i u s a n d J o s e p h u s a g r e e i n e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n (see S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 6 5 - 6 7 ) , t h e m o s t likely e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t t h e y s h a r e d this t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h a t J o s e p h u s d e r i v e d it f r o m D e m e t r i u s . A s to E u p o l e m u s , a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is similar to h i m in his a i m t o d e f e n d the J e w i s h p e o p l e , it is h a r d to b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e p r a i s e d as e x c e p t i o n a l in a p p r o x i m a t i o n to t h e t r u t h o n e w h o r e f e r r e d t o D a v i d as S a u l ' s s o n (ap. E u s e bius, Pr. Ev. 9.30.3) a n d to E l i as t h e h i g h priest at t h e t i m e o f S o l o m o n ' s c o r o n a tion (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.30.8). A b o v e all, it is p a r t i c u l a r l y q u e s t i o n a b l e w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e u s e d as a m o d e l a w r i t e r w h o differs so g r e a d y f r o m h i m in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e , w h i c h J o s e p h u s , a priest, k n e w so w e l l . A s to P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s ,
1 1
it is h a r d to b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e
p r a i s e d his a c c u r a c y a n d u s e d h i m as a m o d e l , i n a s m u c h as his w r i t i n g s c o n t a i n s u c h syncretistic e l e m e n t s as t h e identification o f t h e p a g a n m y t h o l o g i c a l A d a s w i t h E n o c h (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.17.9) a n d s u c h S a m a r i t a n e l e m e n t s as t h a t A b r a h a m w a s r e c e i v e d as a g u e s t at t h e t e m p l e o f M o u n t G e r i z i m , t r a n s l a t e d
as
" m o u n t a i n o f G - d M o s t H i g h " (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.17.5), w h i c h h a p p e n s to b e the s a c r e d m o u n t o f the S a m a r i t a n s .
12
A n o t h e r possible m o d e l is A r t a p a n u s , w h o m J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t n a m e , b u t w i t h w h o s e a p o l o g e t i c g o a l (in A r t a p a n u s ' s case, a p p a r e n d y in a n s w e r to M a n e t h o )
10. Demetrius gives Jacob's age w h e n fleeing to H a r a n as seventy-five (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.21.1), only to mention it shordy thereafter as seventy-seven (ap. Pr. En 9.21.2), a n d still later (ap. Pr. En 9.21.19) as eighty. H e speaks o f Z i l p a h as Rachel's h a n d m a i d (ap. Pr. En 9.21.3), w h e n she was actually L e a h ' s h a n d m a i d (Gen. 29:24). H e says that L u z is in Bethel (ap. Pr. En 9.21.10), w h e n it is actually another n a m e for Bethel (Gen. 35:6). H e has misconstrued the w o r d kiverat (Gen. 35:16) to be a place-name, C h a p h r a t h . H e says (ap. Pr. En 9.21.14) that L e a h h a d seven sons, whereas the Bible says that she h a d six (Gen. 35:23). H e says (ap. Pr. En 9.21.19) that A m r a m lived 136 years, whereas the H e b r e w text has 137 and the Septuagint has 132. H e says (ap. Pr. En 9.29.1) that R a g u e l (Reuel) w a s the father o f Jethro, whereas R e u e l is actually (Exod. 2:18) another n a m e for Jethro. O f course, these m a y be scribal errors or errors in the transcription b y A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor. 11. O n the distinction between Eupolemus a n d Pseudo-Eupolemus, see H o l l a d a y 1983, 1:157-87, and Sterling 1992, 187-206. 12. Sterling 1992, 281, wonders whether Josephus knew that Pseudo-Eupolemus w a s a Samaritan, but it is hard to believe that he w o u l d not have realized that the connection of A b r a h a m with the tem ple "Argarizin" w o u l d be the work o f a Samaritan.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
23
J o s e p h u s w a s in a g r e e m e n t , a n d w i t h w h o m , to b e sure, t h e r e are m o r e p o i n t s o f resemblance—notably Moses' Ethiopian campaign—than
t o a n y o f the
other
c a n d i d a t e s (see S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 6 8 - 8 0 ) . Y e t the single l o n g e s t f r a g m e n t c o n t a i n s a n a c c o u n t t h a t is a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y n o n b i b l i c a l (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 2 7 . 1 - 3 7 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s s e l d o m d e p a r t s f r o m the b i b l i c a l text to so r a d i c a l a d e g r e e in d e p i c t i n g a b i b l i c a l figure. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e are n u m e r o u s differences in detail a n d n o v e r b a l parallels (Sterling 1992, 2 6 9 - 7 7 ) . It is h a r d to i m a g i n e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e u s e d as a m o d e l for r e w r i t i n g the B i b l e a w r i t e r w h o identified M o s e s w i t h the m y t h i c a l M u s a e u s (the t e a c h e r o r disciple o f O r p h e u s ) a n d w h o d e c l a r e d that M o s e s b e c a m e the t e a c h e r o f O r p h e u s (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.27.3-4), t h a t h e a s s i g n e d as g o d s cats, d o g s , a n d ibises (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.27.4), a n d t h a t h e w a s d e e m e d w o r t h y o f d i v i n e h o n o r s b y the priests a n d w a s c a l l e d H e r m e s (ap. E u s e bius, Pr. Ev. 9.27.6). W e m a y c o n c l u d e , therefore, t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d n o single m o d e l for his w o r k but rather c o m b i n e d elements from various sources w i t h w h i c h he w a s ac q u a i n t e d , a n d t h a t in retelling the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , h e a p p l i e d the critical m e t h o d h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m the G r e e k historians, n o t a b l y T h u c y d i d e s .
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL T E X T S e c o n d o n l y p e r h a p s t o his significance as a historian is J o s e p h u s ' s i m p o r t a n c e for o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the text a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the B i b l e in the first c e n t u r y T h e q u e s t i o n as to w h i c h b i b l i c a l t e x t o r texts h e h a d b e f o r e h i m is c o m p l e x , h o w e v e r , since t h e r e s e e m s g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t h e h a d a c c e s s to t h r e e t e x t u a l tradi tions, in H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d A r a m a i c ; a n d his use o f o n e o r m o r e o f these texts a p p e a r s to h a v e v a r i e d f r o m b o o k to b o o k in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e in the first h a l f o f the Antiquities. T h e fact t h a t in R o m e , w h e r e J o s e p h u s c o m p o s e d his Antiq uities, J e w s h a d settled in l a r g e n u m b e r s f r o m all o v e r the R o m a n E m p i r e m e a n t that J o s e p h u s , i f h e h a d a n y c o n t a c t at all w i t h these J e w s , w a s b r o u g h t in t o u c h w i t h v a r i o u s texts, at least in G r e e k , a n d diverse p a r a p h r a s e s o f these texts. Strangely, despite J o s e p h u s ' s i m p o r t a n c e for the b i b l i c a l text, n o s y s t e m a t i c study o f J o s e p h u s ' s b i b l i c a l Vorlage h a s b e e n m a d e , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f the s t u d y b y A d a m M e z (1895) for J o s h u a , J u d g e s , a n d S a m u e l , a n d the study b y C h r i s t o p h e r B e g g (1993, esp. 2 7 1 - 7 6 ) for 1 K i n g s 1 2 - 2 2 a n d 2 C h r o n . 1 0 - 1 8 . A s s e r t i o n s r a n g e f r o m the s t a t e m e n t o f G u s t a v T a c h a u e r (1871) t h a t J o s e p h u s e m p l o y e d o n l y a H e b r e w t e x t to t h a t o f A b r a h a m S c h a l i t ( 1 9 6 8 )
13
(who h a d originally thought
t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d b o t h a H e b r e w a n d a S e p t u a g i n t G r e e k text) t h a t J o s e p h u s
13. S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 36, n. 45, concludes that o f the twenty proofs cited by Schalit 1944-63, i:xxvii-xxxv, for Josephus's use o f the Septuagint, only four are more than conjecture. Schalit 1973, 399, his latest c o m m e n t on this issue, admits that the problem o f w h i c h text o f the Bible Josephus used needs further examination. Rahlfs 1911 concludes that Josephus generally used a H e b r e w text.
24
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
u s e d o n l y the G r e e k B i b l e . T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s
14
have taken an
i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d b o t h , in a d d i t i o n to, p e r h a p s , a n A r a m a i c t a r g u m . A n o t h e r s u g g e s t i o n is t h a t J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e u s e d a G r e e k t e x t t h a t is u n k n o w n t o us a n d t h a t c o r r e c t s the S e p t u a g i n t t e x t t h a t w e h a v e t o m a k e it c o n f o r m w i t h t h e H e b r e w t e x t o f t h a t t i m e (cf. v a n d e r M e u l e n 1978, 4). W h a t c o m p l i c a t e s the m a t t e r is t h a t t h e r e w e r e a p p a r e n t l y a n u m b e r o f d i v e r g e n t G r e e k a n d H e b r e w texts o f the B i b l e in J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , as w e see in the S e p tuagint, the S a m a r i t a n P e n t a t e u c h , a n d t h e D e a d S e a m a n u s c r i p t s . T h e p r e s e n c e o f p r o t o - L u c i a n i c r e a d i n g s in the D e a d S e a f r a g m e n t s o f S a m u e l in b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d the Biblical Antiquities o f his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o ( F e l d m a n 1971, clxiv) w o u l d s e e m to c o n f i r m this. I n this respect, the p u b l i c a t i o n , w h i c h h a s o n l y j u s t b e g u n , o f f r a g m e n t s o f b i b l i c a l b o o k s a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s o n t h e m (for e x a m p l e , c h a n g e s in the o r d e r o f the n a r r a t i v e for the B o o k o f J o s h u a ) t h a t h a v e b e e n f o u n d in the c a v e s n e a r the D e a d S e a h a s m a d e us r e a l i z e t h a t w h a t w e h a d t h o u g h t w e r e c h a n g e s instituted b y J o s e p h u s m o r e likely d e r i v e f r o m a different text, w h i c h h e h a d b e f o r e h i m . T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s a g r e e s w i t h a distinctive r e a d i n g o f the M a s o r e t i c T e x t o r the S e p t u a g i n t in o m i t t i n g a g i v e n i t e m d o e s n o t p r o v e d e p e n d e n c e , since J o s e p h u s , w h o m a k e s n u m e r o u s o m i s s i o n s in his p a r a p h r a s e , m i g h t w e l l h a v e c h o s e n i n d e p e n d e n t l y , for his o w n r e a s o n s , to d o so ( B e g g 1993, 272). E v e n in cases w h e r e J o s e p h u s a g r e e s w i t h a distinctive r e a d i n g o f the M a s o r e t i c T e x t o r the S e p t u a g i n t , this m a y in s o m e instances b e o w i n g t o the S e p tuagint's r e a d i n g o f a g i v e n w o r d w i t h a different v o c a l i z a t i o n o f the c o n s o n a n t a l text. M o r e o v e r , w h a t a p p e a r s to b e a d i v e r g e n t text m a y a c t u a l l y b e e x e g e s i s o f t h a t t e x t (Bernstein 1994a, 4 2 1 - 2 7 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e f o u n d a n o b v i o u s difficulty in the H e b r e w text a n d s o l v e d it, i n d e p e n d e n t l y , in the s a m e w a y t h a t the Septuagint did. T h e o n l y p u b l i s h e d a t t e m p t to s t u d y this q u e s t i o n for e v e n a p o r t i o n o f the P e n t a t e u c h is R o b e r t S h u t t ' s e x a m i n a t i o n o f the b i b l i c a l n a m e s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G e n e s i s (Shutt 1971, 1 6 7 - 8 2 ) . H e n o t e s t h a t in four cases, J o s e p h u s ' s spelling o f n a m e s follows the H e b r e w text r a t h e r t h a n the S e p t u a g i n t ; in twenty-five cases, his spelling o f n a m e s follows the S e p t u a g i n t r a t h e r t h a n the H e b r e w ; in six cases, his interpretations o f n a m e s follow the H e b r e w r a t h e r t h a n t h e S e p t u a g i n t ; in four t e e n cases, his interpretations follow the S e p t u a g i n t r a t h e r t h a n the H e b r e w ; in t w e n t y cases, his interpretations are i n d e p e n d e n t o f b o t h ; a n d in s i x t e e n o t h e r cases, his interpretations are a p p a r e n t l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f b o t h . T h i s w o u l d h a r d l y s u p p o r t the c o n c l u s i o n o f S c h a l i t (1968) t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d o n l y the G r e e k B i b l e . B u t S h u t t i n e x p l i c a b l y d o e s n o t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o n s i d e r the v a r i o u s m a n u s c r i p t s o f the S e p t u a g i n t o r the possibility t h a t the g a p b e t w e e n the S e p t u a g i n t a n d the H e b r e w t e x t m a y n o t h a v e b e e n as g r e a t in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y as in o u r o w n . F u r t h e r m o r e , a G r e e k f o r m in p r o p e r n a m e s m a y reflect the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t -
14. E.g., H . B l o c h 1879; Schurer 1901,1:80; Rahlfs 1911, 3:80; T h a c k e r a y 1929, 81.
JOSEPHUS A S R E W R I T E R O F T H E BIBLE
25
i n g in G r e e k o r t h a t h e h e l l e n i z e d t h e f o r m o f H e b r e w p r o p e r n a m e s . Just as t h e L a t i n J o s e p h u s , despite t h e fact t h a t it is a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f a m i l l e n n i u m o l d e r t h a n o u r earliest e x t a n t G r e e k m a n u s c r i p t , is v i r t u a l l y v a l u e l e s s for n a m e s , since it often a d o p t s f o r m s i n c u r r e n t u s a g e (Rahlfs 1911, 3:91, n . 1), so t h e c h o i c e o f p r o p e r n a m e s as a litmus test t o identify t h e t e x t J o s e p h u s u s e d is p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f o r t u n a t e . S u c h n a m e s , as w e m a y see i n t h e text o f P h i l o as w e l l , h a v e often b e e n m o d i f i e d b y later copyists i n o r d e r t o c o n f o r m w i t h their o w n t e x t o f the S e p t u a g i n t .
KNOWLEDGE OFA HEBREW TEXT J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t h e w a s b o r n a n d b r o u g h t u p i n J e r u s a l e m (Life 7-8) a n d t h a t at a n e a r l y a g e h e m a d e s u c h g r e a t p r o g r e s s in his e d u c a t i o n t h a t h e far e x c e l l e d his c o m p a t r i o t s i n J e w i s h l e a r n i n g (fife 8) ( w h i c h w a s p r e s u m a b l y c e n t e r e d o n k n o w l e d g e o f t h e T o r a h in H e b r e w ; cf. Ant. 20.263). C o n s e q u e n t l y , h e k n e w t h e H e b r e w t e x t w e l l , w h i c h h e r e g a r d e d as h a v i n g b e e n u n a l t e r a b l y fixed l o n g b e f o r e (Ag. Ap. 1.42). T h e fact, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e Letter of Aristeas (30) s e e m s t o refer t o c o r rupt H e b r e w manuscripts o f the Pentateuch, a n d that the D e a d S e a fragments o f the P e n t a t e u c h s o m e t i m e s d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e s o - c a l l e d M a s o r e t i c T e x t , m a y indi c a t e t h a t t h e H e b r e w text a v a i l a b l e t o J o s e p h u s w a s different f r o m ours. B e t h a t as it may, a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , a n y J e w — a n d this o b v i o u s l y i n c l u d e d J o s e p h u s himself—, i f a s k e d a b o u t t h e l a w s , w o u l d b e a b l e t o r e p e a t t h e m all m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n his o w n n a m e (Ag. Ap. 2.178). E v e r y w e e k , h e says, J e w s — a n d this a g a i n m u s t have included Josephus—assembled
t o listen t o a p o r t i o n o f t h e L a w (Ag. Ap.
2.175). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s r e c e i v e d f r o m T i t u s (Life 418) a gift o f s a c r e d b o o k s , p r e s u m a b l y a T o r a h scroll; a n d h e m a y h a v e h a d this w i t h h i m i n R o m e w h e n h e w r o t e t h e Antiquities. H e n c e J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e h a d a n a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h o s e a u thors o f N e w T e s t a m e n t b o o k s w h o s o m e t i m e s cite t h e B i b l e b u t w i t h n o m a n u script a t h a n d ( H i i b n e r 1992, 1 0 9 6 - 1 1 0 4 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f w e a r e t o t a k e J o s e p h u s at his w o r d , h e indicates t h a t h e h a s , i n his Antiquities, translated f r o m t h e H e b r e w r e c o r d s (EppcuKwv
. . . y papular CJV) (Ant. 1.5).
It is h a r d , h o w e v e r , t o p r o v e a t a n y g i v e n p o i n t w h a t t e x t J o s e p h u s is r e l y i n g u p o n , i n a s m u c h as h e is u s u a l l y p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d e l a b o r a t i n g r a t h e r t h a n trans lating.
15
W e m u s t n o t d i s c o u n t t h e possibility t h a t J o s e p h u s is p e r h a p s f o l l o w i n g a
Jewish tradition independent o f both the Masoretic T e x t a n d the Septuagint, as w e m a y infer f r o m his a g r e e m e n t w i t h P s e u d o - P h i l o e v e n in s o m e p l a c e s w h e r e their v i e w s a r e f o u n d n e i t h e r i n t h e M a s o r e t i c T e x t n o r i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t (e.g., Ant. 3 . 1 6 8 , Bib. Ant. 26.11 v s . E x o d . 28:19). T h e fact t h a t t h e T a l m u d , t h e t a r g u -
15. Inasmuch as Josephus declares that B a l a a m fell upon his face (neacbv 8' ini
GTO^O)
(Ant. 4.125),
where the H e b r e w o f N u m . 24:4 a n d 16 has nofel ("falling"), whereas the Septuagint o n these passages speaks o f B a l a a m as having a vision o f G - d in his sleep, G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:130, n. 764, deduces that Josephus was definitely relying upon a H e b r e w text. T h a t conclusion is unwarranted, however, since it is not clear that Josephus is, in fact, e x p o u n d i n g this verse here.
26
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
m i m , a n d t h e m i d r a s h i m c o n t i n u e t o s h o w latitude in their q u o t a t i o n s f r o m the B i b l e for c e n t u r i e s thereafter i n d i c a t e s t h a t the text o f the B i b l e w a s still b e i n g d e bated.
USE OF A G R E E K T E X T S i n c e h e w a s w r i t i n g in G r e e k , J o s e p h u s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y h a v e b e e n i n c l i n e d to e m p l o y a G r e e k t e x t o f the B i b l e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , o n e w o u l d a p r i o r i e x p e c t h i m to h a v e shied a w a y f r o m u s i n g the S e p t u a g i n t , b e c a u s e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g
Pseudo-
L o n g i n u s ' s c o m p l i m e n t in his On the Sublime (9.9), it is stylistically inferior to the classical a u t h o r s w h o m J o s e p h u s k n e w so w e l l , a n d b e c a u s e it w o u l d b e r e a d i l y u n d e r s t o o d o n l y b y those w h o a l r e a d y w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the B i b l e in its o r i g i n a l l a n g u a g e . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s is m o r e persistent t h a n a n y o t h e r w r i t e r o f H e l l e n i s t i c G r e e k in his use o f classical G r e e k w o r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f r o m H e r o d o t u s , the t r a g e dians, P l a t o , X e n o p h o n , A r i s t o d e , a n d , a b o v e all, T h u c y d i d e s , e v e n to the e x t e n t o f u s i n g r a r e w o r d s e m p l o y e d b y these a u t h o r s ( K e n n e d y 1895, 5 6 - 5 7 ) . J o s e p h u s w a s o b v i o u s l y t r y i n g , in his Antiquities, to r e a c h a c u l t u r e d G r e e k a u d i e n c e a n d to r e n d e r the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e r e s p e c t a b l e in their eyes, a n d h e s o u g h t assistants t o h e l p h i m w i t h his G r e e k style, at least for the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the War (Ag. Ap. 1.50), a n d l a b o r e d s t r e n u o u s l y to p a r t a k e o f G r e e k p r o s e a n d poetry, as h e d e c l a r e s (Ant. 20.263). H e w o u l d t h u s h a v e b e e n hesitant to use the S e p t u a g i n t as a s o u r c e . T h e fact t h a t h e p a r a p h r a s e d the B i b l e in G r e e k w o u l d in a n y c a s e s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t h e h o p e d to i m p r o v e o n the S e p t u a g i n t ; o t h e r w i s e t h e r e w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e b e e n m u c h p o i n t in a n e w v e r s i o n . H e n c e , it is o n l y w h e r e the style o f the S e p t u a g i n t is m o r e p o l i s h e d , as in the a d d i t i o n s t o E s t h e r o r in 1 E s d r a s , t h a t o n e w o u l d e x p e c t h i m to a d h e r e to its text. I n truth, the S e p t u a g i n t w a s r e a l l y n o t a v e r y g o o d p r e c e d e n t for J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , i n a s m u c h as h e , at a n y rate, b e l i e v e d t h a t it h a d b e e n d o n e u p o n d e m a n d o f a h e a d o f state, r a t h e r t h a n for n o n - J e w s generally. A n d y e t , the v e r y fact t h a t h e cites the S e p t u a g i n t as a p r e c e d e n t for p r e s e n t i n g the h i s t o r y o f the J e w s t o the non-Jewish G r e e k w o r l d (Ant. 1.10-12) a n d t h a t h e d e v o t e s so m u c h s p a c e (Ant. 1 2 . 1 1 - 1 1 8 ) t o his p a r a p h r a s e o f the a c c o u n t in the Letter of Aristeas p e r t a i n i n g t o the S e p t u a g i n t w o u l d i n d i c a t e its i m p o r t a n c e to h i m . I n d e e d , o n e w o u l d h a r d l y a pri ori h a v e e x p e c t e d t h a t in a w o r k e m p h a s i z i n g the political a n d m i l i t a r y h i s t o r y o f the J e w s , J o s e p h u s w o u l d give so m u c h a t t e n t i o n t o a subject t h a t b e l o n g s to c u l tural a n d religious history. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e o f the t r e m e n d o u s r e g a r d for the S e p t u a g i n t , at least a m o n g the h e l l e n i z e d J e w s in his a u d i e n c e , as w e m a y infer f r o m b o t h P h i l o (De VitaMosis
2.7.41) a n d J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f (Ant. 12.114), i f h e h a d
i g n o r e d it, the i n f e r e n c e w o u l d h a v e b e e n t h a t h e w a s t r y i n g t o h i d e s o m e t h i n g . H o w e v e r , e v e n w h e n J o s e p h u s a g r e e s w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t , t h e r e is n o g u a r a n tee t h a t this is b e c a u s e h e h a d the t e x t o f the S e p t u a g i n t b e f o r e h i m , since s u c h a g r e e m e n t m i g h t w e l l b e b e c a u s e a n e x e g e t i c a l tradition t h a t h e h a p p e n e d
to
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
k n o w h a d b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d earlier b y t h e translators o f the S e p t u a g i n t .
16
27
More
over, the b i b l i c a l texts d i s c o v e r e d at Q u m r a n i n d i c a t e t h a t the differences b e t w e e n t h e S e p t u a g i n t a n d t h e H e b r e w text, e v e n in s e c t a r i a n circles, w e r e n o t as g r e a t as w e h a d p r e v i o u s l y s u p p o s e d . It is g e n e r a l l y difficult, b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s is u s u a l l y n o t t r a n s l a t i n g b u t p a r a p h r a s i n g , to d i s c o v e r w h i c h m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t h e is following. O f t h i r t e e n instances w h e r e w e c a n d e t e r m i n e w h i c h m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n h e f o l l o w e d , h e a d h e r e s to the A l e x a n d r i n u s t e n t i m e s a n d t h e V a t i c a n u s t h r e e t i m e s ( T h a c k e r a y 1 9 0 4 , 4 6 1 - 7 3 ) ; this, w e m a y c o m m e n t , w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m a n u s c r i p t b e f o r e h i m w a s t h e d i r e c t a n c e s t o r o f neither, b u t r a t h e r b e l o n g e d t o y e t a n o t h e r tradition.
USE OF AN ARAMAIC TARGUM A n A r a m a i c t a r g u m is a t h i r d p o s s i b l e s o u r c e for J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e . A r a m a i c w a s in all p r o b a b i l i t y J o s e p h u s ' s p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e , as it w a s for the J e w s g e n e r a l l y in Palestine at his t i m e . W h i l e it is true t h a t the earliest e x t a n t t a r g u m for t h e P e n t a t e u c h , t h a t o f O n k e l o s , dates f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E., t h e r e c a n b e littie d o u b t t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f t r a n s l a t i n g the B i b l e i n t o t h e A r a m a i c v e r n a c u l a r in t h e s y n a g o g u e w a s m u c h older. T h e fact t h a t its o r i g i n is a t t r i b u t e d to E z r a (fifth c e n t u r y B.C.E.) b y R a v (third c e n t u r y C.E., Megilkh
3a), b a s e d o n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
N e h . 8:8, m e a n t t h a t in later c e n t u r i e s , at least a c c o r d i n g to r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , it h a d t h e sanctity a n d a u t h o r i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the g r e a t n a m e o f E z r a . I f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m P h i l o , the S e p t u a g i n t w a s t r a n s l a t e d f r o m " C h a l d e a n " — t h a t is, A r a m a i c ( a l t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y m o s t s c h o l a r s u n d e r s t a n d this to refer to H e b r e w ) (De Vita Mosis 2.5.26); a n d it is t h u s t h a t A z a r i a h d e i R o s s i , in his s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y m a s t e r w o r k Me or Einayim, e x p l a i n s the " e r r o r s " o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t . T h e fact t h a t at Q u m r a n w e h a v e f o u n d t a r g u m i m o f L e v i t i c u s a n d o f J o b , as w e l l as t h e Genesis Apocryphon, w h i c h is a k i n d o f t a r g u m , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e w e n t b a c k to at least t h e late S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d . T h e v e r y fact t h a t the t a r g u m i m p e r m i t t h e m s e l v e s c o n s i d e r a b l e latitude in p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d e x p o u n d i n g t h e text m u s t h a v e a t t r a c t e d J o s e p h u s t o t h e m in his task o f r e p h r a s i n g t h e B i b l e for his G r e e k a u d i e n c e . I f J o s e p h u s is m u c h freer in v o c a b u l a r y , style, order, a n d c o n t e n t in his r e n d e r i n g o f b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l in t h e first five b o o k s o f t h e Antiquities, w h e r e h e is p a r a p h r a s i n g the P e n t a t e u c h , J o s h u a , a n d J u d g e s , t h a n h e is in b o o k s 6 - 1 1 , this m a y b e o w i n g to the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t a r g u m i m for these earlier b o o k s (N. G . C o h e n 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 , 3 1 1 - 3 2 ) . T h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n o f g r e a t e r f r e e d o m in p a r a p h r a s i n g o f a n d c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e P e n t a t e u c h m a y b e o b s e r v e d in P h i l o a n d in r a b b i n i c literature, p e r h a p s
16. It m a y be worth noting that o f the thirteen (or as m a n y as eighteen) changes listed by the rab bis (e.g., Megillah 9a; Soferim 1:8) as having b e e n m a d e deliberately by the translators w h e n they rendered the text into G r e e k , only five can be found in any current manuscript o f the Septuagint. See T o v 1984, 65-89-
28
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
b e c a u s e it w a s t h e P e n t a t e u c h t h a t w a s r e a d a n d e x p o u n d e d e a c h w e e k in t h e s y n a g o g u e . R e n e e B l o c h h a s e v e n g o n e so far as t o d e c l a r e t h a t t h e a g g a d i c s o u r c e for J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e w a s a n A r a m a i c translation (R. B l o c h 1955, 1 9 4 - 2 2 7 ) ; b u t w e m a y o b j e c t t h a t this t h e o r y w o u l d h a r d l y a c c o u n t for s u c h v a s t e x p a n s i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l as J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n in E t h i o p i a (Ant. 2.238-53). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e u s e d t h e t a r g u m i m as a m o d e l for his r e w r i t t e n B i b l e m a y b e t r u e o n l y in g e n e r a l r a t h e r t h a n in i n d i v i d u a l b o r r o w i n g s . T h e e x a m p l e s c i t e d b y t h o s e w h o p o s t u l a t e t h e use o f a t a r g u m b y J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y center on names and etymologies. 'PovprjXos,
17
T h u s , for t h e n a m e R e u b e n , J o s e p h u s h a s
r e f l e c t i n g t h e s p e l l i n g o f t h e S y r i a c ( w h i c h is c l o s e l y a k i n t o A r a m a i c )
(see T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 9 , 78; a n d N . G . C o h e n 1 9 6 9 , 8 9 - 9 4 ) . S u c h a c o i n c i d e n c e is a d m i t t e d l y n o t likely t o b e b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s s p o k e A r a m a i c , since, i f so, w e m a y ask, w h y is it so r e l a t i v e l y r a r e ? H o w e v e r , t h e s p e l l i n g 'PovfirjAos m a y b e a s c r i b a l error, w i t h lambda substituted for nu, w h i c h in u n c i a l s h a s o n l y o n e e x t r a stroke. A s to etymologies, they w e r e p r o b a b l y p o p u l a r lore a n d well k n o w n a n d hence o f n o r e a l significance, o r t h e y m a y b e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e k i n d o f o n o m a s t i c o n t h a t R o k e a h b e l i e v e s w a s t h e s o u r c e o f P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g i e s ( R o k e a h 1 9 6 8 , 7 0 - 8 2 ) . A s to A r a m a i c transliterations,
s u c h as crajSjSara (Ant. 1.33), ttoloxcl (Ant. 2.313), a n d
daapOd (Ant. 3.252), these are a f e w o f t h e r a r e i n s t a n c e s t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t J o s e p h u s s p o k e A r a m a i c . M o r e o v e r , despite t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f g e o g r a p h y for J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , h e s e e m s to h a v e b e e n u n a w a r e o f t h e e x t e n s i v e g e o g r a p h i c a l k n o w l e d g e e m b o d i e d in t h e t a r g u m o f P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n , w h i c h , a l t h o u g h w r i t t e n d o w n later, w a s p e r h a p s e x t a n t , at least in p a r t , in o r a l f o r m at a m u c h earlier p e r i o d (Epstein 1892, 8 2 - 9 8 ) . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l p a s s a g e s t h a t s e e m to p o i n t to a t a r g u m i c source:
1. T h e c h a n g e , for e x a m p l e , f r o m "spirit o f G - d " ( G e n . 1:2) t o " a b r e a t h f r o m a b o v e " (Ant. 1.27; T a r g u m O n k e l o s mhd the
min qadam), p r e s u m a b l y t o a v o i d
anthropomorphism;
2. T h e d e l a y in C a i n ' s p u n i s h m e n t ( G e n . 4:13) as a r e w a r d for his sacrifice a n d p r a y e r (Ant. 1.58; T a r g u m O n k e l o s sagi hovi milemishebaq); 3. T h e insertion o f t h e p h r a s e " a t t h e b e g i n n i n g " (Ant. 1.110) p a r a l l e l to T a r g u m O n k e l o s o n G e n . 11:2; 4. T h e identification o f I s c a h w i t h S a r a i ( T a r g u m P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n o n G e n . 11:29; Ant.
1
I-I5 );
17. See T h a c k e r a y 1929, 8 1 - 8 2 ; R a p p a p o r t 1930, x x - x x i v , w h o goes so far as to postulate that Jose phus's source for the aggadic information in his modifications o f the Bible was an A r a m a i c translation :x
o f the Bible; Dietrich 1931, 465-70; M a r c u s 1934-37, 5 5
a n
d Schalit 1944-63, i : x x x i - x x x i i .
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
5. T h e i m m e d i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n (Ant. 2.2 a n d T a r g u m P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n
2g
and
Neofiti), r a t h e r t h a n its p o s t p o n e m e n t ( G e n . 25:34), t h a t J a c o b w a s p r e p a r i n g a dish o f lentils; 6. T h e c h r o n o l o g y o f t h e d e a t h o f R e b e k a h (Ant. 1.345; T a r g u m P s e u d o J o n a t h a n o n G e n . 35:8); 7. T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n o f J a c o b t o t h e stars o f h e a v e n (Ant. 4 . 1 1 5 - 1 7 ; f r a g m e n t a r y t a r g u m o n N u m . 23:10) ( V e r m e s 1973, 147); 8. T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m a n n a as b e i n g "sent d o w n " (Ant. 3.26, 3 1 , 32; T a r gum
P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n o n E x o d . 16:13 ff.; M a l i n a 1 9 6 8 , 5 4 - 5 5 ) a n d t h e
c o m p l a i n t o f t h e Israelites a b o u t the m a n n a ( A n t . 3.296; T a r g u m P s e u d o J o n a t h a n o n N u m . 11:7); 9. T h e t e n d e n c y in b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d i n T a r g u m J o n a t h a n a n d t h e t a r g u m on
C h r o n i c l e s t o substitute " p r o p h e t " for " m a n o f G - d " ( B e g g 1 9 9 3 ,
2 4 - 2 5 , n. 128); 10. T h e m o t i v a t i o n for t h e sign g i v e n b y the p r o p h e t in 1 K i n g s 13:3 (Ant. 8.232); 11. T h e d e s i g n a t i o n in b o t h J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8.236) a n d t h e t a r g u m (1 K i n g s 13:11) o f t h e p r o p h e t f r o m B e t h e l as a "false p r o p h e t " ; 12. K i n g A h a b ' s g o i n g w i t h b a r e feet (Ant. 8.362; t a r g u m o n 1 K i n g s 21:27); 13. T h e a s c r i p t i o n o f a n a m e in b o t h J o s e p h u s ( A m a n o s , Ant. 8.414) a n d t h e t a r g u m o n C h r o n i c l e s ( N a a m a n ) to A h a b ' s a n o n y m o u s slayer o f 1 K i n g s 22:34 (2 C h r o n . 18:33); 14. R e p l a c e m e n t o f " w h o p o u r e d w a t e r o n the h a n d s o f E l i j a h " w i t h a m o r e definite d e s i g n a t i o n (disciple o f E l i j a h , t a r g u m : " w h o s e r v e d E l i j a h " ) (Ant. 9-33; t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 3:11) ( B e g g 1993a, 9 8 - 9 9 ) ; 15. J e h o r a m ' s r e s p o n s e to E l i s h a ("the k i n g b e g g e d h i m to p r o p h e s y a n d save t h e m " ; t a r g u m : " P l e a s e d o n o t r e c a l l sins in this hour. B e g for m e r c i e s u p o n us") (Ant. 9.34, t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 3:13) ( B e g g 1 9 9 3 a , 100); 16. R e p l a c e m e n t o f "the h a n d o f t h e L - r d c a m e u p o n h i m " b y " h e b e c a m e di v i n e l y i n s p i r e d " ( t a r g u m : a spirit o f p r o p h e c y f r o m b e f o r e t h e L - r d r e s i d e d u p o n h i m ) (Ant. 9.35; t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 3:15) ( B e g g 1 9 9 3 a , 101 n. 47); 17. J e h u ' s q u i e t d r i v i n g (Ant. 9.117; t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 9:20) ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 82; B e g g 1993b, 4 8 2 - 8 3 ) ; a n d 18. A n e x p a n s i o n o f t h e short, p l a i n t i v e w o r d a d d r e s s e d b y J o a s h to E l i s h a (Ant. 9 . 1 7 9 - 8 0 ; t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 13:14) ( B e g g 1994c, 43).
T h e n u m b e r o f s u c h instances is n o t g r e a t , h o w e v e r , a n d m a y reflect a G r e e k v e r s i o n that is n o w lost to us, parallel to that a l l u d e d to b y the rabbis (Megillah 9a; Sqferim 1:8). G a s t e r ' s t h e o r y t h a t the S a m a r i t a n Book ofAsatir (Al-Asatir), w r i t t e n in A r a m a i c , a n d J o s e p h u s h a v e a c o m m o n s o u r c e , w h i c h w a s the result o f t h e m i d r a s h i c a g g a d i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e T o r a h t h a t f l o u r i s h e d in Palestine, is n o t t e n a b l e ( G a s t e r 1927, 6 1 - 8 0 ) . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e b o o k o f A s a t i r h a r d l y dates f r o m t w o c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e J o s e p h u s , as G a s t e r c l a i m s , b u t rather, to j u d g e f r o m the late S a m a r i t a n
jo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
l a n g u a g e a n d f r o m the a d m i x t u r e o f M u s l i m t e r m i n o l o g y , w a s c o m p o s e d n o e a r lier t h a n the e n d o f the t e n t h century. I n t h e s e c o n d p l a c e , the g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f the parallels d r a w n b y G a s t e r are h a r d l y distinctive o r c o n c l u s i v e , since t h e y are g e n e r a l l y f o u n d in r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m o r in H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s f r o m a n earlier p e r i o d t h a n the Asatir ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, x i , n. 3). B e g g d o u b t s t h a t J o s e p h u s d i r e c t l y u t i l i z e d t a r g u m i m , i n a s m u c h as the d a t e o f the t a r g u m i m r e m a i n s u n r e s o l v e d ( B e g g 1 9 9 3 , 2 7 5 - 7 6 ) . H e suggests t h a t the simi larity o f t e r m i n o l o g y m a y h a v e arisen f r o m i n d e p e n d e n t e x t r a p o l a t i o n f r o m ele m e n t s in the b i b l i c a l t e x t a n d attributes the parallels in c o n t e n t to their b e i n g d e r i v e d f r o m a c o m m o n tradition, w h e t h e r w r i t t e n o r o r a l , o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w e v e r , i n a s m u c h as the p r o f e s s i o n a l translator o f the B i b l e in the s y n a g o g u e k n o w n as the meturgeman is m e n t i o n e d in the M i s h n a h (Megillah 4:4) a n d the rules for r e a d i n g the t a r g u m are f o r m u l a t e d t h e r e (Megillah 4 : 4 - 1 0 ) , it s e e m s t h a t w e are d e a l i n g w i t h a n o l d e r tradition; a n d J o s e p h u s , as a l e a r n e d a n d p i o u s Jew, h a d m o s t likely h e a r d s u c h translations in the s y n a g o g u e y e a r after y e a r a n d w a s p r e sumably influenced b y them.
FOR
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL TEXTS T H E V A R I O U S B O O K S OF T H E BIBLE
If w e n o w t u r n to the q u e s t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s b i b l i c a l text for the v a r i o u s b o o k s o f the B i b l e , t h e r e s e e m s to b e s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t his m a i n s o u r c e for the P e n t a t e u c h w a s either a H e b r e w text, a t a r g u m i c p a r a p h r a s e in A r a m a i c , o r b o t h . T h i s is w h a t w e w o u l d e x p e c t if J o s e p h u s h a d h e a r d the H e b r e w t e x t in the s y n a g o g u e , w i t h , in all probability, a n a c c o m p a n y i n g t a r g u m . T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k texts o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h t h a n w i t h o t h e r b o o k s o f the B i b l e , a n d J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f is freer in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the P e n t a t e u c h t h a n h e is w i t h the later b o o k s o f the B i b l e , m a k i n g it difficult to b e sure w h e t h e r h e is u s i n g a H e b r e w o r a G r e e k t e x t at a n y g i v e n p o i n t . J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o b e f o l l o w i n g the S e p t u a g i n t , r a t h e r t h a n a H e b r e w text, in m o r e instances in G e n e s i s , b u t in s o m e cases, these are p r o p e r n a m e s , w h e r e the l i k e l i h o o d o f c o r r u p t i o n is greatest, in v i e w o f the w e l l - k n o w n t e n d e n c y o f copyists t o b r i n g the t e x t into c o n s o n a n c e w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , J o s e p h u s m a y a c t u a l l y b e a d o p t i n g the l a n g u a g e o f P h i l o , as w e see in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the c r e a t i o n chapter, w h e r e h e closely follows P h i l o ' s De Opificio Mundi, w h i c h , to b e sure, is c l e a r l y i n d e b t e d to the S e p t u a g i n t .
18
O r he m a y
b e i n d e b t e d to a g l o s s a r y o f t e r m s , s u c h as w e k n o w e x i s t e d f r o m p a p y r i ; o r h e m a y b e reflecting a P a l e s t i n i a n t r a d i t i o n t h a t the translators, w h o a l l e g e d l y c a m e f r o m Palestine, h a d i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o their v e r s i o n , a n d t h a t J o s e p h u s k n e w i n d e p e n -
18. Josephus writes iv apxfl €KTLG€V
6 deos rov ovpavov KOLL TT)V yrjv (Ant. 1.27), w h i c h seems to be
derived from the Septuagint's version o f G e n . 1:1. In view of the obvious debt of Josephus to this trac tate o f Philo's for his account o f creation, this m a y actually, however, be derived from Philo, De Opificio Mundi 7.26.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
31
d e n t l y ; o r h e m a y i n d e p e n d e n t i y h a v e a d o p t e d s o m e i n c o r r e c t translation o f a H e brew term;
1 9
o r h e m a y h a v e a r r i v e d at a g i v e n translation into G r e e k b e c a u s e the
G r e e k w o r d w a s r e a l l y the best w a y t o r e n d e r a g i v e n t e r m ; p e n d e n c e m a y b e the result o f a scribal e r r o r .
2 0
o r the a p p a r e n t d e
21
O n the o t h e r h a n d , w h e n J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o b e f o l l o w i n g the H e b r e w , t h e r e n d e r i n g s m a y s i m p l y b e s y n o n y m o u s w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t ' s w o r d s (and J o s e p h u s , as w e c a n see f r o m his p a r a p h r a s e
o f the Letter of Aristeas, a l m o s t p a t h o l o g i c a l l y
a v o i d e d u s i n g the s a m e p h r a s e o l o g y as his source); o r h e m a y b e u s i n g w o r d s t h a t are m o r e classical. I n a n y case, t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s n o t f o l l o w i n g the S e p t u a g i n t (or at least o u r S e p t u a g i n t ) b l i n d l y is c l e a r f r o m the fact t h a t h e definitely d i s a g r e e s w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t ' s v e r s i o n o f D e u t . 22:1, w h i c h rules a d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l f o u n d w a n d e r i n g o n the r o a d to b e a lost o b j e c t , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a n d the M i s h n a h assert t h a t it is n o t (Ant. 4.274; Baba Alexia 2:9). R a j a k ' s c o l l e c t i o n o f the instances for E x o d u s (Ant. 2.206-3.207), w h e r e w e c a n a p p a r e n d y see w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s u s e d a H e b r e w o r a G r e e k Vorlage, y i e l d s similarly i n c o n c l u s i v e results ( R a j a k 1974, 238, a n d h e r a p p e n d i x V ) . I f w e c o m p a r e , as I h a v e d o n e , the n a m e a n d the o r d e r o f the stones o n the b r e a s t p l a t e o f the h i g h priest ( E x o d u s 28:17-20) w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s t w o v e r s i o n s (War 5.234; Ant. 3.168), w e find t h a t the t w o v e r s i o n s a g r e e w i t h the n a m e in the H e b r e w in n i n e o r p o s s i b l y t e n o u t o f t w e l v e instances, a n d w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t in all t w e l v e instances; a n d w h e n it c o m e s to the o r d e r o f the stones, J o s e p h u s a g r e e s w i t h the M a s o r e t i c T e x t in o n l y four i n s t a n c e s in the War a n d in o n l y five o r p o s s i b l y six cases in the Antiq uities. W h a t is m o s t significant, h o w e v e r , is t h a t J o s e p h u s d i s a g r e e s w i t h b o t h the M a s o r e t i c T e x t a n d the S e p t u a g i n t o n the o r d e r o f five o f the stones ( F e l d m a n 1971, c x i i - c x i v ) . H e n c e , J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s h i m s e l f a priest, m a y w e l l h a v e h a d a text different f r o m b o t h , o r h e m a y h a v e u s e d a glossary, o r h e m a y b e w r i t i n g f r o m 22
m e m o r y , o r h e m a y b e p a r a p h r a s i n g freely. A g a i n , as in Ant. 3.102, w h e r e his in t e r p r e t a t i o n otshittim ( E x o d . 25:5) c o i n c i d e s w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t ' s
aorjTTTa
("not li
a b l e to d e c a y " ) , the e x p l a n a t i o n m a y b e t h a t h e h a d a c c e s s to a g l o s s a r y o r t h a t h e k n e w a t r a d i t i o n t h a t this w a s the m e a n i n g o f the t e r m .
19. Rajak 1974, 232, cites the rendering of sar ha-tabahim (Gen. 39:1) as apx^dyeipos by the Septuagint and
CTTI TCUV . . .
("chief cook")
(layeipcw ("chief o f the cooks") by Josephus (Ant. 2.39) as an instance
where both m a y independendy have rendered the original H e b r e w in an incorrect, although literal, in terpretation, a mistake also m a d e by the Samaritan version. 20. Cf. Rajak 1974, 237. S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 36, notes that Gustav Holscher's collection o f verbal coincidences between the first b o o k o f the Antiquities and the Septuagint (Holscher 1916, 1953-54) is re markable for its paucity and insignificance. 21. E.g., as noted by Franxman 1979, 87, n. 45, Josephus's daXXov eXaias "branch o f olive" (Ant. 1.92), w h i c h seems to be dependent u p o n the Septuagint's <j>vXXov iXaias
Kap
os, "a leaf o f olive, a
twig," against the Masoretic Text's "olive leaf" (Gen. 8:11), m a y actually be due to a scribal error giv ing BaXXov for <j>vXXov. 22. It is perhaps significant, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1971, cxiii-cxiv), that in the one place where Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 26.10-11) in his list o f stones does not agree with the Septuagint on the order o f the stones, he is in agreement with Josephus's Antiquities, w h i c h gives a later version than
32
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
T h e striking c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n the D e a d S e a f r a g m e n t
of Joshua
a
( 4 Q J o s h ) a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5 . 1 6 - 2 0 ) in p l a c i n g J o s h u a ' s b u i l d i n g o f a n altar a n d sacrificing u p o n it after the a c c o u n t o f the c r o s s i n g o f the J o r d a n w o u l d s e e m to in d i c a t e t h a t for J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s is in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a text t h a t is at v a r i a n c e w i t h the H e b r e w M a s o r a (so R o f e 1994, 7 9 , a n d U l r i c h 1994, 9 2 - 9 3 ) . E v e n so, for J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e c l o s e r to the M a s o r e t i c T e x t t h a n h e is in J u d g e s a n d R u t h , w h e r e h e is q u i t e free in his r e n d e r i n g o f the b i b l i c a l t e x t — p e r h a p s , as Thackeray and others
2 3
have suggested, because he was using a targum.
I n S a m u e l , a c c o r d i n g to M e z a n d T h a c k e r a y
2 4
a m o n g others,
25
J o s e p h u s is
g e n e r a l l y a l i g n e d w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t in the P r o t o - L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n a g a i n s t the M a s o r e t i c T e x t ( M e z 1895; T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 9 , 8 3 - 8 9 ) , a l t h o u g h T h a c k e r a y also p o s tulates t h a t h e e m p l o y e d a S e m i t i c t e x t as a c o l l a t e r a l s o u r c e ( T h a c k e r a y 1927, ix), as o n e c a n see, for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s r e n d e r i n g o f E n d o r (1 S a m . 28:7) as the city o f D o r (Ant. 6.330), a r e a d i n g a p p a r e n t l y resulting f r o m a text t h a t m i s t a k e n l y c
h a d Hrdor for endor ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 82), a n d in J o s e p h u s ' s els Peydv
(Ant. 6.325)
for the H e b r e w Y i s r a ' e l , w h i c h w a s p r e s u m a b l y c o r r u p t e d i n t o IECPAEAAN, t h e n into EIC
PAEAAN,
a n d finally into EIC
PETAN,
and
as R a j a k h a s s u g g e s t e d
( R a j a k 1974, 250). Rahlfs, M o o r e , Brock, and R a j a k
2 6
h a v e c o n t e s t e d the thesis o f M e z a n d
T h a c k e r a y ; a n d B r o c k h a s a r g u e d t h a t o f the m e r e thirty e x a m p l e s a d d u c e d b y M e z in s u p p o r t o f his theory, o n l y n i n e a r e a c t u a l l y v a l i d , n o t i n g that in m a n y p l a c e s w h e r e J o s e p h u s s u p p o s e d l y a g r e e s w i t h L u c i a n a g a i n s t the S e p t u a g i n t , this is s i m p l y b e c a u s e h e is t r y i n g to m a k e b e t t e r sense. T h e fact t h a t m o s t o f M e z ' s e v -
the list in the War, and presumably a correction. H e n c e , this m a y reflect the H e b r e w or G r e e k biblical text available to both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, a text that differed from both the Masoretic T e x t and the Septuagint as w e have them. J a c o b s o n 1996, 2:768, suggests that Pseudo-Philo's reversal o f the order o f the stones here m a y perhaps be attributable to the G r e e k translator o f his original H e b r e w ver sion; but translators generally d o not reverse the order o f items in a list (and for n o reason that w e can fathom). In any case, it w o u l d seem most remarkable that in the list o f twelve stones, the translator should have reversed the order in precisely the same place where Josephus did. If Pseudo-Philo w a s aware o f Josephus's work, as the great n u m b e r o f parallels between their texts w o u l d perhaps suggest (see Feldman, 1971, lviii-lxvi), he m a y have k n o w n that Josephus was a distinguished priest a n d m a y have regarded Josephus's version o f the order o f the stones on the breastplate o f the high priest as au thoritative. 23. T h a c k e r a y 1929, 81; R a p p a p o r t 1930, x x i - x x i v ; Schalit 1944-63, i : x x x i - x x x i i . 24. T h a c k e r a y concludes that Josephus's biblical text from 1 S a m u e l to 1 M a c c a b e e s is uniformly o f this Lucianic type. 25. Cf. Ricciotti 1938, 465; K a h l e 1947, 154-55; Pisano 1984. 26. Rahlfs 1991, 3:92-111; M o o r e 1912-13, 3 7 - 6 2 ; Brock 1966, 207-21; Rajak 1974, 232. Rahlfs, w e m a y note, after m a k i n g a study o f biblical quotations in early C h u r c h Fathers through the end o f the third century, concludes that it is not possible to isolate " L u c i a n i c " texts as such, since w e m a y find " L u cianic" readings scattered everywhere and often c o m b i n e d with non-Lucianic readings. Brock argues that agreements between Josephus and L u c i a n m a y often be the result o f Josephus's desire to make sense o f a given context.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
33
i d e n c e is f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s spelling o f p r o p e r n a m e s a n d f r o m the n u m b e r s t h a t h e cites w e a k e n s his c a s e i m m e a s u r a b l y , b e c a u s e it is p r e c i s e l y in s u c h details, as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h a t copyists are m o s t likely t o m a k e c o r r e c t i o n s to b r i n g a t e x t into a c c o r d w i t h their p r e c o n c e i v e d d a t a . M e z c o n v e n i e n t l y d o e s n o t n o t e the d e g r e e to w h i c h J o s e p h u s d i s a g r e e s w i t h L u c i a n o r a g r e e s w i t h the M a s o r e t i c T e x t o r is u n i q u e in a g r e e i n g w i t h n o text. N e v e r t h e l e s s , S c h a l i t h a s h a r d l y e s t a b l i s h e d a c a s e for J o s e p h u s ' s use o f a H e b r e w t e x t for S a m u e l , i n a s m u c h as his c h i e f a r g u m e n t s are t h a t t h e r e are a n u m b e r o f instances w h e r e J o s e p h u s is n o t p a r a l l e l e d b y the G r e e k text, a n d t h a t in the n a m e s o f S o l o m o n ' s p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n o r s — a n i n s t a n c e w h e r e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , c o r r u p t i o n is m o s t likely to t a k e p l a c e — J o s e p h u s
(Ant.
8.35-38) is c l o s e r to the M a s o r e t i c T e x t (1 K i n g s 4 : 7 - 1 9 ) t h a n t o the S e p t u a g i n t (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , l : x x v i i - x x x i ) .
27
K a h l e , w h i l e r e a d y to g r a n t t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s text d o e s a g r e e w i t h L u c i a n , attrib utes this t o C h r i s t i a n copyists ( K a h l e 1947, 2 3 3 - 3 4 ) , j u s t as K a t z c o n t e n d s t h a t P h i l o ' s q u o t a t i o n s f r o m the B i b l e , w h i c h so often d o n o t a g r e e w i t h o u r text o f the S e p t u a g i n t , r e p r e s e n t c o r r e c t i o n s reflecting a late r e c e n s i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t in s p i r e d b y A q u i l a ' s v e r s i o n ( K a t z 1950). M o r e o v e r , S p o t t o r n o s h o w s h o w , in in s t a n c e after instance, J o s e p h u s h a s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a v o i d e d u s i n g w o r d s f o u n d in the S e p t u a g i n t , a l m o s t as i f h e f e a r e d a n a c c u s a t i o n o f p l a g i a r i s m ( S p o t t o r n o 1987, 277-85).
28
Ulrich
2 9
offers a n u m b e r o f e x a m p l e s to p r o v e t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d a
G r e e k r a t h e r t h a n a H e b r e w t e x t for 1 a n d 2 S a m u e l ( U l r i c h 1978), the m o s t c o n v i n c i n g o f w h i c h are 2 S a m . 6:8 (Ant. 7.82) a n d 2 S a m . 6:19 (Ant. 7.86), w h e r e the G r e e k w o r d s are v e r y r a r e in the S e p t u a g i n t (see U l r i c h 1978, 2 1 0 - 1 1 ; a n d T o v 1979, 3 7 - 5 3 ) . H e h a s g o n e so far as to c o n c l u d e t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d o n l y a G r e e k t e x t for S a m u e l , a n d t h a t this G r e e k text, as F r a n k C r o s s h a s s u g g e s t e d , w a s r e v i s e d so as to c o n f o r m to the H e b r e w text as f o u n d in the D e a d S e a f r a g m e n t s , r e s u l t i n g in a " P a l e s t i n i a n " t e x t as f o u n d in the C h r o n i c l e r , J o s e p h u s , P s e u d o - P h i l o ,
30
Lu
c i a n , a n d the sixth c o l u m n o f O r i g e n ' s H e x a p l a (Cross 1964, 2 8 1 - 9 9 ; 1 9 6 6 , 8 1 - 9 5 ;
27. O n e reason w h y Josephus is closer here to the H e b r e w text m a y be that this passage is part o f the Haftarah (2 K i n g s 4:1-37, or 23 in the Sephardic rite) that is read in the synagogue after the T o r a h portion o f Vayera (Gen. 18:1-22:24); and Josephus m a y thus have heard it in the synagogue year after year. B u t the question remains o f whether the choice oihafiwrot h a d been m a d e by the first century. 28. Nevertheless, Spottorno (1987) finds approximately seventy instances where Josephus agrees with the Lucianic text and about thirty where he agrees with the Septuagint in 1 K i n g s . She cites about eighty w h e r e he agrees with L u c i a n and about twenty where he agrees with the Septuagint in 2 K i n g s . 29. H o w a r d 1973,45-54, theorizes that Josephus relied u p o n two types of the G r e e k Bible, a protoLucianic text (manuscripts b o c e ) , identified by Barthelemy 1963 with the old Septuagint, and a kaige 2
2
recension, w h i c h is the basis o f Aquila's version. O n e m a y just as easily, however, postulate that Jose phus's two texts were a G r e e k text o f the b o c e type and a H e b r e w text that w a s the basis o f Aquila's 2
2
version. 30. Harrington 1971,1—17, has shown that Pseudo-Philo's biblical text generally agrees with that o f Josephus as against the Masoretic T e x t and the Septuagint, and that especially in 1 Samuel, his read ings agree with the Lucianic text.
34
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
3 1
a n d 1 9 7 2 , 1 0 8 - 2 6 ) . T h e Rylands G r e e k Papyrus 458, our oldest extant papyrus o f the G r e e k B i b l e , i n d i c a t e s that, at least for the p o r t i o n s o f D e u t . 2 3 - 2 8 t h a t w e h a v e , p r o t o - L u c i a n i c r e a d i n g s a p p e a r a l r e a d y in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. It d o e s s e e m h a r d to b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e c e a s e d to c o n s u l t the H e b r e w t e x t so s u d d e n l y a n d so utterly, h o w e v e r , e s p e c i a l l y since h e m a y h a v e h e a r d p o r t i o n s f r o m S a m u e l (seven selections f r o m w h i c h are i n c l u d e d in the A n n u a l C y c l e , a l t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y w e d o n o t k n o w w h e n this c y c l e w a s a r r i v e d at) in the s y n a g o g u e o n S a b b a t h s a n d h o l y d a y s d u r i n g r e a d i n g s o f t h e haftarot. I n p a r ticular, as B e g g h a s n o t e d , J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n (Ant. 7.321) reflects a r e a d i n g p e c u l i a r to the H e b r e w t e x t (2 S a m . 24:13) in c i t i n g G a d ' s offer o f a s e v e n - y e a r f a m i n e , w h e r e a s the o t h e r t e x t u a l w i t n e s s e s h a v e t h r e e y e a r s (so B e g g 1 9 9 4 b , 222). M o r e over, in a n i n s t a n c e s u c h as 2 S a m . 11:3, w h e r e J o s e p h u s (Ant. 7.131) a g r e e s w i t h the a
D e a d S e a m a n u s c r i p t 4 Q S a m in c a l l i n g U r i a h J o a b ' s a r m o r bearer, this d o e s n o t p r o v e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s d e p e n d e n t u p o n a G r e e k Vorlage, since w e h a v e n o G r e e k m a n u s c r i p t w i t h this r e a d i n g .
32
B u t the e v i d e n c e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a
text t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d w a s i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d t o t h a t w h i c h w e find in 4 Q S a m , a n d t h a t this t e x t w a s the p r o t o - L u c i a n i c t e x t in G r e e k ( U l r i c h 1 9 8 9 , 9 3 , a n d so, o n the w h o l e , B e g g 1994b, 2 2 2 - 2 3 ) . W h e r e C h r o n i c l e s p a r a l l e l s K i n g s , J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y follows the m o r e d e tailed t r e a t m e n t ( B e g g 1993b, 482; 1995I1, 21). For 1 K i n g s 1 2 - 2 2 a n d its p a r a l l e l , 2 Chron. 10-18,
3 3
B e g g c o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d a S e p t u a g i n t - l i k e text as his
p r i m a r y s o u r c e , b u t t h a t h e also u s e d a p r o t o - M a s o r e t i c H e b r e w text o n o c c a s i o n (notably in the o r d e r a n d l e n g t h o f c e r t a i n e p i s o d e s , as w e l l as in details) a n d h a d 3 4
a c c e s s to traditions f o u n d in e x t a n t t a r g u m i m ( B e g g 1993, 2 7 3 - 7 6 ) . A s to w h i c h
31. T h e r e is no basis for the assertion of Jellicoe 1965-66, 144-50, that the presence o f proto-Lu cianic readings in Josephus and at Q u m r a n shows that there was recensional activity at Leontopolis. 32. M u r a o k a 1981, 3 7 - 5 9 , has indicated a case (2 S a m . 11:8) where he says Josephus (Ant. 7.132) is not dependent u p o n the G r e e k text; but in his response, Ulrich 1989, 90-92, points out that the read ing o f the D e a d S e a manuscript for the key w o r d in this passage is not extant; hence w e d o not k n o w what Josephus's source had, regardless o f whether that source was in H e b r e w or Greek. N . G C o h e n 1963-64, 3 1 1 - 3 2 , does, however, note evidence o f a remarkable shift in diction between the first five books o f the Antiquities covering the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, a n d bks. 6 - 1 1 , covering the rest o f his paraphrase of the Bible. For example, she remarks that the w o r d €KaTovdpxr)S
(eKarovapxos),
"captain o f a hundred," does not a p p e a r at all in the first five books of Josephus, despite the fact that it is found in the Septuagint seven times, but that it is used nine times, all o f t h e m paralleled by the S e p tuagint, in the next five books. T h i s w o u l d seem to show that Josephus used the H e b r e w text for his first five books a n d the Septuagint for the next five; but the matter must remain subjudice since there is some reason to believe that Josephus's H e b r e w text, starting with the books o f Samuel, w a s closer to our pre sent G r e e k (or proto-Lucianic) text. 33. Generally, as B e n Z v i 1 9 8 8 , 7 3 - 7 6 , indicates, Josephus follows Chronicles in its additions to, but not in its omissions from, S a m u e l and K i n g s . For example, Josephus includes a report on R e h o b o a m ' s fortifications (2 C h r o n . 11:5 ff.; Ant. 8.246). O n the other hand, he includes the Bathsheba story (2 S a m . 11:2-27;
7-130-53), w h i c h is omitted in Chronicles. Cf. also B e g g 1993a, 2, n. 4.
34. Rahlfs 1911, 3:92-111, and O l m s t e a d 1913, 29, n. a, conclude that Josephus relied primarily on a H e b r e w biblical text in his narrative corresponding to the Books o f K i n g s .
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
55
G r e e k text J o s e p h u s u s e d , the e v i d e n c e is b y n o m e a n s c o n c l u s i v e t h a t h e u t i l i z e d a p r o t o - L u c i a n i c r a t h e r t h a n a S e p t u a g i n t a l text. Similarly, for 2 K i n g s a n d 2 C h r o n i c l e s , J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s t o h a v e a l i g n e d h i m s e l f v a r i o u s l y w i t h the p r o t o M a s o r e t i c , S e p t u a g i n t a l , p r o t o - L u c i a n i c , a n d p r o t o t a r g u m i c text (so B e g g 1993a, l
1 0 7 - 8 ; 1993b, 4 8 2 - 8 3 ; 1994a, 3 7 - 3 8 ; 1995b, 26; 1 9 9 5 ^ 2 3 4 - 3 5 ; 995£,
8
39 ~99;
1995I1, 22), a l t h o u g h for 2 K i n g s 1 3 : 1 0 - 2 5 , r e c o u n t i n g the r e i g n o f K i n g J e h o a s h o f Israel a n d the d e a t h o f the p r o p h e t E l i s h a , J o s e p h u s d o e s s e e m to h a v e u s e d a b i b lical t e x t m o s t c l o s e l y a k i n to the p r o t o - L u c i a n i c (Ant. 9 . 1 7 7 - 8 5 ) ( B e g g 1994c, 4 2 - 4 3 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , at least for 2 K i n g s 1 a n d 13, the g e n e r a l v i e w t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s p r i m a r y t e x t w a s a p r o t o - L u c i a n i c o n e is o p e n to q u e s t i o n ( B e g g 1 9 9 5 a , 38; i 9 9 5 d , 234 n. 44). For the p e r i o d o f E z r a , J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f source, to j u d g e f r o m v e r b a l similarities (see B l o c h 1879, 6 9 - 7 7 ) , w a s , it w o u l d s e e m , the a p o c r y p h a l G r e e k b o o k o f E s d r a s (1 o r 3 Esdras), r a t h e r t h a n the H e b r e w o r the S e p t u a g i n t a l text. A p p a r e n d y h e w a s a t t r a c t e d b y its s u p e r i o r G r e e k s t y l e ,
35
its e l i m i n a t i o n o f s o m e c h r o n o l o g i c a l
difficulties, a n d , p e r h a p s m o s t o f all, the h i g h l i g h t i n g o f r o m a n t i c interest in the d e b a t e , so r e m i n i s c e n t o f H e r o d o t u s , as to w h e t h e r w i n e , the k i n g , o r a w o m a n is the m o s t p o w e r f u l (1 E s d r a s 3:1-4:32). A n d y e t , t h e r e is r e a s o n to t h i n k t h a t h e r e , t o o , as in his v e r s i o n o f o t h e r b o o k s o f the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f b o t h a H e b r e w t e x t a n d the S e p t u a g i n t . T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d i v e r g e s so w i d e l y f r o m the M a s o r e t i c , S e p t u a g i n t , a n d A p o c r y p h a l texts o f E z r a is for R u d o l p h e v i d e n c e o f the v a l i d i t y o f G u s t a v H o l s c h e r ' s thesis t h a t for the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s e m p l o y e d n e i t h e r a H e b r e w n o r a G r e e k b i b l i c a l text b u t r a t h e r a p a r a p h r a s e
written by a Jewish
Hellenist
( R u d o l p h 1 9 5 2 - 5 8 , x v i i a n d 107; H o l s c h e r 1 9 1 6 , 1 9 5 5 - 6 0 ) . A r a r a t postulates a " C o m p r e h e n s i v e C h r o n i c l e " as the s o u r c e o f the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k E z r a , the A p o c r y p h a l 1 E s d r a s , J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f E z r a , a n d the l e g e n d s in r a b b i n i c lit e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to this e r a ( A r a r a t 1971). T h e r e is n o t a single f r a g m e n t in exis t e n c e , h o w e v e r , f r o m the w o r k p o s t u l a t e d b y either H o l s c h e r o r A r a r a t ; a n d it s e e m s m o s t r e a s o n a b l e to a s s u m e t h a t J o s e p h u s , h e r e as a p p a r e n d y e l s e w h e r e , h a d b e f o r e h i m the t h r e e texts t h a t a r e b e f o r e u s .
3 6
For the b o o k o f Esther, J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y u s e d a G r e e k text, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e f o u n d it to b e stylistically o n a m o r e p o l i s h e d level t h a n the rest o f the G r e e k B i b l e . B a c c h i s i o M o t z o n o t e s e v i d e n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s text o f k i n s h i p ( a l t h o u g h n o t identity) w i t h the m a j o r g r o u p s o f m a n u s c r i p t s o f the S e p t u a g i n t ( M o t z o 1928, 8 4 - 1 0 5 ) . T h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t t h a t for the a d d i t i o n s to the B o o k o f Esther, J o s e -
35. Jellicoe 1968, 294, has remarked that Josephus's decision to follow the G r e e k Esdras w a s de termined chiefly b y its style, especially if it is true that the atticizing reaction against the koine G r e e k ac tually b e g a n not in the second century in the age o f Lucian but a century earlier. 36. T h e same propensity for using both a H e b r e w original and a G r e e k translation m a y be seen in Josephus's version o f 1 M a c c a b e e s , as M e l a m e d 1951,122-30, has shown through a comparison o f nine teen passages.
36
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
p h u s u s e d a G r e e k v e r s i o n , since his p a r a p h r a s e o f four o f the six a d d i t i o n s is often v e r y close, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e f o u n d the r o m a n t i c spirit o f a p a s s a g e s u c h as A d d i t i o n D v e r y m u c h t o his l i k i n g .
37
E . J . B i c k e r m a n , n o t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t s e e m s to p o i n t t o J o s e p h u s ' s a c c e s s t o v a r i o u s texts n o w e x t a n t , prefers t o p o s t u l a t e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s f o l l o w i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r e c e n s i o n o f the G r e e k E s t h e r — n a m e l y , the o n e t h a t w a s p o p u l a r a m o n g the J e w s o f R o m e — b u t t h a t this v e r s i o n is n o w lost ( B i c k e r m a n 1 9 5 1 , 104). S u c h a t h e o r y c a n h a r d l y b e p r o v e n , i n a s m u c h as this v e r s i o n is n o l o n g e r to b e f o u n d . F a c e d w i t h this p r o b l e m , H o l s c h e r p o s t u l a t e s a single s o u r c e for J o s e p h u s , A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r ' s On the Jews ( H o l s c h e r 1904, 52); b u t i n a s m u c h as w e h a v e n o t a single f r a g m e n t o f A l e x a n d e r ' s w o r k t h a t deals w i t h the s t o r y o f Esther, it is difficult to a c c e p t this h y p o t h e s i s . A n o t h e r possibility is t h a t J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e h a d access to a n A r a m a i c targum; but R o s e - M a r i e Seyberlich, w h o notes that the s e c o n d e d i c t o f K i n g A h a s u e r u s is f o u n d o n l y in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1 1 . 2 7 3 - 8 3 ) a n d in the T a r g u m S h e n i 8 : i 2 ,
38
dismisses this t h e o r y as i m p r o b a b l e , b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s
h a d b e e n l i v i n g in R o m e for t w e n t y y e a r s at the t i m e o f the c o m p l e t i o n o f the An tiquities a n d h a d p r e s u m a b l y lost c o n t a c t w i t h t a r g u m i m ; i n s t e a d , she p o s t u l a t e s t h a t J o s e p h u s r e c a l l e d s o m e details o f P h a r i s a i c m i d r a s h i m t h a t h e h a d h e a r d in his earlier y e a r s ( S e y b e r l i c h 1 9 6 4 , 3 6 3 - 6 6 ) . It s e e m s likely, h o w e v e r , t h a t a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f the R o m a n J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y h a d o r i g i n a t e d f r o m Palestine a n d p r e s u m a b l y w a s A r a m a i c - s p e a k i n g , at least in the g e n e r a t i o n w h e n J o s e p h u s w a s liv i n g in R o m e ; a n d c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s o f Palestine a n d R o m e c o n t i n u e d to b e close t h r o u g h o u t this p e r i o d . I n a n y c a s e , if J o s e p h u s h a d lost c o n t a c t w i t h his A r a m a i c m o t h e r t o n g u e , it s e e m s e v e n m o r e far-fetched to suggest that he w o u l d have r e m e m b e r e d midrashim that he h a d h e a r d decades before. W e m a y n o t g o so far as C . C . T o r r e y , w h o p o s t u l a t e s t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d o n l y the A r a m a i c v e r s i o n in a G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n a n d d i d n o t k n o w the H e b r e w t e x t o f Esther, w h i c h h e r e g a r d s as a n a b b r e v i a t e d t r a n s l a t i o n o f a n A r a m a i c o r i g inal ( T o r r e y 1944, 1-40); b u t it s e e m s likely t h a t for Esther, as e l s e w h e r e , J o s e p h u s a v a i l e d h i m s e l f o f his trilingual c o m p e t e n c e in c o n s u l t i n g t h e H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d A r a m a i c versions.
37. A c c o r d i n g to the T a l m u d (Megillah 4a), the third-century R a b b i Joshua ben Levi asserts that one is required to read the B o o k o f Esther on Purim in the evening and during the day. It is usually as sumed that this practice goes back to an earlier date. If so, one w o u l d assume that although the thirdcentury rabbis R a v and Samuel grudgingly permitted the B o o k o f Esther to be read in G r e e k on Purim (Megillah 18a), Josephus, as one w h o knew Hebrew, w o u l d have heard it twice each year in the original Hebrew. 38. Rajak 1974, 228, noting the presence o f m a n y G r e e k words in T a r g u m Sheni, suggests that Josephus m a y have consulted in a G r e e k version the material that is there embodied; but w e m a y note that on this basis one might postulate a G r e e k source for the rabbinic M i d r a s h i m generally, w h i c h con tain such a high percentage o f G r e e k words that some have spoken o f its A r a m a i c as a kind o f G r a e c o Aramaic.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
37
JOSEPHUS'S PROMISE N O T T O MODIFY THE SCRIPTURES I n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o his Antiquities (Ant. 1.5), J o s e p h u s p r o c l a i m s t h a t his w o r k (or, at a n y rate, t h e p o r t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e b i b l i c a l p e r i o d ) w i l l e m b r a c e the e n t i r e a n c i e n t h i s t o r y (dpx^oXoyiav)
a n d political constitution o f the Jews, translated from
H e b r e w r e c o r d s (e/c TWV 'EfipaiKojv
fjLeOrjpfjLrjveviJLevrjv ypapLpbdrcov).
Josephus
p r o m i s e s his r e a d e r s t h a t h e w i l l t h r o u g h o u t his w o r k set forth the p r e c i s e details o f the S c r i p t u r e s (rd piev ovv aKpifirj TCOV iv TOLLS dvaypac/xiLs), e a c h in its p l a c e , n e i t h e r a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g a n y t h i n g (ovSev irpoaSels
ovh' av 7rapaAi7ro>v) (Ant. 1.17).
I n m a k i n g this p r o m i s e , J o s e p h u s w a s f o l l o w i n g w h a t h e h i m s e l f w r i t e s a b o u t the S e p t u a g i n t — n a m e l y , t h a t w h e n the t r a n s l a t i o n w a s c o m p l e t e d , t h e c h i e f officers o f the c o m m u n i t y o f A l e x a n d r i a o r d e r e d t h a t if a n y o n e s h o u l d find a n y a d d i t i o n t o o r o m i s s i o n f r o m t h e t e x t o f the P e n t a t e u c h , h e s h o u l d m a k e it k n o w n a n d c o r r e c t it. " I n this," J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s , " t h e y a c t e d wisely, t h a t w h a t h a d o n c e b e e n j u d g e d g o o d m i g h t r e m a i n f o r e v e r " (Ant. 12.109). A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f his history, J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t h e h a s t o l d the w h o l e s t o r y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e in full a n d a c c u r a t e d e tail (Ant. 20.260), r e m i n d i n g t h e r e a d e r t h a t this is w h a t h e h a d p r o m i s e d t o d o at the b e g i n n i n g (Ant. 20.261). M o r e o v e r , h e d e c l a r e s t h a t n o t o n l y h e b u t n o o n e else h a s for l o n g a g e s p a s t v e n t u r e d to a d d o r to r e m o v e o r to alter a syllable (irpoaOeivai TLS ovSiv ovre d^eAetv avrwv
ovre /xerafleivcu) o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s (Ag. Ap. 1.42). W i t h
the s p r e a d o f heresy, s u c h p r e c a u t i o n s b e c a m e all the m o r e necessary. I n p a r t i c u lar, as Pelletier h a s s u g g e s t e d , J o s e p h u s ' s insistence t h a t h e h a s n o t a d d e d t o t h e t e x t o f t h e B i b l e m a y b e his r e p l y to the c h a r g e o f t h e S a m a r i t a n s , w h o h a d r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t e v e r y t h i n g b e y o n d t h e b o o k o f J o s h u a as h o l y w r i t (Pelletier 1 9 6 2 , 234). A c t u a l l y , J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d n u m e r o u s details a n d e v e n w h o l e e p i s o d e s , n o tably, t h e a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n in E t h i o p i a a n d his m a r r i a g e t o
the
E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s (Ant. 2 . 2 3 8 - 5 3 ) , w h i l e o m i t t i n g s u c h p a s s a g e s as c e r t a i n i n c r i m i n a t i n g details in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J a c o b ' s d e c e p t i o n o f his father in o r d e r to o b t a i n his b l e s s i n g ( G e n . 27); t h e c u n n i n g o f J a c o b in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J a c o b ' s flock ( G e n . 30:37-38); t h e J u d a h - T a m a r
e p i s o d e ( G e n . 38); M o s e s ' s l a y i n g o f t h e E g y p t i a n
( E x o d . 2:12); t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e g o l d e n c a l f ( E x o d . 32); the g r u m b l i n g a n d d o u b t i n g b e f o r e t h e s e c o n d m i r a c u l o u s feast o f q u a i l s ( N u m . 1 1 : 1 1 - 2 3 ) ; M i r i a m ' s l e p r o s y ( N u m . 12); t h e s t o r y o f M o s e s ' striking t h e r o c k to b r i n g forth w a t e r , w h i c h s p e a k s o f M o s e s ' d i s g r a c e ( N u m . 2 0 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) ; the s t o r y o f t h e b r a z e n s e r p e n t ( N u m . 2 1 : 4 - 9 ) , w h e r e b y M o s e s c u r e d t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n b i t t e n b y t h e fiery s e r p e n t s ; t h e a c c o u n t c
o f G i d e o n ' s s m a s h i n g o f t h e altar o f B a a l (Judg. 6:25-32); the s t o r y o f M i c a h a n d his i d o l a t r y ( J u d g . 1 7 - 1 8 ) ; s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s (1 S a m . 20:6, 2 1 : 4 - 7 , 26:19) t h a t s e e m to c a s t a s h a d o w u p o n D a v i d ' s r e p u t a t i o n for p i e t y ; the identification o f E l i j a h as a z e a l o t (1 K i n g s 1 9 : 9 , 19:14), w h i c h w o u l d h a v e a r o u s e d the a n t a g o n i s m o f t h e R o m a n s in v i e w o f t h e role o f the Z e a l o t s in the g r e a t u p r i s i n g o f 6 6 - 7 0 ; E l i s h a ' s c u r s i n g o f the littie b o y s w h o h a d j e e r e d h i m in r e f e r r i n g to his b a l d n e s s (2 K i n g s 2:23-24), as w e l l as his c u r s i n g o f his disciple G e h a z i for a c c e p t i n g gifts f r o m N a a c
m a n (2 K i n g s 5:27); J e h u ' s c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e t e m p l e o f B a a l i n t o a n o u t h o u s e (2
38
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
K i n g s 10:27), w h i c h w o u l d h a v e a r o u s e d c h a r g e s o f i n t o l e r a n c e ; J o n a h ' s e x t r e m e a n g e r w i t h G - d b e c a u s e H e h a d f o r g i v e n t h e N i n e v i t e s after t h e y h a d r e p e n t e d ( J o n . 4:1); H e z e k i a h ' s i n g r a t i t u d e t o G - d (2 C h r o n . 32:25) w h e n h e b e c a m e sick; the c h a r g e ( N e h . 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 , 6:6) m a d e b y the n e i g h b o r s o f the J e w s t h a t t h e J e w s w e r e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t t h e P e r s i a n k i n g ; t h e s t a t e m e n t ( N e h . 8:14, 17) t h a t the J e w s h a d failed t o o b s e r v e t h e c o m m a n d m e n t t o d w e l l i n sukkot s i n c e t h e d a y s o f J o s h u a ; t h e i n f i g h t i n g a m o n g the J e w s in t h e d a y s o f N e h e m i a h ( N e h . 5 : 6 - 7 , 5:12, 1 3 : 4 - 1 1 ) ; a n d the g a t h e r i n g o f t h e v i r g i n s in the E s t h e r n a r r a t i v e (Esther 2:19). A p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n s w o u l d s e e m t o b e b e h i n d these o m i s s i o n s .
39
A number of
o m i s s i o n s m a y b e e x p l a i n e d as J o s e p h u s ' s a t t e m p t t o i g n o r e the v i e w s o f the S a m a r i t a n s ; t h u s h e n e i t h e r m e n t i o n s a s a n c t u a r y at S h e c h e m , the s a c r e d city o f the S a m a r i t a n s , n o r i n d i c a t e s t h a t a n y religious c e r e m o n y t o o k p l a c e t h e r e (Ant 5 . 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; cf. J o s h . 24:1, 24:26) (see T h o r n t o n 1 9 9 6 , 1 2 8 ) .
40
T h e omission o f the
n a m e s o f the k i n g s w h o m the Israelites d e f e a t e d w h e n t h e y e n t e r e d the L a n d o f Is r a e l ( J o s h . 12) a n d o f the details o f the d i v i s i o n o f the L a n d a m o n g the v a r i o u s tribes (Josh. 1 3 - 1 7 ) is p e r h a p s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , b e c a u s e s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e b o r i n g t o the a v e r a g e reader, c e r t a i n l y the a v e r a g e n o n - J e w i s h reader. L i k e w i s e , w e m a y u n d e r s t a n d the o m i s s i o n o f the S o n g o f D e b o r a h (Judg. 5) a n d the p r a y e r o f H a n n a h (1 S a m . 2), since s u c h p o e t i c a l m a t e r i a l w o u l d p e r h a p s b e in a p p r o p r i a t e in a historical w o r k . I n o n e c a s e , J o s e p h u s a c t u a l l y justifies his lati t u d e : s a y i n g t h a t it is n o t p e r m i t t e d to d o so, h e e x p l i c i d y d e c l a r e s t h a t h e will n o t r e p r o d u c e the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s literally, b u t will r a t h e r i n d i c a t e their g e n e r a l i m p o r t (Ant
3.90).
41
A n d y e t , w e m a y call a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n m a j o r c h a n g e s in his r e w o r k i n g o f the B i b l e : the f r e q u e n t d o w n g r a d i n g o f the role o f G - d in o r d e r t o call g r e a t e r atten t i o n to the a c h i e v e m e n t s o f his h e r o e s , the g e n e r a l a v o i d a n c e o r r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f
39. T h e fact is that the rabbis themselves sanctioned the omission o f the translation o f certain bib lical passages w h e n they read the Bible in the synagogue (Megillah 25a-b), presumably because o f the embarrassment involved. T h e list does not, however, completely coincide with Josephus's. See Feld m a n 1968, 337-38. 40. C o g g i n s 1987, 270, argues that Josephus's omission of details about the Samaritans does not in dicate that he intended this as a deliberate anti-Samaritan polemic, since that w o u l d imply a great de gree o f subdety b o t h in Josephus and in his readers. In reply, however, T h o r n t o n 1996, 129, n. 13, ar gues that Josephus m a y be relying on an anti-Samaritan source. In v i e w o f the generally systematic pattern o f Josephus's omissions, not only in connection with the Samaritans but in m a n y other re spects, such omissions should be taken seriously. 41. A s T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:360, n. a, remarks, rabbinic literature offers n o parallel for such a scruple. T h e third-century R a b b i S a m u e l states that the rabbis prohibited the recitation o f the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s before the S h e m a in the daily service due to the insinuations o f the heretics (minim) (Berakot 12a), presumably because it w o u l d have given these c o m m a n d m e n t s undue prominence and might, in v i e w o f the Christian belief that the c o m m a n d m e n t s h a d b e e n abrogated with the c o m i n g o f Jesus as messiah, have led heretics to limit the obligatory requirements to the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s alone. T h a t such a prohibition was o f l o n g standing is indicated b y the second-century R a b b i N a t h a n (ibid.).
JOSEPHUS
AS REWRITER
OF THE
BIBLE
39
m i r a c l e s , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e s t r e t c h e d the c r e d u l i t y o f his r e a d e r s , a n d the o m i s s i o n o f p a s s a g e s t h a t raise serious q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f v a r i o u s b o o k s o f the B i b l e o r a b o u t b i b l i c a l c h r o n o l o g y .
42
Likewise, Jose
p h u s is deliberately, for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, e v a s i v e in p r e s e n t i n g B a l a a m ' s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p r o p h e c y ( N u m . 2 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , in w h i c h c a l a m i t i e s are foretold for k i n g s a n d cities o f the h i g h e s t c e l e b r i t y ( p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g R o m e ) (Ant. 4.125), as w e l l as in e x p l a i n i n g D a n i e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n ( D a n . 2:44-45) o f a m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m t h a t w o u l d d e s t r o y all p r e v i o u s k i n g d o m s (including, p r e s u m a b l y , R o m e ) (Ant. 10.210). T h e s e are m a t t e r s o f m e r e a d d i t i o n o r subtraction. N e v e r t h e l e s s , h o w c a n w e e x p l a i n the c a s e o f J e h o i a c h i n , w h e r e J o s e p h u s c h a n g e s the b i b l i c a l text completely, so t h a t instead o f c h a r a c t e r i z i n g h i m , as d o e s the B i b l e , as o n e w h o h a d d o n e w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:9; 2 C h r o n . 36:9), h e is d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g k i n d (xprjoros) a n d j u s t (SIKCLLOS) (Ant. 10.100) (see F e l d m a n 1995, 1 5 - 1 9 ) ? W e m a y h e r e c o m m e n t o n n i n e s u g g e s t i o n s t o resolve the a p p a r e n t failure o f J o s e p h u s t o live u p t o his p r o m i s e n o t to m o d i f y the i m p o r t o f the b i b l i c a l text. O n e a p p r o a c h , t h a t o f H e r b e r t W Basser, a r g u e s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s r e a l l y n o t m o d i f i e d the text, that, at least for J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the E d e n story, w h a t a p p e a r s at first g l a n c e to b e a n o m i s s i o n will in reality t u r n o u t to b e m e r e l y a n o v e l r e a d i n g o f the text, a n d t h a t l i k e w i s e his a p p a r e n t o m i s s i o n s are b a s e d o n his close a n d u n e x p e c t e d r e a d i n g o f the text. S e c o n d l y , B a s s e r also finds significance in the fact t h a t 43
J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t M o s e s w a s the a u t h o r o f the b i b l i c a l story (Ant. 1.37), a n d h e suggests t h a t since the a u t h o r is a h u m a n b e i n g , this gives J o s e p h u s latitude to translate a n d i n t e r p r e t the n a r r a t i v e . T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s invites the r e a d e r " t o test w h e t h e r o u r l a w g i v e r h a s h a d a w o r t h y c o n c e p t i o n o f H i s n a t u r e a n d h a s a l w a y s a s s i g n e d t o H i m s u c h a c t i o n s as befit H i s p o w e r " (Ant. 1.15) i m p l i e s t h a t it w a s M o s e s w h o w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e a c t u a l w o r d i n g o f the P e n t a t e u c h . H e a d d s t h a t since M o s e s d e a l t w i t h a g e s l o n g b e f o r e his o w n t i m e , h e h a d a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y to i n v e n t fictions, b u t t h a t h e d i d n o t d o so, the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g , a g a i n , t h a t h e w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for the P e n t a t e u c h as it w a s a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n (Basser 1987, 25). T o reinforce B a s s e r ' s p o i n t , w e m a y n o t e t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y after J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e will n e i t h e r a d d t o n o r o m i t a n y t h i n g f r o m the p r e c i s e details o f t h e S c r i p tural r e c o r d s (Ant. 1.17), h e d e c l a r e s t h a t a l m o s t (oxeSov) e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t e d is d e p e n d e n t o n the w i s d o m o f " o u r l a w g i v e r M o s e s " (Ant. 1.18), the c o n c l u s i o n b e i n g t h a t M o s e s p l a y e d a k e y role in f a s h i o n i n g the S c r i p t u r e s , a l t h o u g h h e w a s n o t their sole author. B u t w h i l e this m a y p e r h a p s b e true o f the E d e n story, it is n o t e q u a l l y t r u e o f J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f m a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s . I n a n y case,
42. E.g., a c c o r d i n g to Esther 2:6, M o r d e c a i was one o f the captives w h o h a d b e e n carried a w a y by N e b u c h a d n e z z a r in 596 B.C.E. E v e n if M o r d e c a i h a d then b e e n an infant, he w o u l d still have b e e n 122 years old in the twelfth year o f the reign o f X e r x e s (with w h o m most scholars identify Ahasuerus). Jose phus avoids the p r o b l e m by omitting the statement that M o r d e c a i h a d b e e n carried off to B a b y l o n . 43. Actually, despite the translation o f T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:19, the n a m e M o s e s does not a p p e a r in Josephus's G r e e k at this point. It is, however, found in Ant. 1.34 and elsewhere.
40
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
J o s e p h u s ' s p r o m i s e n o t to a d d to o r o m i t a n y t h i n g f r o m the S c r i p t u r e s (Ant. 1.17) is a n a b s o l u t e s t a t e m e n t a n d is n o t p r e s e n t e d as d e p e n d e n t u p o n w h o w r o t e t h e Scriptures. A third a p p r o a c h
4 4
is to d e c l a r e t h a t J o s e p h u s is s i m p l y n o t t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h , o r
t h a t h e w a s careless, o r t h a t h e r e l i e d o n t h e i g n o r a n c e o f his r e a d e r s , k n o w i n g full w e l l h o w difficult it w a s for m o s t o f t h e m t o a c q u i r e a m a n u s c r i p t , let a l o n e to l o o k u p a p a r t i c u l a r p a s s a g e w i t h o u t b e n e f i t o f a n i n d e x . It is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s p r i m a r y a u d i e n c e c o n s i s t e d o f non-Jews, as w e c a n see f r o m his s t a t e m e n t t h a t his w o r k w a s u n d e r t a k e n in t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e w h o l e G r e e k w o r l d w o u l d find it w o r t h y o f a t t e n t i o n (Ant. 1.5); a n d p r e s u m a b l y t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f t h e m w e r e n o t c o n versant with the Bible. S o m e non-Jews w e r e acquainted w i t h the Bible, however, as s e e m s e v i d e n t f r o m t h e fact t h a t w e k n o w o f at least s e v e n n o n - J e w s w h o w r o t e w h o l e treatises a b o u t t h e J e w s — A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r ( w h o , i n particular, s h o w s k n o w l e d g e o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o b , S o l o m o n , a n d J e r e m i a h ) , a n d T e u c e r o f G y z i c u s i n t h e first c e n t u r y B.C.E.; A p i o n , D a m o c r i t u s , a n d N i c a r c h u s i n the first c e n t u r y c . E . ; a n d H e r e n n i u s P h i l o in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y C . E . — a n d it is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y c o u l d h a v e d o n e so w i t h o u t b e i n g a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the B i b l e . Moreover, the
4 5
first-century
P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s (On the Sublime 9.9), t h e m o s t c e l e
b r a t e d l i t e r a r y critic i n a n t i q u i t y after A r i s t o d e , n o t o n l y p a r a p h r a s e s G e n . 1:3 a n d 1 : 9 - 1 0 b u t cites it as a n e x a m p l e o f t h e m o s t s u b l i m e style. T h i s c a n h a r d l y b e at t r i b u t e d to c h a n c e k n o w l e d g e . It is u n l i k e l y t h a t P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s w o u l d h a v e u s e d a q u o t a t i o n totally u n k n o w n t o all his r e a d e r s ; a n d i f it w e r e unfamiliar, h e s h o u l d h a v e said m o r e a b o u t t h e w o r k . F r o m t h e w a y t h a t P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s refers to this p a s s a g e a n d t o M o s e s , n o t b o t h e r i n g t o identify h i m b y n a m e , a p p a r e n d y b e c a u s e his r e a d e r s k n e w w h o t h e " l a w g i v e r o f the J e w s " w a s , it s e e m s c l e a r t h a t h e w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h m u c h m o r e f r o m t h e B i b l e t h a n this p a s s a g e a l o n e .
4 6
T h e r e w e r e surely m a n y J e w s in t h e D i a s p o r a w h o w e r e in a p o s i t i o n t o c h e c k o n Josephus's statements b y consulting the Septuagint. Josephus w a s not the only J e w in Palestine w h o k n e w G r e e k ; a n d his r i v a l , Justus o f T i b e r i a s , at t h e v e r y least, w a s in a p o s i t i o n t o r e a d — a n d c r i t i c i z e — J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k . W e k n o w t h a t Justus c o m p o s e d A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings, w h i c h a p p a r e n d y c o v e r e d t h e p e r i o d f r o m M o s e s until the d e a t h o f A g r i p p a I I , t h u s m o r e o r less d u p l i c a t i n g t h e c o v e r a g e o f
44. E.g., Peter 1897, 1:380; Hoffmann 1920, 52; G u t t m a n n 1928, 5; K i n g d o n 1972-73, 74. 45. See the fragments and a discussion o f them in Stern 1974-84, 1:148-56, 157-64, 165-66, 389-416, 530-31, 532-33; a n d 1980, 2:138-45. 46. T o b e sure, M o m m s e n 1885, 5:494, v o n Christ 1905, 788, and Sedgwick 1948, 198-99, have called Pseudo-Longinus a hellenized Jew. G o o l d 1961, 177, says that he b e l o n g e d to the same environ ment that p r o d u c e d Philo and that he w a s in some sense a Jew. Stern 1974-84, 1:362, convincingly ar gues, however, that it is unnecessary to assume the Jewishness o f Pseudo-Longinus, especially since he himself (12.4) declares himself to b e a Greek. In the second century, G a l e n , in a lost work on H i p pocrates' Anatomy, paraphrases the same passage as that cited by Pseudo-Longinus. See W a l z e r 1949,11.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
41
J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities, e v e n if P h o t i u s d e s c r i b e s it as " v e r y s c a n t y i n d e t a i l " (Photius, Bibliotheca 33, p . 6 B 2 3 - 7 A 5 [ F G / / 7 3 4 T 2 ] ) . A fourth approach, taken b y a n u m b e r o f scholars,
47
is to r e m a r k t h a t t h e
p h r a s e " n e i t h e r a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g a n y t h i n g " is a stock a n d essentially m e a n i n g less f o r m u l a for a f f i r m i n g o n e ' s a c c u r a c y .
48
T h i s w o u l d s e e m to b e a p p a r e n t f r o m
its use b y D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s (De Thucydide^ a n d 8) a n d b y L u c i a n (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 47) in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E. It w a s c u s t o m a r y for the w r i t e r t o insist t h a t his a c c o u n t w a s m e r e l y a translation f r o m s a c r e d texts (S.J. D . C o h e n 1 9 7 9 , 27); a n d s u c h a s t a t e m e n t will b e f o u n d i n the w o r k s o f o t h e r helle n i z e d O r i e n t a l s like J o s e p h u s , s u c h as B e r o s s u s (ca. 300 B.C.E.), M a n e t h o (third c e n t u r y B.C.E.), a n d P h i l o o f B y b l u s (first-second c e n t u r y C.E.), as w e l l as i n the w o r k s o f s u c h G r e e k s as C t e s i a s (fifth-fourth c e n t u r y B.C.E.) (ap. D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s , Bibliotheca Historica 2.32.4) a n d H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ca. 300 B.C.E.) (ap. D i o d o r u s , Bibliotheca Historica 1.69.7). M o r e o v e r , as n o t e d , t h e r e w o u l d s e e m to b e a p r e c e d e n t in the B i b l e itself for p r e s e n t i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e v e r s i o n o f a s a c r e d t e x t — n a m e l y , the b o o k o f C h r o n i c l e s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the B o o k o f K i n g s . M o r e directly, as also n o t e d , t h e r e w a s a p r e c e d e n t in the v e r y w o r k t h a t J o s e p h u s cites as j u s t i f y i n g his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f b i b 49
lical h i s t o r y t o G e n t i l e s , the S e p t u a g i n t (Ant. 1.10). D e s p i t e the fact t h a t the trans l a t i o n w a s a l l e g e d l y d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d (Letter of Aristeas 306), a n d a l t h o u g h the w o r k o f t r a n s l a t i o n h a d a l l e g e d l y b e e n d o n e w i t h the g r e a t e s t a c c u r a c y , to the e x t e n t t h a t a c u r s e w a s p r o n o u n c e d u p o n a n y o n e w h o v e n t u r e d to a d d o r t r a n s p o s e o r re m o v e a n y t h i n g (TrpoGTiOels rj pueracfyepajv ri . . . rj 7ToiovpL€vos d(f>aipeaiv), t h e S e p t u a g i n t n o n e t h e l e s s c o n t a i n s n u m e r o u s m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the o r i g i n a l . Y e t P h i l o re m a r k s o n t h e utter p r e c i s i o n o f the translation, c o m p a r i n g it in its scientific a c c u r a c y to g e o m e t r y a n d l o g i c (De VxtaMosis 2.7.38-39). I n d e e d , h e g o e s so far as to s p e a k o f the o r i g i n a l a n d the G r e e k translation as b e i n g o n e a n d s a m e , b o t h in m a t t e r a n d i n w o r d s , a n d l o o k s u p o n the translators as v e r i t a b l e p r o p h e t s a n d priests o f the m y s t e r i e s .
50
W i l l e m v a n U n n i k , w h i l e n o t i n g t h a t the p h r a s e " n o t to
a d d a n d n o t to s u b t r a c t " is a p r o v e r b i a l e x p r e s s i o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s o b j e c t s t o t h e v i e w t h a t it is m e r e l y a g u a r a n t e e o f a c c u r a c y , r e m a r k i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s is the o n l y a u t h o r w h o p l a c e s it in his p r e f a c e (van U n n i k 1 9 4 9 , 1 - 3 6 ; 1978, 34). F i n d i n g signifi c a n c e i n the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s r e p e a t s his p r o m i s e h a l f w a y t h r o u g h his w o r k (Ant.
47.
E.g., Avenarius 1956; Speyer 1971, 60-62; Attridge i976ai; and S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 25-28.
48. Cf. Attridge 1976a, 58: "In embellishing the scriptural text, he [Josephus] follows the literary conventions o f historiography." 49.
Harrington 1986, 247, justifiably, however, expresses doubt whether the "rewritten B i b l e " rep
resents a literary genre at all, or whether one can speak about the single genre o f these writings. 50. T h e rabbis, with obvious approval, refer to the miraculous m a n n e r in w h i c h the seventy-two translators h a d b e e n placed in seventy-two separate rooms and yet had emerged with identical trans lations because o f divine inspiration (Megillah 9a). Nevertheless, they mention certain changes that they had all m a d e in the process o f translating the sacred text.
deliberate
42
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
10.218), h e c o n c l u d e s t h a t this s h o w s t h a t J o s e p h u s d i d n o t m a k e his p r o m i s e lighdy. A fifth possibility, w h i c h I m a y h e r e s u g g e s t , a l t h o u g h w i t h s o m e diffidence, is t h a t J o s e p h u s u n d e r s t o o d t h e p h r a s e " n e i t h e r a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g a n y t h i n g " as r e f e r r i n g to t h e c o m m a n d m e n t t h a t o n e m a y n o t a d d to o r s u b t r a c t f r o m the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f t h e T o r a h ( D e u t . 4:2 a n d 12:32), since t h e S e p t u a g i n t d o e s r e n d e r this c l a u s e i n a w a y (ov irpoaOrjaere
. . . OVK d^eAetre) t h a t c o m b i n e s the later l a n
g u a g e of Antiquities 1.5 a n d Against Apion 1.42. H o w e v e r , the m e a n i n g w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e t h a t o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d t o alter J e w i s h l a w b y a d d i n g to o r s u b t r a c t i n g f r o m t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ' s c h a n g e s are, at least primarily, in t h e realm o f aggadic material. A sixth h y p o t h e s i s m a y b e f o u n d i n A l b r e k t s o n , w h o interprets
Josephus's
s t a t e m e n t t h a t for l o n g a g e s p a s t n o o n e h a s v e n t u r e d e i t h e r t o a d d t o o r s u b t r a c t f r o m t h e B i b l e (Ag Ap. 1.42) to m e a n t h a t it is p r o h i b i t e d t o a d d t o t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e B i b l e , b u t t h a t it is n o t f o r b i d d e n t o m o d i f y the a c t u a l c o n s o n a n t a l t e x t ( A l b r e k t s o n 1 9 6 8 , 2 0 1 - 1 5 ) . B u t it is c l e a r f r o m his e x t e n s i v e p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Letter of Aristeas (Ant. 1 2 . 1 1 - 1 1 8 ) t h a t J o s e p h u s t o o k t h a t d o c u m e n t v e r y seriously a n d a c c e p t e d its a c c o u n t fully; a n d there w e find t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e P e n t a t e u c h h a d b e e n c o m m i t t e d t o w r i t i n g s o m e w h a t carelessly (dpLeXearepov) (Letter of Aristeas 30). S u c h a n assertion m u s t refer t o the a c t u a l w o r d s t h e m s e l v e s a n d n o t m e r e l y to t h e general import. A s e v e n t h t h e o r y suggests t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e h a s set forth t h e p r e cise details o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s (avaypa<j>ais) (Ant. 1.17), h e m a y m e a n n o t o n l y the w r i t t e n B i b l e b u t also J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n generally, i n c l u d i n g t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n as later e m b o d i e d in m i d r a s h i m .
5 1
I f t h e o b j e c t i o n is offered t h a t a g g a d i c m a t e r i a l
h a d n o t b e e n r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , the a n s w e r is t h a t w e d o h a v e m i d r a s h i c traditions d a t i n g f r o m b e f o r e the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s o r c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h h i m , e m b o d i e d in t h e S e p t u a g i n t itself, in s u c h H e l l e n i s t i c w r i t e r s as A r t a p a n u s , E u p o l e m u s , E z e k i e l t h e t r a g e d i a n , P h i l o the e p i c p o e t , a n d P h i l o the p h i l o s o p h e r , as w e l l as in s u c h P a l e s t i n i a n w r i t i n g s as t h e Genesis Apocryphon, B o o k o f J u b i l e e s , a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical
the
Antiquities.
I n fact, t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e M i d r a s h a r e t o b e f o u n d in the B i b l e itself, t h o u g h , a d mittedly, n o w h e r e in t h e B i b l e d o e s t h e n a r r a t i v e p l a y fast a n d l o o s e w i t h t r a d i t i o n , as is d o n e so often in the e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o r p u s (R. B l o c h 1957, 1 2 6 3 - 8 1 ) . T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t J e w s d o n o t u t t e r a single w o r d a g a i n s t t h e l a w s (vopuovs) a n d t h e a l l i e d w r i t i n g s (rds /xerd TOVTWV
dvaypa<j)ds) (Ag. Ap. 1.43) indi
cates, despite C o h e n , t h a t h e p e r c e i v e d a distinction b e t w e e n t h e l a w s (vopboi) a n d the S c r i p t u r e s (avaypaai), the latter o f w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d e d m o r e t h a n w r i t t e n l a w (S.J. D . C o h e n 1 9 7 9 , 2 4 - 2 5 ) . O n e is t e m p t e d to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t b y
51. S o Ernesti 1776, 384-85, T a c h a u e r 1871, 4 5 - 4 6 , Feldman 1968, 336-39, G o l d e n b e r g 1978,
1 7 - 1 8 , R a j a k 1982, 4 7 1 - 7 4 , and V e r m e s 1982, 290.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
avaypac/xiL,
43
J o s e p h u s h e r e a l l u d e s m e r e l y to the r e m a i n i n g b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e ; b u t
w h e n h e says t h a t the dvaypa^ai
c o n t a i n the n a m e s o f the h i g h priests for t h e p a s t
t w o t h o u s a n d y e a r s (Ant. 1.36), this w o u l d i n c l u d e r e c o r d s starting w i t h t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d p r o c e e d i n g far b e y o n d t h e rest o f the B i b l e , since t h e B i b l e w o u l d b r i n g t h e list u p o n l y to the t i m e o f E z r a . T h a t J o s e p h u s u n d e r s t o o d t h e S c r i p t u r e s t o in c l u d e m o r e t h a n the B i b l e is also i n d i c a t e d b y his s t a t e m e n t t h a t the s a c r e d S c r i p tures
(TWV Upo)v ypapLfjuoLTcov)
e m b r a c e the h i s t o r y o f five t h o u s a n d y e a r s (Ant. 1.13).
T h e n u m b e r o f y e a r s , b y J o s e p h u s ' s o w n r e c k o n i n g , f r o m the c r e a t i o n o f the w o r l d t o the B a b y l o n i a n exile w a s 4,306, to the d e a t h o f J u d a h M a c c a b e e , it w a s 4 , 7 1 9 , a n d t o t h e d a t e o f t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f the Antiquities, it w a s 4,977 ( N o d e t 1990, 2:5, n. 4). W e m a y also n o t e the significant fact, c o m p a r a b l e t o his p r o m i s e at the b e g i n n i n g at t h e Antiquities n o t to a d d t o o r s u b t r a c t f r o m the S c r i p t u r e s , t h a t J o s e p h u s , b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g his s u m m a r y o f t h e M o s a i c c o d e , g o e s o u t o f his w a y t o stress t h a t " a l l is h e r e w r i t t e n as h e left it; n o t h i n g h a v e w e a d d e d for the sake o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t , n o t h i n g t h a t h a s n o t b e e n b e q u e a t h e d b y M o s e s " (Ant. 4.196) T h a t h e t h e n p r o c e e d s t o v i o l a t e his p r o m i s e in n u m e r o u s p l a c e s (see the n o t e s b y T h a c k e r a y 1930, 4 : 1 9 9 - 3 0 1 ) , a n d this despite t h e c l e a r p r o h i b i t i o n in t h e T o r a h itself a g a i n s t a d d i n g to o r s u b t r a c t i n g a n y t h i n g f r o m the T o r a h ( D e u t e r o n o m y 4:2), w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d the M o s a i c l a w to i n c l u d e n o t o n l y w h a t w a s w r i t t e n in the P e n t a t e u c h b u t also o t h e r traditions, o r t h a t h e h e l d a m o r e l i b e r a l v i e w as t o w h a t c o n s t i t u t e d a d d i n g o r subtracting. An e i g h t h s o l u t i o n w o u l d b e to n o t e as a possible p a r a l l e l to this free i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f b i b l i c a l stories the attitude o f a n c i e n t interpreters in d e a l i n g w i t h H o m e r , w h o s o u g h t to r e d e e m his r e p u t a t i o n b y a l l e g o r y a n d o t h e r m e t h o d s (see L a m b e r t o n 1985), a n d the attitude o f the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s in d e a l i n g w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l G r e e k myths, sacred t h o u g h the myths w e r e .
5 2
Just as t h e r e a r e in t h e m i d r a s h i m
v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s a n d fanciful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the b i b l i c a l stories, i n t r o d u c e d in o r d e r t o e d u c a t e a n d inspire the c o m m o n p e o p l e , so in the G r e e k t r a g e d i e s t h e r e are n u m e r o u s v a r i a n t s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m y t h s (cf. H e r r 1977, 1 3 9 - 4 0 ; a n d B i c k e r m a n 1 9 8 8 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 204). P i o u s t h o u g h h e a p p e a r s to h a v e b e e n , A e s c h y l u s w a s n o t s e l f - c o n s c i o u s a b o u t his c o n s i d e r a b l e r e m o d e l i n g o f the beliefs o f t h e tradi t i o n a l G r e e k r e l i g i o n ; his c o n c e p t o f t h e o d i c y a n d his t h e o l o g i c a l s y s t e m g e n e r a l l y w e r e far r e m o v e d f r o m the p o p u l a r v i e w o f the d a y ( M i k a l s o n 1 9 9 1 , 217). F u r t h e r m o r e , e v e n t h o u g h S o p h o c l e s a c h i e v e d the r e p u t a t i o n o f e x t r e m e p i e t y in his p e r s o n a l life, h e w a s the least interested i n the p o p u l a r r e l i g i o n a m o n g the t r a g e d i a n s , a n d t h e o n e m o s t w i l l i n g to a d a p t it to his o w n l i t e r a r y a n d d r a m a t i c p u r p o s e s to i l l u m i n a t e facets o f h u m a n c h a r a c t e r ( M i k a l s o n 1991, 219). E u r i p i d e s n o t o n l y m a n i p u l a t e s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l plots in the m y t h s ( B u r n e t t 1971) b u t g o e s so far as o p e n l y to q u e s t i o n s u c h m y t h s as the j u d g m e n t o f Paris (Trojan Women 9 7 1 - 8 0 ) , the b i r t h o f
52. H a l e v i 1972, 7 - 9 , compares the narrative style o f rabbinic a g g a d a with G r e e k d r a m a .
44
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
H e l e n [Helen 1 7 - 2 1 ) , the feast o f T a n t a l u s (Iphigenia among the Taurians 3 8 6 - 9 1 ) , a n d the adulteries o f the g o d s (Hercules Furens 1 3 4 1 - 4 6 ) ( M i k a l s o n 1 9 9 1 , 226). E v e n P l a t o , w h o i n the Republic (2.377) o b j e c t s t o t h e w a y in w h i c h the m y t h s a r e inter p r e t e d b y H o m e r , H e s i o d , a n d the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s , d o e s n o t o b j e c t to the free d o m w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e i n t e r p r e t e d , a n d , o n the contrary, insists t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e r e n d e r e d w i t h g r e a t e r latitude in o m i t t i n g d i s a g r e e a b l e traits o f the g o d s . J o s e p h u s himself, as w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d o f a p i o u s Jew, stresses t h a t M o s e s w a s careful to k e e p his w o r d s free o f the u n s e e m l y m y t h o l o g y c u r r e n t a m o n g n o n - J e w s (Ant. 1.15); b u t w h i l e h e criticizes t h o s e G r e e k historians w h o t u r n e d t o m y t h o l o g y for their s o u r c e s (Ag. Ap. 1.25) ( W a r d m a n i 9 6 0 , 4 0 3 - 1 3 ) , h e h i m s e l f w a s v e r y w e l l v e r s e d in the w o r k o f the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s , w h o p r o v i d e a m o d e l o f l i b e r a l a n d imaginative exposition o f sacred material. A n i n t h a p p r o a c h n o t e s that the S e p t u a g i n t a n d P h i l o u n d e r s t o o d the w o r d " t r a n s l a t i o n " in a sense different f r o m w h a t is m e a n t t o d a y ; a n d it w a s n o t until A q u i l a w a s e n c o u r a g e d t o d o a m o r e literal translation o f the B i b l e into G r e e k i n the e a r l y s e c o n d c e n t u r y t h a t the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a translation b e literal w a s t a k e n m o r e seriously. P r i o r to t h a t t i m e , t h e v i e w t h a t p r e v a i l e d w a s t h a t a transla t i o n h a d to b e t r u e t o t h e c o n t e n t o f the t e x t b u t n o t to its e x t e r n a l f o r m .
5 3
T h e fact
that, despite the b a n o n a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t , t h r e e m a j o r r e c e n sions h a d e m e r g e d b y the t i m e o f J e r o m e (Preface to the B o o k o f C h r o n i c l e s , in M i g n e , PL 2 8 . 1 3 2 4 - 2 5 ) s h o w s t h a t the c u r s e m e n t i o n e d in the Letter of Aristeas w a s not taken too seriously I n this c o n n e c t i o n , w e m a y r e m a r k that there w e r e a p p a r e n t l y t w o distinct t h e o ries as to w h a t a translation s h o u l d b e . A c e n t u r y before J o s e p h u s , C i c e r o contrasts a translation that p r o c e e d s w o r d for w o r d (verbum pro verbo) w i t h his o w n m e t h o d o f translation as a n orator, w h e r e b y h e p r e s e r v e d o n l y the g e n e r a l style a n d f o r m o f the o r i g i n a l (De Optimo Genere Oratorum 4.14); a n d in C i c e r o ' s o w n translations f r o m P l a t o (e.g., Tusculan Disputations 1.53-54, 97~99), h e d o e s take c o n s i d e r a b l e liberties. H o r a c e g o e s e v e n further a n d says that the faithful translator (fidus interpres) will take c a r e n o t to r e n d e r w o r d for w o r d (verbum verbo, a l m o s t C i c e r o ' s phrase) (Ars Poetica 1.33). Actually, w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r Hellenistic historians, s u c h as E u p o l e m u s a n d A r t a p a n u s , J o s e p h u s is really v e r y close to the B i b l e in his p a r a p h r a s e . I n this c o n n e c t i o n , it m a y b e useful to e x a m i n e the w o r d s t h a t J o s e p h u s uses for "translate." W h e n w e d o so, w e find t h a t t h e y are all a m b i g u o u s a n d s e e m to in c l u d e p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d a m p l i f y i n g . W h e n h e d e c l a r e s that his o w n w o r k ( w h i c h is h a r d l y a " t r a n s l a t i o n " o f t h e Bible) h a s b e e n translated f r o m t h e H e b r e w r e c o r d s (Ant. 1.5), h e e m p l o y s t h e v e r b fjLeOepfjLrjvevcu for "translate." J o s e p h u s uses the s a m e v e r b in s p e a k i n g o f the " t r a n s l a t i o n " o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h k n o w n as the S e p t u a g i n t
53. T h e rabbis were aware of the danger of literal translation, as w e m a y discern from the remark of R a b b i J u d a h bar Ilai (mid second century) that w h o e v e r translates a biblical verse literally is an im postor, although admittedly he is quick to add that w h o e v e r adds thereto is a blasphemer and a libeler (Qiddushin 49a).
JOSEPHUS A S REWRITER O F T H E BIBLE
45
(Ant. 12.20 a n d 48); b u t i n a s m u c h as this w a s h a r d l y a literal translation a n d , in d e e d , t o o k c o n s i d e r a b l e liberties, it will h a r d l y buttress the m e a n i n g o f "translate," b u t r a t h e r s e e m s to signify " i n t e r p r e t . " I n o n e o f these p a s s a g e s , w e h e a r t h a t the translators o f the P e n t a t e u c h n o t m e r e l y translated (pLeraypd^ai,
"transcribe") but
also i n t e r p r e t e d (fjLedeppLrjvevocu) t h e L a w for P t o l e m y ' s p l e a s u r e (Ant. 12.20). T h e r e w o u l d h a r d l y b e m u c h p o i n t in t r a n s c r i b i n g the L a w for P t o l e m y ; b u t t h e r e w o u l d b e a p o i n t in t r a n s l a t i n g a n d e l u c i d a t i n g it, a n d it w o u l d b e this latter a c t t h a t w o u l d b r i n g p l e a s u r e to P t o l e m y ; h e n c e the w o r d ixedepfiTjveva) s e e m s to i m p l y m u c h m o r e t h a n m e r e translation. E l s e w h e r e , it s e e m s to refer n o t t o t h e transla t i o n b u t to the e t y m o l o g y o f w o r d s (Ant. 1.52 a n d 8.142). T h e r e are at least t w o in stances w h e r e the m e a n i n g is n o t " t o t r a n s l a t e " b u t r a t h e r " t o signify" (War 5.151 a n d Ag. Ap. 1.167). I n o n e i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t h e h a s , in his Antiquities, g i v e n a translation (or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , fjLedeppLrjvevKa) o f the B i b l e , b e i n g (yeyovws) a priest a n d o f priestiy a n c e s t r y a n d b e i n g w e l l v e r s e d (pLtTtoxqKws)
in
the p h i l o s o p h y (i\oooias) o f those w r i t i n g s (Ag. Ap. 1.54). S i n c e the p a r t i c i p l e s yeyovcbs
a n d pLereax^Kcos s h o w t h a t the clauses are d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the
first p a r t o f the s e n t e n c e , it w o u l d a p p e a r that J o s e p h u s ' s qualifications as a "trans l a t o r " w e r e e n h a n c e d b y the fact t h a t h e w a s a priest a n d b y his k n o w l e d g e o f the p h i l o s o p h y — t h a t is, s t u d y — o f the B i b l e . C l e a r l y , to b e a g o o d " t r a n s l a t o r " re q u i r e d m o r e t h a n m e c h a n i c a l k n o w l e d g e o f l a n g u a g e . I n fact, t h e r e is o n l y o n e p a s s a g e ( w h e r e J o s e p h u s gives the m e a n i n g o f the n a m e A m m a t h u s as " w a r m baths") o f the n i n e o c c u r r e n c e s o f this v e r b in J o s e p h u s w h e r e the m e a n i n g is u n a m b i g u o u s l y " t o t r a n s l a t e " (Wfor4.11) M i d w a y t h r o u g h his Antiquities, J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s the r e a d e r t h a t h e w a s " o n l y t r a n s l a t i n g [/xera^pd^etv] the b o o k s o f the H e b r e w into the G r e e k t o n g u e " a n d p r o m i s e s t o r e p o r t their c o n t e n t s " w i t h o u t a d d i n g a n y t h i n g o f m y o w n to the n a r rative o r o m i t t i n g a n y t h i n g t h e r e f r o m " (10.218). H e r e h e uses the v e r b fzera(/)pd^€iv, e v e n t h o u g h h e is c l e a r l y referring t o the p a s s a g e in the p r o e m w h e r e h e h a d u s e d the v e r b pLeOepfjLrjveva); h e n c e it w o u l d s e e m t h a t h e w a s e q u a t i n g the t w o t e r m s , a n d t h a t the v e r b jjLeOeppLrjvevco i n v o l v e d m o r e t h a n m e r e translation. I n d e e d , t h e v e r y w o r d pLera^pd^a) c a r r i e s t h e n o t i o n o f p a r a p h r a s i n g o r restating the s a m e c o n c e p t in different w o r d s , w i t h o u t necessarily m e a n i n g to restate t h e m i n a different l a n g u a g e (e.g., D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , De Thucydide 45). I n particular, the c o g n a t e n o u n pLerd^paois in 2 M a c e . 2:31 c a n n o t m e a n a translation, i n a s m u c h as the r e f e r e n c e is to the a b r i d g e d p a r a p h r a s e (jierd^paoiv
. . . avyxcop-qreov)
(Ster
l i n g 1992, 252, n. 113). A s to t h e u n c o m p o u n d e d v e r b , ippLrjvevco, its m e a n i n g s e e m s t o b e " t o d e s c r i b e , " " t o r e n d e r , " " t o e x p r e s s " (War 5.182, 5.393, 7.455; Ant. 6.230); a n d o n l y o n c e d o e s it u n e q u i v o c a l l y m e a n " t o t r a n s l a t e " (Ant. 6.156). I n t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t J e w s " g i v e c r e d i t for w i s d o m to t h o s e a l o n e w h o h a v e a n e x a c t k n o w l e d g e o f the l a w a n d w h o a r e c a p a b l e o f i n t e r p r e t i n g [ippL-qvevoai]
the m e a n i n g o f the H o l y
S c r i p t u r e s " (Ant. 20.264), the m e a n i n g is n o t " t o translate," since t h a t w o u l d b e t o o m e c h a n i c a l a n art to a s c r i b e w i s d o m to its p r a c t i t i o n e r s .
46
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
W h e n w e e x a m i n e w o r d s h a v i n g t h e s a m e s t e m as the v e r b ippLrjvevaj, likewise a p p e a r s t o b e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e w o r d i m p l i e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m e r e l y translation. T h u s , Josephus declares that he will defer the (ipfjirjv€La)—in
there
and
not
explanation
this c o n t e x t it c a n n o t m e a n t r a n s l a t i o n — o f w h y S c r i p t u r e says
" o n e d a y " r a t h e r t h a n t h e "first d a y " (Ant. 1.29). A g a i n , h e states t h a t D e m e t r i u s w r o t e to K i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s a d v i s i n g h i m to w r i t e to t h e J e w i s h h i g h priest " t h a t w h e n w e h a v e l e a r n e d f r o m t h e m t h e c l e a r a n d c o n s i s t e n t m e a n i n g " o f the l a w s a n d o b t a i n e d a n a c c u r a t e t r a n s l a t i o n (ep/x^veiav), this v e r s i o n m a y b e a d d e d to the r o y a l l i b r a r y (Ant. 12.39). T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t first t h e r e m u s t b e a n in t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h w i l l b e e m b o d i e d in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n . P t o l e m y a d v i s e s the h i g h priest to select six m e n o f a d v a n c e d a g e f r o m e a c h tribe w h o a r e w e l l v e r s e d in t h e l a w s a n d w h o w i l l c o n s e q u e n t l y b e a b l e to m a k e a n a c c u r a t e t r a n s l a t i o n
(ippurj-
veiav) (Ant. 12.49). W h y , w e m a y ask, s h o u l d t h e translators b e o l d m e n ? A n d w h y m u s t t h e y b e w e l l v e r s e d in t h e l a w s ? I f t h e m e r e m e c h a n i c s o f t r a n s l a t i o n w e r e a sufficient p r e r e q u i s i t e , s u c h q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w o u l d s e e m to b e s u p e r f l u o u s . T h a t m o r e t h a n translation w a s involved seems clear from the fact that w h e n t h e t r a n s l a t i o n h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d , t h e p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d t h e i r a p p r o v a l o f the e l d e r s w h o h a d i n t e r p r e t e d ( S i a a a e ^ a a v r a s , " m a d e q u i t e c l e a r , " " e x p l a i n e d " ) the L a w , a n d r e q u e s t e d t h a t since t h e t r a n s l a t i o n (eppaqveias) h a d b e e n so successfully c o m p l e t e d , it s h o u l d r e m a i n u n a l t e r e d (Ant. 12.108). A g a i n , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e w o r k o f t h e translators i n v o l v e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w s a n d n o t m e r e t r a n s l a t i o n . M o r e over, t h e r e l a t e d w o r d ippLrjvevrrjs is u s e d o f J o s e p h as a n i n t e r p r e t e r o f d r e a m s — surely n o t a m e r e t r a n s l a t o r (Ant. 2.72). A s to the o t h e r w o r d s t h a t a r e u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the t r a n s l a t i o n k n o w n as t h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h e t h e r t h e w o r d pLerapdWa)
m e a n s " t r a n s l a t e " in the
narrow
sense o r i n c l u d e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in t h e b r o a d e r sense is n o t a p p a r e n t f r o m the c o n t e x t (Ant. 1 . 1 0 , 1 2 . 1 4 , 1 2 . 1 5 , 12.107). T h a c k e r a y , h o w e v e r , m a k e s a n i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t w h e n h e r e m a r k s t h a t the w o r d m u s t h a v e b e e n u s e d loosely, since J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s it w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o his o w n t r a n s l a t i o n o f the War f r o m its o r i g i n a l A r a m a i c i n t o G r e e k (War 1.3) ( T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 9 , 34). T h a t t r a n s l a t i o n w a s p r o b a b l y n o t lit e r a l , i n a s m u c h as o u r v e r s i o n o f the War s h o w s a l m o s t n o t r a c e o f S e m i t i c p a r e n t a g e (but this m a y b e d u e to t h e assistants w h o , J o s e p h u s a d m i t s , a i d e d h i m in t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h a t w o r k [Ag. Ap. 1.50]). H e n c e , w e m a y c o n c l u d e t h a t since J o s e p h u s v i e w e d h i m s e l f as c a r r y i n g o n the t r a d i t i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t in r e n d e r i n g t h e B i b l e for G e n t i l e s , h e c o n c e i v e d o f his task as n o t m e r e l y t r a n s l a t i n g b u t also i n t e r p r e t i n g the S c r i p t u r e s , a n d t h e r e f o r e h e d i d n o t c o n c e i v e o f h i m s e l f as a d d i n g o r s u b t r a c t i n g a n y t h i n g i f h e c o n t i n u e d t h e Septuagint's tradition o f liberal clarification.
JOSEPHUS'S AUDIENCE T o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t J o s e p h u s h a s d o n e w i t h the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e in t h e
Antiqui
ties, w e m u s t first ask for w h o m t h e w o r k is i n t e n d e d . It w o u l d s e e m t h a t J o s e p h u s
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
47
a c t u a l l y h a d t w o a u d i e n c e s in m i n d . O n the o n e h a n d , the s t a t e m e n t in his p r o e m , in w h i c h h e cites as a p r e c e d e n t for his w o r k the translation o f the T o r a h into G r e e k for K i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s (Ant. 1.10), is c l e a r l y d e s i g n e d as a justifica tion for his d i r e c t i n g his w o r k to G e n t i l e s w i t h a p o l o g e t i c intent. T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s says t h a t e v e n P t o l e m y failed to o b t a i n all the r e c o r d s (i.e., the entire Bible) o f the J e w s , since h e r e c e i v e d the translation o f the P e n t a t e u c h a l o n e (Ant. 1.12), c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s a i m w a s to p r e s e n t a v e r s i o n o f the entire B i b l e to P t o l e m y ' s G e n t i l e successors. H e inquires w h e t h e r J e w s h a v e p r e v i o u s l y b e e n w i l l i n g t o c o m m u n i c a t e s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t o G e n t i l e s (Ant. 1.9), the i m p l i c a tion b e i n g t h a t the p r e s e n t w o r k is i n t e n d e d for G e n t i l e s . Finally, the fact t h a t it w a s his p a t r o n E p a p h r o d i t u s , a non-Jew, w h o , a b o v e all, u r g e d h i m to w r i t e the history (Ant. 1.8) w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t it w a s i n t e n d e d for his p a t r o n a n d for o t h e r G e n t i l e s like h i m . A c l u e as to his a u d i e n c e m a y b e p e r c e i v e d if w e c o m p a r e his r e w r i t t e n v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e w i t h o t h e r r e w r i t t e n v e r s i o n s , s u c h as P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical
Antiqui
ties, the Genesis Apocryphon, a n d the B o o k o f Jubilees, all o f t h e m e m a n a t i n g , it w o u l d s e e m , f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y the s a m e p e r i o d . T h e v e r y first p o i n t to b e n o t e d is the l a n g u a g e in w h i c h t h e y are w r i t t e n . O n l y J o s e p h u s w r o t e his o r i g i n a l l y in G r e e k ; the o t h e r s w e r e w r i t t e n in e i t h e r H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c .
5 4
O n l y Josephus
m a k e s a s y s t e m a t i c a t t e m p t to p a r a p h r a s e the entire B i b l e , w h e r e a s the o t h e r s a r e selective a n d e v e n h i g h l y selective. F u r t h e r m o r e , o n l y J o s e p h u s cites a n d q u o t e s f r o m G r e e k a u t h o r s , often in praise, w h e r e a s the o t h e r s n e v e r cite a n y G r e e k a u thors. T h e fact, m o r e o v e r , t h a t J o s e p h u s asks w h e t h e r a n y o f the G r e e k s h a v e b e e n c u r i o u s to l e a r n " o u r h i s t o r y " (Ant. 1.9) a n d t h a t h e specifically d e c l a r e s t h a t his w o r k w a s u n d e r t a k e n in the b e l i e f t h a t the w h o l e G r e e k w o r l d w o u l d find it w o r thy o f a t t e n t i o n ( A n t . 1.5) i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e w a s d i r e c t i n g the Antiquities to p a g a n s . I n t r a n s c r i b i n g the d e c r e e s issued b y the R o m a n s o n b e h a l f o f the J e w s , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t h e felt it n e c e s s a r y to cite t h e m , "since this a c c o u n t o f o u r h i s t o r y is chiefly m e a n t t o r e a c h the G r e e k s in o r d e r to s h o w t h e m t h a t in f o r m e r t i m e s w e w e r e t r e a t e d w i t h all r e s p e c t " (Ant. 16.174). T h e fact t h a t h e b o a s t s at the e n d o f the w o r k t h a t n o o n e else w o u l d h a v e b e e n e q u a l to the task o f issuing so a c c u r a t e a treatise for the G r e e k s (els "EWrjvas) (Ant. 20.262) i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e i n t e n d e d the w o r k for the n o n - J e w i s h w o r l d , since for J o s e p h u s the t e r m " G r e e k s " is u s e d in c o n t r a s t to J e w s .
54. A s I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1971, x x v - x x v i i ) , most scholars have concluded (although there is n o hard and fast proof) that Pseudo-Philo's work was originally written in Hebrew, and that the current version, w h i c h is in Latin, is a translation from Greek, which, in turn, is a translation from H e brew. T h e strongest arguments for the hypothesis that Pseudo-Philo's Latin text was originally c o m posed in H e b r e w a n d that it w a s then translated into G r e e k are, as J a c o b s o n 1996, 215-24, has shown, that there are so m a n y places where obscurities in the Latin text are clarified once w e reconstruct the H e b r e w a n d / o r G r e e k equivalents.
48
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g for a G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e , u n f a m i l i a r w i t h J e w i s h c u s t o m s a n d w a y o f life (see S t e r l i n g 1 9 9 2 , 298), is c l e a r f r o m the fact t h a t h e felt it n e c essary to e x p l a i n t h a t h e h a d h e l l e n i z e d b i b l i c a l n a m e s w i t h a v i e w to e u p h o n y a n d his r e a d e r s ' p l e a s u r e (Ant. 1.129). It is u n l i k e l y t h a t J e w s w o u l d h a v e h a d to b e t o l d s u c h f u n d a m e n t a l facts o f J e w i s h life as t h a t " o u r n a m e for the s e v e n t h d a y " is the S a b b a t h (Ant. 3.143), t h a t it w a s the c u s t o m for J e w s to o b s e r v e s e v e n d a y s o f m o u r n i n g (Ant. 17.200), t h a t it w a s the a n c e s t r a l c u s t o m o f the J e w s t o serve u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d at P a s s o v e r (Ant. 17.213, 20.106), a n d t h a t the L e v i t e s w e r e o n e o f the tribes o f the J e w s (Ant. 20.216). F u r t h e r m o r e , J e w s w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t h a v e h a d to b e i n f o r m e d t h a t the s e v e n t h m o n t h w a s c a l l e d T i s h r i b y J e w s (Ant. 8.100), o r t h a t P a s s o v e r c a m e in the first m o n t h , w h i c h w a s c a l l e d N i s a n b y t h e J e w s (Ant. 11.109). J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e felt it p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to c o u n t e r the
anti-Jewish
s l a n d e r o f a n A p i o n o r a n A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n . O f c o u r s e , the essay Against Apion is s u c h a r e s p o n s e ; b u t the Antiquities is t o o . J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e felt a responsi bility t o d e f e n d the J e w s , e s p e c i a l l y since h e h i m s e l f w a s u n d e r a c l o u d o f s u s p i c i o n b e c a u s e o f his s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s in 6 6 . T h e r e m a y also h a v e b e e n a b a c k lash a g a i n s t the J e w s a r i s i n g f r o m the c o n s i d e r a b l e losses t h a t t h e y h a d inflicted u p o n the R o m a n s d u r i n g the r e v o l t o f 6 6 - 7 0 . J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e c h o s e to i n c l u d e the d o c u m e n t s issued b y the R o m a n s v e r i f y i n g J e w i s h rights (Ant. 16.174) m a y w e l l h a v e h a d c o n t e m p o r a r y o v e r t o n e s — t h a t is, it m a y h a v e b e e n i n t e n d e d t o r e m i n d D o m i t i a n a n d his c o u n s e l o r s o f t h e historic rights g r a n t e d t o the J e w i s h people. A number of scholars
55
h a v e a r g u e d t h a t the Antiquities w a s a i m e d at the R o m a n
g o v e r n m e n t in v i e w o f a n e w a n d e x t r e m e l y d a n g e r o u s situation affecting the J e w s : D o m i t i a n ' s anti-Jewish m e a s u r e s ; b u t n o w h e r e in the Antiquities d o e s J o s e p h u s hint t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n s u c h a d e t e r i o r a t i o n . D o m i t i a n ' s " h a r s h n e s s " in e n f o r c i n g the fiscus Judaicus, a c c o r d i n g to S u e t o n i u s (Domitian 12.2), affected o n l y J e w s w h o attempted
to h i d e their origins a n d " s y m p a t h i z e r s " (i.e., G e n t i l e s w h o
a d o p t e d c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e s o f J u d a i s m w i t h o u t a c t u a l l y c o n v e r t i n g ) (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 1 7 - 1 8 ) . N o t until the C h u r c h F a t h e r s d o w e find r e f e r e n c e s to D o m i t i a n ' s p e r s e c u t i o n s o f o t h e r s (see S m a l l w o o d 1976, 3 7 8 - 8 5 ) . Moreover, Josephus's
incorporation
of Jonah's and
Nahum's
prophecies
a g a i n s t A s s y r i a m a y h a v e b e e n i n s p i r e d b y a desire to p l e a s e his R o m a n r e a d e r s t h r o u g h his p r e d i c t i o n o f the o v e r t h r o w o f A s s y r i a , w h i c h l a y in p r e c i s e l y the a r e a w h e r e the k i n g d o m o f P a r t h i a , the g r e a t e n e m y o f the R o m a n s , w a s situated (Feld m a n 1 9 9 2 ^ 8; B e g g 1 9 9 5 ^ 1 8 - 1 9 ) . M o r e positively, J o s e p h u s , in a d d r e s s i n g a non-Jewish a u d i e n c e , m a y h a v e
55. H . B l o c h 1 8 7 9 , 4 - 5 ; L a q u e u r 1920, 259 ff.; C a s e 1925,10-20; Smith 1956, 7 5 - 7 6 ; S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 237-38; Migliario 1981, 9 4 - 9 5 , 136-37; S m a l l w o o d 1956, 10, and 1976, 382-83; G r a n t 1973, 224-27; and Sterling 1992, 299-302.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
49
s o u g h t t o p o i n t o u t t h e attractions o f J u d a i s m to p o t e n t i a l c o n v e r t s . J e w i s h success in p r o s e l y t i s m w a s , t o b e sure, a sensitive issue a m o n g t h e R o m a n s , as w e c a n see f r o m t h e e x p u l s i o n o f t h e J e w s f r o m R o m e b e c a u s e o f it in 139 B.C.E. a n d 19 C.E., as w e l l as p e r h a p s d u r i n g the r e i g n o f C l a u d i u s (see F e l d m a n 1993a, 300-304). B u t t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , p o r t r a y s A b r a h a m as a m i s s i o n a r y g o i n g d o w n to E g y p t , w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t e i t h e r h e w o u l d p e r s u a d e t h e E g y p t i a n s to a d o p t his p o i n t o f v i e w o r e m b r a c e theirs if t h e y w e r e m o r e p e r s u a s i v e (Ant. 1.162-68), is a c l u e to his f a v o r a b l e v i e w o f s u c h p r o s e l y t i s m . I n a n y case, i f t h e essay Against Apion is, i n d e e d , a s u p p l e m e n t t o t h e Antiquities, w e d o find t h e r e a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t r e m a r k i n g o n the g r a c i o u s w e l c o m e e x t e n d e d b y J e w s to all w h o w i s h e d to a d o p t their l a w s (Ag. Ap. 2.210), as w e l l as a p r o u d assertion t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t o n e city, G r e e k o r b a r b a r i a n , to w h i c h J e w i s h c u s t o m s h a d n o t s p r e a d (Ag. Ap. 2.282). H e speaks o f this p r o s e l y t i s m as a m a s s m o v e m e n t , since h e r e m a r k s t h a t m a n y G r e e k s h a d a d o p t e d the l a w s o f J u d a i s m (Ag. Ap. 2.123). W e w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d also h a v e s o u g h t a J e w i s h a u d i e n c e for his w o r k .
5 6
A f t e r all, t h e p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e o f t h e J e w s in the D i a s p o r a , n u m b e r i n g 57
several m i l l i o n s , w a s G r e e k ; a n d s o m e o f t h e m m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d to b e interested in r e a d i n g J o s e p h u s ' s h i s t o r y J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y says t h a t " t h e m a i n lesson to b e l e a r n t f r o m this h i s t o r y b y t h o s e w h o c a r e to p e r u s e it" is t h a t G - d re w a r d s t h o s e w h o o b e y H i s l a w s a n d p u n i s h e s those w h o d o n o t (Ant. 1.14). H i s h i g h l i g h t i n g o f c e r t a i n e p i s o d e s , n o t a b l y the i n c i d e n t o f Israel's sin w i t h t h e M i d i anite w o m e n ( N u m . 2 5 : 1 - 9 , Ant. 4 . 1 3 1 - 5 5 ) — J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s it f r o m n i n e v e r s e s to twenty-five p a r a g r a p h s — a n d S a m s o n ' s relations w i t h a l i e n w o m e n ( J u d g e s 1 4 : 1 - 1 6 : 3 1 , Ant. 5 . 2 8 6 - 3 1 7 ) , is a p p a r e n t l y i n t e n d e d for t h o s e J e w s w h o s o u g h t as similation i n t o t h e G e n t i l e p o p u l a t i o n .
5 8
Josephus vehemently condemns Z a m -
brias (Zimri) (Ant. 4 . 1 5 0 - 5 1 ) a n d b e s t o w s e x a l t e d p r a i s e u p o n P h i n e h a s , " a m a n su p e r i o r in e v e r y w a y to the rest o f t h e y o u t h " (Ant. 4.152), w h o , after all, m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n c o n d e m n e d for t a k i n g the l a w i n t o his o w n h a n d s in p u t t i n g Z a m b r i a s to d e a t h w i t h o u t a trial. H e c o n d e m n s S a m s o n for t r a n s g r e s s i n g t h e l a w s o f his forefathers a n d d e b a s i n g (irapexoipaaaev^ u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to coins) his o w n rule o f life b y i m i t a t i o n o f f o r e i g n u s a g e s , w h i c h , h e says, p r o v e d the b e g i n n i n g o f his d o w n f a l l (Ant. 5.306). J o s e p h u s m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h a t t h e fortunes o f A n i laeus a n d Asinaeus, the robber barons w h o established an independent Jewish
56. Migliario 1981, 92, 96, 136, and Rajak 1984, 178, actually say that Josephus's works were ad dressed primarily to D i a s p o r a Jews. 57 A Jewish world population o f more than eight million in the middle o f the first century, most o f w h o m were in the Diaspora, is fully within the range o f probability, according to B a r o n 1952, 1:170. 58. "It is hardly conceivable that the words o f the remarkable speech [Zambrias's defense o f his apostasy: Ant 4.145-49] arose out o f Josephus's o w n imagination," says v a n U n n i k 1974, 259. " T h e y are the expression o f w h a t was thought by his contemporaries w h o broke a w a y from the ancestral reli gion a n d gave these reasons for doing so."
jo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
state in M e s o p o t a m i a , b e g a n t o d e t e r i o r a t e at the v e r y p e a k o f their success b e c a u s e A n i l a e u s , in his affair w i t h a P a r t h i a n g e n e r a l ' s wife, p l u n g e d i n t o l a w l e s s ness, " i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h c o d e at t h e b i d d i n g o f lust a n d s e l f - i n d u l g e n c e " (Ant. 18.340). T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f other indications that Josephus h a d a Jewish reading a u d i e n c e in m i n d , a l t h o u g h c l e a r l y it w a s n o t his m a i n a u d i e n c e . For e x a m p l e , h e a p o l o g i z e s for r e a r r a n g i n g t h e o r d e r o f the l a w s o f t h e T o r a h , e x p l a i n i n g , "lest p e r c h a n c e a n y o f m y c o u n t r y m e n w h o c h a n c e u p o n this w o r k s h o u l d r e p r o a c h m e at all for h a v i n g g o n e astray," t h a t h e h a s t h o u g h t it n e c e s s a r y to m a k e this p r e l i m i n a r y o b s e r v a t i o n , since M o s e s left w h a t h e w r o t e in a s c a t t e r e d c o n d i t i o n (Ant. 4.197). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s w a r n s his r e a d e r s n o t to e x a m i n e t h e a g e s o f t h e a n t e d i l u v i a n s at their d e a t h s b u t r a t h e r t h e dates o f their births (Ant. 1.88) is a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e w a s a d d r e s s i n g a J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , i n a s m u c h this p r e s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e r e a d e r s w o u l d c o n s u l t t h e b i b l i c a l text (Sterling 1992, 306). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f B a l a a m ' s p r o p h e c y o f c a l a m i t i e s t h a t w e r e to befall kings a n d cities o f t h e h i g h e s t celebrity, s o m e o f w h i c h h a d n o t y e t b e e n f o u n d e d (Ant. 4.125), is a c r y p t i c r e f e r e n c e , w h i c h o n l y J e w s w o u l d h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d , to a m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m t h a t w o u l d m a k e a n e n d o f the R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e fact, m o r e o v e r , t h a t J o s e p h u s invites his r e a d e r s t o r e a d the B o o k o f D a n i e l to o b t a i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s d r e a m (Ant. 10.210) ( w h i c h , t h e y w o u l d l e a r n , referred to a m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m t h a t w o u l d o v e r t h r o w t h e R o m a n s ) is like w i s e a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e i n t e n d e d his w o r k for a J e w i s h a u d i e n c e .
5 9
Furthermore,
j u s t as in his h i g h l i g h t i n g o f t h e a n t i - A s s y r i a n p r o p h e c i e s o f J o n a h a n d N a h u m , J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e b e e n a p p e a l i n g t o his R o m a n r e a d e r s , w h o w o u l d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l identification o f A s s y r i a w i t h P a r t h i a , h e m a y likewise h a v e b e e n a p p e a l i n g to his J e w i s h r e a d e r s , w h o w o u l d h a v e identified R o m e , t h e d e stroyer o f the s e c o n d T e m p l e , w i t h A s s y r i a , t h e d e s t r o y e r o f t h e k i n g d o m o f Israel (so B e g g 1 9 9 5 ^ 1 9 - 2 0 ) . J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e a p p e a l s to his J e w i s h r e a d e r s w h e n h e d e c r i e s t h e fact t h a t K i n g J e h o r a m o f J u d a h t r a n s g r e s s e d t h e a n c e s t r a l c u s t o m s (rd Trdrpia . . . k'Qrj) a n d d i d n o t let a d a y g o b y w i t h o u t d e v i s i n g s o m e n e w f o r m o f v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o u n t r y ' s traditions (rcov eTrixwpiaiv
iOiopiwv) (Ant. 9 . 9 5 - 9 6 ) , p h r a s e s t h a t w o u l d
surely h a v e struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d in his R o m a n r e a d e r s as w e l l (see B e g g 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 2 7 - 2 8 ) . Similarly, J o s e p h u s amplifies the b i b l i c a l t e x t in stressing t h a t the traditions o f t h e fathers c a n n o t b e d i s r e g a r d e d w i t h i m p u n i t y (Ant. 9.222-25) ( B e g g i 9 9 5 h , 24).
59. B e g g has suggested that Josephus m a y also be catering to some o f his Jewish audience in his portrayal, without any indication o f disapproval on his part, o f the Amalekites as the target o f K i n g A m a z i a h ' s seemingly unprovoked attack (Ant. 9.191) (Begg 1995b, 29-30). Josephus's Jewish readers might well have recognized in A m a l e k a symbol o f R o m e , as indeed w e find in rabbinic literature (so G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:25, n. 147).
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
JOSEPHUS'S W e m a y next consider Josephus's
5/
SOURCES
sources—Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,
midrashic, Hellenistic J e w i s h — f o r the changes that h e introduces into the biblical n a r r a t i v e , as w e l l as t h o s e c h a n g e s t h a t a r e t r a c e a b l e t o a " m i d d l e s o u r c e " similar to his o w n w o r k , a n d finally t h o s e c h a n g e s t h a t a r e n o t t r a c e a b l e t o s o u r c e s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d at his d i s p o s a l a n d for w h i c h h e w a s h i m s e l f responsible. I n t h e first p l a c e , there w e r e e x t r a b i b l i c a l b o o k s , s u c h as those that a r e f o u n d in the A p o c r y p h a a n d P s e u d e p i g r a p h a . W e m a y h e r e cite a significant p a s s a g e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s states that h e h i m s e l f h a s f o u n d " i n t h e b o o k s o f o u r o w n c o u n t r y " (ev TOLS iTTLxojpiois
rjpLtov
fiifiXiois) that after the P h a r a o h w h o w a s S o l o m o n ' s father-
in-law, n o k i n g o f E g y p t w a s e v e r a g a i n c a l l e d P h a r a o h (Ant. 8.159). It so h a p p e n s that there a r e references i n t h e B i b l e (e.g., 2 K i n g s 23:29) t o E g y p t i a n kings c a l l e d P h a r a o h after t h e t i m e o f S o l o m o n ; a n d t h e m o s t likely e x p l a n a t i o n o f this s t a t e m e n t is that J o s e p h u s h a d r e a d e x t r a b i b l i c a l b o o k s a n d h a d f o u n d there a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e effect t h a t these E g y p t i a n kings after t h e t i m e o f S o l o m o n w e r e n o t c a l l e d P h a r a o h . A s t o b o o k s o f t h e A p o c r y p h a , J o s e p h u s is, o n t h e w h o l e , s t r o n g l y d e p e n d e n t o n t h e v o c a b u l a r y o f 1 o r 3 E s d r a s ( P o h l m a n n , 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 , 1-150). M o r e o v e r , there is a m p l e e v i d e n c e t h a t h e k n e w t h e a d d i t i o n s t o t h e B o o k o f Esther. T h u s , for e x a m ple, t h e text o f M o r d e c a i ' s a n d E s t h e r ' s p r a y e r s t o G - d (Ant. 1 1 . 2 2 9 - 3 3 ) is a n a b r i d g m e n t o f A d d i t i o n C , t h e a c c o u n t o f Esther's a p p e a r a n c e b e f o r e K i n g A h a suerus (Ant. 11.234-42) is a n a b r i d g m e n t o f A d d i t i o n D , a n d t h e text o f t h e s e c o n d e d i c t o f A h a s u e r u s (Ant. 11.273-83) is a close p a r a p h r a s e o f A d d i t i o n E . F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s ' s u s e o f irpovoia ( p r o v i d e n c e ) as g u i d i n g b i b l i c a l h i s t o r y s h o w s k i n ship w i t h t h e role o f irpovoia i n t h e a p o c r y p h a l Wisdom of Solomon ( S o w e r s 1967, 18-25). T h e r e is likewise e v i d e n c e for J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e o f s u c h p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c b o o k s as Jubilees, as w e h a v e s e e n .
6 0
A s r e m a r k e d earlier, t h e H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w a s a n o t h e r s o u r c e t h a t J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e u s e d . I n particular, t h e H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s m i g h t h a v e p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h a stylistic m o d e l . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s P h i l o o n l y o n c e (Ant. 18.259-60), h o w e v e r , a n d h e refers t o o t h e r H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h (at least as m o s t scholars v i e w t h e m ) w r i t e r s in o n l y o n e o t h e r p l a c e (Ag. Ap. 1.218), w h e r e h e speaks o f t h e m as i f t h e y w e r e p a g a n , w h i c h w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t h e m a d e m i n i mal use o f t h e m .
6 1
N e v e r t h e l e s s , e v e n if, as s e e m s likely, J o s e p h u s k n e w t h e m o n l y
60. For parallels between Josephus and Jubilees (particularly in geographical details) see R a p p a p o r t 1930, x i x - x x , T h a c k e r a y 1929, 92, a n d F r a n x m a n 1979, 98. T h e fact that both Jubilees (13:12) a n d Jose phus (Ant. 1.170) state, a n d in the same context, that H e b r o n is seven years older than Tanais in E g y p t would argue for Josephus's dependence u p o n Jubilees. A n o t h e r parallel is in the n a m e o f Pharaoh's daughter, T h e r m u t h i s , w h i c h is also found in Jubilees 47:5 as T h a r m u t h . T h a t Josephus did not derive this extended addition from Artapanus w o u l d seem to b e indicated by the fact that in Artapanus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.3) her n a m e is Merris. 61. Freudenthal
1874-75 asserts that Josephus knew these Hellenistic Jewish writers primarily
through the work On the Jews by the p a g a n A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o wrote in the middle o f the first
32
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
in s e c o n d a r y f o r m t h r o u g h A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, s u c h a u t h o r s e x e r t e d a n infl u e n c e o n the c o n t e n t s o f his w r i t i n g s a n d his m e t h o d o l o g y b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g h o w the J e w i s h S c r i p t u r e c o u l d effectively b e " t r a n s l a t e d " (Sterling 1 9 9 2 , 284). W a c h o l d e r h a s t h e o r i z e d t h a t J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e d e r i v e d his e x t r a b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l f r o m the Chronicle of the Jewish lungs o f his rival, the J e w i s h historian Justus o f T i b e r i a s ; b u t in v i e w o f P h o t i u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t it w a s " v e r y s c a n t y in d e t a i l " (Bib liotheca 3 3 - F G H 734 T 2 ) this s e e m s u n l i k e l y ( W a c h o l d e r 1974, 5 6 - 5 7 ) . S p r o d o w s k y h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t for the story o f J o s e p h in E g y p t , J o s e p h u s h a s d r a w n u p o n a n A l e x a n d r i a n - J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n ( S p r o d o w s k y 1937); a n d R a j a k h a s similarly a r g u e d t h a t the story o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n o n b e h a l f o f P h a r a o h a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s m u s t h a v e arisen in E g y p t , p r e s u m a b l y in A l e x a n d r i a , for the s a m e
reason—
n a m e l y , t h a t the setting i n d i c a t e s t h a t it w o u l d h a v e b e e n o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to E g y p t i a n s ( R a j a k 1978, 1 1 4 ) .
62
B u t R a j a k h e r s e l f is f o r c e d to a d m i t t h a t J o s e p h u s
h a s a n u m b e r o f details t h a t are n o t f o u n d in A r t a p a n u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the M o s e s ' story; a n d she, like F r e u d e n t h a l a n d G a s t e r , c o n c l u d e s t h a t b o t h o f t h e m d r e w u p o n a c o m m o n s o u r c e ( F r e u d e n t h a l 1 8 7 4 - 7 5 , 170; G a s t e r 1927, 72). J a c o b s o n h a s a r g u e d t h a t the a b s e n c e o f E z e k i e l the t r a g e d i a n f r o m the list o f H e l l e n i s t i c w r i t e r s m e n t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ag. Ap. 1.218) d o e s n o t p r o v e t h a t J o s e p h u s d i d n o t k n o w E z e k i e l ' s w o r k . H e suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the crossing o f the S e a o f R e e d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the d e p i c t i o n o f the E g y p t i a n s as l a c k i n g w e a p o n s (Ant. 2.321, 326; E z e k i e l , 210), M o s e s ' striking o f the sea w i t h his staff (Ant. 2.338; E z e k i e l , 227), the p o s t p o n e m e n t
o f battle b y the E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.334,
E z e k i e l , 218), the e n e r g e t i c e n t r y o f the Israelites into the sea (Ant. 2.340, E z e k i e l , 2 2 8 - 2 9 ) , a n d the d a r k n e s s t h a t o v e r c a m e the E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.344, E z e k i e l , 237), indicates s u c h k n o w l e d g e ( J a c o b s o n 1983, 3 7 - 3 9 ) . I f J o s e p h u s h a d k n o w n the w o r k s o f P h i l o , o n e w o u l d surely h a v e e x p e c t e d h i m to d r a w u p o n t h e m , since h e is p r e s e n t i n g a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the B i b l e in the first h a l f o f his Antiquities, like P h i l o , a n d since P h i l o , w h o w r o t e s u c h e x c e l l e n t G r e e k , w o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d s u c h a n e x c e l l e n t stylistic m o d e l . I n d e e d , t h e r e s e e m s g o o d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s a c t u a l l y d i d d r a w u p o n the w o r k o f P h i l o , e s p e cially since t h e r e are a n u m b e r o f striking similarities b e t w e e n their a c c o u n t s o f the Essenes (Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 1 2 . 7 5 - 1 3 . 9 1 a n d Hypothethica
11.1-18;
J o s e p h u s , War 2 . 1 1 9 - 6 1 ) a n d b e t w e e n t h e l e g a l p o r t i o n s o f P h i l o ' s Hypothetica b o o k 2 o f J o s e p h u s ' s Against Apion in p a r t i c u l a r .
63
and
W e m a y p o i n t o u t the striking re-
century B.C.E. and w h o is later quoted by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica, bk. 9. S o also Sterling 1992, 263-84, w h o agrees with Freudenthal and suggests that the reason w h y Josephus does not m e n tion Polyhistor by n a m e as his source is that he did not want to detract from the prestige o f his o w n work as the definitive work on the Jews. 62. Runnalls 1983 has argued that Josephus's version o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n against the Ethiopians is a polemic written against the Hellenistic version o f Artapanus, and that the core o f the story proba bly dates from the Persian era. See Attridge 1984a, 166-67. 63. See L e v y 1927, 211-25; id. 1965, 5 1 - 5 6 ; Belkin 1940, 22-25; C o l s o n and W h i t a k e r 1929-62, e s
2
9:409,514-16; and C r o u c h 1972, 84-101. C a r r a s 1993, 24-47, P - 4 ~47> concludes that since there are
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
53
s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n the p r e f a c e to the Antiquities 1.1-21 a n d P h i l o ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n to De Opificio Mundi 1.1-2.12, in that b o t h offer substantially the s a m e r e a s o n w h y the a c c o u n t o f C r e a t i o n p r e c e d e s that o f the g i v i n g o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f the T o r a h — namely, to m o l d to o b e d i e n c e the m i n d s o f those w h o w e r e to receive the l a w s (so also S t e r l i n g 1992, 243, n. 75). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t s e x u a l inter c o u r s e is p e r m i t t e d o n l y i f i n t e n d e d for p r o c r e a t i o n (Ag. Ap. 2.199) m a y h a v e b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y the p r a c t i c e o f the Essenes (War 2.161) o r b y P h i l o ' s r e m a r k t h a t M o s e s h a d s e x u a l relations solely in o r d e r to b e g e t c h i l d r e n (De Vita Mosis 1.6.28). A g a i n , w h i l e it is true t h a t the S e p t u a g i n t also interprets E x o d . 22:27 (28) as for b i d d i n g the r e v i l i n g o f o t h e r p e o p l e ' s g o d s , J o s e p h u s ' s r e a s o n (Ag. Ap. 2.237) a g r e e s w i t h t h a t o f P h i l o : it is f o r b i d d e n o u t o f r e s p e c t for the v e r y n a m e " G - d " (De Vita Mosis 2.38.205). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n (Ant. 4 . 2 8 5 - 8 6 ) o f the l a w o f deposits h a s s o m e similarities o f l a n g u a g e w i t h t h a t o f P h i l o (De Specialibus Legibus 1
4-7-30-3 )-
.
M o s t striking are the parallels in the a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f the B i b l e .
T h u s , b o t h l o o k u p o n the d i v i s i o n o f the T a b e r n a c l e into t h r e e p a r t s as s y m b o l i c o f the e a r t h , the sea, a n d the h e a v e n (Philo, Quaestiones in Exodum 2.85; De Vita Mosis 2.18.88; Ant. 3.181); the t w e l v e l o a v e s o f s h e w b r e a d as s y m b o l i c o f the t w e l v e m o n t h s (Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.172; Ant. 3.182); the s e v e n - b r a n c h e d c a n dlestick as s y m b o l i c o f the s e v e n p l a n e t s (Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum 4 5 . 2 2 1 - 4 6 . 2 2 6 ; Quaestiones in Exodum
Heres
2.73, 75; Ant. 3.182); the four m a t e r i a l s o f
w h i c h the tapestries w e r e w o v e n as s y m b o l s o f the four e l e m e n t s (Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.18.88, Quaestiones in Exodum 2.85; Ant. 3.183); a n d the h i g h priest's g a r m e n t s as s y m b o l i c o f e a r t h , h e a v e n , l i g h t n i n g , the o c e a n , sun, m o o n , the signs o f the z o d i a c , a n d so o n (Philo, Quaestiones in Exodum 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; Ant. 3 . 1 8 4 - 8 7 ) . I n at least s o m e o f these s y m b o l i c interpretations, P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s s i g n i f i c a n d y s t a n d a l o n e , u n p a r a l l e l e d b y a n y p a s s a g e s in e x i s t i n g r a b b i n i c w r i t i n g s ( G i n z b e r g 1928, 6:68, n.
3 5 3
).
M
a n u m b e r o f views distinctive to each, and that since both share ideas with contemporary Judaism, the most likely hypothesis is that they had a c o m m o n source and b o d y o f traditions. Striking, however, is the fact that in Josephus's relatively brief summary o f the law, there are at least four instances where his interpretation o f the law agrees with Philo's brief summary in his Hypothetka: the public reading o f the T o r a h on the Sabbath (Ag. Ap. 2.175), the death penalty for abortion (Ag. Ap. 2.202), the prohibition o f concealing anything from friends (Ag. Ap. 2.207), a n d the prohibition o f killing animals that have taken refuge in one's h o m e (Ag. Ap. 2.213). W h i l e it is true that these are also paralleled in rabbinic sources, the rabbinic parallels are not quite as precise as those in Philo. In particular, w e m a y note the parallel in language between Philo (Hypothetka 7.9) a n d Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.213) in connection with the animal that has taken refuge in one's house as a suppliant. C a r r a s concludes that Josephus h a d more than one source for his legal discussions; the likelihood is that Philo was one o f these. 64. T h e fact that similar interpretations are, in other cases, to be found in rabbinic midrashim in dicates the possibility that they were not personal but widely current. Furthermore, the concept o f the whole cosmos as the robe o f G - d , w h i c h is shared by Philo and Josephus (Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.24.117; Ant. 3.184), is at least as m u c h Platonic or Stoic as it is distinctively Jewish.
34
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
M o r e o v e r , t h e r e is close c o r r e s p o n d e n c e
6 5
in p h r a s e o l o g y b e t w e e n P h i l o (De
Abrahamo 40.233-34) a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.177) in their d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s at t a c k u p o n t h e A s s y r i a n s , in similar i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the n a m e s A b e l (Philo, gratione Abrahami
13.74; J o s e p h u s , Ant.
1.52) a n d I s h m a e l (Philo, De
DeMi-
Mutatione
Nominum 37.202; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 1.190) ( a l t h o u g h this m a y b e o w i n g t o m u t u a l d e p e n d e n c e u p o n o n o m a s t i c a s u c h as h a v e b e e n f o u n d o n p a p y r i in E g y p t ) ( R o k e a h , 1968, 7 0 - 8 2 ) , in the e p i s o d e o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s wife (Philo, De Josepho 9.40; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 4 2 ) , in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the i n c e n s e altar (Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.21.101; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 3.147), in the a c c o u n t o f c e r t a i n features o f the h i g h priest's v e s t m e n t s (Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.23.114; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 3.178), a n d in the a c c o u n t o f 66
M o s e s g e n e r a l l y . W e m a y c o m m e n t , h o w e v e r , t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e r e are s o m e strik i n g p o i n t s o f a g r e e m e n t , the details in w h i c h t h e y d i s a g r e e a r e also so n u m e r o u s that w e should perhaps postulate an additional or a c o m m o n source (Holladay 1977,83-86). A s e a r l y as 1882, v o n D e s t i n o n p r o p o s e d a n o t h e r s o u r c e for J o s e p h u s ' s
Antiqui
ties, o n the basis o f f o r m u l a e in his r e f e r e n c e s in b o o k s 12 a n d 1 3 — n a m e l y , t h a t h e d i d n o t use o r i g i n a l s o u r c e s , b u t r a t h e r a " m i d d l e s o u r c e , " similar t o the Antiquities itself (von D e s t i n o n 1882). H o l s c h e r , in his e x t r e m e l y influential article in P a u l y W i s s o w a , c o n s i d e r e d this to b e J o s e p h u s ' s
m e t h o d for all o f the
Antiquities
( H o l s c h e r 1 9 1 6 , 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 ; so also R a p p a p o r t 1932, i n ) . H e n c e , J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to b e n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a p l a g i a r i z i n g e d i t o r o r c o m p i l e r , w h o is n o t at all i n d e p e n d e n t o r c r e a t i v e a n d , i n d e e d , c a n n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n in his c l a i m o f a c c u r a c y .
67
T h i s v i e w w a s c o n t e s t e d b y N i e s e , w h o s e a u t h o r i t a t i v e e d i t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s text l e d to his b e i n g r e g a r d e d as the l e a d i n g s c h o l a r in the study o f J o s e p h u s a n d w h o stressed the linguistic a n d stylistic u n i t y t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e all o f the Antiquities (Niese 1896, 1 9 3 - 2 3 7 , e s p e c i a l l y 218 ff. a n d 235). M o r e o v e r , N i e s e ' s p u p i l D r u n e r specifi cally refuted the t h e o r y o f a m i d d l e s o u r c e for J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e M a c c a b e a n p e r i o d a n d a r g u e d t h a t h e u s e d 1 M a c c a b e e s d i r e c d y ( D r u n e r 1896, 35-50)Finally, w e m u s t n o t e x c l u d e the possibility t h a t J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e d details o f his o w n , p a r t i c u l a r l y for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s . T h e v e r y fact t h a t his portraits o f b i b lical p e r s o n a l i t i e s are, o n the w h o l e , consistent in e m p h a s i z i n g the c a r d i n a l virtues, as w e l l as d r a m a t i c a n d erotic e l e m e n t s , a n d in d e e m p h a s i z i n g t h e o l o g i c a l a n d m a g i c a l e l e m e n t s , is i n d i c a t i v e o f a p e r s o n a l i m p r i n t , a n d n o t m e r e l y o f a stage in
65. S a n d m e l 1956, 64, has, however, noted differences in detail. 66. See Robertson 1992, passim, esp. 222-33. For further parallels, see Schalit 1944-63, i:xli—xliii. O n the whole question o f Josephus's dependence u p o n Philo, see Feldman 1984b, 4 1 0 - 1 8 . For Genesis, the most systematic comparison is that o f F r a n x m a n 1979. 67. Bilde 1988, 126-28, 134-41, refers to this v i e w as the "classical conception" o f Josephus and notes that it has been adopted to a greater or lesser degree by a formidable series o f scholars, notably N o r d e n 1913, B e n t w i c h 1914, L a q u e u r 1920, W e b e r 1921, Eisler 1929-30, Foakes-Jackson 1930, R a p p a port 1930, Schalit 1944-63, Williamson 1964, S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, and Trisoglio 1984.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
55
the historical d e v e l o p m e n t o f the m i d r a s h i c tradition (pace V e r m e s 1973, passim). F u r t h e r m o r e , in l a n g u a g e a n d in style, t h e r e are i m p o r t a n t links b e t w e e n the War a n d the
Antiquities.
W e m a y also n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s spent at least a d o z e n y e a r s ( 7 9 / 8 1 - 9 3 / 9 4 ) w r i t i n g the Antiquities, l i v i n g o n a n i m p e r i a l p e n s i o n , w i t h o u t h a v i n g , so far as w e know, a n y a d d i t i o n a l duties o r responsibilities. I n a s m u c h as t h e r e are 7,375 sec tions in N i e s e ' s e d i t i o n o f the G r e e k t e x t o f the t w e n t y b o o k s o f the Antiquities,
each
w i t h a n a v e r a g e o f a b o u t six lines, this m a k e s a total o f 44,250 lines o f G r e e k ; since t w e l v e y e a r s c o n t a i n 4,383 d a y s , this w o u l d c o m e t o w r i t i n g a n a v e r a g e o f a b o u t ten lines o f G r e e k a day. T h i s is c l e a r l y a s l o w rate o f c o m p o s i t i o n ; a n d o n e w o u l d , therefore, e x p e c t f r o m so gifted a historian, a n d f r o m o n e w h o h a d a l r e a d y w r i t t e n a m a s t e r w o r k in s e v e n b o o k s o n the Jewish War, a careful p i e c e o f w o r k c o n t a i n i n g the distinctive i m p r i n t o f the author. T h e o n e p o r t i o n o f the Antiquities that h a s b e e n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o m p a r e d in extenso w i t h the b i b l i c a l s o u r c e is the B o o k o f G e n e s i s , w h e r e F r a n x m a n s i g n i f i c a n d y c o n c l u d e s : " O n t h e surface, his v e r s i o n o f G e n e s i s h a s s o m e o f the u n g o v e r n e d , creative a n d slightly erratic a u r a a b o u t it w h i c h o n e f r e q u e n d y p e r c e i v e s in the g e n e r a l style a n d a p p r o a c h o f a P s e u d e p i g r a p h . T h i s , h o w e v e r , is b u t a n impression [emphasis a d d e d ] d e r i v i n g f r o m less a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h o u r a u t h o r t h a n this in v e s t i g a t i o n h a s a l l o w e d us to c o n t i n u e to h a v e . B e n e a t h the surface o f J o s e p h u s ' s style w e h a v e f o u n d a m o r e careful author. . . w h o s e alterations m a y r e p r e s e n t e x e g e t i c a l traditions m u c h b e t t e r t h o u g h t o u t t h a n h a s b e e n h e r e t o f o r e
supposed"
( F r a n x m a n 1979, 289). H o l l a d a y , after s u r v e y i n g J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , M o s e s , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , stresses the strikingly u n i f o r m m o l d into w h i c h J o s e p h u s recasts e a c h o f these figures, n o t i n g t h a t m a n y o f the c h a r a c teristics t h a t J o s e p h u s attributes t o e a c h o f t h e m are c o m m o n to the s t e r e o t y p e o f the S t o i c w i s e m a n a n d , t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r d e g r e e , are i n d e b t e d t o p o p u l a r , s e m i p h i l o s o p h i c a l ethics ( H o l l a d a y 1977, 6 7 - 7 8 ) . D o w n i n g , in e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f J o s h u a a n d J u d g e s , n o t e s h o w c o n s i s t e n d y J o s e p h u s h a s o m i t t e d dis c r e p a n c i e s , repetitions, i n t e r r u p t i o n s in the narrative, m i r a c l e s a n d m a g i c , i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o l o g y , a n d the a p o l o g e t i c a l l y a w k w a r d , w h i l e a d d i n g h a r m o n y a n d continuity, e m p h a s i z i n g p r o v i d e n c e a n d p r o p h e c y , p i e t y a n d m o r a l u p l i f t — a l l this told w i t h interest a n d clarity ( D o w n i n g 1980, 8:49-65). A t t r i d g e h a s stressed the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y a n d the " c a r e f u l l y c h o s e n m e d i u m " t h r o u g h w h i c h J o s e p h u s has c o n c e p t u a l i z e d the m e s s a g e o f S c r i p t u r e . J o s e p h u s ' s t e r m i n o l o g y , h e c o n cludes, "is n o t s i m p l y w i n d o w d r e s s i n g d e s i g n e d to a d d a superficial H e l l e n i s t i c c o l o r a t i o n " (Attridge 1976, 182). H e h a s n o t e d a c o n t i n u i t y a n d a g r o w i n g c o n s i s t e n c y in J o s e p h u s ' s b a s i c t h o l o g i c a l o u d o o k (Attridge 1976, 1 4 5 - 7 9 ) . Pelletier h a s carefully a n d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x a m i n e d the Letter of Aristeas (one o f the f e w p l a c e s w h e r e w e definitely k n o w J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e a n d see p r e c i s e l y w h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s w i t h it) w i t h r e s p e c t to J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y , g r a m m a r , w o r d order, m e t r i c a l clausulae, a n d p r o s e r h y t h m s . H e c o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y t o revise his s o u r c e at e v e r y t u r n a n d s e l d o m h a s m o r e t h a n a f e w w o r d s t h a t are
5
6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
q u o t e d v e r b a t i m f r o m his s o u r c e (Pelletier 1962a). T h e p e r s o n a l factors t h a t a r e so a p p a r e n t in his r e w r i t i n g o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Antiquities is a v e r y in d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t i o n , c o n s i s t e n d y s h o w i n g J o s e p h u s ' s a p p r o a c h . T h o s e w h o find Josephus sloppy are merely saying that because they have b e e n unable to discover a n y consistency, t h e r e is n o n e in J o s e p h u s . I f s u c h s c h o l a r s s p e n t m o r e t i m e a n a l y z i n g J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , t h e y m i g h t find less c a p r i c i o u s n e s s t h a n t h e y h a d o r i g i n a l l y a t t r i b u t e d to h i m . J o s e p h u s ' s life story a n d his i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y i n d i c a t e t h a t h e w a s h a r d l y a s c h o l a r l y r e c l u s e b u t r a t h e r w a s a p u b l i c figure, v e r y m u c h interested in a n d in f o r m e d a b o u t p o l i t i c a l a n d r e l i g i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 210). E x p e r i e n c e s in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n life a n d in t h e e v e n t s o f his e r a m a y w e l l h a v e i n f l u e n c e d his b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n profoundly. T h u s , his e l a b o r a t i o n o f the sacrifice o f I s a a c w a s p e r h a p s i n f l u e n c e d b y s u c h later e v e n t s as m a r t y r d o m in t h e d a y s o f t h e M a c cabees
6 8
a n d t h e m a s s suicides at J o t a p a t a a n d at M a s a d a in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day.
I n a s m u c h as h e h i m s e l f h a d d e c l i n e d t o a l l o w his life to b e t a k e n at J o t a p a t a , J o s e p h u s h a d t o b e careful to e x p l a i n h o w G - d c o u l d h a v e c o m m a n d e d t h e sacrifice o f I s a a c ' s life. D a u b e
6 9
h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s identified h i m s e l f w i t h J o s e p h ,
w h o likewise w a s a c c u s e d falsely; w i t h J e r e m i a h , w h o w a s a p r o p h e t (as J o s e p h u s c o n c e i v e d h i m s e l f to b e b e c a u s e o f his a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t V e s p a s i a n w o u l d b e c o m e e m p e r o r ) a n d w h o l i k e w i s e suffered at the h a n d s o f his fellow J e w s ; w i t h D a n i e l , w h o likewise suffered for his c o n v i c t i o n s ; a n d w i t h E s t h e r a n d M o r d e c a i , w h o suffered g l a d l y in o r d e r t o h e l p t h e i r p e o p l e ( D a u b e 1 9 8 0 , 1 8 - 3 1 ) .
7 0
T o this list
w e m a y a d d J o s e p h u s ' s identification w i t h S a u l , w h o m h e v i e w e d as a m a r t y r e d g e n e r a l like himself. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e n a m e s o f c
c
S h i t t i m ( N u m . 25:1) a n d B a a l P e o r ( N u m . 25:3) m e a n s t h a t t h e story o f Israel's sin w i t h t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n is n o l o n g e r d a t e d b u t takes o n a u n i v e r s a l flavor, w i t h a c o n t e m p o r a r y w a r n i n g to Jewish youths w h o m i g h t be tempted to s u c c u m b to sensual t e m p t a t i o n s (van U n n i k 1974, 2 4 1 - 6 1 ) .
THE PROPHET AND THE H I S T O R I A N It is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s , in his Antiquities,
h a s relatively little to s a y a b o u t t h e
p r o p h e t s as s u c h , since in t h a t w o r k h e is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in religious
68. Gafni 1980, 8 1 - 9 5 , notes that Josephus, as c o m p a r e d with his source, 1 M a c c a b e e s , stresses the virtue o f m a r t y r d o m for the cause o f religious freedom rather than the alternative o f active resistance. T h i s reflects Josephus's o w n v i e w in the w a r against the R o m a n s , in w h i c h he h a d participated, that the aims and behavior o f the Zealots were not justified. 69. For a similar theme, that Josephus's aggadic remarks are based on his personal background, see also Heller 1936, 237-46, 363. 70. D a u b e 1980, 18-31, remarks that Josephus probably saw the scene o f Esther before Ahasuerus as a prefigurement o f his o w n experience before Vespasian. In particular, he suggests that the picture o f Ahasuerus as attended by bodyguards with axes is not based on the Bible or on the A p o c r y p h a l ad ditions to Esther but rather on the fact that Vespasian h a d such guards.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
57
c u r r e n t s , so t h a t o n e is t e m p t e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t h e fails to d o full j u s t i c e t o the r i c h n e s s o f his b i b l i c a l m o d e l ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e m (see B e g g 1988a, 357). N e v e r theless, i n a s m u c h as, in m a n y cases, t h e y p l a y e d i m p o r t a n t roles in the politics o f their day, J o s e p h u s the historian, w h o w a s so d e e p l y i n v o l v e d in the politics o f his day, is m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e m . J o s e p h u s s a w a significant link b e t w e e n the roles o f p r o p h e t s a n d historians a n d r e g a r d e d the p r o p h e t s as the i m m e d i a t e p r e d e c e s s o r s o f historians. T h u s , in the p r o e m to the War (1.18), h e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e will b e g i n his w o r k at the p o i n t w h e r e " t h e historians o f these events [i.e., the b i b lical history] a n d o u r p r o p h e t s c o n c l u d e , " a l t h o u g h h e a c t u a l l y b e g i n s the w o r k in a b o u t the y e a r 171 B.C.E. I n fact, it is o n l y b e c a u s e the p r o p h e t s a l o n e , w h o r e c e i v e d their i n s p i r a t i o n (iirCvoiav, Ag. Ap. 1.37) f r o m G - d , are r e s p o n s i b l e for the H o l y S c r i p t u r e s t h a t w e find n o d i s c r e p a n c y in w h a t is w r i t t e n there. It is striking t h a t in his a p o l o g e t i c treatise Against Apion (1.37-43), J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t refer t o the b i b l i cal w r i t i n g s as s a c r e d b u t r a t h e r stresses t h a t t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n b y p r o p h e t s w h o w e r e inspired. T h e r e is surely significance in the fact t h a t in n o f e w e r t h a n 169 instances, J o s e p h u s h a s d e l i b e r a t e l y i n t r o d u c e d the n o u n " p r o p h e t " o r the v e r b " p r o p h e s y " w h e r e it is n o t to b e f o u n d in the o r i g i n a l t e x t .
71
O n e m i g h t s u p p o s e t h a t i n line
w i t h his r a t i o n a l i z i n g t e n d e n c y J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e d the w o r d " p r o p h e t " w h e r e the B i b l e h a s G - d s p e a k i n g d i r e c d y ; b u t w e m a y n o t e t h a t o f the 1 6 9 instances, there a r e o n l y 11 cases w h e r e J o s e p h u s substitutes a p r o p h e t ' s s p e e c h for the d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f G - d . I n a l m o s t all the o t h e r instances, w h e r e the H e b r e w h a s m e r e l y the n a m e o f the p r o p h e t , J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d the i d e n t i f y i n g w o r d " p r o p h e t . "
72
T h i s interest i n the p r o p h e t s m u s t h a v e b e e n h e i g h t e n e d b y the fact t h a t the his torical b o o k s o f the B i b l e s u b s e q u e n t t o the P e n t a t e u c h are r e c k o n e d b y J o s e p h u s , as t h e y w e r e b y the r a b b i s , as p r o p h e t i c b o o k s (Ag. Ap. 1.40), e v e n t h o u g h the role o f the p r o p h e t s in s e v e r a l o f t h e m , n o t a b l y J o s h u a , J u d g e s , S a m u e l , K i n g s , a n d C h r o n i c l e s , is surely less i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h a t o f the p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s . J o s e p h u s g o e s o n t o r e m a r k t h a t the r e a s o n w h y the historical w o r k s f r o m the t i m e o f A r t a x e r x e s in the m i d fifth c e n t u r y B.C.E. t o his o w n t i m e are less reliable is t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e the p r o p h e t s t o s u p e r v i s e t h e m (Ag. Ap. 1.41). W e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t o n e r e a son ( a l t h o u g h , o f c o u r s e , n o t the c h i e f one) for J o s e p h u s ' s p o p u l a r i t y w i t h the C h u r c h is p r e c i s e l y the e m p h a s i s t h a t h e p l a c e d o n the p r o p h e t s , w h o are so c r u cial for the t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f Christianity. T h a t a p r o p h e t , like the historian, is c o n c e r n e d w i t h r e c o r d i n g the p a s t m a y b e
71. See Feldman 1990, 389-94. W e m a y note that in the Biblical Antiquities of Josephus's presumed contemporary Pseudo-Philo, the n a m e S a m u e l is found sixteen times w h e r e it is missing in the biblical report (49.7, 49.8 (bis), 50.8, 51.1, 51.2, 51.6, 51.7, 53.11, 53.12, 54.5, 56.4, 57.4 (bis), 59.4, 64.2). 72. T h i s emphasis on the prophets m a y be seen in Josephus's portrait of Manasseh. T h u s , whereas the Bible declares that Manasseh did not listen to the words of G - d
(2 K i n g s 21:9; 2 C h r o n . 33:10), Jose
phus highlights the role o f the prophets, noting that it was to them that Manasseh did not listen (Ant. IO
-39); if he had listened, he says, he might have so profited as not to experience any misfortune.
j#
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s e e n f r o m the fact t h a t M o s e s , at t h e c l o s e o f his life, " p r o p h e s i e s " to e a c h o f the tribes the t h i n g s t h a t a r e p a s t (yevo/xeva),
73
w h e r e u p o n the multitude, recalling
these events, bursts i n t o tears (Ant 4.320). W h e n J o s e p h u s d o e s i n c l u d e the d e e d s o f t h e p r o p h e t s i n his Antiquities, h e d o e s so b e c a u s e , as h e says in j u s t i f y i n g his i n c l u s i o n o f t h e story o f J o n a h , h e h a s p r o m i s e d to give a n e x a c t a c c o u n t o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y (Ant 9.208). J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e s e e n a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e role o f t h e p r o p h e t in f o r m u l a t i n g a n d translating d i v i n e u t t e r a n c e s (Plutarch, DeDefectu
Oracu-
lorum 5 1 . 4 3 8 B ) , w h i c h , for P l a t o a n d t h e S t o i c s , is a r a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e ( B e r c h m a n , 1988, 391), a n d t h e role o f t h e h i s t o r i a n in f o r m u l a t i n g a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g events i n t o a r a t i o n a l p a t t e r n . I n stressing this k i n s h i p , t h e n , J o s e p h u s w a s , in effect, p l a y i n g u p his craft as a h i s t o r i a n ( F e l d m a n , 1990, 3 9 7 - 4 0 0 ) . T h e k i n s h i p o f t h e p r o p h e t a n d the h i s t o r i a n m a y p e r h a p s also b e s e e n in the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s (Ant
1.240),
q u o t i n g A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, refers t o t h e h i s t o r i a n C l e o d e m u s M a l c h u s as " t h e p r o p h e t " ( A u n e , 1982, 4 1 9 - 2 1 ) . A b a s i c link b e t w e e n p r o p h e c y a n d h i s t o r y is t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n for b o t h is truth. T h u s T h u c y d i d e s , in a telling c r i t i c i s m o f his p r e d e c e s s o r s , w h o m h e refers to as 74
storytellers (Xoyoypd^oi),
says t h a t t h e y c o m p o s e d their w o r k s w i t h a v i e w r a t h e r
to p l e a s i n g t h e e a r t h a n to t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h (1.21.1), w h e r e a s the c h i e f g o a l o f a his tory should be a c c u r a c y (1.22.1).
75
Similarly, J o s e p h u s is critical o f his p r e d e c e s s o r s
for m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g the facts a n d for n o t s e e k i n g as their g o a l h i s t o r i c a l a c c u r a c y ( T O . . . aKpifies
rrjs loroplas)
(War 1.2). I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s
stresses, m o r e so t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e (1 K i n g s 22:38), the a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f t h e t r u t h o f Elijah's p r o p h e c y (Ant 8.417). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l e d i t o r i a l , J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to a d d t h a t i n a s m u c h as t h e p r o p h e c i e s s p o k e n b y E l i j a h a n d M i c a i a h c a m e true, w e o u g h t to a c k n o w l e d g e t h e g r e a t n e s s o f G - d a n d s h o u l d n o t t h i n k t h a t s t a t e m e n t s t h a t flatter us a r e m o r e w o r t h y o f b e l i e f t h a n t h e t r u t h (Ant 8.418). T h e q u a l i t y o f I s a i a h t h a t J o s e p h u s singles o u t , i n a k i n d o f e d i t o r i a l a b o u t h i m , is t h a t he w a s marvelously possessed o f truth a n d w a s confident o f never h a v i n g spoken w h a t w a s false (Ant 10.35). H e a d d s t h a t this attribute o f truthful p r o p h e c y is to b e f o u n d n o t o n l y in I s a i a h b u t also in t h e o t h e r p r o p h e t s as w e l l . A distinctive c h a r acteristic o f D a n i e l is t h a t h e m a d e p l a i n t h e a c c u r a c y a n d faithfulness to t r u t h o f his p r o p h e c i e s . W h e n Z e d e k i a h , o n e o f t h e false p r o p h e t s , a t t e m p t s to u n d e r m i n e t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e p r o p h e t s , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l , t h a t M i c a i a h is l y i n g , i n a s m u c h as h e a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t s a n o t h e r p r o p h e t , E l i j a h , in stating t h a t w i t h i n t h r e e d a y s , K i n g A h a b w i l l m e e t his d e a t h (Ant 8.408). T h i s
73. I here adopt the reading o f the manuscripts, w h i c h is clearly the lectio difficilior, rather than that o f the Latin (Jutura), w h i c h w o u l d have Moses prophesying future events. 74. T h u c y d i d e s is here clearly criticizing Herodotus, although he does not mention h i m b y name. 75. Cf. T h u c y d i d e s ' further remarks: "As to the facts o f the occurrences o f the war, I have thought it m y duty to give them, not as ascertained from any chance informant nor as seemed to m e probable, but only after investigating with the greatest possible a c c u r a c y each detail, in the case both o f the events in w h i c h I myself participated a n d o f those regarding which I got m y information from others" (1.22.2).
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
59
c o n c e r n w i t h t r u t h o n the p a r t o f the b i b l i c a l p r o p h e t s a n d o f their a d m i r e r , J o s e p h u s , is c o n t r a s t e d b y J o s e p h u s w i t h the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n s ' r e g a r d for style r a t h e r t h a n w i t h a c c u r a c y (Ag. Ap 1.23-27). I n d e e d , in the v e r y o p e n i n g o f his Jewish
War
(1.1-2), J o s e p h u s contrasts his a c c o u n t w i t h p r e v i o u s histories that c o n s i s t e d o f c a sual a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y stories e d i t e d in a r h e t o r i c a l style, i n w h i c h the facts w e r e m i s r e p r e s e n t e d . M o r e o v e r , this insistence o f the p r o p h e t s o n t r u t h is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t for J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as, a c c o r d i n g to h i m , false p r o p h e t s , c l a i m i n g d i v i n e inspiration, h e l p e d f o m e n t the r e v o l u t i o n a g a i n s t R o m e (War 2.259). J o s e p h u s s a w a k i n s h i p b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d the p r o p h e t s n o t o n l y as a n a l y z e r s o f the p r e s e n t a n d as historians o f the p a s t b u t also as p r e d i c t o r s o f the future. I n this r e s p e c t , t h e r e is a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the b i b l i c a l p r o p h e t s a n d t h e G r e e k p r o p h e t C a t e n a s in H o m e r , for e x a m p l e , " w h o k n e w the things that are, w i l l b e , 76
a n d w e r e b e f o r e " (Iliad 1.70). T h i s k i n s h i p b e t w e e n the p r o p h e t a n d t h e h i s t o r i a n as p r e d i c t o r s o f the future r e m i n d s o n e o f the f a m o u s assertion b y T h u c y d i d e s (1.22.4),
o
n
e
o f J o s e p h u s ' s favorite authorities ( T h a c k e r a y , 1929, 1 1 0 - 1 4 ) , t h a t
" w h o e v e r w i s h e s to h a v e a c l e a r v i e w o f events that h a v e h a p p e n e d a n d o f those that will s o m e day, i n all h u m a n probability, h a p p e n a g a i n in the s a m e o r in a s i m ilar w a y " will find his h i s t o r y useful. J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y l o o k e d u p o n himself, i n a c e r t a i n sense, as a l a t t e r - d a y J e r e m i a h ,
7 7
as w e c a n see f r o m the e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e
to J e r e m i a h i n his s p e e c h to the J e w s (War 5 . 3 9 1 - 9 2 ) ; a n d h e c l e a r l y s a w a n d e m p h a s i z e d the p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n the first d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e , so v e h e m e n d y w a r n e d a g a i n s t b y the p r o p h e t s , a n d the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e , a g a i n s t w h i c h h e , in t u r n , h a d w a r n e d his fellow c o u n t r y m e n . Finally, o f c o u r s e , J o s e p h u s v i e w e d h i m s e l f p e r s o n a l l y as b e i n g a k i n to the p r o p h e t s , in t h a t h e re g a r d e d h i m s e l f as h a v i n g a s p e c i a l gift for p r e d i c t i o n , like his b i b l i c a l n a m e s a k e J o s e p h , a gift h e a l l e g e d l y s h o w e d i n foretelling t h a t V e s p a s i a n w o u l d b e c o m e e m p e r o r (War 3 . 4 0 0 - 2 ) .
78
A n o t h e r link b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d the p r o p h e t s w a s J o s e p h u s ' s status as a priest. A l t h o u g h it is often said t h a t in the b i b l i c a l p e r i o d , the priests a n d the p r o p h e t s w e r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y o p p o s e d to o n e another, y e t , in his s u m m a r y o f the M o s a i c c o d e , the v e r y first t o p i c in J o s e p h u s is G - d ' s c h o i c e , t h r o u g h p r o p h e c y , o f
76. Cf. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2.5: "A prophet o f the truth is one w h o knows the things that were, that they were, the things that are, that they are, and the things that will be, that they will b e . " See van U n n i k 1963, 8 6 - 9 4 . 77. O n Josephus's identification with Jeremiah, see Wolff 1976, 1 0 - 1 5 , D a u b e 1980, 18-36, and S.J. D . C o h e n 1982, 3 6 6 - 8 1 . 78. A n o t h e r link between Josephus and the prophets m a y have c o m e through the Essenes, with w h o m Josephus in his youth spent considerable time (Life 10) and o f w h o m he writes in such detail and with such praise (War 2.119-61), since, w e are told (War 2.159), the Essenes were particularly well versed in the prophetic books and, indeed, h a d a special gift for prediction themselves. Likewise, the Pharisees, with w h o m Josephus allied himself (Life 12), after experimenting with the three major sects o f the Jews, were said to have a special gift o f foreknowledge (Ant. 17.43), as w e can see from the predictions o f Pollio the Pharisee (Ant. 17.4) a n d his disciple Samaias (Ant. 14.174-75).
6o
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
J e r u s a l e m as t h e h o l y c i t y a n d t h e site o f t h e T e m p l e (Ant. 4.200). I n a v e r y signifi c a n t p a s s a g e , t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e difficult c a s e s a r e t o b e b r o u g h t b e f o r e a h i g h c o u r t c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e p r i e s t s a n d t h e j u d g e " w h o is i n office i n t h o s e d a y s " ( D e u t . 17:9); b u t J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h e c a s e s a r e t o b e b r o u g h t b e f o r e " t h e h i g h p r i e s t a n d t h e p r o p h e t a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f e l d e r s " (Ant. 4.218). M o r e o v e r , it w a s t o t h e priests, i n a m a n n e r r e m i n i s c e n t o f R o m e ' s S i b y l l i n e B o o k s , t h a t t h e b o o k , p r e s u m a b l y t h e P e n t a t e u c h , c o n t a i n i n g t h e p r o p h e c y o f future e v e n t s h a d b e e n c o n s i g n e d (Ant. 4 . 3 0 3 - 4 ) .
7 9
T h e c e s s a t i o n o f p r o p h e c y is c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e first T e m p l e , a t w h i c h t i m e t h e U r i m a n d T h u m m i m o f t h e h i g h priests l i k e w i s e c e a s e d t o f u n c tion.
8 0
T a c i t u s states t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y
o f the J e w s believed that their
ancient
p r i e s d y writings c o n t a i n e d a p r e d i c t i o n that a ruler from J u d a e a w o u l d possess the w o r l d (Histories 5.13.2). M o r e o v e r , t h e gift o f p r o p h e c y p o s s e s s e d b y t h e
Essenes
m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e i r a c k n o w l e d g e d p r i e s d y c h a r a c t e r . Finally, J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n n e c t s his p r i e s d y status a n d his gift for p r o p h e c y w h e n h e says o f h i m s e l f that, b e i n g " a priest h i m s e l f a n d o f p r i e s d y descent, h e w a s n o t i g n o r a n t o f t h e p r o p h e c i e s i n t h e s a c r e d b o o k s " (War 3 - 3 5 2 - 5 3 ) .
81
79. Likewise, it is Phineas the high priest w h o acts as G - d ' s interpreter (irpo<j>T)T€voavTos) in Jose phus (Ant. 5.120, 159), whereas the biblical passage has n o mention o f prophesying (Judg. 20:27-28). Furthermore, in Josephus, Saul orders the high priest to d o n his high priesdy robes a n d to prophesy (Ant. 6.115), whereas there is n o mention o f prophesying in 1 S a m . 14:18. A g a i n , it is through the p r o p h e c y o f the high priest A b i m e l e c h that D a v i d learns w h a t is to b e (Ant. 6.254, 257), whereas in the Bible, D a v i d inquires direcdy o f the L - r d (1 S a m . 22:10). Similarly, it is the high priest Eli through w h o m G - d prophesies concerning his posterity, a message omitted in the biblical text (1 S a m . 22:16-23). Furthermore, in Josephus, N o b is the city not only of priests (1 S a m . 22:9-23) but also o f prophets (Ant. 6.262 a n d 268). A g a i n , in the Bible before g o i n g to batde against the Philistines, Saul inquires o f the L - r d , w h o does not answer h i m either by dreams or by the U r i m or by prophets (1 S a m . 28:6); Josephus evidendy conflates the three, since he states merely that Saul asked G - d through the prophets (Ant. 6.328). Additionally, it is the high priest A b i a t h a r w h o m D a v i d approaches to prophesy before going to batde against the Amalekites (Ant. 6.359), whereas the Bible does not mention p r o p h e c y here (1 S a m . 30:7). Before going to batde, K i n g D a v i d consults the high priest for a prophecy (Ant. 7.72-73, 76), whereas in the Bible, he consults G - d direcdy (2 S a m . 5:19, 23). Conversely, the prophet assumes priesdy functions, as w e see w h e n K i n g H e z e k i a h sends a delegate to ask the prophet Isaiah not merely to pray to G - d but also, in a n extrabiblical addition (cf. 2 K i n g s 19:4), to offer sacrifices (Ant 10.12). 80. T h e TSalmud declares that n o priest is inquired o f through the U r i m a n d T h u m m i m w h o does not speak through the H o l y Spirit, that is, through p r o p h e c y (Toma 73b). In particular, Josephus notes the prophetic gift o f the high priest J o h n H y r c a n u s in b e i n g able to declare that his sons h a d just de feated A n t i o c h u s (Ant. 13.282-83). A t the beginning o f the w a r against the R o m a n s , it w a s in the T e m ple that a voice was heard declaring that the Presence o f G - d was departing (War 6.299-300). Jose phus, to b e sure, says that the U r i m a n d T h u m m i m ceased two hundred years before the composition o f the Antiquities (Ant. 3.218), that is, presumably after the reign o f J o h n Hyrcanus, w h o is presented as having attained the summit both o f the priesthood a n d o f p r o p h e c y (War 1.68-69, Ant. 13.299-300). O n Josephus's views c o n c e r n i n g the cessation o f prophecy, see Feldman 1990, 400-407. 81. T h a t it w a s not possible, after the reign o f Artaxerxes, to have prophets in the sense o f people w h o were able to c o m p o s e H o l y Scripture m a y b e seen from the w a y in w h i c h Josephus deals with the seventy (or seventy-two) translators o f the T o r a h into Greek. Philo speaks o f the translators "as if they
JOSEPHUS A S R E W R I T E R O F T H E BIBLE
In particular, w e m a y r e m a r k that a n u m b e r o f passages in rabbinic ( n o t a b l y Midrash
Lamentations
Rabbah),
61
literature
n o t r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g , t o b e sure, u n t i l a
later period, indicate a parallel b e t w e e n the events l e a d i n g u p to the destruction o f t h e t w o t e m p l e s ; a n d N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , t h e d e s t r o y e r o f t h e First T e m p l e , a n d Titus, the destroyer o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e , are frequendy described in similar t e r m s (e.g., Gittin 5 6 b ) . J o s e p h u s i m p l i e s a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e t w o w h e n h e states that the p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h not only predicted the misfortunes that w e r e to c o m e u p o n t h e c i t y o f J e r u s a l e m in his o w n d a y b u t a l s o left b e h i n d w r i t i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e s e n t - d a y c a p t u r e o f t h e c i t y (Ant. 1 0 . 7 9 ) . s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s as p r o p h e t
82
I n d e e d , as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s ' s
a n d priest explains a n u m b e r
o f f e a t u r e s o f his
rewriting o f the Bible.
J O S E P H U S ' S PRIESTLY BIAS W h e n M o o r e r e m a r k s t h a t J o s e p h u s is a s o m e w h a t d i s a p p o i n t i n g s o u r c e for t h e r e l i g i o n o f his t i m e s a n d t h a t h e h a d l i t d e interest i n r e l i g i o n for its o w n s a k e , w h a t h e m e a n s is t h a t J o s e p h u s tells u s less a b o u t r e l i g i o u s beliefs a n d t h e o l o g i c a l issues t h a n w e m i g h t e x p e c t ( M o o r e 1927, 1:210). S u r e l y J o s e p h u s h a d a t r e m e n d o u s i n terest i n r e l i g i o n ; b u t t h e p o i n t t o b e m a d e is t h a t for h i m t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n c e n tered on the T e m p l e a n d the priesthood, o f w h i c h he w a s such a p r o u d m e m b e r , r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e o l o g y as s u c h . , T h i s is t h e v e r y first p o i n t t h a t h e m a k e s i n his a u t o b i o g r a p h y (Life 1).
were divinely inspired" (Kaddirep (Trpo€<j>rjT€vov)
ivdovatwvTes)
a n d describes their work b y the term "prophesied"
(De Vita Mosis 2.7.37). Josephus, o n the other hand, carefully avoids saying that they
prophesied, since this w o u l d put them in the same category as the prophets w h o c o m p o s e d biblical books (Ant. 12.103-9). Instead, he says that they set out to work as ambitiously and painstakingly as pos sible (Ant. 12.104). T h e fact that h e adds that they washed their hands in the sea a n d thus purified them selves each day (Ant. 12.106) does not indicate that they expected divine inspiration, any more than does a present-day T o r a h scribe w h o immerses himself in a mikveh each time before writing the divine name. Finally, the fact that after the completion o f the translation, the people requested that it should remain as it was a n d not b e altered (Ant. 12.108) is an indication, not o f the prophetic status o f the translators, but o f Josephus's v i e w that o n e should not alter Scripture in the slightest (Ag. Ap. 1.42), at least in the ory, w h e n c e his o w n enigmatic promise, in v i e w o f his modifications o f Scripture, that h e will neither add to nor subtract anything from the scriptural text (Ant. 1.17). 82. T h e parallel between the destroyers o f the two temples, Babylon a n d R o m e , m a y be seen in the fact that the reference to the place o f origin o f the First Episde of Peter (dating from after 70 a n d before the early 90s) is to B a b y l o n (5:13) but is actually to R o m e (Elliott 1992, 5:276-77). T h i s letter was writ ten roughly at the time w h e n Josephus was c o m p o s i n g his Antiquities, since Josephus states that he c o m pleted that work in the thirteenth year o f the emperor Domitian, that is 9 3 - 9 4 (Ant. 20.267). T h e B o o k of Revelation, dating apparendy from after 70 a n d most likely about 9 5 - 9 6 ( A . - Y . Collins 1992, 5:700-701), appears to equate B a b y l o n with R o m e (Rev. 14:8,16:19,17:5, 18:2, 10, 21). Likewise, the a u thor of 2 B a r u c h 6 - 8 (cf. 11:1, 67:7), a younger contemporary of Josephus's, apparendy denominates the R o m a n s as C h a l d a e a n s , that is, Babylonians, a n d seems to refer to R o m e as Babylon. T h i s equation is likewise implied in 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) (3:1, 2, 28, 31), written at about the same time, as well as in the Sibylline Oracles (5.143, 158-61), dating from a somewhat later period.
62
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
S e t h S c h w a r t z h a s n o t e d in J o s e p h u s a n u m b e r o f p r o - p r i e s t l y revisions o f b o t h the l e g a l a n d n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s o f t h e B i b l e (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 8 8 - 9 0 ) . I n p a r t i c ular, J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h e priests a l o n e , r a t h e r t h a n t h e L e v i t e s , w e r e p e r m i t t e d to c a r r y t h e a r k (Ant. 3.136, 4.304); t h a t t h e k i n g m i g h t d o n o t h i n g w i t h o u t c o n sulting t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e G e r o u s i a (Ant. 4.224); t h a t M o s e s c o n s i g n e d the h o l y b o o k s to the priests a l o n e (Ant. 4.304); a n d t h a t M o s e s g a v e e q u a l p o r t i o n s to t h e priests a n d t h e L e v i t e s f r o m t h e b o o t y t a k e n f r o m the M i d i a n i t e s (Ant. 4.164), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t M o s e s a s s i g n e d to t h e L e v i t e s t e n t i m e s as m u c h as h e g a v e to t h e priests ( N u m . 3 1 : 2 7 - 3 0 ) . Significantly, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e e n u m e r a t e s p r i n c e s , L e v i t e s , a n d priests w h o m K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t sent to t h e cities o f J u d a h to t e a c h t h e m t h e l a w (2 C h r o n . 17:7-8), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e L e v i t e s (Ant. 8.395) ( a l t h o u g h n i n e o f t h e m a r e a c t u a l l y m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ) . H e likewise, in e n u m e r a t i n g t h e officers w h o m J e h o s h a p h a t a p p o i n t e d , o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e L e v i t e s (2 C h r o n . 19:11 v s . Ant. 9.6) (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 161). A s a priest, J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to t h e a t t e m p t s o f the L e v i t e s to u s u r p t h e status o f t h e priests ( N u m . 16:10), e s p e c i a l l y t h e L e v i t e K o r a h ' s a t t e m p t to u s u r p t h e p r i v i l e g e o f t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d , a n issue t h a t w a s still v e r y m u c h alive in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y (see F e l d m a n i 9 9 3 i , 411). J o s e p h u s m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n think i n g o f the i n c i d e n t , d u r i n g t h e p r o c u r a t o r s h i p o f A l b i n u s ( 6 2 - 6 4 C.E.), in w h i c h those L e v i t e s w h o w e r e singers o f h y m n s s u c c e e d e d in p e r s u a d i n g K i n g A g r i p p a II t o c o n v e n e t h e S a n h e d r i n a n d to g r a n t t h e m p e r m i s s i o n to w e a r l i n e n r o b e s o n e q u a l t e r m s w i t h t h e priests (Ant. 2 0 . 2 1 6 - 1 8 ) . T h i s , says J o s e p h u s , w a s c o n t r a r y to the a n c e s t r a l l a w s , a n d h e o m i n o u s l y d e c l a r e s t h a t s u c h t r a n s g r e s s i o n w a s b o u n d to m a k e t h e J e w s liable t o p u n i s h m e n t , p r e s u m a b l y b y G - d h i m s e l f (Ant. 2 0 . 2 1 8 ) .
83
SUMMARY A s a m o d e l for t h e r e w r i t i n g o f t h e B i b l e , J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e t u r n e d t o J e w i s h w o r k s , n o t a b l y the B i b l e itself a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t , as w e l l as e x e g e t i c a l w o r k s s u c h as Jubilees, t h e D e a d S e a Genesis Apocryphon, t h e D e a d S e a P e s h a r i m , P h i l o , P s e u d o P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, a n d r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m a n d t a r g u m i m . O f these, t h e m o d e l s t h a t a r e closest to the Antiquities a r e the S e p t u a g i n t a n d t h e t a r g u m i m ; b u t J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s their m e t h o d o f r e t e l l i n g the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e w i t h t h e critical m e t h o d t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m t h e G r e e k historians, e s p e c i a l l y T h u c y d i d e s . In addition, he m i g h t have consulted those w h o h a d rewritten E g y p t i a n a n d B a b y l o n i a n h i s t o r y o n t h e basis o f their s a c r e d c h r o n i c l e s . B u t w h i l e J o s e p h u s praises t h e c h r o n i c l e s o n w h i c h t h e y w e r e b a s e d as h a v i n g b e e n m a i n t a i n e d w i t h e x e m p l a r y c a r e , h e d o e s n o t t u r n to s u c h w r i t e r s o f O r i e n t a l a n d E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y
83. O n the b a c k g r o u n d to this dispute, see Feldman 1965, 9:504-5, n. b; Vogelstein 1889; and M e y e r 1938, 721-28, esp. 727.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
63
as H e c a t a e u s , B e r o s s u s , M e g a s t h e n e s , a n d M a n e t h o as m o d e l s o f critical histori o g r a p h y . N o r d o e s h e t u r n for his m o d e l s , w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e J e w s o r non-Jews, t o those, s u c h as D e m e t r i u s , E u p o l e m u s , P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s , a n d A r t a p a n u s , w h o h a d w r i t t e n J e w i s h history, since t h e y w e r e far f r o m a c c u r a t e a n d , in s o m e cases, were guilty o f syncretism. J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y h a d a c c e s s to the B i b l e in t h r e e v e r s i o n s — H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d a n A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e . H i s use o f these v e r s i o n s v a r i e s f r o m b o o k t o b o o k o f the B i b l e . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e w e r e in J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e d i v e r g e n t texts o f the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k v e r s i o n s . T o use the s p e l l i n g o f p r o p e r n a m e s as a litmus test for w h i c h text J o s e p h u s u s e d is u n f o r t u n a t e , i n a s m u c h as copyists often c h a n g e d t h e s p e l l i n g to c o n f o r m w i t h the l a n g u a g e t h e y w e r e e m p l o y i n g . T h e task o f d e t e r m i n i n g his s o u r c e is difficult, i n a s m u c h as h e is p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d e l a b o r a t i n g r a t h e r t h a n m e r e l y translating. M o r e o v e r , h e m a y b e f o l l o w i n g a tradition i n d e p e n d e n t o f b o t h the H e b r e w a n d the S e p t u a g i n t texts, as w e m a y infer f r o m his o c c a s i o n a l dis a g r e e m e n t s w i t h b o t h a n d his a g r e e m e n t w i t h P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical
Antiquities.
I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x c e l l e n t e d u c a t i o n in H e b r e w , o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d h i m to c o n s u l t the o r i g i n a l H e b r e w text o f the B i b l e . B u t i f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m c o m m e n t s in the Letter of Aristeas, f r o m the differences b e t w e e n the t e x t o f frag m e n t s f o u n d in the D e a d S e a c a v e s a n d the text o f the H e b r e w B i b l e as w e h a v e it today, a n d f r o m v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s c i t e d in r a b b i n i c literature, h e m a y h a v e h a d a text that differed f r o m o u r H e b r e w M a s o r e t i c text. S i n c e h e w a s r e w r i t i n g the B i b l e in G r e e k , o n e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e p h u s to b e m o r e d e p e n d e n t u p o n the G r e e k text o f the S e p t u a g i n t ; b u t h e m a y h a v e shied a w a y f r o m u s i n g t h a t text b e c a u s e its style w a s inferior to t h a t o f the classical G r e e k a u t h o r s . I n a n y case, t h e r e is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t w h e r e h e w a s u s i n g a G r e e k text, it w a s the t e x t o f the S e p t u a g i n t as w e h a v e it t o d a y in a n y o f the a p p r o x i mately t w o thousand manuscripts that have survived. T h e A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e s in the t a r g u m i m m u s t h a v e b e e n attractive t o J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y d o , to a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , w h a t h e a t t e m p t s t o d o — namely, t o p a r a p h r a s e a n d e x p o u n d the text, often w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e latitude; a n d he m a y w e l l h a v e h e a r d the T o r a h r e a d a n d e x p o u n d e d t h u s in the s y n a g o g u e . I n d e e d , the s a m e f r e e d o m in p a r a p h r a s i n g m a y b e f o u n d also in r a b b i n i c literature. T h e n u m b e r o f specific instances p o i n t i n g to use o f a n A r a m a i c t a r g u m is n o t , however, great. For the P e n t a t e u c h , J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n s o u r c e s a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n a H e b r e w text a n d a n A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e , a l t h o u g h it is h a r d , t o b e sure, to p r o v e at a n y g i v e n p o i n t w h a t t e x t J o s e p h u s is r e l y i n g u p o n . W h e r e h e s e e m s t o b e u s i n g a G r e e k text, h e m a y b e a d o p t i n g the l a n g u a g e o f P h i l o , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the a c c o u n t o f the C r e a t i o n . I n a n y case, h e d o e s n o t follow the S e p t u a g i n t blindly. Significandy, J o s e p h u s , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the o r d e r o f the stones o n the b r e a s t p l a t e o f the h i g h priest, d i s a g r e e s in several instances w i t h b o t h the H e b r e w t e x t a n d the S e p t u a g i n t . W i t h J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e closer to the H e b r e w text, b u t w i t h J u d g e s
64
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
a n d R u t h , h e is q u i t e free. I n S a m u e l , w h e r e w e n o w h a v e a c o n s i d e r a b l e f r a g m e n t f r o m the D e a d S e a caves, h e is close to the S e p t u a g i n t in the p r o t o - L u c i a n i c v e r sion. For K i n g s a n d C h r o n i c l e s , h e u s e d a S e p t u a g i n t - l i k e t e x t ( a l t h o u g h the e v i d e n c e is n o t c o n c l u s i v e t h a t for these b o o k s h e u s e d a p r o t o - L u c i a n i c text), as w e l l as, o n o c c a s i o n , a p r o t o - M a s o r e t i c H e b r e w text, a n d h a d a c c e s s to t r a d i t i o n s in e x tant targumim. For E z r a , J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y u s e d t h e a p o c r y p h a l G r e e k b o o k o f i o r 3 E s dras. For Esther, h e u s e d a G r e e k t e x t for t h e a d d i t i o n s to the B o o k o f Esther, b u t for the t e x t as a w h o l e , h e h a d a c c e s s t o H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d A r a m a i c v e r s i o n s . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s his r e a d e r s t h a t h e will n o t a d d to o r s u b t r a c t f r o m the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , the fact is t h a t h e d o e s d o so o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s i o n s , u s u a l l y for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s . P a r t i c u l a r l y striking is his a p p r a i s a l o f K i n g J e h o i a c h i n o f J u d a h , w h e r e h e is at c o m p l e t e v a r i a n c e w i t h the b i b l i c a l text. V a r i o u s t h e o r i e s h a v e b e e n p u t f o r w a r d t o e x p l a i n these d i v e r g e n c e s : t h a t J o s e p h u s c o u n t e d o n the i g n o r a n c e o f his r e a d e r s (but w e k n o w o f at least s e v e n n o n - J e w s w h o w r o t e w h o l e treatises o n the J e w s , a n d t h e r e w e r e c e r t a i n l y m a n y J e w s , e s p e c i a l l y in the D i a s p o r a , w h o c o u l d h a v e c o n s u l t e d the S e p t u a g i n t ) , o r t h a t the p r o m i s e is s i m p l y a stock f o r m u l a for a f f i r m i n g o n e ' s a c c u r a c y . A p r e c e d e n t for s u c h c h a n g e s m a y b e f o u n d in the fact t h a t the b i b l i c a l B o o k o f C h r o n i c l e s , a l t h o u g h often closely p a r a l l e l i n g the B o o k o f K i n g s , d i v e r g e s f r o m it. A n o t h e r p r e c e d e n t m a y b e f o u n d in the S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h w a s r e g a r d e d as p e r f e c t b y the A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s a n d as d i v i n e l y inspired b y the r a b b i s , a l t h o u g h it di v e r g e s f r o m the H e b r e w text. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e r e w e r e t w o distinct t h e o r i e s o f trans lation, o n e t h a t the t r a n s l a t o r h a d to g i v e a v e r b a t i m v e r s i o n a n d the o t h e r a u t h o r i z i n g h i m to take c o n s i d e r a b l e liberties in the a c t u a l l a n g u a g e o f the translation. A n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n for J o s e p h u s ' s a p p a r e n t failure to live u p to his p r o m i s e is t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d the b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n t o i n c l u d e n o t o n l y the w r i t t e n t e x t b u t the tradition later e m b o d i e d in s u c h w o r k s as the m i d r a s h i m . T h i s p a r a l l e l s the liber ties G r e e k s t o o k in d e a l i n g w i t h H o m e r i c e p i s o d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the t r a g e d i e s o f A e s c h y l u s , S o p h o c l e s , a n d E u r i p i d e s , in w h o s e w o r k s J o s e p h u s w a s so w e l l v e r s e d . M o r e o v e r , the v e r y w o r d s t h a t J o s e p h u s uses for " t r a n s l a t e " are a m b i g u o u s a n d i n c l u d e the c o n c e p t o f p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d amplifying. J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r t h a t h e is d i r e c t i n g his w o r k p r i m a r i l y t o a n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , as w e c a n see f r o m his e x p l a n a t i o n s o f simple p r a c t i c e s t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n k n o w n to J e w s w h o h a d the m o s t e l e m e n t a r y b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i r religion. M o r e o v e r , a m a j o r p u r p o s e o f his w o r k w a s t o c o u n t e r anti-Jewish slan ders. H e m a y also h a v e s o u g h t t o p o i n t o u t the attractions o f J u d a i s m to p o t e n t i a l converts. T h e r e are also, h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t i o n s that J o s e p h u s h a d a J e w i s h a u d i e n c e in m i n d , as s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f the e p i s o d e s o f the M i d i a n ite w o m e n a n d o f S a m s o n , in his effort t o c o u n t e r assimilation a n d i n t e r m a r r i a g e . A s to J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l sources, t h e r e is e v i d e n c e o f his use o f the A p o c r y p h a , n o t a b l y in his use o f 1 o r 3 E s d r a s , the A d d i t i o n s t o Esther, a n d the Wisdom of Solomon, as w e l l o f his use o f s u c h P s e u d e p i g r a p h i c b o o k s as Jubilees.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
65
A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t e x p e c t J o s e p h u s to h a v e u s e d H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n s s u c h as E u p o l e m u s as s u b s t a n t i v e a n d stylistic m o d e l s , h e a p p a r e n d y d i d n o t d o so. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t h e d i d d r a w u p o n P h i l o , p a r t i c u l a r l y for his a c c o u n t o f t h e C r e a t i o n a n d for his a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . J o s e p h u s s a w a k i n s h i p b e t w e e n h i m s e l f as h i s t o r i a n a n d t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s in the a b i l i t y t o a n a l y z e the p a s t a n d p r e s e n t a c c u r a t e l y a n d to p r e d i c t t h e future. I n particular, h e s a w p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n the d e s t r u c t i o n s o f the First a n d S e c o n d T e m p l e s . M o r e o v e r , as a p r o u d priest, J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n u m b e r o f p r o p r i e s d y r e v i s i o n s o f b o t h the l e g a l a n d n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s o f t h e B i b l e . Finally, J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to h a v e i n t r o d u c e d details o f his o w n , e s p e c i a l l y for apologetic reasons a n d u n d e r the influence o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events. O n
the
w h o l e , h e is a c a r e f u l a n d c o n s i s t e n t author.
APPENDIX: J O S E P H U S AND RABBINIC T R A D I T I O N T h e n u m e r o u s w o r k s o f J a c o b N e u s n e r h a v e l e d s o m e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t to say t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the o r a l t r a d i t i o n as later r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g b y t h e r a b b i s is a n a c h r o n i s t i c a n d that, in g e n e r a l , r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l is late a n d h e n c e n o t v e r y reliable. A n d y e t , N e u s n e r h i m s e l f asserts t h a t r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l is " t h e o r a l T o r a h , as it h a d r e a c h e d w r i t i n g b y t h e e n d o f late antiquity," the c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g , as S a n d e r s p o i n t s o u t , t h a t N e u s n e r s u b s c r i b e s to the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t G - d really d i d r e v e a l all o f r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n at a n earlier d a t e ( N e u s n e r 1987, 5 - 6 ; S a n d e r s 1990, 112). T h e possibility t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h traditions t h a t a r e f o u n d r e c o r d e d in later r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n m a y b e g l e a n e d f r o m his r e m a r k s o n his e x c e l lent e d u c a t i o n , p r e s u m a b l y in t h e l e g a l a n d a g g a d i c traditions o f J u d a i s m , w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d in his n a t i v e c i t y o f J e r u s a l e m , t h e n the c e n t e r o f J e w i s h l e a r n i n g . J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e a c q u i r e d a r e p u t a t i o n for his e x c e l l e n t m e m o r y a n d u n d e r s t a n d ing
(fJLvrjfxrj
re KCLI avveais) a n d t h a t h e a l r e a d y h a d w o n u n i v e r s a l a p p l a u s e for his
love o f l e a r n i n g (^tAoypajLc/xarov) (Life 8-9) b y the a g e o f f o u r t e e n . H e is n o t afraid to assert t h a t his c o m p a t r i o t s a d m i t t e d t h a t in J e w i s h l e a r n i n g (iTaiheiav)—and
it is
h a r d to b e l i e v e t h a t this w o u l d b e restricted to t h e w r i t t e n B i b l e o r t o p r i e s d y tra d i t i o n a l o n e — h e far e x c e l l e d t h e m (Ant. 20.263). A f t e r r e m a r k i n g t h a t in the Antiq uities, h e h a s g i v e n a t r a n s l a t i o n (fxedrjpfxrivevKa) o f t h e s a c r e d b o o k s , h e states, clearly in this c o n t e x t r e f e r r i n g to his k n o w l e d g e o f t h e B i b l e , t h a t h e is w e l l v e r s e d in t h e p h i l o s o p h y ((fyiXoao^ias) o f t h o s e w r i t i n g s (Ag. Ap. 1.54). H e r e the w o r d " p h i l o s o p h y " i m p l i e s k n o w l e d g e a b o v e a n d b e y o n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t it self—that is, p r e s u m a b l y , o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n , w h e t h e r w r i t t e n o r o r a l ( M a s o n , 1991, 2 4 0 - 4 3 ) .
84
W h i l e it is p r o b a b l y t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s n o t a v e r s e t o
b o a s t i n g , h e h a d so m a n y e n e m i e s t h a t it s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e m a d e s u c h b r o a d c l a i m s unless t h e r e w e r e s o m e basis t o t h e m .
84. K a m e s a r 1994, 67, assumes that the reference is to the tradition as transmitted orally.
66
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
J o s e p h u s e x p l i c i t l y refers to a l e g a l t r a d i t i o n s u p p l e m e n t i n g the P e n t a t e u c h w h e n h e e x p l a i n s t h a t the P h a r i s e e s h a v e p a s s e d o n to the p e o p l e c e r t a i n r e g u l a tions (vo/xt/xa) h a n d e d d o w n b y their fathers a n d n o t r e c o r d e d in the l a w s o f M o s e s , for w h i c h r e a s o n t h e y are r e j e c t e d b y the S a d d u c e e s , w h o r e g a r d as v a l i d o n l y w h a t w a s w r i t t e n d o w n in the S c r i p t u r e s (Ant. 1 3 . 2 9 7 ) .
85
W h e t h e r w e understand
t h a t this s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n w a s w r i t t e n , as a r g u e d b y M a s o n (1991, 240-43), o r o r a l , as m o s t s c h o l a r s (e.g., B a u m g a r t e n 1 9 7 2 , 7 - 2 9 ) insist, i n f l u e n c e d b y the com munis sensus t h a t the m a i n difference b e t w e e n the P h a r i s e e s a n d the S a d d u c e e s w a s t h e refusal o f the latter to a c c e p t the o r a l L a w , t h e r e w a s a b o d y o f s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n identified w i t h the P h a r i s e e s , t o w h o m J o s e p h u s a d h e r e d in his p u b l i c c a reer.
86
M o r e o v e r , as B a c h e r h a s a r g u e d , d u r i n g the T a n n a i t i c p e r i o d , t h e r e w a s n o
c l e a r distinction b e t w e e n halakhah a n d aggada as far as their r e l a t i o n s h i p to tradi t i o n w a s c o n c e r n e d ( B a c h e r 1903, 1:475-89). A s B r o o k e h a s r e m a r k e d , the use o f the d e s i g n a t i o n " m i d r a s h " for n o n r a b b i n i c exegesis h a s b e e n m u c h q u e s t i o n e d , l a r g e l y b e c a u s e it suggests t o o m u c h c o n t i n u ity b e t w e e n r a b b i n i c a n d earlier f o r m s o f scriptural i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . B r o o k e c o n c l u d e s t h a t the D e a d S e a c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n e s i s (4Q252) t h a t h e t h e r e ( B r o o k e 1994, 174-75) discusses s h o u l d b e c l a s s e d as e x h o r t a t o r y historical exegesis, the c h i e f h a l l m a r k o f w h i c h is the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f the p a s t either in o r d e r to e n c o u r a g e o r a d m o n i s h r e a d e r s to e m u l a t e their f o r e b e a r s o r t o d i s s u a d e t h e m f r o m c o p y i n g t h e m . B y s u c h a s t a n d a r d , e s p e c i a l l y in v i e w o f w h a t J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the p u r p o s e o f his w o r k in the p r o e m o f his Antiquities, t h a t w o r k m i g h t w e l l b e c l a s s e d sim ilarly as e x h o r t a t o r y historical exegesis. L i k e w i s e , in his a t t e m p t t o classify P s e u d o P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, P e r r o t distinguishes b e t w e e n texte explique, w h e r e the focus is o n e x p l a i n i n g the w r i t t e n b i b l i c a l text, w h i c h i n c l u d e s m i d r a s h , a n d texte continue, w h e r e the focus is o n the s a c r e d h i s t o r y f o u n d in the B i b l e a n d o t h e r traditions, w h i c h i n c l u d e s J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish Antiquities a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o (Perrot 1976, 2:24-28; M u r p h y 1 9 9 3 , 4 - 5 ; J a c o b s o n 1 9 9 6 , 2 2 4 - 4 1 ) . B u t the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t h e r e is n o t w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s is p r i m a r i l y interested in e x p l i c a t i n g the w r i t t e n b i b l i c a l t e x t b u t w h e t h e r h e h a d a n d u s e d o t h e r traditions a v a i l a b l e to h i m i n c o m m o n w i t h tradi tions a v a i l a b l e t o the r a b b i s o f his e r a a n d e v e n t u a l l y r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g . J o s e p h u s a n d the r a b b i s m a y h a v e p u t those traditions to different p u r p o s e s , b u t t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y s h a r e d the traditions t h e m s e l v e s . M o r e o v e r , the Q u m r a n i c f r a g m e n t s k n o w n as S e c o n d E z e k i e l c o m b i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f g e n r e s — n a m e l y , r e w o r k i n g o f a b i b l i c a l text, a p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c f r a m e w o r k b a s e d o n a n a p o c a l y p t i c c o n t e x t , a n d a h i s t o r i c i z i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S u c h a c o m b i n a t i o n , as S t r u g n e l l a n d D i m a n t h a v e r e m a r k e d , w e h a v e h i t h e r t o f o u n d o n l y in s e p a r a t e w o r k s ; h e n c e , as t h e y c o n c l u d e , w e are in n e e d o f a r e e v a l u a t i o n o f the role, func-
85. Josephus likewise refers to the oral tradition as transmitted by the Pharisees w h e n he states that Q u e e n S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a restored the regulations "introduced by Pharisees in accordance with the tradition o f their fathers" (Ant. 13.408). 86. See the closely reasoned analysis o f this key passage (Life 12) by M a s o n 1991, 342-56.
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE
67
t i o n , a n d distinctness o f the v a r i o u s literary t y p e s c u r r e n t in e a r l y J e w i s h literature (Strugnell a n d D i m a n t 1988, 57). A l t h o u g h the J e w i s h m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n h a d n o t y e t b e e n w r i t t e n d o w n , for the m o s t p a r t , b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , it c o n t a i n e d m a n y o f the a g g a d i c traditions f o u n d in J o s e p h u s .
87
S c h a l i t h a s e v e n g o n e so far as to s u g g e s t t h a t w h i l e h e w a s
l i v i n g in R o m e , J o s e p h u s h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to d e e p e n his k n o w l e d g e o f the J e w ish t r a d i t i o n (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , n x x x v ) ; b u t this s e e m s u n l i k e l y in v i e w o f the fact that h e w a s l o o k e d u p o n w i t h d i s d a i n a n d bitterness b y the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y g e n e r a l l y (Life 423—25) b e c a u s e o f w h a t t h e y r e g a r d e d as his traitorous b e h a v i o r in the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e is r o o m t o c o n j e c t u r e t h a t s o m e o f the r a b b i s , in their c o n s t a n t visits to R o m e , c h o s e t o see h i m ( a l t h o u g h t h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e to h i m i n the entire t a l m u d i c c o r p u s ) in the h o p e o f g a i n i n g his inter cession w i t h the R o m a n e m p e r o r , the i n f a m o u s D o m i t i a n , w i t h w h o m h e , a l m o s t a l o n e , c l a i m s t o h a v e r e m a i n e d o n g o o d t e r m s (Life 4 2 9 . )
88
T h a t t h e r e w a s a n a g g a d i c r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n a v a i l a b l e to J o s e p h u s s e e m s likely in v i e w o f the fact t h a t t h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s instances w h e r e the S e p t u a g i n t p a r a l c
lels r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Prijs 1948). For e x a m p l e , the p l a g u e o f arob is u n d e r s t o o d b y the s e c o n d - c e n t u r y R a b b i N e h e m i a h to consist o f s t i n g i n g insects (Exodus
Rabbah
11.3), w h e r e a s t h e H e b r e w is g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t o refer to v a r i e d w i l d beasts; this is also the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 8:17). T h a t R a b b i N e h e m i a h d e r i v e d this f r o m a c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n f r o m the S e p t u a g i n t s e e m s m o r e likely in v i e w o f the fact t h a t w h e r e the r a b b i s refer t o c h a n g e s m a d e b y the translators, t h e y a l w a y s cite a c t u a l e m e n d a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n differences in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the w o r d s o f the t e x t (Megillah 9 a - b , Soferim 1:7). A g a i n , i n a s m u c h as the s e c o n d - c e n t u r y R a b b i M e i r states, as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t (Esther 2:7), t h a t M o r d e c a i h a d m a r r i e d E s t h e r (Megillah 13a), it is m o r e likely t h a t the translators o f the
87. R a p p a p o r t 1930, x x - x x i i i , concludes that Josephus h a d a written source for aggadic traditions. 88. Perhaps w e m a y identify Josephus with the nameless philosopher w h o m four great s a g e s — Joshua b e n Hananiah, A k i v a , G a m a l i e l , and Eleazar ben A z a r i a h — a r e said to have met in R o m e to w a r d the end o f Domitian's reign, seeking his aid in getting D o m i t i a n to revoke his alleged decision to kill all the Jews in the R o m a n Empire (Derek Ere% Rabbah 5). In view o f the fact that, so far as w e know, Josephus w a s the one J e w in R o m e w h o continued to have influence with D o m i t i a n , being an adopted Flavian, it w o u l d seem reasonable for the envoys to call u p o n him for his assistance. Psychologically, w e m a y add, Josephus w a s eager, because o f the m a n y accusations against him, to prove his loyalty to the Jewish people, as he did in his last written works, notably the Antiquities and, especially, Against Apion. A c cording to the T a l m u d i c text, Joshua, w h o was known for his colloquies with such thinkers, before vis iting the philosopher, asked G a m a l i e l , the patriarch, whether they should visit him; and G a m a l i e l at first objected. T h i s reply should, w e m a y add, be understood against the b a c k g r o u n d o f the fact that Gamaliel's father h a d attempted to recall Josephus from his c o m m a n d in Galilee. Identifying the philosopher as Josephus w o u l d seem to have some plausibility, especially w h e n w e note that Josephus refers to himself as well versed in the philosophy o f the Scriptures (Ag. Ap. 1.54). Moreover, there is a strange similarity between the H e b r e w letters for Flavius Josephus and the H e b r e w letters for the w o r d philosophos. T h a t the philosopher in this anecdote is referred to as a p a g a n m a y be because the rabbis sharply attacked Josephus for b e i n g so deeply immersed in G r e e k language and literature.
68
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
S e p t u a g i n t w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h this a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n t h a n t h a t R a b b i M e i r c o n sulted the S e p t u a g i n t , since the o n l y r e f e r e n c e s to the S e p t u a g i n t a l traditions in the r a b b i n i c c o r p u s are t o the c h a n g e s m a d e b y the translators i n i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s in the P e n t a t e u c h r a t h e r t h a n to p a s s a g e s in the P r o p h e t s a n d t h e W r i t i n g s . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e is n o w e v i d e n c e f r o m Q u m r a n t h a t h a l a k h i c m a t e r i a l r e c o r d e d o n l y m u c h later in the T a l m u d d a t e s f r o m at least the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d (see Schiffman 1991, 138-46; B a u m g a r t e n 1991, 147-58). T h u s Y a d i n has noted that t h e r e are p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s classification o f the l a w s a n d t h a t o f the a u t h o r o f the Temple Scroll from Q u m r a n ( Y a d i n 1977, 1:62, 9 3 - 9 4 , 305). T h e r e are e v e n p a r a l l e l s in p o i n t s o f detail: for e x a m p l e , b o t h the Temple Scroll (63:5) (like the S e p t u a g i n t ) a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 4.222) assert t h a t the p u b l i c officers o f the n e a r e s t t o w n are to w a s h their h a n d s in h o l y w a t e r o v e r the h e a d o f a heifer in e x p i a t i o n for a n u n d e t e c t e d m u r d e r e r , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t t h e y are to w a s h their h a n d s o v e r the heifer, w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g the h e a d ( D e u t . 21:6). M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d i n g to b o t h the H e b r e w B i b l e (1 K i n g s 21:13) a n d the S e p t u a g i n t (1 K i n g s 20:13), t h e r e w e r e t w o false witnesses a g a i n s t N a b o t h , w h i l e J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f t h r e e (Ant. 8.358); f r o m this, G i n z b e r g c o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s is f o l l o w i n g a n earlier h a l a k h a h t h a t r e q u i r e d t h r e e witnesses (that is, o n e a c c u s e r a n d t w o witnesses) in cases o f c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t ( G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:312, n. 39). T h e D e a d S e a Dam ascus Covenant (9:17, 22) similarly r e q u i r e s t h r e e witnesses i n c a p i t a l cases. B a u m g a r t e n c o n c l u d e s t h a t the S a d d u c e a n c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t P h a r i s a i c laxities in the s p h e r e o f purity, as f o u n d in t a l m u d i c literature, are consistent w i t h the l a w s f o u n d in the Temple Scroll a n d o t h e r Q u m r a n w r i t i n g s ( B a u m g a r t e n 1980, 157-70). M o s t recently, Q i m r o n a n d S t r u g n e l l h a v e n o t e d a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n M M T , w h i c h is d a t e d a b o u t 150 B.C.E., a n d M i s h n a h Tadaim 4:7, w h i c h is close t o it linguistically a n d f o r m - c r i t i c a l l y ( Q i m r o n a n d S t r u g n e l l 1994). A n d Q u m r a n i c h a l a k h a h s o m e times p a r a l l e l o n e side o f a r a b b i n i c d i s p u t e (Schiffman 1990 4 3 5 - 5 7 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e h a v e e v i d e n c e t h a t the o r a l L a w w a s p u t into w r i t i n g in the T a n n a i t i c p e riod, roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y with Josephus; a n d a newly discovered manuscript o f the T a l m u d (Avodah ^arah 8b, M S . M a r x - A b r a m s o n ) d e c l a r e s t h a t R a b b i Y e h u d a h b e n B a v a , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s , r e c o r d e d l a w s o f fines ( G o l d e n b e r g 1978, 18). W h a t is m o s t d i r e c d y r e l e v a n t t o o u r discussion o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f J o s e p h u s to a g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n as r e c o r d e d m u c h later in r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m is the o c c u r r e n c e o f s u c h traditions in the D e a d S e a Scrolls. I n a c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n . 9:25, " C u r s e d b e C a n a a n , a l o w l y slave shall h e b e t o his b r e t h r e n , " a f r a g m e n t a r y scroll a d d s : " H e d i d n o t c u r s e H a m , b u t r a t h e r his son, for G - d h a d b l e s s e d the sons o f 89
N o a h " ( 4 Q 2 5 2 ) . T h e p a r a l l e l in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 36.7 is r e m a r k a b l y similar: " A n d h e said, " C u r s e d b e C a n a a n , e t c . " H a m sins a n d C a n a a n is c u r s e d ? A dis-
89. See the comments by Bernstein 1994a, i o - n . Nevertheless, Bernstein (11, n. 36) is w a r y o f see ing a connection between Q u m r a n i c and rabbinic exegesis, since he believes that the simple-sense na ture o f the readings makes such hypotheses tenuous. B u t as the examples begin to multiply with the
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE
6g
p u t e b e t w e e n R a b b i J u d a h a n d R a b b i N e h e m i a h . R a b b i J u d a h says, " B e c a u s e it is w r i t t e n , ' A n d G - d b l e s s e d N o a h a n d his sons,' a n d t h e r e is n o c u r s e in t h e p l a c e o f blessing." D i m a n t h a s n o t e d a r e m a r k a b l e affinity o f traditions c o n c e r n i n g J e r e m i a h in B
t h e Q u m r a n f r a g m e n t ( 4 Q 3 8 5 ) , d a t i n g f r o m a b o u t 5 0 - 2 5 B.C.E., a n d 2 M a c e . 2 : 1 - 6 , Paraleipomena Ieremiou, 2 Apocalypse ofBaruch,
a n d t h e r a b b i n i c Pesiqta Rabbati
26 (in particular, t h a t J e r e m i a h a c c o m p a n i e d t h e d e p o r t e e s o n l y to the r i v e r E u phrates). S h e e x p l a i n s this affinity as d u e to a c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n . S h e r e m a r k s that, s u r p r i s i n g l y e n o u g h , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a lost a p o c r y p h o n o n J e r e m i a h in H e b r e w w a s postulated l o n g a g o b y several s c h o l a r s
90
w o r k i n g o n the a p o c r y p h a l , pseude-
pigraphical, a n d midrashic compositions (Dimant 1 9 9 4 , 1 3 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 28-29). D i m a n t a n d S t r u g n e l l h a v e also n o t e d the affinities o f t h e m e a n d t e r m i n o l o g y s h a r e d b y t h e D e a d S e a f r a g m e n t s o f S e c o n d E z e k i e l a n d the later r a b b i n i c Hekaloth litera ture, a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y p o i n t to a u n d e r l y i n g c o m m o n e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n ( D i m a n t a n d S t r u g n e l l 1990, 347). L i k e w i s e , P h i l o also s e e m s t o h a v e d r a w n u p o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , i n a s m u c h as h e says, q u i t e explicitly, t h a t for his a c c o u n t o f M o s e s , h e h a s d r a w n u p o n b o t h " t h e s a c r e d b o o k s , " t h a t is, f r o m the w r i t t e n B i b l e , a n d " t h e elders o f the n a t i o n " edvovs 7Tar€pcov
7Tp€G^vr€pcov)
SiaSoxrjs
(rov
(De Vita Mosis 1.1.4), a p h r a s e c l e a r l y p a r a l l e l t o J o s e p h u s ' s e/c (Ant. 13.297). T h e r e f e r e n c e is to t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n ,
w h e t h e r w r i t t e n or, m o r e p r o b a b l y , o r a l , since h e g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t h e h a s inter w o v e n w h a t h e w a s t o l d (that is, the o r a l tradition) w i t h w h a t h e h a s r e a d (that is, the w r i t t e n tradition). T h a t P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical Antiquities d r e w u p o n a n c i e n t traditions similar to those u p o n w h i c h t a r g u m i m d r e w is c l e a r f r o m his translation (3.4) o f t h e H e b r e w gopher b y cedrinis ( " c e d a r " ) , w h i c h is f o u n d in T a r g u m P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n
on
G e n . 6:14 a n d in several m i d r a s h i c sources. T h e r e are at least f o u r t e e n o t h e r s u c h e x a m p l e s . T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n P s e u d o - P h i l o a n d m i d r a s h i m a r e l e g i o n , as c i t e d b y A z a r i a h d e i R o s s i ( 1 5 7 3 - 7 5 , 104 ff.) a n d C o h n (1898, 3 1 4 - 3 2 ; cf. F e l d m a n 1 9 7 1 , lxviii-lxx). M o r e o v e r , o n e o f t h e p a i n t i n g s o f the t h i r d - c e n t u r y c . E . D u r a E u r o p o s s y n a c
g o g u e d e p i c t s H i e l (1 K i n g s 16:34), a c o n f e d e r a t e o f the priests o f B a a l , c r o u c h i n g b e n e a t h t h e altar w h i l e a s n a k e a p p r o a c h e s to bite h i m ; b u t s u c h a story is n o t m e n t i o n e d in a H e b r e w s o u r c e until m u c h later m i d r a s h i m (Exodus Rabbah 15.15, Pesiqta Rabbati 4.13a) a n d n o t fully until the t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Talqut (on 1 K i n g s 18:26). H e n c e t h a t t r a d i t i o n m u s t h a v e b e e n m o r e a n c i e n t . T h e r e h a s b e e n m u c h d e b a t e as to w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s d e p e n d e d p r i m a r i l y u p o n
publication o f previously unpublished fragments, the likelihood of a c o m m o n tradition increases, espe cially where, as here, the language is similar. 90. G i n z b e r g 1902, 2:555, argues that the author o f Pesiqta Rabbati h a d before h i m an old H e b r e w midrash.
jo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
w r i t t e n o r u p o n o r a l s o u r c e s for m i d r a s h i c - l i k e traditions. S c h a l i t b e l i e v e s t h a t d e tails i n v o l v i n g e x p o s i t i o n o f specific v e r s e s d e r i v e f r o m o r a l traditions, since this is the m i d r a s h i c style as it w a s e v e n t u a l l y r e c o r d e d , w h e r e a s l o n g e r traditions, s u c h as the a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s , are t a k e n f r o m w r i t t e n s o u r c e s (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , i : x x x i x - x l i ) . S i n c e the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s c h a n g e s are, i n d e e d , m i n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l verses, this w o u l d i n d i c a t e the p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e o f o r a l sources. R a p p a p o r t , o n t h e
other
hand, believes that Josephus w a s d e p e n d e n t u p o n written sources exclusively ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, x v ) . T h e fact, w e m a y a d d , t h a t t h e r e are n u m e r o u s details t h a t J o s e p h u s shares w i t h P s e u d o - P h i l o ,
91
his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y , w o u l d s e e m to
i n d i c a t e a c o m m o n s o u r c e . It is i m p o s s i b l e to identify this o r a n y o t h e r m i d r a s h i c s o u r c e , a l t h o u g h , as i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , it is p e r f e c d y possible t h a t J o s e p h u s d i d h a v e a c c e s s to w r i t t e n m i d r a s h i c s o u r c e s a k i n t o t h e Genesis Apocryphon, despite the fact t h a t m o s t scriptural exegesis, w h e t h e r i n s y n a g o g a l t a r g u m i m o r s e r m o n s o r a c a d e m i e s , i n J o s e p h u s ' s d a y w a s still, q u i t e obviously, o r a l in n a t u r e . T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t to b e d i s c e r n e d is J o s e p h u s ' s c h o i c e o f c e r t a i n m i d r a s h i c details f r o m w h a t e v e r s o u r c e a n d his r e a s o n s for s u c h a c h o i c e . J o s e p h u s h a s a p r o p e n s i t y for g i v i n g specific n a m e s o r o t h e r s u c h d a t a for v a g u e b i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e s — f o r e x a m p l e , t h e n a m e o f the m a n w h o i n s p i r e d the b u i l d i n g o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , N i m r o d (Ant. 1.113); the n a m e o f P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r w h o a d o p t e d M o s e s , T h e r m u t h i s (Ant. 2.224);
a
n
d the n a m e o f the p r o p h e t w h o re
b u k e d A h a b for r e l e a s i n g B e n - h a d a d , M i c h a i a h (Ant. 8.389). W e m a y g u e s s t h a t this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d e r i v e d f r o m r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m . B u t the fact t h a t details o f this t y p e are f o u n d in s u c h p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c w o r k s as Jubilees, in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, in s e c t a r i a n w o r k s s u c h as the D e a d S e a Scroll's Genesis Apocryphon, a n d 92
in the S a m a r i t a n Asatir
w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t w e are d e a l i n g w i t h a P a l e s
tinian a n d n o t m e r e l y r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , despite J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t the J e w s , u n l i k e the G r e e k s , d o n o t possess m y r i a d i n c o n s i s t e n t b o o k s (Against Apion 1.38), the fact is t h a t the o r a l t r a d i t i o n d o e s c o n t a i n n u m e r o u s v a r y i n g inter p r e t a t i o n s o f a n d a d d i t i o n s to the b i b l i c a l stories. A c l u e t o s u p p o r t the v i e w t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f a n d r e l y i n g u p o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n (cf. Berakot 10a; J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d Sanhedrin 10.28b) in his r e v i s i o n o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e m a y b e s e e n i n his a w a r e n e s s t h a t K i n g H e z e k i a h w a s childless w h e n his sickness befell h i m (Ant. 10.25-27) ( B e g g 1995c, 368). L i k e w i s e , i n his c o m -
91. See Feldman 1971, lviii-lxvi, a n d 1974, 306-7. I have noted thirty parallels between Josephus a n d Pseudo-Philo (and Z e r o n 1980,45, n. 43, has a d d e d another) that are to be found in n o other work that has c o m e d o w n to us and fifteen cases w h e r e Josephus is not alone in agreeing with Pseudo-Philo but where both m a y reflect a c o m m o n tradition. T h a t the relationship b e t w e e n Josephus and PseudoPhilo is not a simple matter may, however, be d e d u c e d from the fact that I have noted thirty-six in stances where they disagree. 92. For parallels between Josephus and. Asatir, see Gaster 1927, 6 5 - 7 9 , the evidence.
w n o
n a s
> however, stretched
JOSEPHUS AS REWRITER
OF THE
BIBLE
7/
merits a b o u t J e h o i a c h i n , J o s e p h u s , as n o t e d , s e e m s to c h a n g e the b i b l i c a l t e x t c o m p l e t e l y , so t h a t i n s t e a d o f c h a r a c t e r i z i n g J e h o i a c h i n , as d o e s the B i b l e , as o n e w h o h a d d o n e w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:9, 2 C h r o n . 36:9), h e is d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g k i n d (xprjaros;) a n d j u s t (SIKOLIOS) (Ant. 10.100). R e m a r k a b l y , the r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n h a s o n l y c o m p l i m e n t a r y statements a n d n o t a single n e g a tive r e m a r k a b o u t h i m (e.g., Midrash
Leviticus Rabbah
19.6; cf. o t h e r citations in
G i n z b e r g 1928, 6:379, n. 132; see F e l d m a n 1995, 27-30). W e h a v e a similar instance in the case o f J e h o a s h (Joash), the k i n g o f Israel. T h e Bible uses the familiar f o r m u l a that " h e d i d w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d " (2 K i n g s 13:11). A s if that w e r e n o t e n o u g h , it a d d s that " h e d i d n o t d e p a r t f r o m all the sins o f J e r o b o a m the son o f N e b a t , w h i c h h e m a d e Israel to sin, b u t h e w a l k e d in t h e m . " T h e fact that h e seized all the g o l d a n d silver a n d all the vessels o f the T e m ple in J e r u s a l e m w o u l d , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t , l e a d J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s so p r o u d o f his status as a priest, to c o n d e m n h i m utterly. Y e t J o s e p h u s h a s the v e r y opposite v i e w o f h i m , r e m a r k i n g that h e w a s a g o o d (ayaQos) m a n a n d in n o w a y like his father, J e h o a h a z , in c h a r a c t e r (Ant. 9.178). It is unlikely that J o s e p h u s , w h o writes so e x t e n sively a b o u t the kings o f J u d a h a n d Israel, has confused J e h o a s h w i t h the p e r s o n o f the s a m e n a m e w h o w a s k i n g o f J u d a h . N o r is there a n y indication that J e h o a s h h a d repented. O n the o t h e r h a n d , there is a r a b b i n i c tradition that J e h o a s h w a s re w a r d e d w i t h v i c t o r y o v e r the A r a m e a n s b e c a u s e h e h a d refused to listen to the a c cusations b r o u g h t against the p r o p h e t A m o s b y A m a z i a h (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 16.88). A similar h i n t t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a t r a d i t i o n t h a t w e find later r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g in the T a l m u d m a y b e f o u n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Z e d e k i a h . A c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , Z e d e k i a h is c l e a r l y c o n d e m n e d for h a v i n g d o n e w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:19). O n the o t h e r h a n d , the r a b b i n i c tradition, while,- t o b e sure, c r i t i c i z i n g h i m for the e g r e g i o u s c r i m e o f s w e a r i n g falsely to N e b u c h a d n e z z a r a n d n o t a b i d i n g b y his o a t h (Pesiqta Rabbati
26.129; Nedarim
65a;
Tanhuma B Exod. 33), also cites h i m as a n e x a m p l e o f the l e a d e r w h o w a s v i r t u o u s , w h e r e a s his g e n e r a t i o n w a s n o t (Arakin 17a). J o s e p h u s , like the r a b b i s , p r e s e n t s b o t h sides o f Z e d e k i a h , o n the o n e h a n d r e m a r k i n g t h a t h e w a s c o n t e m p t u o u s o f j u s t i c e a n d d u t y (Ant. 10.103),
a
n
d o n the o t h e r h a n d m e n t i o n i n g his g o o d n e s s a n d
sense o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 10.120). I n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o u g h , a f r a g m e n t f o u n d in t h e D e a d S e a c a v e s also presents the t r a d i t i o n t h a t casts Z e d e k i a h in a f a v o r a b l e light, w i t h the s t a t e m e n t t h a t " Z e d e k i a h shall e n t e r in t h a t d a y into the c o v e n a n t t o p e r f o r m a n d to c a u s e the p e r f o r m a n c e o f all the l a w " (4Q470) ( L a r s o n 1994, 2 1 0 - 2 6 ) . T h e fact that traditions k n o w n to the w r i t e r s o f the D e a d S e a m a n u s c r i p t s a n d t o J o s e p h u s t u r n u p later in r a b b i n i c literature c a n m o s t r e a d i l y b e e x p l a i n e d b y the h y pothesis t h a t b o t h d r e w u p o n a c o m m o n tradition; that the r a b b i s d r e w u p o n J o s e p h u s s e e m s unlikely, in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t t h e y n e v e r m e n t i o n h i m b y n a m e , w h e r e a s it is t h e p r a c t i c e o f the r a b b i s to cite their s o u r c e s w h e n k n o w n to t h e m . A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f m i d r a s h i c tra dition is his t r e a t m e n t o f the p a s s a g e ( D a n . 1:4) that speaks o f D a n i e l a n d his c o m p a n i o n s as y o u t h s " w i t h o u t b l e m i s h , " w h e r e a s t h e r e is a r a b b i n i c tradition, b a s e d
72
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
o n the p a s s a g e t h a t the k i n g i n s t r u c t e d his c h i e f e u n u c h to e d u c a t e the y o u t h s ( D a n . 1:3), t h a t t h e y w e r e e u n u c h s (Sanhedrin 93b). J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the tradition, resolves t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f t h e i r b e i n g e u n u c h s a n d b y stating t h a t t h e y w e r e e n t r u s t e d to " t u t o r s " (TraiSaycuyots) (Ant. 10.186). R a p p a p o r t cites 299 i n s t a n c e s w h e r e J o s e p h u s p a r a l l e l s m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t r e c o r d e d until a later, often m u c h later, p e r i o d ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, 1-71). T o these m a y b e a d d e d n u m e r o u s o t h e r i n s t a n c e s n o t e d i n this v o l u m e dealing w i t h Josephus's portrayal o f various biblical personalities. For e x a m p l e , w e m a y note that Josephus w a s a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the equation o f Esau a n d R o m e (hinted at in Ant. 1.275), w h i c h is l a t e r f o u n d also i n r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Gen esis Rabbah 65.21). J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n , also f o u n d in the r a b b i n i c a g g a d a ( t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 4 : 1 1 ; Midrash Hagadol [ed. S c h e c h t e r , 1.337]; Ex odus Rabbah 3 1 . 4 ; T a n h u m a Mishpatim
9), t h a t O b a d i a h , the s t e w a r d o f A h a b ,
s u p p o r t e d p r o p h e t s w i t h t h e m o n e y t h a t h e h a d b o r r o w e d (Ant. 9.47). H e l i k e w i s e is a w a r e o f the t r a d i t i o n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e w i d o w for w h o m E l i s h a p e r f o r m e d t h e m i r a c l e w i t h t h e j a r o f oil as t h e w i f e o f O b a d i a h (Ant. 9.47; cf. Tanhuma Ki Tissa 5, Midrash
Proverbs 31.27). T h e C h u r c h F a t h e r s , i f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m E u s e b i u s
(Demonstratio Evangelica 6 . 1 8 . 3 4 - 4 2 ) , w e r e a w a r e o f J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n , s i n c e E u s e b i u s t h e r e calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact t h a t a l t h o u g h the e a r t h q u a k e t h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h e t i m e o f K i n g U z z i a h ( Z e c h . 14:5) is n o t m e n t i o n e d in t h e B o o k o f K i n g s , J o s e p h u s , w r i t i n g , as h e says, o n the basis o f the Sevrepajois—that
is, t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n — n o t o n l y m e n t i o n s it b u t g i v e s a d d i t i o n a l
details o f it (Ant. 9.225). M o r e o v e r , the r a b b i s t h e m s e l v e s in the r e a d i n g o r t r a n s l a t i o n o f c e r t a i n e m b a r r a s s i n g p a s s a g e s f r o m the B i b l e , d e c l a r e t h a t in the s y n a g o g u e , the f o l l o w i n g are to b e r e a d b u t n o t translated: the i n c i d e n t o f R e u b e n ' s i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h his father's c o n c u b i n e ( G e n . 35:22) a n d the s e c o n d a c c o u n t o f the G o l d e n C a l f ( E x o d . 32:21-25) ( M i s h n a h , Megillah 4:10). P a r t i c u l a r l y striking is the r u l i n g stated h e r e t h a t the b l e s s i n g o f the priests ( N u m . 6:24-27), the i n c i d e n t o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 1 7 ) , a n d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the i n c i d e n t o f A m n o n a n d T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:1) are n o t o n l y n o t to b e t r a n s l a t e d b u t a r e n o t e v e n to b e r e a d . Interestingly, J o s e p h u s is in a c c o r d w i t h the M i s h n a h in o m i t t i n g the i n c i d e n t o f R e u b e n a n d B i l h a h , the s e c o n d a c c o u n t o f the G o l d e n C a l f , a n d the b l e s s i n g o f the priests, a l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t o m i t the i n c i d e n t s o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a a n d A m n o n a n d T a m a r . M o r e o v e r , t h e r a b b i s (ibid.) e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e t h a t the i n c i d e n t o f J u d a h a n d T a m a r ( G e n . 38) a n d the first a c c o u n t o f t h e G o l d e n C a l f ( E x o d . 32:1-20) a r e b o t h r e a d a n d t r a n s l a t e d , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s o m i t s b o t h . I n
the
G e m a r a o n the a b o v e p a s s a g e s , the r a b b i s a d d to the list o f p a s s a g e s t h a t are to b e r e a d a n d t r a n s l a t e d the a c c o u n t o f c r e a t i o n ( G e n . 1), the story o f L o t a n d his d a u g h t e r s ( G e n . 1 9 : 3 1 - 3 8 ) , the c u r s e s a n d blessings p r o m i s e d to Israel (Lev. 26 a n d D e u t . 27), the story o f the c o n c u b i n e in G i b e a h (Judg. 1 9 - 2 0 ) , the p a s s a g e f r o m E z e k i e l (16:1) a b o u t J e r u s a l e m ' s a b o m i n a t i o n s , a n d the rest o f the i n c i d e n t o f A m n o n a n d T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:2-22) (Megillah 2 5 a - b ) ; J o s e p h u s h a s all o f these b u t
JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R O F T H E BIBLE
73
does n o t actually e n u m e r a t e the blessings a n d curses a n d omits the passage from E z e k i e l (as h e d o e s m o s t p r o p h e t i c p a s s a g e s ) . F r o m this w e c a n see t h a t t h e r a b b i s did take the liberty o f omitting the translation or even the v e r y r e a d i n g o f certain p a s s a g e s ; a n d f r o m t h e c o m m e n t s o f t h e G e m a r a o n t h e list, w e c a n r e a d i l y d e d u c e t h a t t h e r e w e r e d i s p u t e s a m o n g t h e r a b b i s as t o h o w t o d e a l w i t h specific p a s s a g e s . Here, too, Josephus a n d the rabbis a p p e a r to b e d r a w i n g u p o n a c o m m o n tradi tion. W i t h r e g a r d t o this l i b e r a l i s m i n t r e a t i n g t h e B i b l e , w e m a y p e r h a p s
find
a
closer parallel in the w a y in w h i c h the talmudic rabbis treat the incident o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a . A l t h o u g h the p r o p h e t N a t h a n in the Bible seems to say v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t D a v i d , i n s m i t i n g U r i a h t h e H i t t i t e a n d t a k i n g his w i f e t o b e his w i f e , h a d " d e s p i s e d t h e w o r d o f t h e L - r d , t o d o w h a t is evil i n H i s s i g h t , " a n d a l t h o u g h D a v i d h i m s e l f (2 S a m . 12:13) a d m i t s , " I h a v e s i n n e d a g a i n s t t h e L - r d " (2 S a m . 12:9), R a b b i S a m u e l b a r
Nahmani
in t h e
name
o f the
third-century
Rabbi
J o n a t h a n , d i r e c d y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e B i b l e b y s t a t i n g t h a t w h o e v e r says t h a t D a v i d s i n n e d is h i m s e l f e r r i n g (Shabbat 5 6 a ) .
9 3
I n c o n c l u s i o n , if, as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h e r e a r e so m a n y p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t r a d i tions f o u n d
in J o s e p h u s ,
the
Septuagint, Philo, Pseudo-Philo, the D e a d
Sea
S c r o l l s , t a r g u m , a n d m i d r a s h i m , t h e m o s t l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t t h a t o n e d r e w from another but rather that they h a d a c o m m o n basic s o u r c e .
9 4
93. T h e rabbis seek to free D a v i d from blame in the Bathsheba affair by remarking that h e h a d de creed that everyone g o i n g forth to batde was required to divorce his wife, so that Bathsheba h a d actu ally been divorced b y U r i a h w h e n D a v i d h a d relations with h e r (Shabbat 56a). Still another v i e w pre sented there is that D a v i d did not g o through with the act at all but merely contemplated it, o r that Uriah deserved death for disobeying David's order to g o h o m e to his wife. E v e n those w h o admit that David did sin exonerate h i m because o f his wholehearted penitence after the deed (Shabbat 30a). Inter estingly, however, Josephus does not cover u p David's sin but candidly declares that although D a v i d was b y nature righteous a n d G - d - f e a r i n g , nevertheless he fell into this grave error (Ant. 7.130). In fact, Josephus considerably elaborates the account (2 S a m . 11:17) o f the death o f Bathsheba's husband U r i a h by adding to the bravery that he showed (Ant. 7.139-40), thus augmenting the guilt o f D a v i d . Josephus then elaborates o n David's repentance a n d o n G - d ' s acceptance o f that repentance, remarking that David admitted his impiety with tears o f grief, "for he was, as all agreed, a G - d - f e a r i n g m a n a n d never sinned in his life except in the matter o f Uriah's wife" (Ant. 7.153). Josephus, as w e see, was not averse to taking considerable liberties in his treatment o f other biblical personalities; if so, w e m a y well ask w h y h e did not d o so in the case o f this incident b y omitting it, as h e did several other such embarrass ing incidents. T h e reason m a y b e that since Josephus himself was descended from the H a s m o n e a n kings rather than from the line o f D a v i d , h e d o w n g r a d e d D a v i d because o f the latter's importance for Christianity as the ancestor o f the messiah, and that, in general, he was eager not to antagonize the R o mans with talk o f a messianic king 94. For extended critiques o f the m e t h o d o l o g y and views o f J a c o b Neusner, see E l m a n 1 9 8 2 , 1 7 - 2 5 ; S . J D . C o h e n 1983, 4 8 - 6 3 ; a n d Sanders 1990, 309-31.
C H A P T E R
T H R E E
The Qualities of Biblical Heroes
T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s c e n t e r s his n a r r a t i v e u p o n g r e a t h e r o e s , s u c h as A b r a h a m , J a c o b , Joseph, M o s e s , Saul, D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , w o u l d defend the J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e (Ag. Ap. 2.135) t h a t t h e y h a d failed to p r o d u c e
marvelous
(davjjLaaTovs) m e n , s u c h as i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o r o u t s t a n d i n g l y w i s e m e n . H e n c e , J o s e p h u s d e t e r m i n e d to f o l l o w t h e P e r i p a t e t i c tradition (his m a i n s o u r c e for t h e last h a l f o f t h e Antiquities w a s , it a p p e a r s , N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , a w e l l - k n o w n Peri patetic) a n d to stress t h e role o f g r e a t m e n in history. I n his a p o l o g e t i c w o r k Against Apion (2.136), h e refers the r e a d e r to this g o a l o f the Antiquities w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t " o u r o w n f a m o u s m e n are d e s e r v i n g o f w i n n i n g n o less p r a i s e t h a n the G r e e k w i s e 1
m e n a n d are f a m i l i a r to r e a d e r s o f o u r Antiquities."
T h u s , in his history, h e seeks to
a s c e r t a i n t h e h u m a n m o t i v e s o f his h e r o e s , w h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e m o r e often stresses the role o f G - d as d i r e c t i n g h u m a n a c t i o n s ( H e i n e m a n n 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 8 5 ; L o w y 1977, 482). T h i s s a m e t e n d e n c y to b u i l d u p J e w i s h b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , is to b e f o u n d in s u c h H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s as A r i s t e a s (in his Letter), A r t a p a n u s , E z e k i e l the t r a g e d i a n , P h i l o t h e Elder, a n d P h i l o t h e p h i l o s o p h e r . A n d y e t , signifi c a n t as t h e s u b j e c t is, o n e c a n assert t h a t t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f b i b l i c a l p e r s o n alities in H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h literature h a s n o w o n l y j u s t b e g u n (van d e r M e u l e n 1978, xiii).
1. In this buildup o f personalities, Josephus is akin to his alleged c o n t e m p o r a r y Pseudo-Philo in the latter's Biblical Antiquities; and this m a y explain the latter's particular attention to the B o o k o f Judges, inasmuch as that biblical b o o k organizes history around great Israelite leaders (Nickelsburg 1984, 108). Nickelsburg (ibid., 109) emphasizes that for Pseudo-Philo, g o o d or b a d leadership is an important con stituent in the strong or w e a k religious and m o r a l fiber o f the nation. W e m a y note that Josephus in the Antiquities shares this emphasis. O n this theme o f the focusing u p o n personalities, see also Nickelsburg 1980, 4 9 - 6 5 . 74
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
75
O n e m e a s u r e o f the a m o u n t o f interest t h a t a g i v e n p e r s o n a l i t y h a s for J o s e p h u s m a y b e s e e n in t h e s h e e r a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e d e v o t e s to t h a t p e r s o n . T a bles 1 a n d 2 i n d i c a t e t h e ratio o f t h e a m o u n t o f s p a c e in J o s e p h u s ( T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 ; M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 ) as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w text ( M a l b i m n.d.) a n d the G r e e k t e x t o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Rahlfs 1935). I n s u r v e y i n g these statistics o n e is struck b y the t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n in t h e at t e n t i o n g i v e n to t h e v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l figures, r a n g i n g , in t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s , f r o m Z e d e k i a h , w h o s e a c c o u n t in J o s e p h u s is 7.45 t i m e s as l o n g as t h e v e r s i o n in t h e B i b l e , a n d K o r a h , w h o s e a c c o u n t is 3.41 t i m e s as l o n g , t o N e h e m i a h , w h o s e a c c o u n t is o n l y .24 t i m e s as l o n g , a n d A a r o n , w h o s e a c c o u n t is o n l y .62 t i m e s as l o n g . T h e r e is e s p e c i a l l y g r e a t v a r i a t i o n in the a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n g i v e n to i n d i v i d u a l c
e p i s o d e s : t h u s t h e A q e d a h e p i s o d e ( G e n . 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ) h a s 35 lines in t h e H e b r e w , 4 4 lines in the S e p t u a g i n t , a n d 100 lines in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.222-36), g i v i n g a ratio o f 2.86 for J o s e p h u s ' s t e x t as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h a t o f the H e b r e w a n d 2.27 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t . J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.9-38) h a s g r e a d y e x p a n d e d t h e a c count o f Joseph's dreams a n d subsequent enslavement ( G e n . 37:1-36), w h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 57 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 78, a n d J o s e p h u s 186, g i v i n g a ratio o f 3.26 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e H e b r e w a n d 2.38 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u agint. O f s u p r e m e interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) is the e p i s o d e o f J o s e p h a n d Potiphar's wife ( G e n . 39:7-20), w h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 22 lines, the S e p t u a g i n t 32, a n d J o s e p h u s 120, g i v i n g a ratio o f 5.45 o f J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w , a n d 3.75 o f J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t . L i k e w i s e o f g r e a t interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 1 2 4 - 5 9 ) is t h e a c c o u n t o f the final test b y J o s e p h o f his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 - 3 4 ) , w h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 53 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 7 3 , a n d J o s e p h u s 217, g i v i n g a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f 4.09, a n d to t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f 2.97. T h e m e e t i n g o f the Q u e e n o f S h e b a w i t h K i n g S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 1 0 : 1 - 1 0 , 2 C h r o n . 9 : 1 - 1 2 ) is o f s p e c i a l interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8 . 1 6 5 - 7 5 ) . H e r e t h e H e b r e w in the v e r s i o n o f K i n g s h a s 18 lines, the v e r y similar v e r s i o n in C h r o n i c l e s h a s 24 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s as 75 lines. T h i s gives a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f K i n g s o f 4.17, a n d t o t h e v e r s i o n o f C h r o n i c l e s o f 3.13. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f J a c o b a n d o f J o s e p h ( G e n . 47:28-50:26) is o f m i n i m a l inter est to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 1 9 4 - 9 8 ) , w h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 132 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 219, a n d J o s e p h u s 3 6 , g i v i n g a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f .27 a n d to t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f .16. I f w e e x a m i n e h o w m u c h a t t e n t i o n P s e u d o - P h i l o , in his r e w r i t t e n B i b l e , gives to v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l figures ( H a r r i n g t o n 1976), w e a g a i n n o t e a t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n (see table 3). O n t h e o n e h a n d , P s e u d o - P h i l o d e v o t e s 2.60 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e to D e b o r a h as d o e s the H e b r e w , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s h a s m i n i m i z e d h e r role, a s s i g n i n g h e r o n l y .63 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e as d o e s t h e H e b r e w . J e p h t h a h is o f m u c h g r e a t e r interest to P s e u d o - P h i l o , o c c u p y i n g 1.89 times as m u c h s p a c e as d o e s the H e b r e w , w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s t h e ratio is o n l y .94. T h e m o s t o u t s t a n d i n g c a s e is K e n a z , w h o in the H e b r e w is m e n t i o n e d o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his father (Judg. 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) a n d o c c u p i e s o n l y five lines, w h e r e a s P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s a c c o u n t is n o less t h a n 9 6 . 8 0
TABLE i
Biblical
Figure
Biblical
C i t a t i o n s o f B i b l i c a l P e r s o n a l i t i e s in H e b r e w B i b l e , S e p t u a g i n t , a n d J o s e p h u s
Citation
Lines in Hebrew
Lines in Septuagint
Citation in Josephus, Ant.
Lines in Josephus
Noah
Gen. 5:28-9:29
155
217
1.74-108
Abraham
Gen. 1 1 : 2 6 - 2 5 : 1 1
595
698
1.148-256
713
Isaac
Gen. 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ; 2 4 : 1 - 6 7 ; 2 6 : 1 - 3 3 ; 27:1-28:5
281
384
1.222-36, 2 4 2 - 5 5 , 2 5 9 - 6 4 ,
293
Jacob
Gen. 2 5 : 1 9 - 3 4 ; 27:1-37:3, 3 2 - 3 5 ; 4 2 : 1 - 2 ;
662
1003
1.257-58, 2 6 7 - 3 4 6 ; 2 . 1 - 8 ,
215
267-75 45:25-28; 4 6 : 1 - 2 6 ; 4 7 : 7 - 1 2 , 2 8 - 3 1 ; 4 8 : 1 - 2 ;
718
168-88, 194-97
49:1-50:14 Joseph
Gen. 37; 3 9 - 4 8 ; 5 0 : 1 - 2 6
Moses
Exod. 2 : 1 - 1 9 : 25; 2 4 : 1 - 1 8 ; 3 2 : 1 - 3 4 ; 33:1-36:6;
627
856
2,406
3,384
2.9-167, 189-93, 198-200
1,025
2.205-3.107, 188-192,
2,816
4 0 : 3 1 - 3 5 ; Num.11:1-14:45; 1 6 : 1 - 1 7 : 2 8 ;
212-13, 265-68,
20:1-21:35; 25:16-18; 27:1-23; 31:1-32:42;
300-22; 4.1-66, 7 6 - 1 0 1 ,
Deut. 1:1-4:49; 8 : 1 1 - 1 1 : 3 2 ; 2 9 : 1 - 3 4 : 1 2
141-44, 156-71, 176-95, 302-31
Jethro
Exod. 2 : 1 6 - 2 1 ; 4:18; 1 8 : 1 - 2 7
Aaron
Exod. 4 : 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 7 - 3 1 ; 5 : 1 - 2 1 ; 7 : 1 - 1 3 , 1 9 - 2 1 ;
48
76
461
613
2 . 2 5 8 - 6 4 , 277; 3 . 6 3 - 7 4
120
2 . 2 7 9 , 3 1 9 ; 3.54, 64,
287
8:1-21; 9:8-10, 27-28; 10:3-8, 1 6 - 1 8 ;
188-92, 205-11,307,
11:10; 1 2 : 1 , 2 8 - 3 1 , 4 3 , 50; 16:2-3, 6 - 7 ,
310; 4.15, 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 3 - 2 4 ,
9 - 1 0 , 3 3 - 3 4 ; 17:10; 19:24; 24:1, 9 - 1 0 , 14;
2 6 - 3 4 , 46, 5 4 - 5 8 ,
2 8 : 1 - 3 , 3 5 - 3 9 ; 29:44; 30:30; 3 2 : 1 - 2 5 , 35;
64-66,
83-85
Lev. 8 : 1 - 3 6 ; 10:3; Num. 6:22-27; 1 2 : 1 - 1 2 ; 14:5, 2 6 - 3 5 ; 16:3, 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 6 - 2 2 ; 1 7 : 6 - 2 5 ; 1 8 : 1 - 7 ; 20:2, 6, 10, 12, 2 3 - 2 9 Korah
Num. 1 6 : 1 - 3 5
Balaam
Num. 22:2-25:9; 31:8, 16; Deut. 2 3 : 5 - 6
58
75
174
273
4.11-56
198
4.102-58
363
Joshua
Ehud
Exod. 1 7 : 8 - 1 4 ; 24:13; 3 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ; 33:11; Num.l3:8, 16; 1 4 : 6 - 1 0 , 30; 27:15-23; 34:17; Deut.l:38; 3:21; 3 1 : 3 - 8 , 14, 23; 32:44, 34:9; Joshua 1 - 2 4 Judg. 3 : 1 2 - 3 0
Deborah
Judg. 4:1-5:31
104
Gideon
Judg. 6 : 1 1 - 8 : 3 5
150
Jephthah
Judg. 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 2 : 7
82
Samson
Judg. 13:2-16:31
159
Ruth Samuel
Ruth 1:1-4:22 1 Sam. 1:2-4:1; 7:3-10:27; 1 1 : 1 2 - 1 2 : 2 5 ; 1 3 : 8 - 1 5 ; 1 5 : 1 - 3 , 1 0 - 1 6 : 1 3 ; 1 9 : 1 8 - 2 1 ; 15:1; 28:11-19 1 Sam. 9 : 1 - 2 Sam. 1:27 1 Sam. 1 6 : 1 - 1 Kings 2:11 Sam. 2 : 1 3 - 3 1 ; 3:22-31, 39; 8:16; 1 0 : 7 - 1 4 ; 1 1 : 6 - 7 , 1 1 , 1 4 - 2 5 ; 12:26-28; 1 4 : 1 - 3 , 1 8 - 2 4 , 2 9 - 3 3 ; 1 8 : 2 - 5 , 1 1 - 2 3 , 29; 1 9 : 1 - 8 , 13; 20:7-23; 2 4 : 3 - 9 ; 1 Kings 1:7; 2 : 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 3 5
155 436
Saul David Joab
1,048
29
1,065 1,839 245
1755
3 . 4 9 - 5 2 , 59, 3 0 8 - 1 0 ; 4.165, 1 7 1 , 1 8 6 , 3 1 1 , 315, 324, 326; 5 . 1 - 1 1 9
46 (Version A) 5 . 1 8 5 - 9 7 48 (Version B) 172 (Version A) 5 . 2 0 0 - 1 0 166 (Version B) 245 (Version A) 5 . 2 1 3 - 3 3 242 (Version B) 131 (Version A) 5 . 2 5 7 - 7 0 129 (Version B) 276 (Version A) 5 . 2 7 6 - 3 1 7 271 (Version B) 5.318-37 202 5.341-51; 6.19-67, 83-94, 701 100-5, 131-33, 141-66, 221-23, 292-94, 322-36 6.45-7.6 1,632 6.157-7.394 3,022 7 . 1 1 - 1 9 , 3 1 , 3 9 , 45, 398 64, 66, 1 1 0 , 1 2 2 - 2 6 , 129, 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 - 4 1 , 144-45, 159-60, 1 8 1 - 8 7 , 1 9 1 - 9 3 , 233, 2 3 6 - 4 2 , 2 4 5 - 4 7 , 250, 253-57,281-92,318-20, 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 350, 352, 359, 386; 8.9, 1 3 - 1 6
828
71 66 135 77 242 115 814
2,332 4,239 602
(continued)
TABLE i
Biblical
Figure
Biblical
Citation
(continued) Lines in Hebrew
Lines in Septuagint
Citation in Josephus, Ant.
Lines in Josephus
Absalom
2 Sam. 1 3 : 2 0 - 1 9 : 8
317
508
Solomon
1 Kings 1 : 1 1 - 1 1 : 4 3 ;
672
1,070
122
181
214
360
8.205-45, 265-87
463
8.212-24,246-65
214
8.286, 2 9 0 - 9 7 , 3 0 4 - 6 ,
104
7.172-257 7.335-42, 348-62,
580 1721
3 7 0 - 8 8 , 392; 8 . 2 - 2 1 1 1 Chron. 22:2-23:1; 2 8 : 1 - 2 9 : 3 0 Jeroboam
1 Kings 1 1 : 2 6 - 4 0 ; 1 2 : 1 - 1 4 : 2 0 ; 2 Chron. 1 3 : 1 - 2 0
Rehoboam Asa
1 Kings 1 2 : 1 - 2 4 ; 1 4 : 2 1 - 3 1 ;
61
90
2 Chron. 1 0 : 1 - 1 2 : 1 6
91
136
2 Chron. 1 4 : 1 - 1 6 : 1 4
75
113
314-15 Ahab
1 Kings 6:29-22:40
340
527
8.316-92, 398-420
Elijah
1 Kings 1 7 - 1 9 , 2 1 : 1 7 - 2 9 ; 2 Kings 1:3-2:12
221
350
8.319-54, 360-62; 9.20-28
336
Jehoshaphat
2 Kings 3:7-27 + 2 Chron. 1 7 : 1 - 2 1 : 1
201
297
8.393-9.17; 9 . 1 9 - 4 4
405
Jehoram of Israel
2 Kings 3 : 1 - 2 7 ; 6:8-23; 7 : 1 0 - 2 0 ; 8 : 2 8 - 2 9 ;
164
212
9.27, 2 9 - 4 1 , 5 1 - 5 2 , 6 0 - 7 3 ,
316
9:15-26 Elisha
2 Kings 2 : 1 - 2 5 ; 3 : 1 1 - 2 0 ; 4 : 1 - 4 4 ; 5:8-7:2;
672
81-86, 105-6, 112-19 278
425
7:16-8:15; 9:1-3; 13:14-21
9.28, 3 4 - 3 7 , 4 6 - 6 0 , 6 7 - 7 4 ,
308
8 5 - 9 2 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 175, 178-83
Jehu
2 Kings 9 : 1 - 1 0 : 3 6
123
203
9.105-39, 1 5 9 - 6 0
247
Hezekiah Jonah Manasseh
2 Kings 1 8 - 2 0 + 2 Ghron. 2 9 - 3 2 Jonah 1 - 4
353 47
542 111
9.160-76; 10.1-36 9.207-14
2 Kings 2 0 : 2 1 - 2 1 : 1 8 +
364 70 69
106
10.37-46
63
106 113 24
157 184
10:48-78
181
Jehoiachin
2 Chron.32:33-33:20 2 Kings 22:1-23:30; 2 C h r o n . 34:1-35:27 2 Kings 2 4 : 8 - 1 7 ; 25:27-30
Zekekiah Gedaliah
2 Kings 24:17-25:21 2 Kings 25:22-26; Jer. 4 0 : 1 - 4 1 : 1 8
42 146
(LXX: 4 7 : 1 - 4 8 : 1 8 ) Dan. 1 - 6 , 8
407
Josiah
Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Esther
Ezra 7 - 1 0 (LXX: 1 Esd. 8-9) Neh. 1 - 1 3 (LXX: 2 Esd. 1 1 - 2 3 ) Esther 1 - 1 0
183 589 378
38 60
10.97-102 1 0 . 1 0 2 - 5 0 , 154
38 313 133
102
10.155-75
790 304
10.186-218, 232-81 11.121-58
792 615
11.159-83
537 224 144
11.184-296
515
8o
GENERAL
TABLE 2
CONSIDERATIONS
R a t i o o f Josephus to H e b r e w Bible a n d Septuagint; E u l o g i e s o f B i b l i c a l F i g u r e s in J o s e p h u s
Biblical
Figure
Ratio of Josephus to Hebrew Text
Ratio of Josephus to Septuagint
Eulogy (citation)
Eulogy (no. of words)
Noah
1.30
.99
Abraham
1.20
1.02
1.256
14
Isaac
1.04
.76
1.346
27
Jacob
1.08
.72
2.196
19
Joseph
1.63
1.20
2.198
33
Moses
1.17
Jethro
2.16
1.68
Aaron Korah
.62 3.41
2.64
Balaam
2.09
1.33
Joshua Ehud
.79 2.45
.83.
4.328-31
127
.47
.47
5.118
43
5.317
52
1.54 (Version A) 1.48 (Version B)
Deborah
.63
Gideon
.90
.38 (Version A) .40 (Version B) .55 (Version A) .56 (Version B) .59 (Version A)
Jephthah Samson
.94
.60 (Version B)
1.52
.88 (Version A) .89 (Version B)
Ruth
.74
.57
Samuel
1.87
1.16
6.292-94
86
Saul
2.19
1.43
6.343-50
373
David
2.31
1.40
7.390-91
109
Joab
2.46
1.51
Absalom
1.83
1.14
Solomon
2.56 (to 1 Kings)
1.61 (to 1 Kings)
2.17 (to 1 Kings
1.38 (to 1 Kings
+ 1 Chron.) Jeroboam Rehoboam Josiah
22
9.182
26
+ 1 Chron.)
2.16
1.29
3.51 (to 1 Kings)
2.38 (to 1 Kings)
2.35 (to 2 Chron.)
1.57 (to 2 Chron.)
1.71 (to 2 Kings)
1.15 (to 2 Kings)
1.60 (to 2 Chron.)
8.211
.98 (to 2 Chron.)
Asa
1.39
.92
Ahab
1.98
1.28
Elijah
1.52
.96
Jehoshaphat
2.01
1.36
1.93
1.49
1.11
.72
Jehoram of Israel Elisha
Biblical Figure
Ratio of Josephus to Hebrew Text
Ratio of Josephus to Septuagint
Jehu Jonah Hezekiah Manasseh Jehoiachin Zekekiah Gedaliah
2.01 .67 2.18 .91 1.58 7.45 .91
1.22 .42 1.51 .59 1.00
Daniel Ezra Nehemiah
1.32 1.22 .24 1.36
Esther TABLE 3
Biblical
Figure
Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob Joseph Moses Aaron Korah Balaam Joshua Kenaz Deborah Gideon Jephthah Samson Samuel Saul
Eulogy (citation)
Eulogy (no. of words)
5.22 1.30 .68 .74 .18 .84
B i b l i c a l Personalities in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical
Citation in Bib. Ant.
No. of lines
3.4-4.1 6.11-8.3 8.3-4 8 8.4, 8 . 6 - 9 8.9-10 9.1-11.5,14; 12.1-18.1; 19.1-16 12.2-3 16.1-7 18.2-14 20.1-24.6 25.1-28.10 30.5-33.6 35.1-36.4 39.2-40.9 42.1-43.8 50.1-53.13; 55.1-59.3; 64.5-8 56.4-65.5
73 109 8 24 13 601
Antiquities
Ratio o/'Bib. Ant. to Hebrew text Al .18 .03 .02 .02 .25
17
.04
42 100 284 484 270 88 155 125 428
.72 .57 .27 96.80 2.60 .56 1.89 .79 .98
360
.34
times as l o n g . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , P s e u d o - P h i l o h a s g r e a d y d i m i n i s h e d t h e role o f J o s e p h , f r o m t w i c e as m u c h s p a c e in J o s e p h u s to .02 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e i n P s e u d o - P h i l o , as w e l l as t h e role o f S a u l , f r o m 2.19 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e in J o s e p h u s to .34 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e in P s e u d o - P h i l o . I f w e ask w h y a figure s u c h as R u t h is n o t built u p b y J o s e p h u s , t h e a n s w e r w o u l d s e e m to b e t h a t she w a s n o t a m a j o r historical figure a n d h e n c e h a r d l y a
82
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
m o d e l for t h e r a n g e o f v i r t u e s to b e e m u l a t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s . M o r e o v e r , b e i n g a w o m a n , she w a s s u b j e c t t o J o s e p h u s ' s p a t e n t m i s o g y n y , as s e e n , for e x a m ple, in his snide r e m a r k (War 7.399) a b o u t t h e w o m a n at M a s a d a w h o w a s " s u p e rior in s a g a c i t y a n d t r a i n i n g t o m o s t o f h e r s e x . " O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e to his e n c o m i u m o f S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) as to his e u l o g y o f M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 3 2 8 - 3 1 ) o r D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 ) , four t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i u m o f S a m u e l (Ant. 6.292-94), a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i a o f I s a a c (Ant. 1.346), J a c o b (Ant. 2.196), J o s e p h (Ant. 2.198), J o s h u a (Ant. 5.118), S a m s o n (Ant. 5.317), a n d S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.211). F r o m this w e m a y see s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s identified h i m s e l f w i t h S a u l , w h o , like h i m , h a d b e e n a g e n e r a l , a n d l o o k e d u p o n h i m as a f o r e m o s t p a r a d i g m for e x p r e s s i n g t h e g o a l s o f his w o r k , in t e r m s o f its specific a p o l o g e t i c a i m s .
THE C A N O N OF QUALITIES OF G R E A T MEN T h a t Josephus w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the type o f rhetorical exercises k n o w n
aspro-
gymnasmata ( N e y r e y 1994, esp. 178-80) a n d , in particular, w i t h t h a t b r a n c h d e a l i n g w i t h e n c o m i a , s e e m s likely in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t in his defense o f t h e J e w i s h c o n stitution (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 ) , h e a p p a r e n t l y f o l l o w e d the s t a n d a r d p a t t e r n for s u c h e n c o m i a , as d e s c r i b e d m o s t fully in t h e later h a n d b o o k b y t h e M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (IJepl
third-century
emSet/cri/cow) ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 3 : 3 3 1 - 4 4 6 ; B a l c h
1974; 1975, 1 8 7 - 9 2 ; 1982, 1 0 2 - 2 2 ) . T h e r h e t o r i c i a n T h e o n in his p r e f a c e n o t e s t h e utility o f r h e t o r i c a l exercises for t h e w r i t i n g o f h i s t o r y ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 2:60 ff.; B u t t s 1986); a n d w e m a y r e c a l l C i c e r o ' s f a m o u s r e m a r k (De Legibus 1.5) t h a t h i s t o r y is a n opus . . . unum . . . oratorium maxime ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 1 , 1 4 9 - 6 9 ) .
2
Isocrates, in his Evagoras (71), o n e o f t h e earliest o f b i o g r a p h i e s , lists six items as c r u c i a l to h a p p i n e s s : a n o b l e l i n e a g e b e y o n d c o m p a r e , u n e q u a l e d p h y s i c a l a n d m e n t a l gifts, s o v e r e i g n t y g l o r i o u s l y a c h i e v e d a n d c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h life, i m m o r t a l f a m e , a life p r o l o n g e d to o l d a g e b u t free f r o m the ills t h a t afflict o l d a g e , a n d offspring b o t h n u m e r o u s a n d g o o d l y . X e n o p h o n , in his Agesilaus (10.4), likewise o n e o f the earliest o f b i o g r a p h i e s , calls his h e r o b l e s s e d b e c a u s e h e h a d r e a l i z e d m o s t c o m p l e t e l y a m o n g m e n o f his t i m e his y o u t h f u l p a s s i o n for r e n o w n , b e c a u s e n e v e r t h r o u g h o u t his r e i g n w a s h e b a l k e d in his h i g h a m b i t i o n s , a n d b e c a u s e , h a v i n g at t a i n e d the farthest limit o f h u m a n life, h e d i e d w i t h o u t h a v i n g i n c u r r e d offense ei t h e r as r e g a r d s t h o s e w h o m h e l e d o r t h o s e a g a i n s t w h o m h e m a d e w a r . P l i n y t h e E l d e r (Natural History 7.43.139), in his e n c o m i u m o f L u c i u s C a e c i l i u s M e t e l l u s , re p o r t s t h a t h e a c h i e v e d t h e t e n g r e a t e s t a n d m o s t e x c e l l e n t t h i n g s in the q u e s t for w h i c h m e n o f w i s d o m s p e n d their lives: t o b e a c h a m p i o n w a r r i o r , t h e b e s t orator, t h e b r a v e s t g e n e r a l , c o m m a n d e r in t h e g r e a t e s t u n d e r t a k i n g s , r e c i p i e n t o f t h e
2. O n progymnasmatic exercises and, in pardcular, their apparent use by historians, see M a r r o u 1956, 194-205; N o r t h 1956, 234-42; and C l a r k 1957, 177-212.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
83
h i g h e s t official p r e f e r m e n t , a l e a d e r in w i s d o m , the l e a d i n g senator, possessor o f g r e a t w e a l t h g a i n e d b y h o n e s t m e t h o d s , father o f m a n y c h i l d r e n , a n d the m o s t dis t i n g u i s h e d m a n o f the state. I n the t y p e o f s p e e c h k n o w n as a n e n c o m i u m , as d e l i n e a t e d in T h e o n o f A l e x a n d r i a ' s h a n d b o o k , attention w a s g i v e n to a p e r s o n ' s o r i g i n a n d b i r t h , n u r t u r e a n d training, d e e d s o f the b o d y (beauty, strength, agility, m i g h t , health), d e e d s o f the soul (justice, w i s d o m , t e m p e r a n c e , m a n l i n e s s , piety), d e e d s o f fortune (power, w e a l t h , friends, n u m b e r a n d b e a u t y o f c h i l d r e n , f a m e , fortune, l e n g t h o f life, h a p p y death), a n d c o m p a r i s o n w i t h like p e r s o n a l i t i e s ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 7 9 - 8 0 ) . It is these s a m e factors a n d qualities u p o n w h i c h J o s e p h u s focuses in his o w n a u t o b i o g r a p h y a n d in portraits o f his m a j o r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s . I f w e e x a m i n e s u c h k e y figures in J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e as A b r a h a m , J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , S a m s o n , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d Esther, w e shall see t h a t stress is g e n e r a l l y p l a c e d o n the e x t e r n a l qualities o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature, the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f c h a r a c t e r — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e — , a n d the spiritual attribute o f piety. L e s t o n e think p i e t y a J e w i s h a d d i t i o n to the list o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, o n e s h o u l d take n o t e o f S o c r a t e s ' q u e s t i o n in P l a t o ' s Protagoras (349B): " A r e w i s d o m a n d self-control a n d c o u r a g e a n d j u s t i c e a n d p i e t y five n a m e s t h a t d e n o t e the s a m e t h i n g ? " H e n c e , p i e t y is the fifth o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, as w e see also in t h e o u t l i n e o f the e n c o m i u m as n o t e d a b o v e . I n g e n e r a l , the J e w i s h h e r o m u s t b e a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in the P l a t o n i c style, a h i g h priest, a p r o p h e t , a n d a v e r i t a b l e Pericles as d e s c r i b e d b y T h u c y d i d e s . S i n c e J o s e p h u s w a s a d d r e s s i n g a p r e d o m i n a n d y n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , his h e r o h a d to fulfill the q u a l i fications a s c r i b e d b y T a c i t u s to his r e v e r e d father-in-law, A g r i c o l a (Tacitus, Agricola 4 4 - 4 5 ) : a life e n d e d in its p r i m e b u t r i c h in glory, a t t a i n m e n t o f the true blessings o f virtue, c o n s u l a r a n d t r i u m p h a l h o n o r s , w e a l t h sufficient for his desires, d e a t h before t h a t o f wife a n d c h i l d , i n t e g r i t y o f p o s i t i o n a n d r e p u t a t i o n , u n s e v e r e d links o f r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d friendship, a n d a v o i d a n c e o f the m a s s a c r e s p e r p e t r a t e d b y the e m p e r o r D o m i t i a n , w h i c h t o o k p l a c e o n l y after his d e a t h . T h e r e c i t a t i o n o f A g r i c o l a ' s v i r t u e s is a v e r i t a b l e aretalogy, s u c h as w a s p o p u l a r in H e l l e n i s t i c times, e s p e c i a l l y for rulers ( G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 5 5 - 1 0 4 ; H a d a s 1 9 5 9 , 1 7 0 - 8 1 ; v a n d e r M e u l e n 1978, 5 1 - 6 0 ) . O n e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t these qualities w e r e h a r d l y restricted t o G r e e k s o r R o m a n s , a n d that t h e y w e r e i m p o r t a n t t o J e w s as well. B u t w h a t is decisive is the p h r a s e o l o g y J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s , w h i c h is so often reminiscent o f G r e e k writers, especially Dionysius o f Halicarnassus.
Antiquity T o establish the stature o f a p e o p l e , it w a s first o f all n e c e s s a r y to establish its a n tiquity ( F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 , 1 7 7 - 2 0 0 ) . A s J o s e p h u s states, e v e r y n a t i o n a t t e m p t s to t r a c e its o r i g i n b a c k to the r e m o t e s t a n t i q u i t y in o r d e r n o t to a p p e a r to b e m e r e i m i t a tors o f o t h e r p e o p l e s (Ag. Ap. 2.152). I n his a p o l o g e t i c essay Against Apion (1.7-8), J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t the G r e e k s w e r e relative n e w c o m e r s to c i v i l i z a t i o n , " d a t i n g ,
84
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
so to speak, f r o m y e s t e r d a y o r the d a y b e f o r e " ; in the f o u n d a t i o n o f cities, the in v e n t i o n o f the arts, a n d the c o m p i l a t i o n o f a c o d e o f laws, t h e y h a d b e e n antici p a t e d b y the E g y p t i a n s , the C h a l d a e a n s , the P h o e n i c i a n s , a n d , a b o v e all, the J e w s . O n e recalls the r e m a r k o f the a g e d E g y p t i a n priest to S o l o n , " Y o u G r e e k s are al w a y s c h i l d r e n ; in G r e e c e t h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g as a n o l d m a n " (Plato,
Timaeus
22B). T h e E g y p t i a n sneers at the g e n e a l o g i e s o f the G r e e k s , w h i c h , h e says, are lit tle b e t t e r t h a n n u r s e r y tales (Plato, Timaeus 23B). G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c h as P y t h a g o r a s (Ag. Ap. 1.162-65), T h e o p h r a s t u s (Ag. Ap. 1.166-67),
a
n
d A r i s t o t l e (Ag. Ap. 1.176-82), historians s u c h as H e r o d o t u s (Ag. Ap.
1.168-71), H e c a t a e u s (Ag. Ap. 1.183-205), a n d A g a t h a r c h i d e s (Ag. Ap. 1.205-12), p o e t s s u c h as C h o e r i l u s (Ag. Ap. 1.172-74), a n d m a n y o t h e r s c i t e d o n l y b y n a m e (Ag. Ap. 1.216) establish the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s a n d often e x p r e s s a d m i r a t i o n for their w i s d o m a n d piety. I n d e e d , in the v e r y first s t a t e m e n t in the treatise Against
Apion,
J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t h e h a s , in the Antiquities, m a d e c l e a r t h e e x t r e m e antiq uity o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h e v e r y title o f the Antiquities, literally " a n c i e n t l o r e , " u n d e r l i n e s this. F u r t h e r m o r e , the title Against Apion is n o t J o s e p h u s ' s o w n ; a n d o n e o f the titles in the m a n u s c r i p t , IJepl apxcuorrjTos
'IovSaicw,
Concerning the Antiquity
of the Jews, e m p h a s i z e s this t h e m e . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f says (Ag. Ap. 1 . 2 - 3 )
m a t
n
s
u r
^ P "
p o s e in w r i t i n g the treatise is to d i s p r o v e those w h o discredit the statements in his p r e v i o u s historical w o r k c o n c e r n i n g the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s a n d w h o c l a i m that the J e w s are relatively m o d e r n . It is significant t h a t in the first four sections o f the treatise, J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d dpxoaoXoyia apxaiorrjs,
three times (1.1, 2, 4) a n d the w o r d
likewise m e a n i n g "antiquity," o n c e (1.3).
3
T h e earliest G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s to d e a l w i t h celestial a n d d i v i n e p h e n o m e n a , s u c h as P h e r e c y d e s o f S y r o s , P y t h a g o r a s , a n d T h a l e s , a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y J o s e p h u s as b e i n g , b y u n i v e r s a l a g r e e m e n t , disciples o f the E g y p t i a n s a n d C h a l d a e a n s (Ag. Ap. 1.14). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , the E g y p t i a n s t u r n o u t to b e students o f A b r a h a m in m a t h e m a t i c s a n d a s t r o n o m y (Ant. 1 . 1 6 6 - 6 8 ) , g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as the m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f the s c i e n c e s in a n c i e n t times. W h e n J o s e p h u s w i s h e s t o e m p h a s i z e the g r e a t w i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , h e c o m p a r e s h i m w i t h the E g y p t i a n s a n d says t h a t e v e n they, " w h o are said to e x c e l all m e n in u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w e r e n o t only, w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h h i m , a little inferior b u t p r o v e d to fall far short o f the k i n g in s a g a c i t y " (Ant. 8.42). J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s t o stress t h a t e v e n s u c h critics o f the J e w s as the E g y p t i a n M a n e t h o , as w e l l as the T y r i a n archives, D i u s , M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s , a n d the C h a l d a e a n B e r o s u s , b e a r w i t n e s s to the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 1.69-160). T h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t the R o m a n s a t t a c h e d to establishing their a n t i q u i t y m a y b e seen f r o m the d e t e r m i n e d a t t e m p t o f V i r g i l in his Aeneid to t r a c e the a n c e s t r y o f the R o m a n s b a c k t o the f a m e d T r o j a n s a n d specifically to A e n e a s , the son o f
3. T h e r e are indications that even anti-Jewish writers such as A p i o n admitted that the Jews were an ancient people. See Feldman 1987-88, 199-206.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
85
V e n u s , the d a u g h t e r o f Jupiter. W e m a y r e c a l l L i v y ' s f a m o u s c o m m e n t in his pref a c e (7) t h a t i f a n y n a t i o n d e s e r v e s the p r i v i l e g e o f c l a i m i n g a d i v i n e ancestry, t h a t n a t i o n is R o m e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d w h y J o s e p h u s p l a c e d s u c h stress, in his a p o l o g e t i c s , o n his c l a i m t h a t M o s e s w a s the m o s t a n c i e n t legislator w h o e v e r l i v e d 4
(Ag. Ap. 2.154), n e x t to w h o m s u c h f a m o u s l a w g i v e r s as L y c u r g u s o f S p a r t a , S o l o n o f A t h e n s , a n d Z a l e u c u s o f L o c r i s " a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n b o r n yesterday," w h e r e a s a n e t e r n i t y h a s p a s s e d since M o s e s (Ag. Ap. 2.279). Genealogy W h e n P l a t o (Hippias Maior 2 8 5 D ) defines apxaioXoyia
( w h i c h h a p p e n s t o b e the
tide o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , Antiquities), the first subject w h i c h h e says it i n c l u d e s is g e n e a l o g i e s o f h e r o e s a n d o f o r d i n a r y m e n . Its i m p o r t a n c e is seen in the
Menexenus
a s c r i b e d to h i m , w h e r e h e says, " T h e y w e r e g o o d b e c a u s e t h e y s p r a n g f r o m g o o d fathers." W i t h r e g a r d to g e n e a l o g y , the first o f the thirty-six stages, a c c o r d i n g to the G r e e k r h e t o r i c i a n T h e o n o f A l e x a n d r i a , w h e n p r a i s i n g a p e r s o n , w a s to l a u d his a n c e s t r y ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 2 : 6 0 - 1 3 0 ; T a l b e r t 1980, 135). I n d e e d , the G r e e k s m a d e a v i r t u e o f g o o d b i r t h in a n d o f itself. I n H o m e r , w h e n G l a u c u s m e e t s D i o m e d e s , t h e y first e x c h a n g e g e n e a l o g i e s (Iliad 6 . 1 2 3 - 2 3 1 ) . H e r o d o t u s
(7.204,
8.131) m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f t r a c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l g e n e a l o g i e s o f K i n g L e o n i d a s a n d L e o t y c h i d e s b a c k t w e n t y g e n e r a t i o n s , n a m i n g all their a n c e s t o r s g o i n g b a c k t o H e r a c l e s . H e similarly t r a c e s the g e n e a l o g y o f T h e r a s o f S p a r t a (4.147), L a i u s o f T h e b e s (5.59), A r i s t o d e m u s o f S p a r t a (6.52), a n d the Persians A b r o c o m e s a n d H y p e r a n t h e s (7.224). M o r e o v e r , A n t i g o n e in S o p h o c l e s ' p l a y (line 38) is d e s c r i b e d as w e l l - b o r n b y n a t u r e (evyevrjs -n-e^vKas). W e see the s a m e e m p h a s i s in A r i s t o d e ' s d e scription o f the g r e a t - s o u l e d m a n (pLeyaXoi/tvxos)
as w e l l - b o r n (evyevr)s)
(Mco-
machean Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 4 A 2 1 - 2 2 ) . W h e n A r i s t o d e c o n s i d e r s the gifts o f fortune b y w h i c h h u m a n c h a r a c t e r is affected, his first t o p i c o f discussion is g o o d b i r t h (Rhetoric 2 . 1 5 . 1 3 9 0 B 1 1 - 3 0 ) . T h e w e l l - b o r n w i l l l o o k d o w n , h e says, e v e n o n t h o s e w h o are as g o o d as their o w n a n c e s t o r s . W h e n C o r n e l i u s N e p o s (Epaminondas
1)
b e g i n s his life o f E p a m i n o n d a s , h e speaks o f his f a m i l y a n d o n l y t h e n g o e s o n t o discuss his e d u c a t i o n a n d his p e r s o n a l qualities. Similarly, w e m a y n o t e t h e g e n e a l o g i e s o f f a m o u s h e r o e s in the f o l l o w i n g : P l u t a r c h , Theseus 3; Fabius Maximus Brutus 1 - 2 ; Pyrrhus 1; Lycurgus 1; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius
1.4; Historia
1;
Augusta,
5
Hadrian 1 . 1 - 2 ; and Antoninus Pius 1.1—7 ( T a l b e r t 1980, 135). W e c a n also see the i m p o r t a n c e o f g e n e a l o g y in the b i o g r a p h y o f A g r i c o l a (4) b y J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y T a c i t u s . A n d , o f c o u r s e , w e s h o u l d n o t e the i m p o r t a n c e g i v e n t o g e n e a l o g i e s o f J e s u s in the G o s p e l s o f M a t t h e w (1:2-16) a n d L u k e (3:23-38). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t
4. S o also Eupolemus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Eu 9.26.1).
5. Even so, the Egyptians, if w e m a y j u d g e from Plato (Timaeus 22B), had sneered at the genealo gies of the Greeks as being litde better than nursery tales.
86
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
the h e r o o r h e r o i n e s h o u l d b e o f lofty b i r t h is o n e o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features o f 6
H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s . S o m u c h stress w a s p l a c e d o n g e n e a l o g y t h a t the m a t t e r b e c a m e a fit s u b j e c t for satire, as w e see in the p a r o d y o f H o m e r k n o w n as " T h e B a t tie o f the F r o g s a n d M i c e , " w h e r e (line 13) a frog asks a m o u s e : " W h o are y o u , stranger? W h e n c e d o y o u c o m e t o this s h o r e ? A n d w h o is the o n e w h o b e g o t y o u ? " J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f b e g i n s his a u t o b i o g r a p h y w i t h a d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f his p e d i g r e e , t r a c i n g b a c k b o t h his priestly a n d his r o y a l a n c e s t r y (Life 1-6). H e also stresses t h a t b e f o r e m a r r y i n g a w o m a n , a priest m u s t investigate h e r p e d i g r e e , " o b t a i n i n g the g e n e a l o g y f r o m the a r c h i v e s a n d p r o d u c i n g a n u m b e r o f w i t n e s s e s " (Ag. Ap. 1.31-32). T h i s e m p h a s i s o n g e n e a l o g y , h e a d d s , is to b e s e e n n o t m e r e l y in J u d a e a b u t also w h e r e v e r J e w s are settled. H e h i m s e l f w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o u d t h a t the C r e tan w o m a n w h o m he married c a m e o f very distinguished parents—indeed,
the
m o s t n o t a b l e p e o p l e in C r e t e [Life 427). I n c o n t r a s t , at a p p r o x i m a t e l y the t i m e w h e n J o s e p h u s w a s stressing the i m p o r t a n c e o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d ancestry, a l t h o u g h s o m e o f the r a b b i s , s u c h as J u d a h H a n a s i , w e r e said t o b e o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d g e n e a l o g y , m a n y h a d a n c e s t o r s o f n o p a r ticular note. I n d e e d , s o m e , s u c h as S h e m a i a h , A b t a l i o n , a n d M e i r , w e r e d e c l a r e d to b e d e s c e n d e d f r o m s u c h n o t o r i o u s a n c e s t o r s as Sisera, S e n n a c h e r i b ,
Haman
(Gittin 57b), a n d N e r o (Gittin 5 6 a ) — a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the stress w a s p l a c e d n o t u p o n g l o r i o u s g e n e a l o g y b u t u p o n o n e ' s o w n l e a r n i n g a n d piety. P e r h a p s b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s so p r o u d o f his ancestry, b e i n g d e s c e n d e d f r o m the first o f the t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s o f the priests, as w e l l as (on his m o t h e r ' s side) f r o m the H a s m o n e a n s [fife 1-8), h e f r e q u e n t l y a d d s s u c h details w h e n t h e y are n o t f o u n d e x p l i c i t l y in the B i b l e . T h u s , J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t A b r a h a m w a s the t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after N o a h (Scripture s i m p l y e n u m e r a t e s his a n c e s tors) a n d a d d s t o his a n t i q u i t y b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t h e w a s b o r n 992 y e a r s after the F l o o d (Ant. 1.148). H e t h e r e b y i n c r e a s e s b y s o m e 701 y e a r s the i n t e r v a l b e t w e e n the F l o o d a n d the b i r t h o f A b r a h a m . J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h u s s e e m to b e a n s w e r i n g s u c h d e t r a c t o r s o f the J e w s as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 9 . 2 - 3 ) , w h o h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t A b r a h a m w a s b o r n o n l y t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s after N o a h . I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , A b r a h a m ' s s e r v a n t E l i e z e r c o m m e n d s R e b e k a h for h e r g o o d b i r t h (evyevetas) a n d g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t (Ant. 1.247). W h e n J a c o b first m e e t s R a c h e l , h e gives his g e n e a l o g y at s o m e l e n g t h (Ant. 1.288-90). I n e x p l a i n i n g w h y J a c o b l o v e d J o s e p h m o r e t h a n his b r o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s a d d s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h ' s b e a u t y o f p e r s o n , w h i c h h e o w e d n o t o n l y to his e x c e l l e n c e o f c h a r a c t e r b u t also to his g o o d b i r t h (euyevetav), t h a t is, to the fact t h a t his m o t h e r , R a c h e l , w a s e x c e p t i o n a l l y beautiful (Ant. 2.9). A m r a m , M o s e s ' father, is d e s c r i b e d as o f n o b l e b i r t h (ev yeyovorcov) (Ant. 2.210), w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y
6. See S c h m e l i n g 1980, 21, w h o notes that genealogy w o u l d have been the first thing on a H e l
lenistic author's mind as he b e g a n his novel, and that this is true o f X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus's Habrocomes
andAnthia, as well as of the tale of C u p i d and Psyche in Apuleius's Metamorphoses (4.28) and o f the novel
Apollonius of Tyre. Cf. Goethals 1959,1 ff.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
87
d e s c r i b e s h i m as " a m a n f r o m the h o u s e o f L e v i " ( E x o d . 2:1). K o r a h t o o is d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g a m o n g the m o s t e m i n e n t o f the H e b r e w s b y r e a s o n b o t h o f his b i r t h (yevei) a n d o f his riches (Ant. 4.14). M o s e s speaks o f the n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h o f his b r o t h e r A a r o n as n o t b e i n g the f a c t o r t h a t justifies the b e s t o w a l o f the h i g h priest h o o d u p o n h i m (Ant. 4.26), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t o t h e r s m i g h t t h i n k so. Similarly, in e x t r a b i b l i c a l additions, G i d e o n ' s father is d e s c r i b e d as o n e o f the f o r e m o s t (ev oXiyots)
a m o n g the tribe o f M a n a s s e h (Ant. 5.213), J e p h t h a h as a
m i g h t y m a n b y r e a s o n o f the v a l o r o f his a n c e s t o r s (hid TTJV irarpojav 5.257), S a m s o n ' s father as o n e o f the f o r e m o s t (ev oXiyots
dperrjv) (Ant.
dpiaros)
D a n a i t e s (Ant. 5.276), S a u l ' s father K i s h as o f g o o d b i r t h (ev yeyovcos,
a m o n g the Ant. 6.45),
S a l l u m o s ( S h a l l u m , the h u s b a n d o f the p r o p h e t e s s H u l d a h ) as o f h i g h r e p u t e a n d o f illustrious f a m i l y (oV evyevetav
ein^avovs,
Ant. 10.59) ( w h e r e a s the B i b l e speaks
o f h i m [2 K i n g s 22:14] as m e r e l y the k e e p e r o f the w a r d r o b e ) , G e d a l i a h (the g o v e r n o r o f J u d a e a ) as c o m i n g f r o m a n o b l e f a m i l y (rtov ev yeyovorwv,
Ant. 10.155),
7
a n d E s t h e r as d e s c e n d e d f r o m a r o y a l f a m i l y (Ant. 11.185). I f J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e l a b o r a t e o n E z r a ' s g e n e a l o g y as f o u n d in the B i b l e ( E z r a 7 : 1 - 5 ) it is p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e w i s h e d t o stress E z r a ' s s u b o r d i n a t i o n to M o s e s . J o s e p h u s ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h n o b l e b i r t h is also s e e n in the a c c o u n t o f D e c i u s M u n d u s ' s love affair w i t h P a u l i n a , w h o w a s h e l d in h i g h r e g a r d " b e c a u s e o f h e r d e s c e n t f r o m n o b l e R o m a n s " (Ant. 18.66) O n the o t h e r h a n d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n , slaves are disqualified f r o m b e i n g witnesses b e c a u s e o f their l o w birth (dyeveia) (Ant. 4.219). Birth T h e r e are m a n y parallels to the p r e d i c t i o n s a n d w o n d r o u s events a t t e n d i n g the 8
birth o f b o t h the m y t h o l o g i c a l a n d the historical h e r o , i n c l u d i n g the motifs o f the p r e d i c t i o n o f his greatness, o f his a b a n d o n m e n t b y his m o t h e r , a n d o f his o v e r c o m i n g the ruler o f the l a n d . J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s m a y best b e a p p r e c i a t e d w h e n his a c c o u n t is c o m p a r e d w i t h parallels in classical literature,
9
which were un
d o u b t e d l y w e l l k n o w n t o m a n y o f J o s e p h u s ' s literate r e a d e r s , as w e l l as w i t h m i d r a s h i m a n d w i t h the S a m a r i t a n tradition. I n t h e p e r i c o p e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s the p r e d i c t i o n o f the E g y p t i a n sa c r e d scribe t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e b o r n to the Israelites a c h i l d w h o w o u l d s o m e d a y a b a s e the s o v e r e i g n t y o f the E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.205). O n e is t h e r e b y r e m i n d e d o f the story, so c e n t r a l in A e s c h y l u s ' s Prometheus trilogy, o f the t h r e a t e n e d o v e r t h r o w o f
7. Moreover, Josephus's preoccupation with noble birth is seen in the account of Decius Mundus's love affair with Paulina, w h o was held in high regard "because o f her descent from noble R o m a n s " (Ant. 18.66). 8. See R a n k 1909, Norden 1924, and T h o m p s o n 1957,5:50, M 311 (s.v. "Prophecy, future greatness of unborn child") for numerous references in various mythologies. 9. O n Josephus's knowledge of Greek literature, see Feldman 1984b, 392-419, 819-22, and 935-37. O n his knowledge o f Latin literature, see Thackeray 1929, 119-20, Nadel 1966, 256-72, and D a u b e 977, 9 - 9 4 J
I
I
88
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Z e u s , since T h e t i s , w h o m h e is c o u r t i n g , is d e s t i n e d to h a v e a s o n m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n the father. O n e also thinks o f the o r a c l e t h a t h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t D a n a e , the d a u g h t e r o f A c r i s i u s , the k i n g o f A r g o s , w o u l d give b i r t h to a s o n w h o w o u l d kill his grandfather, a n d o f A c r i s i u s ' s v a i n a t t e m p t to k e e p his d a u g h t e r shut u p in a s u b t e r r a n e a n c h a m b e r (or t o w e r ) .
10
O n e thinks o f O e d i p u s , w h o s e father L a i u s
h a d b e e n w a r n e d b y a n o r a c l e t h a t i f h e b e g a t a son, h e w o u l d b e slain b y h i m . H e r e , t o o , the infant w a s e x p o s e d b u t w a s s a v e d a n d e v e n t u a l l y d i d slay his father. O t h e r s u c h parallels in G r e e k m y t h o l o g y m a y b e cited: A c h i l l e s , Paris, T e l e p h u s , and Heracles. F r o m R o m a n m y t h o l o g y , the births o f R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s m a y b e c i t e d ;
11
in
their case, K i n g A m u l i u s o f A l b a L o n g a n o t o n l y forcibly d e p r i v e d his o l d e r b r o t h e r N u m i t o r o f the t h r o n e t h a t w a s rightfully his b u t p l o t t e d to p r e v e n t N u mitor's descendants from seeking revenge b y m a k i n g Numitor's daughter, R h e a Silvia, a V e s t a l V i r g i n , t h u s p r e c l u d i n g h e r f r o m m a r r y i n g . T h i s p l o t w a s foiled, h o w e v e r , w h e n she b e c a m e , b y t h e w a r g o d M a r s , the m o t h e r o f twins, w h o , al t h o u g h t h r o w n into the T i b e r R i v e r (thus p a r a l l e l i n g P h a r a o h ' s o r d e r s t h a t m a l e c h i l d r e n b e d r o w n e d ) , w e r e w a s h e d a s h o r e , s u c k l e d b y a she-wolf, a n d
then
b r o u g h t u p b y the r o y a l h e r d s m a n Faustulus; e v e n t u a l l y t h e y o v e r t h r e w A m u l i u s a n d r e s t o r e d N u m i t o r t o the t h r o n e . A p a r a l l e l in classical literature to J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t i o n s o f the b i r t h o f s u c h h e r o e s as M o s e s a n d S a m s o n is the a n n u n c i a t i o n b y the P y t h i a n priestess at D e l p h i t o the father o f P y t h a g o r a s t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e b o r n to h i m a s o n o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y b e a u t y a n d w i s d o m ( I a m b l i c h u s 5.7). T h e r e is also a l e g e n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h P l a t o o f the c h i l d w h o will o v e r c o m e a ruler ( D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 3.2). L i k e w i s e , t h e a p o c a l y p t i c t e c h n i q u e is s e e n in D i d o ' s p r e d i c t i o n o f t h e b i r t h o f o n e w h o w o u l d a v e n g e h e r b e i n g j i l t e d , n a m e l y , H a n n i b a l ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 4.625) ( H a d a s 1948, 413). T h e r e are similar historical p a r a l l e l s t h a t w e r e c o n c e i v a b l y w e l l k n o w n to J o s e p h u s a n d t o his r e a d e r s . T h u s , H e r o d o t u s (1.107) tells o f the d r e a m o f A s t y a g e s , k i n g o f the M e d e s , t h a t his d a u g h t e r M a n d a n e w o u l d h a v e a s o n w h o w o u l d c o n q u e r A s i a . W h e n the son, C y r u s , is b o r n , A s t y a g e s , like P h a r a o h , o r d e r s t h a t h e b e killed; b u t a h e r d s m a n saves h i m a n d rears h i m . T h e son u l t i m a t e l y b e c o m e s k i n g o f Persia a n d defeats A s t y a g e s in battle. M o s e s w o u l d t h u s b e e q u a t e d w i t h C y r u s , the g r e a t n a t i o n a l h e r o o f the Persians.
10. Nevertheless, D a n a e b e c a m e the m o t h e r o f the hero Perseus through her uncle or through Zeus, w h o visited her in the form o f a shower o f gold. Acrisius ordered the m o t h e r and her son to be exposed at sea in a chest (so reminiscent o f the one in w h i c h Moses w a s exposed), but they were res cued. Eventually the prophecy was fulfilled w h e n during funeral games for Polydectes, the king o f S e riphos, where the chest landed, the disc thrown b y Perseus w a s carried by the w i n d against the h e a d o f Acrisius and killed him. 11. See Dionysius o f Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.76.1). O n Josephus's knowledge o f Dionysius, see Feldman 1984b, 407-8, 9 3 5 - 3 6 .
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
8g
W e m a y also n o t e t h a t p r i o r to the b i r t h o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t , his father, Philip, d r e a m e d t h a t h e w a s p u t t i n g a seal in the figure o f a l i o n in his wife's w o m b (Plutarch, Alexander 2.5); a n d the seer A r i s t a n d e r o f T e l m e s s u s i n t e r p r e t e d this t o m e a n t h a t Philip's wife O l y m p i a s w a s p r e g n a n t w i t h a s o n w h o w o u l d s o m e d a y p r o v e as stout a n d c o u r a g e o u s as a l i o n . I :
1 2
T h e r e is a c o m p a r a b l e p a s s a g e in L u k e
I —
3 3 3 ? w h e r e the a n g e l G a b r i e l p r e d i c t s to M a r y the f o r t h c o m i n g b i r t h o f a c h i l d
w h o will r e i g n o v e r the h o u s e o f J a c o b forever ( R o b b i n s 1981, 2 9 5 - 9 6 ) . T h e r e is a n affinity b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the b i r t h o f M o s e s after the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d scribe h a s p r e d i c t e d the b i r t h o f a n Israelite c h i l d w h o will o v e r t h r o w the E g y p tians a n d the o r d e r s g i v e n b y P h a r a o h to destroy all m a l e c h i l d r e n b o r n to the Is raelites (Ant. 2.205-9), o n the o n e h a n d , a n d the story o f the b i r t h o f Jesus a n d the s l a u g h t e r o f the i n n o c e n t s ( M a t t . 2:16), o n the o t h e r (Ferrari d ' O c c h i e p p o 1 9 7 7 , 1 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , in his Life of Augustus (94), S u e t o n i u s gives a n a c c o u n t o f the o m e n s t h a t o c c u r r e d before A u g u s t u s w a s b o r n , as w e l l as those t h a t a p p e a r e d o n the v e r y d a y o f his b i r t h a n d afterwards, f r o m w h i c h , h e c o n c l u d e s , it w a s possible to a n t i c i p a t e his future g r e a t n e s s a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d g o o d fortune. I n particular, h e relates (94.4) that A u g u s t u s ' s m o t h e r fell a s l e e p in the T e m p l e o f A p o l l o , a n d t h a t the b i r t h o f A u g u s t u s n i n e m o n t h s later s u g g e s t e d a d i v i n e paternity. I n d e e d , D i o C a s s i u s (45.1) r e p o r t s the b e l i e f t h a t A p o l l o e n g e n d e r e d A u g u s t u s . H e i n c l u d e s t h r e e d r e a m s a m o n g f o u r t e e n s u c h i t e m s ; for e x a m p l e , a m a n d r e a m e d o f the s a v i o r o f the R o m a n p e o p l e , a n d t h e n , o n m e e t i n g A u g u s t u s for the first time, d e c l a r e d t h a t h e w a s the b o y a b o u t w h o m h e h a d d r e a m e d . Similarly, Philostratus tells o f a p o r tent at the b i r t h o f the p h i l o s o p h e r A p o l l o n i u s ; " N o d o u b t , " h e r e m a r k s , " t h e g o d s w e r e g i v i n g a r e v e l a t i o n — a n o m e n o f his brilliance, his e x a l t a t i o n a b o v e e a r t h l y things, his closeness t o h e a v e n " (Life of Apollonius ofTyana 1 . 5 ) .
13
J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s c o n s i d e r a b l y b o t h the a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d the e x p e c t a t i o n s u r r o u n d i n g the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f M o s e s ' b i r t h (Ant. 2 . 2 1 0 - 1 6 ) . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s a d d s e x t r a b i b l i c a l details d e s c r i b i n g the birth itself, n o t i n g that J o c h e b e d g a v e birth w i t h g e n d e n e s s a n d w i t h o u t a n y v i o l e n t throes (Ant. 2.218), thus i m p l y i n g t h a t this w a s the b i r t h o f a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y child. L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s g o e s c o n s i d e r a b l y b e y o n d the B i b l e in h e i g h t e n i n g the e x p e c t a t i o n s s u r r o u n d i n g the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f S a m s o n ' s b i r t h (Ant. 5 . 2 7 6 - 8 4 ) . H i s
12. Cf. Q u i n t u s Curtius, History of Alexander 1, w h o notes a portent plus an interpretive prophecy. 13. See Talbert 1980, 129-41, w h o cites similar examples from Suetonius's lives o f the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, N e r o , Vespasian, and Titus, as well as from Plutarch's lives o f Pericles (6.2-3), M a r ius (3.3-4.1), and Lycurgus (5), and from the lives o f the emperors H a d r i a n (2.4, 8, 9), Severus (1.7-8), and Antoninus Pius (3.1-5) in the Historia Augusta. T h e convention, as Talbert remarks, being subject to perversion, could be ridiculed in satire, as in Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet. S u c h analogies might support the arguments o f Gressmann 1913 and Freud 1939 that M o s e s was the son o f Pharaoh's daugh ter and that the real intention o f Pharaoh's c o m m a n d was not to drown the H e b r e w children but rather to secure the death o f his daughter's child. But neither Josephus nor any o f the Jew-baiters w h o m he cites in the essay Against Apion make such a claim, and it is hazardous to conjecture. A n o t h e r a n a l o g y would be with O e d i p u s .
go
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
father, w e are told, w a s m a d l y in love w i t h his wife a n d i n o r d i n a t e l y j e a l o u s (Ant. 5.277); a n d the s c e n e o f the a n g e l ' s a p p e a r a n c e t o M a n o a h ' s wife is g r e a t l y e m b e l l i s h e d (Ant. 5 . 2 7 7 - 7 8 ) . Precociousness O n e o f the subjects t h a t a n e n c o m i u m w a s to c o v e r w a s the p e r s o n ' s n u r t u r e a n d t r a i n i n g ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 8 2 - 8 3 ) . M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (2.371.17-372.2) cites as a t o p i c to b e c o v e r e d w h e t h e r the p e r s o n w a s r e a r e d in a p a l a c e a n d w a s b r o u g h t u p f r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g in a r o y a l setting. T h e e n c o m i u m s h o u l d s p e a k o f his " l o v e o f l e a r n i n g , his q u i c k n e s s , his e n t h u s i a s m for study, his e a s y g r a s p o f w h a t w a s t a u g h t h i m . " I n this respect, J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h a v e m o l d e d his b i b l i c a l h e roes in his o w n i m a g e (or v i c e versa), since h e cites his o w n p r e c o c i t y , n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e still a m e r e y o u t h , a b o u t f o u r t e e n y e a r s o f age, h e w o n u n i v e r s a l a p p l a u s e for his love o f letters, a n d t h a t the c h i e f priests a n d the l e a d i n g m e n o f J e r u s a l e m u s e d t o c o m e t o h i m c o n s t a n d y for p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to the l a w s (Life 9). O n e o f the t y p i c a l motifs o f H e l l e n i s t i c , R o m a n , C h r i s t i a n , a n d r a b b i n i c
1 4
bi
o g r a p h i e s o f a h e r o e s alike w a s the e x c e p t i o n a l p h y s i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t , beauty, selfc o n t r o l , a n d p r e c o c i o u s intellectual d e v e l o p m e n t attributed child.
15
to the h e r o as a
I n the c a s e o f a h e r o s u c h as R o m u l u s , it is his s u p e r i o r i t y o f stature a n d
strength o f b o d y t h a t i m p r e s s his g r a n d f a t h e r N u m i t o r w h e n his identity is n o t y e t k n o w n (Plutarch, Romulus 7 . 3 - 4 ) . A g a i n , it is w h i l e still a b o y t h a t A l e x a n d e r s h o w s s u c h r e m a r k a b l e self-restraint w h e n it c o m e s to p l e a s u r e s o f t h e b o d y , k e e p i n g his spirit serious a n d lofty in a d v a n c e o f his y e a r s , despite his t e n d e n c y to i m p e t u o s i t y a n d v i o l e n c e in o t h e r m a t t e r s (Plutarch, Alexander 4.8). Similarly, J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' g r o w t h in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (avveais)
far
o u t s t r i p p e d his p h y s i c a l g r o w t h , a n d t h a t e v e n in his g a m e s , h e d i s p l a y e d his s u p e riority (Trepiovolav), so t h a t his a c h i e v e m e n t s e v e n at t h a t t e n d e r a g e g a v e p r o m i s e o f g r e a t e r d e e d s y e t to c o m e (Ant. 2.230).
16
W h i l e y e t a n infant, M o s e s flings to the
14. See Perrot 1967, 481-518, w h o has collected the aggadic materials relating to the childhood of N o a h , A b r a h a m , Isaac, Moses, Samson, Samuel, and Elijah. T h u s w e hear, for example, that A b r a ham in his third year recognized that all the idols of his father were naught and destroyed them (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 38, T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 11:28). 15. O n e m a y note the examples, cited b y Talbert 1980, 135, in Plutarch's Theseus (6.4), Solon (2), Themistocks (2.1), Dion (4.2), Alexander (5.1), Romulus (8), a n d Cicero (2.2); Quintus Curtius's History of Alexan der (1); Philostratus's Life of Apollonius ofTyana (1.7. n ) ; Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance; 1 Enoch 106:11 (where N o a h blesses G - d while still in the hands of a midwife); Philo's De Vita Mosis (1.5.20-24, 1.6.25-29); and Jubilees 11-12 (Abraham as a child prodigy). See Bieler 1935, 1:34-38, and Usener 1912, 4:127-28. T h e latter cites the examples of Evangelos of Miletus (Conon, Narrationes 44), Amphoteos and A k a r n a n the son o f Callirhoe (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1.7.4). C f Luke 2:40, 52, where we are told that the child Jesus "grew a n d became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of G - d was upon him. . . . A n d Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature a n d in favor with G - d and man." See Scherb 1930, cited by Levy 1927, 141, n. 4. 16. T o be sure, Moses' precocity is also recognized b y Philo, w h o notes that the young Moses did not engage in fun, frolic, and sport like an infant, even though his guardians were utterly lenient, but
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
gi
g r o u n d the c r o w n p l a c e d u p o n his h e a d b y P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.233), t h u s p r e s a g i n g his later l e a d e r s h i p o f the r e b e l l i o n o f the H e b r e w s .
1 7
S u c h a p i c t u r e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f
that o f t h e t e n - y e a r - o l d future P e r s i a n k i n g C y r u s , w h o s e p a r e n t a g e w a s d i s c o v ered through an incident while he was playing with village boys, w h e n he ordered o n e o f t h e m t o b e b e a t e n b e c a u s e h e h a d d i s o b e y e d his c o m m a n d . L i k e w i s e , w e m a y n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s the t h e m e o f the p r e c o c i o u s n e s s o f S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.2, 211) a n d o f J o s i a h (Ant. 10.50) (see F e l d m a n 1993k, 1 1 5 - 1 6 ) .
Physical Attractiveness A l s o to b e c o v e r e d in a n e n c o m i u m , a c c o r d i n g to the r h e t o r i c i a n s , are the p e r s o n ' s " a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s " (eVtTTySeu^aTa) a n d " d e e d s " (irpd^eis). I n the f o r m u l a t i o n s o f the r h e t o r i c i a n s H e r m o g e n e s , A p h t h o n i u s , a n d T h e o n , the o n e c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r t h a t is s i n g l e d o u t u n d e r the h e a d i n g o f " d e e d s o f the b o d y " is b e a u t y ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 8 3 - 8 7 ) . I n his consistent e m p h a s i s u p o n the h a n d s o m e n e s s o f his h e r o e s , J o s e p h u s re m i n d s us o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f p h y s i c a l b e a u t y for H o m e r — a s , for e x a m p l e , in the s c e n e w h e r e t h e G r e e k s r u n to g a z e u p o n the stature (forjv) a n d a d m i r a b l e f o r m (etSos dyrjTov) o f H e c t o r after h e h a s b e e n slain b y A c h i l l e s (Iliad 22.370). T h i s stress o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f p h y s i c a l b e a u t y calls to m i n d Plato's r e m a r k t h a t the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s s h o u l d b e , so far as possible, the m o s t h a n d s o m e
(eveiheardrovs)
p e r s o n s (Republic 7.535 A n - 1 2 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , S o c r a t e s ' c l o s i n g p r a y e r in the Phaedrus (279) is t h a t his o u t e r a n d i n n e r b e a u t y m a y b e as o n e . T h i s s e e m s to b e a s t o c k r e m a r k a b o u t the future g r e a t m a n , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in the s t a t e m e n t o f A p o l l o n i u s - I a m b l i c h u s (10, p . 1 1 , lines 6 - 7 ; cf. A p u l e i u s , Florida) t h a t e v e r y o n e t u r n e d (eWaTpe<£e) to l o o k at the b o y P y t h a g o r a s ; i n d e e d , the v e r b h e uses for those w h o g a z e d is the s a m e as t h a t e m p l o y e d b y J o s e p h u s in his a d d i t i o n t h a t all w h o t u r n e d t o l o o k at the c h i l d M o s e s w e r e a m a z e d at his b e a u t y (Ant. 2.231) ( L e v y 1927, 141). I n the v e r y earliest o f b i o g r a p h i e s , I s o c r a t e s ' Evagoras (22-23), w e find the attributes o f b e a u t y a n d b o d i l y strength as the sine q u a n o n o f the h e r o ; t h u s h e r e p o r t s t h a t E v a g o r a s f r o m his y o u t h w a s e n d o w e d w i t h these qualities, a n d that t h e y i n c r e a s e d as h e b e c a m e older. L i k e w i s e , w e h e a r t h a t w h e n the t w i n s R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s b e c a m e m e n , t h e y s h o w e d t h e m s e l v e s b o t h in d i g n i t y o f a s p e c t (fjLopcfrrjs) a n d e l e v a t i o n o f m i n d " n o t like s w i n e h e r d s a n d n e a t h e r d s , b u t s u c h as w e m i g h t e x p e c t those to b e w h o are b o r n o f r o y a l r a c e a n d are l o o k e d to b e the offspring o f the g o d s " ( D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , Ant. Rom. 1 . 7 9 . 1 0 ) .
18
"applied himself to learning and seeing what was sure to perfect the soul" (De Vita Mosis 1.5.20). Cf. the remark in the Mishnah, Nedarim 2:1, and in Ketubot 60a, that G - d gave wondrous increase of M o s e s ' stature. His precocity is also recognized in rabbinic literature (Song of Songs Rabbah 1.26). 17. T h e r e is a parallel in the rabbinic tradition (Exodus Rabbah 1.26; Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10). 18. O n the importance in the Hellenistic period of having a king look the part of a king, see G o o d enough 1928, 72.
g2
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
T h i s e m p h a s i s o n b e a u t y is p a r a l l e l e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e a n g e l s w h o c a m e t o L o t a n d w h o a r e s a i d t o e x c e l (8ia>epovras) in h a n d s o m e n e s s (evTTpeTTeLq)
o f a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 1.200). T h a t t h e h e r o m u s t b e h a n d s o m e a p p e a r s
f r o m t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f J a c o b ' s sons (Ant. 2.98), o f w h o m J o s e p h u s says t h a t it w a s i m p o s s i b l e for a n y c o m m o n e r t o h a v e r e a r e d s u c h d i s t i n g u i s h e d figures
(poppas)
w h e n e v e n k i n g s f o u n d it h a r d t o raise t h e like. J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t it w a s n o t o n l y J o s e p h ' s v i r t u o u s qualities o f soul b u t also t h e b e a u t y o f his a p p e a r a n c e t h a t m a d e h i m e s p e c i a l l y b e l o v e d o f his father (Ant. 2.9); a n d h e e m p h a s i z e s t h a t it w a s b o t h b e c a u s e o f his c o m e l y a p p e a r a n c e a n d his d e x t e r i t y t h a t P o t i p h a r ' s wife b e c a m e e n a m o r e d o f h i m (Ant. 2.41). T h e s a m e q u a l i t y is stressed b y P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r T h e r m u t h i s w h e n s h e first b e h o l d s t h e infant M o s e s a n d is e n c h a n t e d b y his size (pueyeOovs)
and beauty
(KOLWOVS) (Ant. 2.224). S h e speaks o f b o t h his d i v i n e b e a u t y (puop<j)fi re Qeiov) a n d his o u t s t a n d i n g intellect (cfrpovripLaTi yevvaiov)
(Ant. 2.232), t h e v e r y n o u n s t h a t a r e u s e d
by Dionysius o f Halicarnassus to designate the excellence o f R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s (Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t w h e n M o s e s w a s t h r e e y e a r s o l d , G - d g a v e w o n d r o u s i n c r e a s e t o his s t a t u r e ,
19
so t h a t passers-by c o u l d n o t a v o i d b e i n g
a m a z e d at his b e a u t y o f f o r m (evpiopcfrias)
w h e n t h e y b e h e l d h i m (Ant. 2.230). W e
are t o l d t h a t it often h a p p e n e d t h a t p e r s o n s m e e t i n g h i m as h e w a s b o r n e a l o n g the r o a d t u r n e d (eViar/oe^eaflcu), b e i n g a t t r a c t e d b y t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e c h i l d , a n d n e g l e c t e d their serious affairs i n o r d e r t o give their t i m e t o g a z i n g a t h i m (Ant. 2.231). C o n s e q u e n t l y , h e h e l d his b e h o l d e r s s p e l l b o u n d w i t h his b o u n t i f u l a n d u n d i l u t e d c h i l d i s h c h a r m (xdpis
rj TraihiKr)
TTOXXT) KOI
20
aKparos).
W e m a y also
p e r c e i v e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b e a u t y for J o s e p h u s a n d his a u d i e n c e i n t h e r e m a r k t h a t O g " h a d a stature a n d b e a u t y s u c h as f e w c o u l d b o a s t " (Ant. 4.98), w h i c h h e a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( D e u t . 3:11). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n , t h e a n g e l t h a t a p p e a r s t o M a n o a h ' s wife is d e s c r i b e d as a h a n d s o m e (KaXco) a n d tall (jxeydXco) y o u t h (Ant. 5.277). J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f 1 S a m . 9:2 a d d s c o n s i d e r a b l y t o its p i c t u r e o f S a u l , w h o is n o t o n l y y o u n g a n d tall b u t also best i n s h a p e (jj,op
(Ant. 6.45). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e
in n o t i n g t h a t S a u l t o o k as his b o d y g u a r d s y o u n g m e n w h o e x c e l l e d
(SiacfHzpovTas)
in stature (pueyeOei) a n d b e a u t y (K&XXet) (Ant. 6.130), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t w h e n S a u l s a w a n y m i g h t y o r v a l i a n t m a n , h e j o i n e d h i m t o h i m s e l f (1 S a m . 14:52). T h e b e a u t y (KAXXOS)
a n d stature (puzyeQos)
o f the A m a l e k i t e k i n g A g a g a r e
c i t e d as r e a s o n s for S a u l ' s d e c i s i o n t o s p a r e h i m (Ant. 6.137). J o s e p h u s also stresses
19. T h e rabbinic tradition remarks that at the age o f five, Moses appeared full-grown both in stature and intelligence (Talqut on E x o d . 1.166). O n M o s e s ' extraordinary growth, see Tanhuma Shemot 9, Berakot 54b, Bekorot 44a, the last of which notes that Moses grew to be ten cubits (about fifteen feet) tall. 20. Philo similarly notes Moses' effect upon onlookers after his descent from M o u n t Sinai: " H e de scended with a countenance far more beautiful than w h e n he ascended, so that those w h o saw h i m were filled with awe and amazement" (De Vita Mosis 2.14.70).
THE
QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
93
D a v i d ' s h a n d s o m e n e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y his r u d d y c o l o r a n d his p i e r c i n g eyes (Ant. 6.164). H e e m p h a s i z e s A b s a l o m ' s h a n d s o m e n e s s w h e n h e a d d s t h a t " h e h a d n o t suffered a n y loss o f b e a u t y t h r o u g h serious l a c k o f c a r e p r o p e r to a k i n g ' s son, b u t w a s still r e m a r k a b l e a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d a m o n g all for his l o o k s (etSei) a n d b o d i l y stature (rto fjueyeOei rod acofjuaTos),
a n d s u r p a s s e d e v e n those w h o l i v e d in g r e a t l u x
u r y " (Ant. 7.189).
Wealth O n e o f t h e stock anti-Jewish c h a r g e s in a n t i q u i t y w a s t h a t the J e w s w e r e a n a t i o n o f b e g g a r s . L y s i m a c h u s , in the first c e n t u r y B.C.E., m a k e s r e t r o a c t i v e this a s s o c i a tion o f t h e J e w s w i t h b e g g a r s w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t in the r e i g n o f B o c c h o r i s , k i n g o f E g y p t , the J e w s , afflicted w i t h leprosy, m a d e their e x o d u s f r o m E g y p t a n d l i v e d a m e n d i c a n t e x i s t e n c e (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.305). T o the e p i g r a m m a t i s t M a r t i a l , J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y , the J e w t a u g h t b y his m o t h e r to b e g w a s a p r o v e r b i a l figure a m o n g the m a n y n u i s a n c e s in R o m e at the e n d o f the first
century
(12.57.1—14). It is the satirist J u v e n a l w h o p o u r s the m o s t s c o r n u p o n the J e w s as b e g g a r s , n o t i n g bitterly (3.10-16) t h a t the g r o v e o n c e h o l y t o the m u c h r e v e r e d K i n g N u m a P o m p i l i u s , the s u c c e s s o r o f R o m u l u s , h a s n o w b e e n let o u t t o J e w s i f t h e y h a v e s o m e straw a n d a b a s k e t , so t h a t the forest is s w a r m i n g w i t h b e g g a r s . L a t e r in this s a m e satire, J u v e n a l d e s c r i b e s a b e g g a r as h a n g i n g o u t in s o m e s y n a g o g u e w i t h J e w s (3.296). I n still a n o t h e r satire, h e speaks o f a J e w e s s l e a v i n g h e r b a s k e t a n d soliciting a l m s , w h i l e p l a y i n g o n the c r e d u l i t y o f o t h e r s b y telling for tunes a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s (6.542-47). J o s e p h u s is, therefore, e s p e c i a l l y c o n c e r n e d to a n s w e r these allegations. H e calls attention to the w e a l t h o f A b r a h a m in his m e n t i o n o f the r a r e gifts h e sent R e b e k a h ' s f a m i l y (Ant. 1.243). J a c o b , w e are told, a t t a i n e d a n u n p a r a l l e l e d d e g r e e o f p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 2.7). W h e n G - d a p p e a r s to M o s e s ' father, A m r a m , in a d r e a m , H e r e m i n d s h i m o f J a c o b ' s f a m e e v e n a m o n g alien n a t i o n s for his p r o s p e r i t y a n d n o t e s that h e b e q u e a t h e d this p r o s p e r i t y to his d e s c e n d a n t s (Ant. 2.214). J o s e p h u s h i g h lights K o r a h ' s g r i e f at his frustration despite his g r e a t e r r i g h t t o e n j o y the h i g h e s t h o n o r s b e c a u s e h e w a s r i c h e r t h a n M o s e s w i t h o u t b e i n g his inferior in b i r t h (Ant. 4.14). D a v i d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , left b e h i n d g r e a t e r w e a l t h t h a n a n y o t h e r king, w h e t h e r o f the H e b r e w s o r o f o t h e r n a t i o n s (Ant. 7.391). T h e i m p r e s s i o n o f S o l o m o n ' s g r e a t w e a l t h is m a g n i f i e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s striking p o r t r a y a l o f S o l o m o n ' s h o r s e m e n w i t h their e x t r a o r d i n a r y h e i g h t , e x t r e m e l y l o n g hair, tunics o f T y r i a n p u r p l e , a n d g o l d dust s p r i n k l e d in their h a i r (Ant. 8.185). T h e f o r m u l a for r o y a l h a p p i n e s s , as illustrated in J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y o f K i n g J o s i a h ' s c a r e e r (Ant. 10.73), is to possess w e a l t h a n d to b e h e l d in g o o d o p i n i o n b y all m e n . O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t w e a l t h c a n l e a d to i n s o l e n c e , as in the case o f t h e S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.194). M o r e o v e r , w e a l t h , as J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e stresses in a n a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e , is n o t a b i d i n g , a n d w e m a y b e r o b b e d o f it b y fortune (Ant. 11.56).
g4
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Leadership T h e l e i t m o t i f o f b o t h T h u c y d i d e s in his h i s t o r y a n d o f P l a t o in his Republic is the i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o p e r l e a d e r s h i p . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t since, as b o t h T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o stress, the w a y o f t h e m u l t i t u d e is fickle. I n his e n c o m i u m o f Pericles, T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.4) p o i n t s o u t the t r u i s m t h a t the m a s s e s c a n n o t b e trusted, as s e e n b y the fact t h a t the A t h e n i a n s , in their a n g e r at the terrible losses suffered d u r i n g t h e g r e a t p l a g u e , fined their l e a d e r Pericles, o n l y t o r e v e r s e t h e m selves shortly thereafter a n d t o c h o o s e h i m a g a i n as g e n e r a l . T h e i d e a l state, as T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.9) stresses, is o n e r u l e d b y its f o r e m o s t c i t i z e n , r a t h e r t h a n a true d e m o c r a c y , w h i c h s u r r e n d e r s to the m a j o r i t y ' s w h i m . P l a t o , in his p a r a b l e s o f the ship (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 7 - 8 9 A 2 ) a n d o f the b e a s t (Republic 6 . 4 9 3 A 6 - C 8 ) a n d in his cri t i q u e o f d e m o c r a c y as a f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t (Republic 8 . 5 5 7 A - 6 1 E ) , attacks the u n reliability o f the d e m a g o g u e s in c a t e r i n g t o the m a j o r i t y a n d c o n c l u d e s t h a t the i d e a l state c a n c o m e into b e i n g o n l y i f a p h i l o s o p h e r b e c o m e s k i n g o r a k i n g b e c o m e s a p h i l o s o p h e r (Republic 5 . 4 7 3 C - D ) . L i k e T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o , J o s e p h u s h a d a l o w o p i n i o n o f m a n k i n d (Ant. 3.23), a n d h e n c e t h r o u g h o u t his s u r v e y o f J e w i s h history, h e stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f strong, e n l i g h t e n e d l e a d e r s h i p , the b e s t e x a m p l e , o f c o u r s e , b e i n g M o s e s . A k e y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the true l e a d e r is his w i l l i n g n e s s to toil o n b e h a l f o f his p e o p l e . P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g (Republic 7 . 5 1 9 - 2 0 ) is o b v i o u s l y less t h a n e a g e r to rule, since r u l i n g involves a b u s e b y the citizens. N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e m u s t d e s c e n d into the c a v e e v e n t h o u g h life w o u l d b e m u c h m o r e p l e a s a n t i n a n i v o r y tower, inas m u c h as his first a n d sole c o n c e r n m u s t b e the w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l t h , a n d i n a s m u c h as the p e n a l t y for n o t g o v e r n i n g is to b e r u l e d b y t h o s e inferior t o oneself. O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the g l o r i f i c a t i o n o f the l e a d e r ' s toil in the C y n i c - S t o i c diatribes a n d , especially, i n V i r g i l ' s Aeneid (1.9-10), w h e r e , w e are t o l d , A e n e a s , the f o u n d e r o f R o m e , w a s f o r c e d t o u n d e r g o " s o m a n y misfortunes, so m a n y t o i l s . "
21
O n e thinks, f u r t h e r m o r e , o f the w h o l e a r r a y o f h e r o e s in e a r l y R o m a n history, s u c h as L u c i u s T i t u s Q u i n c t i u s C i n c i n n a t u s , w h o left his p l o u g h in 458 B.C.E. w h e n c a l l e d a n d w o r k e d for the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e ( D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , Ant.
Rom.
10.17.1). J o s e p h u s , in t u r n , e m b e l l i s h e s the p i c t u r e o f J e w i s h l e a d e r s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , as selfless a n d utterly altruistic. A n o t h e r o f t h e qualities o f t h e g r e a t s t a t e s m a n , as w e see in T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r trait o f Pericles (2.60.6), is his refusal to a c c e p t b r i b e s , a trait t h a t J o s e p h u s likewise e m p h a s i z e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.46). A c r u c i a l q u a l i t y o f a l e a d e r is his ability t o b r i n g p e a c e . T h e R o m a n s w e r e es p e c i a l l y sensitive a b o u t the fact t h a t t h e i r n a t i o n h a d s e l d o m b e e n at p e a c e . T h e T e m p l e o f J a n u s in the R o m a n F o r u m , the d o o r s o f w h i c h w e r e c l o s e d o n l y in t i m e s o f p e a c e , w a s c l o s e d o n l y t h r e e t i m e s , o n c e d u r i n g the r e i g n o f K i n g N u m a , 21. O n the comparison o f A e n e a s and M o s e s as leaders o f their peoples, see H a d a s 1948, 408-14.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
gj
o n c e after t h e First P u n i c W a r , a n d o n c e after the b a t d e o f A c t i u m (Livy 1.19.3). H e n c e , t h e i m p o r t a n c e for J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , o f t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t S o l o m o n b r o u g h t a b o u t p e r f e c t p e a c e (em noAArjs elp-qv-qs) (Ant. 8.21). T h e g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t also e x c e l as a n e d u c a t o r , as w e c a n see f r o m t h e t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n g i v e n b y the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in P l a t o ' s Republic to t h e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e i d e a l state. W e find, at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Antiquities (1.6), w h e n M o s e s is first referred to, t h a t h e is c a l l e d t h e g r e a t l a w g i v e r (vofjLoderri)
u n d e r w h o m t h e J e w s w e r e e d u c a t e d (TTaiSevOevres) in p i e t y a n d t h e e x
ercise o f t h e o t h e r virtues. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n legislation a n d 7rcuSeia is, as M e e k s p o i n t s o u t , distinctively G r e e k ( M e e k s 1967, 133). T h e l e a d e r m u s t t e a c h his p e o p l e t o o b e y his l a w s . I n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e r u d e a n d u n e d u c a t e d m a s s e s , legislators, says P l a t o , u p until his o w n day, h a v e u s e d o n l y force, w h e r e a s p e r s u a s i o n as a m e a n s h a s b e e n totally n e g l e c t e d (Laws 4.722B). A p p a r e n d y , J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f this P l a t o n i c view, since h e , t o o , w r i t e s t h a t t h e r e are t w o w a y s o f a r r i v i n g at a n y discipline o r m o r a l c o n d u c t in l i f e — n a m e l y , b y in struction in w o r d s a n d b y e x e r c i s e in p r a c t i c e — a n d t h a t M o s e s , as t h e s u p r e m e l e a d e r a n d teacher, s u c c e e d e d in c o m b i n i n g b o t h a p p r o a c h e s (Ag. Ap. 2.171) ( A m i r 1 9 8 5 - 8 8 , 1 0 2 - 3 ) . P l a t o h a d a r g u e d r e p e a t e d l y in his d i a l o g u e s t h a t n o o n e errs k n o w i n g l y , a n d t h a t h e n c e t h e f u n c t i o n o f the r u l e r is t o t e a c h t h e citizens. B y this s t a n d a r d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , M o s e s w a s s u p r e m e , since h e left n o p r e t e x t for i g n o r a n c e , o r d a i n i n g uniquely, as h e d i d , the r e a d i n g o f t h e L a w e v e r y w e e k — a p r a c t i c e o t h e r legislators h a d n e g l e c t e d (Ag. Ap. 2.175). J o s e p h u s is a b l e t o b o a s t t h a t i f a n y J e w w e r e q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t the L a w , h e w o u l d b e f o u n d b e t t e r a c q u a i n t e d w i t h it t h a n w i t h his o w n n a m e (Ag. Ap. 2.178). T h e r e a s o n for M o s e s ' s u c cess in o r d e r i n g his o w n life a r i g h t a n d also legislating for others, a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s in his p r o e m (Ant. 1.19), w a s t h a t h e w a s , in effect, a p h i l o s o p h e r w h o studied t h e n a t u r e o f G - d a n d c o n t e m p l a t e d H i s w o r k s w i t h t h e e y e o f r e a s o n (vw, " m i n d " ) . T i m e , t h e m o s t truthful j u d g e o f w o r t h , says J o s e p h u s , h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d the v i r t u e o f M o s e s ' p h i l o s o p h y — t h a t is, his a c c o u n t o f G - d (Ag. Ap. 2.279). A l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e t o c h o o s e a n d t r a i n a s u c c e s s o r w h o w i l l c a r r y o n his w o r k . I n t h e B i b l e , it is G - d w h o takes t h e initiative in telling M o s e s t o c h o o s e J o s h u a as his s u c c e s s o r ( N u m . 27:18). I n J o s e p h u s , w e a r e t o l d t h a t b e f o r e c h o o s i n g J o s h u a , M o s e s h a d a l r e a d y i n d o c t r i n a t e d h i m w i t h a t h o r o u g h t r a i n i n g in t h e L a w a n d in d i v i n e l o r e (Ant. 4.165). A n o u t s t a n d i n g l e a d e r m u s t first t h i n k o f t h e security o f his p e o p l e . A m o n g t h e m o s t e m i n e n t A t h e n i a n s t a t e s m e n , a c c o r d i n g to T h u c y d i d e s , w h o m J o s e p h u s so m u c h admired, w a s Themistocles, one o f w h o s e greatest achievements ( T h u c y dides 1.90-93) w a s t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e l o n g w a l l s f r o m A t h e n s t o t h e P i r a e u s t o p r o tect t h e c i t y o f A t h e n s itself f r o m i n v a s i o n . A R o m a n r e a d e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a tive m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n a w a r e that, as L i v y (1.7.3) is careful to n o t e , t h e v e r y first act o f t h e first k i n g a n d f o u n d e r o f R o m e , R o m u l u s , w a s t o fortify t h e P a l a t i n e H i l l . A s the c i t y e x p a n d e d (Livy 1.8.4), these w a l l s w e r e e x t e n d e d w i t h a n e y e to t h e
g6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
p o p u l a t i o n t h a t the R o m a n s h o p e d to h a v e in the future. Similarly, J o s e p h u s at t a c h e s g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e to the fact t h a t S o l o m o n m a d e the w a l l s o f J e r u s a l e m m u c h g r e a t e r a n d s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n (Ant. 8.21). The Cardinal Virtues T h e g r e a t h e r o , as w e see p a r t i c u l a r l y in J o s e p h u s ' s portraits o f A b r a h a m , J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , S a u l , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , must, like P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g , possess the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , plus the v i r t u e o f piety, w h i c h P l a t o (Protagoras 3 4 9 B ) a l r e a d y c o u n t s as the fifth o f the virtues. L i k e T h u c y d i d e s ' i d e a l s t a t e s m a n (2.60-65), h e m u s t e x c e l in ability t o p e r s u a d e , m u s t b e b e y o n d c o r r u p t i o n , a n d m u s t p u t the n a t i o n a b o v e his o w n n e e d s . Significantly, w h e n D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s sets forth w h a t h e h o p e s his r e a d ers will g a i n f r o m r e a d i n g his history, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e y will l e a r n t h a t f r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f h e r history, R o m e b r o u g h t forth c o u n d e s s e x a m p l e s o f v i r t u e , so t h a t n o city, G r e e k o r b a r b a r i a n , h a s e v e r p r o d u c e d so m a n y v i r t u o u s m e n (Ant. Rom.
1.5.3). T h e qualities t h e y p o s s e s s e d w e r e piety, j u s t i c e , p r u d e n c e ,
c o u r a g e — t h a t is, four o f the five c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s .
22
and
It is significant t h a t the v e r y
s a m e qualities t h a t m a n y a n c i e n t intellectuals d e p r e c a t e d in J u d a i s m w e r e a d m i r e d b y a n u m b e r o f o t h e r classical w r i t e r s , often o f the first r a n k , notably, A r i s t o d e , T h e o p h r a s t u s , H e c a t a e u s , a n d V a r r o , w h o p o r t r a y the J e w s as p o s s e s s i n g the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 , 2 7 - 3 9 ; 1993, 2 0 1 - 3 2 ) . H e n c e , it s h o u l d n o t b e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o d e f e n d the J e w i s h p e o p l e , h e resorts to similar a r g u m e n t s . I n his analysis o f M o s e s ' greatness as a legislator, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t the c a u s e o f his success w a s t h a t " h e d i d n o t m a k e r e l i g i o n a d e p a r t m e n t o f virtue, b u t the v a r i o u s v i r t u e s — I m e a n j u s t i c e (hiKaioavviqv), (Goj^poavvrjv), fortitude (Kapreplav),
temperance
a n d m u t u a l h a r m o n y (ovpL^ajviav) in all t h i n g s
b e t w e e n the m e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y — d e p a r t m e n t s o f r e l i g i o n " (Ag. Ap. 2.170). It s h o u l d also n o t b e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t j u s t as J o s e p h u s stresses the p r e s e n c e o f these qualities in b i b l i c a l figures, so h e e m p h a s i z e s his o w n e x c e l l e n c e in these v e r y respects ( N e y r e y 1 9 9 4 , 1 9 2 - 9 6 ) . T h u s h e n o t e s his c l e v e r n e s s in e s c a p i n g a p l o t (Life 148) a n d , in particular, in his e m p l o y m e n t o f v a r i o u s d e v i c e s to t h w a r t V e s p a s i a n d u r i n g the latter's siege o f J o t a p a t a (War 3 . 1 6 1 - 2 8 8 ) . H e s h o w s c o u r a g e in c o u n t e r i n g the intrigue a g a i n s t h i m (Life 146). H e s h o w s self-control in s c o r n i n g all p r e sents offered to h i m (Life 80). W h e n J o h n o f G i s c h a l a a t t e m p t s t o h a v e J o s e p h u s re m o v e d f r o m his g e n e r a l s h i p in G a l i l e e , the h i g h priest, A n a n u s , d e f e n d s h i m as o n e a g a i n s t w h o m n o j u s t c h a r g e c o u l d b e b r o u g h t (Life 194). J o s e p h u s s h o w s l o y alty, w h i c h is a k e y a s p e c t o f piety, t o w a r d his m e n , w h i c h they, in t u r n , r e c i p r o c a t e (Life 240-42).
22. Cf., e.g., the philosopher Diotogenes (dates unknown) (ap. Stobaeus 4.7.61), w h o lists three o f these cardinal virtues in describing the duties o f a king, namely, military leadership, the dispensing o f justice, and attending to the cult of the gods.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES Wisdom.
gj
P l a t o , as is w e l l k n o w n , p l a c e s g r e a t stress in his m a s t e r w o r k , t h e Re
public, o n t h e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e rulers, a n d , in particular, o n the a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e v i r t u e o f w i s d o m , w h i c h h e identifies as the p r i m e v i r t u e o f the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g . T h e P y t h a g o r e a n p h i l o s o p h e r S t h e n i d a s o f L o c r i (ap. S t o b a e u s 4.7.63) stresses t h a t the q u a l i t y o f w i s d o m is a b s o l u t e l y i n d i s p e n s a b l e to a k i n g , "for so h e w i l l b e a c o p y a n d i m i t a t o r o f the first G - d . " O n e o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the
fjLeyaXoifjvxos—
A r i s t o d e ' s " g r e a t - s o u l e d m a n " — i s t h a t h e is w i s e ; n o v i r t u o u s m a n , h e says, is fool ish (rjXldtos,
"silly") o r u n i n t e l l i g e n t
(avorjTos,
"senseless") (Nicomachean
Ethics
4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 C 3 4 - 2 5 A 1 7 ) . P h i l o , it w i l l b e n o t e d , in his De Vita Mosis (1.5.23-24), g o e s so far, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , as t o state t h a t M o s e s r e c e i v e d a n e d u c a t i o n i n t h e s e v e n l i b e r a l arts n o t o n l y f r o m E g y p t i a n t e a c h e r s b u t also f r o m tutors i m p o r t e d from G r e e c e . I n v i e w o f the fact t h a t the J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d b y s u c h o p p o n e n t s o f theirs as A p i o n o f n o t p r o d u c i n g a n y illustrious m e n o f a w i s d o m e q u a l to t h a t o f S o c r a t e s , t h e S t o i c s Z e n o a n d C l e a n t h e s , o r A p i o n h i m s e l f (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.135), J o s e p h u s felt a s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n to stress t h a t s u c h b i b l i c a l figures as A b r a h a m , I s a a c , Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon, and Daniel were outstand i n g in p r e c i s e l y this v i r t u e . A r i s t o d e , h e r e m a r k s , w a s so i m p r e s s e d w i t h t h e w i s d o m o f a J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r , t h a t h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e J e w s as a n a t i o n w e r e d e s c e n d e d f r o m t h e I n d i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.179). A s to w i s d o m , A b r a h a m is p o r t r a y e d as a p h i l o s o p h e r w h o s e l o g i c is i m p e c c a ble (Ant. 1.154), w h o is c l e v e r in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (Ant. 1.154) (heivos a>v OVVKEVOLL, a p h r a s e r e m i n i s c e n t o f O e d i p u s , <j>poveiv . . . heivov [ S o p h o c l e s , Oedipus Tyrannus 316]), a n d w h o is a b l e to a r r i v e at a n o r i g i n a l a n d u n i q u e p r o o f o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G - d f r o m t h e i r r e g u l a r i t y o f h e a v e n l y p h e n o m e n a (Ant. 1.156), in a f o r m p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y the S t o i c s . H i s h e a r e r s
are
t e r m e d d / c p o o ^ e W s (Ant. 1.154), a w o r d u s e d e s p e c i a l l y o f those w h o listen t o l e c tures in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s . W e h e a r t h a t the p u r p o s e o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d t o A b r a h a m to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c w a s m e r e l y to test his w a y o f t h i n k i n g
(hidvoiav)
(Ant. 1.233). L i k e w i s e , I s a a c is p r a i s e d for t h e r e a s o n a b l e c a l c u l a t i o n (evyvwfjiovi
XoyiopLto,
"skillful c a l c u l a t i o n , " " c o o l a n d sensible r e f l e c t i o n , " " r e a s o n a b l e a n d d e l i b e r a t e t h o u g h t " ) h e e x h i b i t e d in settling t h e dispute o v e r w e l l s w i t h A b i m e l e c h ' s s h e p h e r d s (Ant. 1.261). I n d e e d , this q u a l i t y o f Xoyiofjuos, w h i c h c o m p r i s e s r e a s o n i n g , is a p p l i e d b y J o s e p h u s , in e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s , to J a c o b (Ant. 2.37, 2.171), J u d a h (Ant. 2.151), a n d S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.143, 1 9 4 ) .
23
O n e o f the virtues b o t h o f A b r a h a m ' s
sons (Ant. 1.238) a n d o f J a c o b ' s c h i l d r e n (Ant. 2.7) is t h a t t h e y a r e c l e v e r in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (Seivol avvievau, the s a m e p h r a s e u s e d o f A b r a h a m , Ant. 1.154). J a c o b e x ercises w i s d o m
(aortas) a n d
i n t e l l i g e n c e (Siavoiq)
in g r a s p i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f
23. It is Josephus's use o f (^povq^a a n d Xoyiafxos that m a y account, in part, for the ascription to Josephus of the Fourth Book of Maccabees, with its theme that pious reason masters passion.
g8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s (Ant. 2.15). T h e r e is a s i m i l a r a p p e a l to l o g i c in t h e a r g u m e n t s o f R e u b e n (Ant. 2.23) to his b r o t h e r s . It is r a t i o n a l reflection (Xoyiopuov) t h a t J a c o b re v o l v e s in his m i n d as h e sinks i n t o s l e e p in B e e r s h e b a p r i o r to his d e p a r t u r e for E g y p t (Ant. 2.171). J a c o b is s a i d t o h a v e s h o w n the w i s d o m o f a p r o p h e t in p r e d i c t i n g h o w e a c h o f his s o n s ' d e s c e n d a n t s w a s d e s t i n e d to find a h a b i t a t i o n in C a n a a n (Ant. 2.194). It is significant o f J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i s o n J o s e p h ' s w i s d o m t h a t h e uses n o f e w e r t h a n six different synonyms—cjo>ia, avveais, a n d XoyiGpuos—in
Setjiorrjs,
(frpovrjois, (frpovrjpia,
r e f e r r i n g t o it. I n his e x t r a b i b l i c a l e u l o g y o f J o s e p h , the
first
q u a l i t y t h a t J o s e p h u s singles o u t , after m a k i n g the g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h w a s a m a n o f a d m i r a b l e v i r t u e , is t h a t h e d i r e c t e d all affairs b y t h e d i c t a t e s o f r e a s o n (XoyiopLw) (Ant. 2.198). J o s e p h ' s w i s d o m is s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s e x p a n s i o n re g a r d i n g his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s (Ant. 2 . 6 3 - 7 3 ) , a skill t h a t t h e G r e e k s e s p e cially a p p r e c i a t e d . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y significant t h a t in J o s e p h u s , J o s e p h
uses
r a t i o n a l a r g u m e n t s in his a t t e m p t t o t u r n t h e p a s s i o n o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife i n t o t h e p a t h o f r e a s o n (Xoyiopuov) (Ant. 2.53). I n t u r n , J o s e p h ' s t r e m e n d o u s (vvveoiv
understanding
LKavcoraros, Ant. 2.80) r e c o m m e n d s h i m to P h a r a o h ; a n d , in v i e w o f his
incredible intelligence
(7rpos
TO
Trapdho^ov
TT)S vvveveajs,
Ant. 2.91), h e is g i v e n a
n a m e b y P h a r a o h signifying " D i s c o v e r e r o f Secrets." T h e e x c e l l e n c e o f t h e l a w s t h a t M o s e s c o n v e y e d to the J e w s , says J o s e p h u s , is m e a s u r e d b y w i s d o m ; these l a w s , h e says, a r e " e x c e l l e n t b e y o n d t h e s t a n d a r d o f h u m a n w i s d o m " (Ant. 3.223). H e c o n t e n d s as w e l l t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t o f t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s a d m i r e d t h e J e w i s h w i s d o m e m b o d i e d in t h e T o r a h a n d i m i t a t e d it. H e insists t h a t P y t h a g o r a s n o t o n l y k n e w o f t h e institutions o f t h e J e w s a n d a d m i r e d t h e m , b u t t h a t h e i n t r o d u c e d m a n y p o i n t s o f J e w i s h l a w i n t o his p h i l o s o p h y (Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 6 2 - 6 5 ) . P l a t o , h e says, i m i t a t e d M o s e s in t w o m a t t e r s in p a r t i c u l a r — n a m e l y , in p r e s c r i b i n g t h e s t u d y o f t h e l a w s as the p r i m a r y d u t y o f t h e c i t i z e n s a n d in t a k i n g p r e c a u t i o n s t o p r e v e n t f o r e i g n e r s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h t h e m (Ag. Ap. 2.257). I n a s m u c h as t h e g r e a t e s t c o m p l i m e n t t h a t c o u l d b e g i v e n t o a p e r s o n so far as w i s d o m w a s c o n c e r n e d w a s to c a l l h i m a p h i l o s o p h e r , w e s h o u l d i m p u t e p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e to J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t i f a n y o n e s h o u l d desire t o c o n s i d e r t h e r e a s o n s for e v e r y article in the c r e e d t r a n s m i t t e d b y M o s e s , " h e w o u l d find the in q u i r y p r o f o u n d a n d h i g h l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l [^lAdcjo^os]" (Ant. 1.25). M o s e s is e u l o g i z e d as h a v i n g s u r p a s s e d in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (avveoei)
all m e n w h o h a v e e v e r l i v e d
(Ant. 4.328). J o s e p h u s uses t h e t e r m " l a w g i v e r " (vopLoOerrjs) s i x t e e n t i m e s in the first f o u r b o o k s o f t h e Antiquities w i t h r e g a r d t o M o s e s , r e f e r r i n g t o h i m u s u a l l y m e r e l y as "the l a w g i v e r , " w i t h o u t e x p l i c i d y n a m i n g h i m as M o s e s (just as P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s 9.9 refers to M o s e s as
deopLodeT-qs,
" l a w g i v e r , " w i t h o u t d e e m i n g it n e c e s s a r y t o
n a m e h i m ) . T h i s is a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t o J o s e p h u s , M o s e s is the w i s e m a n p a r e x c e l l e n c e , in t h e s a m e class as the S p a r t a n L y c u r g u s , the A t h e n i a n S o l o n , a n d the R o m a n N u m a P o m p i l i u s , e v e n t h o u g h , strictly s p e a k i n g , it is G - d a l o n e W h o is t h e l a w g i v e r . H i s w i s d o m as a l e g i s l a t o r is to b e s e e n in t h e fact, n o t e d b y J o s e p h u s ,
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
gg
t h a t a l t h o u g h it is possible for v i o l a t o r s to e s c a p e d e t e c t i o n , t h e r e is n o J e w w h o d o e s n o t o b e y his o r d i n a n c e s , as i f h e w e r e p r e s e n t t o p u n i s h a n y b r e a c h o f disci p l i n e (Ant. 3.317). M o s e s ' successor, J o s h u a , a l t h o u g h o n e w o u l d h a r d l y e x p e c t , o n the basis o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , to h a v e h i m s i n g l e d o u t for his w i s d o m , is d e s c r i b e d as h i g h l y gifted in intellect a n d s p e e c h (vorjoai re Kal elireiv) a n d n o t w a n t i n g in i n t e l l i g e n c e (ovveoecos
tov ivSerjs) (Ant. 3.49).
In the case o f S a m s o n , m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s have r e m a r k e d that he appears r a t h e r foolish in t h e B i b l e , s i n c e h e c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y h a v e e x p e c t e d a n y o n e t o solve his r i d d l e ( J u d g . 14:22), i n a s m u c h as it w a s b a s e d o n a n i n c i d e n t t h a t n o o n e h a d w i t n e s s e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m is n o t c o m p r o m i s e d b y J o s e p h u s , w h o c o n v e r t s t h e r i d d l e i n t o a story (Xoyov) (Ant. 5.290), w h i c h is e x a c d y w h a t it is. B y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e n o n b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e Philistines at t h e w e d d i n g feast at T i m n a h w e r e a m b i t i o u s to w i n r e n o w n for s a g a c i t y (ovveoecos)
in
e x p l a i n i n g his s t o r y (Ant. 5.290), J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s o w n sagacity. T h u s , S a m s o n , w h o in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e h a r d l y e m e r g e s as a w i s e m a n , is p o r t r a y e d b y J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e B i b l e , as " s t r o n g t h i n k i n g " (cfrpoveiv
loxvpos)
(Ant. 5.308), this b e i n g s h o w n b y t h e m e t h o d b y w h i c h h e c o u n t e r e d D e l i l a h ' s ruse. W h e n J o s e p h u s first m a k e s m e n t i o n o f S a u l , h e d e s c r i b e s h i m as gifted w i t h a mind and understanding
(TO
re (frpovrjpia
KCLI
rr)v Sidvoiav) s u r p a s s i n g his o u t w a r d
p h y s i c a l a d v a n t a g e s (Ant. 6.45). Similarly, J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e s the gift o f i n t e l l i g e n c e to A b n e r (Ant. 7 .^v.heivov ovra ovviheiv
irpaypLara—skilled
in u n d e r s t a n d i n g p o l i t
ical matters). N a t h a n is tactful (doreios,
" p o l i t e , " " w i t t y " ) a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g (ovveros)
(Ant.
7.147). D a v i d is p r a i s e d b y his relations a n d servants for his w i s d o m a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g (oo<j>iav Kal rr)v Sidvoiav) (Ant. 7.158), the latter t e r m b e i n g t h e s a m e w o r d that J o s e p h u s h a d u s e d o f S a u l . H e is further d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g m o s t a p t in p e r c e i v i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g (vorjoai re Kal ovviSeiv) t h e c o u r s e o f future e v e n t s (Ant. 7.391). D a v i d h a s p e r c e p t i o n (vorjoai) a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g (ovviSeiv) o f future e v e n t s (Ant. 7.391). H e , in t u r n , p r a y s t h a t his s o n S o l o m o n m a y h a v e a s o u n d a n d j u s t m i n d (Sidvoiav,
a g a i n the w o r d u s e d b y J o s e p h u s w i t h r e f e r e n c e to S a u l ) (Ant.
7-381). S o l o m o n is p r a i s e d for his G - d - l i k e u n d e r s t a n d i n g (de'iav Sidvoiav)
in d e t e r
m i n i n g the r e a l m o t h e r in t h e d i s p u t e o f the t w o harlots a b o u t their infants (Ant. 8.34). H i s w i s d o m is s h o w n as w e l l in his s p e e d in s o l v i n g t h e riddles sent to h i m b y K i n g H i r a m o f T y r e (Ant. 8.143) a n d in m e n t a l l y g r a s p i n g the i n g e n i o u s p r o b l e m s set for h i m b y t h e Q u e e n o f S h e b a (Ant. 8.167). It w a s the d e c l i n e in this quality, as h e a d v a n c e d in a g e , t h a t m a d e S o l o m o n t o o feeble t o o p p o s e the w a y s o f his for e i g n w i v e s (Ant. 8.194). D a n i e l is d e s c r i b e d as a w i s e m a n , skilled in d i s c o v e r i n g the i m p o s s i b l e (Ant. 10.237: oo^os
dvrjp Kal Seivos
evpeiv
r d dpurixava). T h u s , as S a t r a n h a s p o i n t e d
out, t h e d i s c i p l i n e d p u r s u i t o f p u r i f i c a t i o n b r i n g s D a n i e l in J o s e p h u s
to
the
wo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s u p r e m e a c h i e v e m e n t o f the G r a e c o - R o m a n sage o f the t y p e f o u n d in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius ofTyana—that ( S a t r a n 1988, 3 3 ~ 4 8 ) .
is, the m o v e m e n t f r o m h u m a n to d i v i n e w i s d o m
24
O n e o f the k e y a r e a s in w h i c h the a n c i e n t s b e l i e v e d t h a t w i s d o m w a s p a r t i c u larly s h o w n w a s in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s .
2 5
D r e a m s a n d p r o p h e c y w e r e re
g a r d e d as c l o s e l y r e l a t e d in a n t i q u i t y ; a n d they, t o g e t h e r w i t h o m e n s , signs, a n d p o r t e n t s , w e r e said to b e the m e a n s b y w h i c h the d e m o n i c c o m m u n i c a t e d w i t h m a n ( M . S m i t h 1987, 246). I n H o m e r , it is n o n e o t h e r t h a n Z e u s h i m s e l f w h o is the s e n d e r o f d r e a m s (Iliad 1.63). I n H e s i o d ' s Theogony (211-13), d r e a m s h a v e a d i v i n e o r i g i n , since w e see t h a t at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f things, N i g h t , the c h i l d o f p r i m o r d i a l C h a o s , gives b i r t h to the f a m i l y o f d r e a m s . I n the c a s e o f the R o m a n s , as S.J. D . C o h e n h a s r e m a r k e d , their a u t o b i o g r a p h i e s (note, for e x a m p l e , those o f S u l l a a n d A u g u s t u s ) are a l w a y s filled w i t h d r e a m s , w h i c h are v i e w e d as i n d i c a t i o n s o f d i v i n e c o n c e r n for the s u b j e c t (S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 109). T h a t the ability to i n t e r p r e t d r e a m s w a s m u c h p r i z e d in a n t i q u i t y is clear, fur t h e r m o r e , f r o m the fact t h a t A e s c h y l u s i n c l u d e s the d i s c o v e r y o f the rules o f o n e i r o m a n c y a m o n g the c h i e f i n v e n t i o n s for w h i c h h u m a n b e i n g s are i n d e b t e d to P r o m e t h e u s (Prometheus Bound 485). P a g a n p r o p h e t s (/xdvrct?) a n d " C h a l d a e a n s " w e r e s u p p o s e d t o b e e x p e r t in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s . A c c o r d i n g to the m u c h r e v e r e d D i o t i m a in P l a t o , a p e r s o n w h o k n o w s h o w to j u d g e d r e a m s is a "spiritual m a n " (Saipbovios dvr)p), in c o n t r a s t t o o n e w h o is v e r s e d in a n y t h i n g else, w h e t h e r in sci e n c e o r a t r a d e , w h o is m e r e l y a t e c h n i c i a n (Symposium 203A). T h a t t h e r e w e r e p r o fessional d r e a m interpreters is c l e a r f r o m T h e o p h r a s t u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t it is the m a r k o f a superstitious p e r s o n t h a t w h e n h e h a s a d r e a m h e g o e s to a d r e a m in t e r p r e t e r (Characters 16.11). T h e r e w e r e h a n d b o o k s o f d r e a m i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o n e o f w h i c h , t h a t o f the s e c o n d - c e n t u r y C.E. A r t e m i d o r u s , h a s c o m e d o w n to us. I n the third century, in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s h a d d e v e l o p e d into a n a l m o s t s t e r e o t y p e d t e c h n i q u e in d i r e c t s u c c e s s i o n t o a n c i e n t E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n ( H e n g e l 1974, 2:162, n. 8 4 6 ) .
26
A n d y e t , despite the c l e a r i m p o r t a n c e o f d r e a m s in the B i b l e , t h e r e is a m p l e e v i d e n c e o f J e w i s h q u e s t i o n i n g o f o n e i r o m a n c y , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in B e n S i r a (31:1-7) a n d the Letter of Aristeas ( 2 1 3 - 1 6 ) , b o t h o f w h i c h d e n o u n c e the b e l i e f in d r e a m s . I n v i e w o f s u c h o p p o s i t i o n , G n u s e suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e d d r e a m s b e c a u s e h e w a s a d d r e s s i n g a p a g a n R o m a n a u d i e n c e , to w h o m d r e a m s w e r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t ( G n u s e 1989, 360).
24. E v e n w h e n he paraphrases the First B o o k of M a c c a b e e s , w e m a y note that in one of Josephus's few additions to his source, he presents J o n a t h a n as a leader k n o w n for his courage and foresight (irpovoia) (Ant. 13.195). 25. S o also in the rabbinic tradition, w h i c h remarks that D a n i e l was so expert in dreams that N e b u c h a d n e z z a r trusted him at once (Tanhuma B, Gen. 191). 26. T h u s w e hear that the cult o f the E g y p t i a n g o d Sarapis at Athens included an w h o interpreted dreams. See N o c k 1933, 54.
ovetpoKpLTrjs,
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
N o r m a l l y , as w e c a n see f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s a d d e d detail t h a t J a c o b
101
interpreted
J o s e p h ' s d r e a m c o r r e c d y (Ant. 2.15), o n l y a p r o p h e t c o u l d p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t t h e m , since d r e a m s c o m e f r o m G - d . A p p a r e n d y , h o w e v e r , a p e r s o n c o u l d n o t i n t e r p r e t his o w n d r e a m s e v e n i f h e h a p p e n e d to b e a p r o p h e t ( F r a n x m a n 1979, 217, 224). J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m u s t h a v e b e e n a t t r a c t e d to this a s p e c t o f J o s e p h ' s a c t i v i t y b e c a u s e o f his (Josephus's) a l l e g e d ability, v i a the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s , to p r o p h esy the future (War 3-352).
27
T h i s skill w o u l d b e a f o r m o f self-praise, i n a s m u c h as
J o s e p h u s w a s a b l e to d o s o m e t h i n g t h a t e v e n his n a m e s a k e J o s e p h w a s n o t a b l e to d o — n a m e l y , t o i n t e r p r e t his o w n d r e a m s ( G n u s e 1989, 375). T h u s w e h e a r t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s d e c i d e d to q u i t his g e n e r a l s h i p in G a l i l e e , h e w a s e n c o u r a g e d b y a d r e a m p r e d i c t i n g t h a t t h a t w h i c h w a s n o w g r i e v i n g h i m w o u l d p r o m o t e h i m to greatness a n d felicity; a n d , as a result, h e c o n s e n t e d to c o n t i n u e (Life 2 0 8 - 1 0 ) . T h e a c c o u n t o f this d r e a m reflects the b a s i c l a n g u a g e o f a classical G r e e k d r e a m - i m a g e report, w h i c h , in the p a g a n parallels, p r o v i d e s r e a s s u r a n c e a n d the p r o m i s e o f fu ture g o o d fortune ( G n u s e 1 9 8 9 , 386). A t J o t a p a t a , w h e n h e w a s c a u g h t b e t w e e n the R o m a n g e n e r a l u r g i n g h i m to s u r r e n d e r a n d the hostile c r o w d t h r e a t e n i n g h i m i f h e did, J o s e p h u s w a s r e m i n d e d o f the d r e a m s h e h a d h a d n i g h t after n i g h t in w h i c h G - d h a d foretold to h i m the fate o f the J e w s , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d the destiny o f the R o m a n s , o n the o t h e r (War 3 . 3 5 1 - 5 4 ) . H e t h e n r e m a r k s t h a t h e w a s a n i n t e r p r e t e r o f d r e a m s , skilled in d i v i n i n g the m e a n i n g o f a m b i g u o u s d i v i n e ut t e r a n c e s ; " a priest h i m s e l f a n d o f p r i e s d y d e s c e n t , h e w a s n o t i g n o r a n t o f the p r o p h e c i e s in the s a c r e d b o o k s . " I n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t s h e r e o n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s a n d p r o p h e c y , it is possible t h a t his ability to p r e d i c t V e s p a s i a n ' s a s c e n s i o n as e m p e r o r w a s likewise the result o f a d r e a m (War 3.399-408). J o s e p h u s w a s interested n o t m e r e l y in e x p l a i n i n g the m e a n i n g o f d r e a m s b u t also in the l a r g e r q u e s t i o n o f w h y t h e r e w e r e d r e a m s at all. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y states the fact t h a t G - d is g o i n g t o d o w h a t H e will d o w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g w h y ( G e n . 41:32), J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , e x p l a i n s w h y p e o p l e h a v e d r e a m s — n a m e l y , so t h a t G - d m a y f o r e s h a d o w to t h e m t h a t w h i c h is to c o m e , a n d so that, h a v i n g b e e n f o r e w a r n e d , t h e y m a y use their s a g a c i t y (avveaei) to alleviate the trials t h a t h a v e b e e n p r e d i c t e d (Ant. 2.86). H e n c e w e p e r c e i v e t h a t sagacity, w h i c h is e p i t o m i z e d b y J o s e p h , is the k e y n o t o n l y to i n t e r p r e t i n g the d r e a m b u t also to t a k i n g m e a s u r e s to alleviate w h a t it p r e s a g e s . It is significant t h a t w h e r e a s there is also a n a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n t h a t n o t all d r e a m s are truthful, a n d t h a t d r e a m s m i g h t m e a n the o p p o s i t e o f w h a t t h e y say (e.g., in H o m e r , Odyssey 19.560 ff.) (Brelich 1 9 6 6 , 2 9 5 - 9 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , d r e a m s are a l w a y s true. W e m a y also see J o s e p h u s ' s interest in d r e a m s in t h a t h e r e c o r d s n o f e w e r t h a n
27. O n Josephus's identification with Joseph as interpreter o f dreams, especially as illustrating the theme o f the jealousy felt toward him, see Niehoff 1992, 95.
W2
GENERAL
fifty-four
CONSIDERATIONS
d r e a m s (and their t r u t h a n d fulfillment in e v e r y c a s e ) .
28
For e x a m p l e , w e
m a y n o t e J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t s o f the d r e a m s o f T h e o p o m p u s (Ant. 12.112), w h i c h d i v e r t e d h i m f r o m t r a n s l a t i n g the P e n t a t e u c h into G r e e k ; o f H e r o d (War 1.328; Ant. 14.451), w h i c h w a r n e d h i m o f the i m m i n e n t d e a t h o f his b r o t h e r ; a n d o f A r c h e l a u s a n d o f his wife G l a p h y r a , w h i c h p r e d i c t e d the e n d o f his rule a n d h e r i m m i n e n t d e a t h (War 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 6 ; Ant. 1 7 . 3 4 5 - 5 3 ) . S o m e h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e l e a r n e d the t e c h n i q u e s o f d r e a m i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e i t h e r f r o m the E s s e n e s , w h o m h e d e s c r i b e s at m u c h g r e a t e r l e n g t h t h a n h e d o e s a n y o f the o t h e r sects (War 2 . 1 1 9 - 6 1 ) a n d w h o s e m o v e m e n t h e h a d o n c e j o i n e d (Life 1 0 - 1 1 ) ,
2 9
o r f r o m the S a d d u c e a n priests (see G n u s e 1 9 8 9 , 359).
T h e interest o f the E s s e n e s in d r e a m i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m a y b e s e e n in the c a s e o f S i m o n the E s s e n e , w h o c o r r e c d y i n t e r p r e t e d the d r e a m o f A r c h e l a u s , w h i c h n o o n e else h a d b e e n a b l e t o u n r a v e l (War 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 3 , Ant. 17.345-48). J o s e p h u s s h o w s p a r t i c u l a r interest in d r e a m s in his e x p a n s i o n o f J o s e p h ' s inter p r e t a t i o n s o f the d r e a m s o f the buder, the baker, a n d P h a r a o h ,
emphasizing
t h e r e b y the r a t i o n a l reflection a n d e x t r e m e s a g a c i t y t h a t e n a b l e d J o s e p h to a n a l y z e their i m p o r t (Ant. 2 . 6 3 - 6 5 , 80, 87). O f s p e c i a l interest is J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n o f a d r e a m in w h i c h G - d a p p e a r s to A m r a m e x h o r t i n g h i m n o t t o d e s p a i r o f the future a n d p r e d i c t i n g the 30
b i r t h o f M o s e s (Ant. 2 . 2 1 2 - 1 6 ) . J o s e p h u s also s h o w s h o w significant d r e a m s are b y e l a b o r a t i n g c o n s i d e r a b l y in his a c c o u n t o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s d r e a m a n d its inter p r e t a t i o n b y D a n i e l ( D a n . 2 : 1 - 4 9 v s . Ant. 1 0 . 1 9 5 - 2 1 0 ) . O n e o f t h e s u p r e m e aspects o f w i s d o m is t o b e s e e n in the gift o f p r o p h e c y ; a n d in e n u m e r a t i n g the u n i q u e qualifications o f A a r o n for t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d
(Ant.
28. G n u s e 1989, 358-90, generally analyzes the types o f dreams but seldom compares Josephus's versions with those o f the Bible; and w h e n he does d o so, his treatment is perfunctory. H e comments that although Josephus did not use a rigorous literary form to communicate his d r e a m reports, he did at times use very loosely the formulaic language o f his age in a w a y that conformed to the usual pattern of dream narrative (ibid., 389). O n dreams in Josephus, see O e p k e 1954, 232-33, and D a u t z e n b e r g !97i, 93-!0429. In stating that he systematically explored the various schools o f Judaism by trying them out successively, Josephus is conforming to a pattern found widely in the G r a e c o - R o m a n world, examples o f w h i c h are cited by N o c k 1972, 1:457. A n example noted in Rajak 1984, 35, is that o f the secondcentury G a l e n , w h o said that at the age o f fourteen, he listened successively to a Stoic, a Platonist, a Peripatetic, and an Epicurean but decided not to j o i n any of them immediately (On the Diagnosis and Cure of the Soul's Passions 8). Galen's contemporary Justin M a r t y r likewise mentions that he heard a Peri patetic, a Pythagorean, a n d a Platonist in succession (Dialogue with Trypho 8). But, as Rajak remarks, even if a search b e c o m e s a topos, this does not m e a n that it w a s not carried out by those w h o recount it (Rajak 1984,36). Moreover, w e m a y a d d that there is a difference between the cases o f G a l e n and Justin as against Josephus in that they merely listened to the philosophers, whereas Josephus says that he ac tually j o i n e d each o f the sects for a period o f time. 30. Josephus also adds the dreams o f E h u d (Ant. 5.193) and N a t h a n (Ant. 7.147) to the biblical nar rative. A m o n g postbiblical figures, he adds the dreams o f Jaddus, T h e o p o m p u s , Hyrcanus, Herod, Matthias, Archelaus, G l a p h y r a , M o n o b a z u s , A l e x a n d e r the Great, Pharaoh A m e n o p h i s , Ptolemy Physcon, and Stratonice.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
3.192), J o s e p h u s calls a t t e n t i o n to his p r o p h e t i c a l gift (Trpo^-qreiav)
103
as o n e o f the
qualities in w h i c h h e e x c e l l e d all others. T h e significance o f p r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s m a y b e d e d u c e d f r o m the fact t h a t w h e n h e s u m m a r i z e s the v i r t u e s o f the g r e a t e s t o f all l e a d e r s , M o s e s , h e m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f e m p h a s i z i n g his status as a p r o p h e t , w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , h e h a d n o n e to e q u a l h i m (Ant. 4.329). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o p h e t s for J o s e p h u s m a y also b e seen in the fact t h a t in several in stances, h e m o d i f i e s the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b y h a v i n g a p r o p h e t as a s p o k e s m a n for G - d , r a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g G - d H i m s e l f address a p e r s o n . C o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e o f w i s d o m is e x c e l l e n c e in the sciences, a field t h a t h a d b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d . T h u s J o s e p h u s e x plains the l o n g e v i t y o f the e a r l y p a t r i a r c h s b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t G - d r e w a r d e d t h e m w i t h l o n g life n o t o n l y for their v i r t u e (dperrjv) b u t also in o r d e r t o p r o m o t e the util ity o f their discoveries in a s t r o n o m y a n d g e o m e t r y (Ant. 1.106). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e t h a t A b r a h a m g r a c i o u s l y t a u g h t (xa/n^erai) the E g y p t i a n s a r i t h m e t i c a n d a s t r o n o m y (Ant. 1 . 1 6 7 ) — t w o sciences, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , o f 31
w h i c h the E g y p t i a n s h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n i g n o r a n t (Ant. 1 . 1 6 8 ) . T h e f o r m e r h a d b e e n stressed b y b o t h P l a t o a n d Isocrates, the f o u n d e r s o f the t w o l e a d i n g s c h o o l s o f e d u c a t i o n in the fourth c e n t u r y B.C.E.; a n d the latter w a s to b e c o m e the m o s t p o p u l a r o f the four b r a n c h e s o f m a t h e m a t i c s in H e l l e n i s t i c times ( M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 182). T h e t r u e scientist m u s t s h o w his o p e n - m i n d e d n e s s b y b e i n g w i l l i n g to c h a n g e his m i n d if h o n e s d y c o n v i n c e d b y o t h e r s .
32
T h i s q u a l i t y is e x h i b i t e d b y A b r a h a m ,
w h o visits E g y p t n o t merely, as i n d i c a t e d in the B i b l e ( G e n . 12:10), in o r d e r t o o b tain f o o d b e c a u s e o f the f a m i n e in C a n a a n , b u t also to h e a r w h a t the f a m e d E g y p t ian priests said a b o u t their g o d s (Ant. 1.161). H i s i n t e n t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f true wise m e n , is e i t h e r to a d o p t their v i e w s if h e f o u n d t h e m b e t t e r t h a n his o w n o r t o c o n v e r t t h e m if his v i e w s s h o u l d p r o v e superior. T h i s p i c t u r e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f S o l o n , the w i s e A t h e n i a n , w h o d i s c o v e r e d , w h e n h e visited E g y p t , t h a t n e i t h e r h e n o r a n y o t h e r G r e e k h a d a n y k n o w l e d g e o f a n t i q u i t y w o r t h s p e a k i n g o f (Plato, Timaeus 2 2 A ) . It l i k e w i s e recalls the p r e - S o c r a t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s , s u c h as P y t h a g o r a s , w h o a l l e g e d l y visited E g y p t to b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the s c i e n c e a n d the o t h e r esoteric l o r e o f the E g y p t i a n s . A n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a w i s e p e r s o n is w i l l i n g n e s s to listen t o g o o d c o u n s e l . H e c t o r p a y s w i t h his life for n o t listening to the e x c e l l e n t a d v i c e o f his w i s e c o m r a d e (7T€7TvvpL€vos) P o l y d a m a s , w h o s p o k e w i t h all sincerity a n d g o o d w i l l ( H o m e r , Iliad 1 8 . 2 4 9 - 3 0 9 ) . T h a t X e r x e s d o e s n o t h e e d the analysis o f the S p a r t a n s ' c o u r a g e b y their e x i l e d k i n g D e m a r a t u s b u t r a t h e r m a k e s a j e s t o f it costs h i m h e a v i l y
31. W e m a y note that whereas the Hellenistic Jewish historian Artapanus (ca. 100 B.C.E.) says that A b r a h a m taught astrology to P h a r a o h (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Eu 9.18.1), Josephus elevates A b r a h a m by de claring that he consorted with the most learned o f the Egyptians. Cf. Attridge 1984a, 165-67. 32. Cf. Apollonius o f T y a n a , Josephus's contemporary, w h o similarly visits the M a g i , the Indians, and the Egyptians (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 1.26, 3.16 ff., 6.10 ff.).
W4
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
( H e r o d o t u s 7 . 1 0 1 - 5 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , M o s e s , g r e a t a n d w i s e as h e w a s a n d e n d o w e d w i t h the h i g h e s t d e g r e e o f p r o p h e c y , is still r e a d y to a c c e p t a d v i c e f r o m his father-in-law, t h e n o n - J e w i s h priest J e t h r o . A similar e a g e r n e s s t o l e a r n f r o m o t h ers m a y b e s e e n in the e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h i c h J o s e p h u s cites f r o m M e n a n der's G r e e k translation o f T y r i a n r e c o r d s , t h a t S o l o m o n a c k n o w l e d g e d the g r e a t e r w i s d o m o f a c e r t a i n y o u n g T y r i a n l a d n a m e d A b d e m o n , w h o a l w a y s successfully s o l v e d the p r o b l e m s S o l o m o n sent h i m (Ant 8.146). J o s e p h u s also q u o t e s D i o s , the historian o f P h o e n i c i a , as r e f e r r i n g to a n e x c h a n g e o f riddles b e t w e e n K i n g H i r a m o f P h o e n i c i a a n d S o l o m o n , a n d m e n t i o n s t h a t this s a m e A b d e m o n n o t o n l y s o l v e d S o l o m o n ' s riddles b u t also w a s a b l e to s t u m p S o l o m o n w i t h riddles o f his o w n (Ant 8 . 1 4 8 - 4 9 ) . T h e o p p o s i t e o f g o o d j u d g m e n t is s h o w n b y R e h o b o a m in n o t listening t o the a d v i c e o f the friends o f his father, S o l o m o n (Ant 10.264). A n o t h e r attribute c o n n e c t e d w i t h w i s d o m , as w e m a y see in T h u c y d i d e s ' (2.60) p o r t r a i t o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , Pericles, is the ability to p e r s u a d e the p e o p l e . A s A r i s t o t l e p u t s it, " R h e t o r i c is useful b e c a u s e things t h a t are t r u e a n d things t h a t are j u s t h a v e a n a t u r a l t e n d e n c y to p r e v a i l o v e r their opposites, so t h a t i f the d e c i s i o n s o f j u d g e s are n o t w h a t t h e y o u g h t to b e , the defeat m u s t b e d u e to the s p e a k e r s t h e m s e l v e s , a n d t h e y m u s t b e b l a m e d a c c o r d i n g l y " (Rhetoric 1 . 1 . 1 3 5 5 A 2 1 - 2 4 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , A b r a h a m ' s p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his ability to c o n v i n c e the E g y p t i a n s o n a n y s u b j e c t h e u n d e r t o o k t o t e a c h (Ant 1.167). A s t o M o s e s , it is n o t h i n g short o f a m a z i n g that J o s e p h u s is a b l e t o praise his e x t r a o r d i n a r y ability in a d d r e s s i n g a c r o w d (Ant 3.13, 4.328), despite the fact t h a t the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e h a d a s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t ( E x o d . 6:12). L i k e w i s e , J o s h u a is t e r m e d h i g h l y gifted in s p e e c h (Ant 3.49) a n d s u p r e m e l y skilled in e x p o u n d i n g his i d e a s c l e a r l y to the m u l t i t u d e (Ant 5.118). A g a i n , N e h e m i a h , b e f o r e a p p r o a c h i n g the k i n g for p e r m i s s i o n to g o t o J e r u s a l e m , p r a y s t o G - d to g i v e his w o r d s s o m e m e a s u r e o f g r a c e a n d p e r s u a s i o n (ireiddu) (Ant n . 165). T h a t the p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n m a y , h o w e v e r , b e u s e d for n e g a t i v e e n d s m a y b e s e e n f r o m the fact, n o t e d b y M a s o n (1991, 300), t h a t in the t h r e e p l a c e s w h e r e T h u c y d i d e s , w h o m J o s e p h u s a d m i r e d so m u c h , uses the t e r m iridavcoraros
("most
p e r s u a s i v e " ) , this p e r s u a s i v e n e s s is d i r e c t e d t o w a r d " t h e p e o p l e " (rep SfjpLcp, 3.36.6), " t h e m a s s e s " (rep TrXrjdei, 4.21.3), a n d " t h e m u l t i t u d e " (rois 6.35.2).
33
rroXXois,
It is significant t h a t in t h e first t w o o f these citations, t h e p e r s o n w h o is
" m o s t p e r s u a s i v e " is n o n e o t h e r t h a n the a r c h d e m a g o g u e C l e o n , for w h o m T h u c y d i d e s h a d s u c h c o n t e m p t . T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s says o f the e m p e r o r G a i u s C a l i g u l a , w h o m h e , o f c o u r s e , d e s p i s e d , t h a t h e k n e w h o w to r e p l y i m p r o m p t u to s p e e c h e s t h a t o t h e r s h a d c o m p o s e d after l o n g p r e p a r a t i o n a n d to s h o w h i m s e l f in stantly m o r e p e r s u a s i v e (it id avoir epos) o n the subject t h a n a n y o n e else, e v e n w h e n
33. M a s o n 1991, 300-308, notes that the Pharisees are likewise described as most persuasive (TTidavajTOiTos) a m o n g the masses (Srj^ois) (Ant. 18.15) and convincingly suggests that this hardly implies Josephus's approval of their popularity.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
105
the g r e a t e s t m a t t e r s w e r e d e b a t e d (Ant. 19.208), is a n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the p o s session o f this trait w a s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s o m e t h i n g positive. I n d e e d , j u s t as K o r a h represents the use o f the p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n for n e g a t i v e e n d s , so also J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t f o r m i d a b l e o p p o n e n t , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , is d e s c r i b e d as m o r e p e r s u a s i v e (mdavLOTepos) t h a n a n y o n e else in d i s c l o s i n g to the e n e m y the p l a n s o f the h i g h priest A n a n u s (Ant. 19.208). L i k e w i s e , the l e a d e r o f the Z e a l o t s , E l e a z a r , is d e s c r i b e d as m o s t p e r s u a s i v e (Tridavcoraros)
(War 4.225). M o r e o v e r , it w a s b y w o r d s
t h a t J e r o b o a m m i s l e d the p e o p l e a n d c a u s e d t h e m to transgress the l a w s (Ant. 8.229). It w a s s u c h d e m a g o g u e r y , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l e d i t o rial r e m a r k , t h a t w a s the b e g i n n i n g o f the J e w s ' misfortunes a n d l e d to their b e i n g d e f e a t e d in w a r b y o t h e r p e o p l e s a n d t o their falling c a p t i v e . J o s e p h u s , in a m o r a l i z i n g c o m m e n t , w a r n s the r e a d e r n o t to think t h a t the things t h a t are said to flat ter us o r p l e a s e us are m o r e w o r t h y o f b e l i e f (Tndavcorepa)
t h a n the t r u t h (Ant.
8.418). I n a d d i t i o n t o ability in s p e e c h , it w a s i m p o r t a n t for the a n c i e n t h e r o t o e x c e l in m u s i c . T o the classical G r e e k s , m u s i c w a s " a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e , " o f d i v i n e o r i g i n ( P s e u d o - P l u t a r c h , De Musica 3 . 1 1 3 1 F - 3 2 A ) ( H e n d e r s o n 1957, 385). It w a s a g o d , H e r m e s , w h o w a s said to h a v e i n v e n t e d the lyre, a n d a g o d d e s s , A t h e n a , w h o w a s said to h a v e i n v e n t e d the aulos (flute or, rather, o b o e ) . H e r a c l e s , the g r e a t e s t h e r o o f the G r e e k s , w a s i n s t r u c t e d b y his t u t o r C h i r o n in m u s i c n o less t h a n in the o t h e r arts. T h a t m u s i c w a s , i n d e e d , a c e n t r a l feature in the lives o f the a n c i e n t s a p p e a r s from the fact t h a t A c h i l l e s is p l a y i n g a lyre, s i n g i n g the g l o r i o u s d e e d s o f h e r o e s , w h e n the e m b a s s y f r o m A g a m e m n o n c o m e s to his t e n t ( H o m e r , Iliad 9 . 1 8 6 - 8 7 ) . M u s i c w a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f e d u c a t i o n , as w e l e a r n f r o m A r i s t o p h a n e s (Clouds 973 ff.) a n d P l a t o (Republic 2,376E), the latter o f w h o m g o e s so far as to assert t h a t a n y o n e w h o c a n n o t t a k e his p l a c e in a c h o i r ( w h e t h e r as a singer o r as a d a n c e r ) is n o t truly e d u c a t e d (Laws 2 . 6 5 4 A - B ) . W e are e v e n i n f o r m e d t h a t T h e m i s t o c l e s dis g r a c e d h i m s e l f b y b e i n g u n a b l e to p l a y the lyre w h e n his t u r n c a m e at a b a n q u e t ( C i c e r o , Tusculan Disputations 1.4). H e n c e , in e s t a b l i s h i n g the g r e a t n e s s o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to stress t h a t u p o n successfully c r o s s i n g the S e a o f R e e d s , M o s e s c o m p o s e d a s o n g in h e x a m e t e r v e r s e (Ant. 2.346)—that is, the s a m e m e t e r t h a t H o m e r u s e d in his e p i c s — i n p r a i s e o f G - d , a n d t h a t h e likewise c o m p o s e d a p o e m in h e x a m e t e r verses w h e n h e s o u g h t to inspire the Israelites s h o r d y b e f o r e his d e a t h (Ant. 4.303). L i k e A t h e n a a n d H e r m e s , h e is p r e s e n t e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , as the in v e n t o r o f a m u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t , n a m e l y , the t r u m p e t (Ant. 3.291). Interest in m a g i c , o r at least w h i t e m a g i c , a l t h o u g h b e l i e f in it w a s a l w a y s w i d e s p r e a d a m o n g the c o m m o n folk, h a d g r o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y a m o n g the e d u c a t e d class f r o m t h e first c e n t u r y o n ( M a c M u l l e n 1 9 6 6 , 9 5 - 1 2 7 ; D u l i n g 1985, 1 - 2 5 , esp. 23-25). E x o r c i s i n g o f d e m o n s w a s likewise the sign o f s p e c i a l p o w e r in a w i s e m a n , if w e m a y j u d g e f r o m the e x a m p l e o f the f a m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r A p o l l o n i u s o f T y a n a , w h o successfully e x o r c i s e d a d e m o n f r o m a b o y (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 4.20). L u c i a n , w h o
flourished
n o t l o n g after J o s e p h u s , m e n t i o n s a S y r i a n
106
GENERAL
from Palestine,
34
CONSIDERATIONS
w h o , h e c l a i m s , w a s k n o w n to e v e r y o n e a n d w h o , for a l a r g e fee,
w a s a l l e g e d to h a v e r e s t o r e d to h e a l t h , t h r o u g h e x o r c i s m o f f o r e i g n spirits, p e o p l e w h o w e r e p o s s e s s e d (Philopseudeis 16). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s w a s o n sure g r o u n d in p o r t r a y i n g S o l o m o n as skilled in e x o r c i s i n g d e m o n s (Ant. 8 . 4 5 - 4 9 ) . T h u s , h e says, Solomon's understanding and wisdom
Courage and Skill in Battle.
(ovveois
Kal
aocfyta)
were revealed.
J o s e p h u s ' s g r e a t w o r k p r i o r to t h e Antiquities h a d b e e n
his h i s t o r y o f the J e w i s h w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s . I n stating his g o a l s in w r i t i n g the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s specifies four a r e a s o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e — t h e o r i g i n o f the J e w s , the fortunes t h a t befell t h e m , t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f M o s e s , a n d the d e s c r i p t i o n o f all the w a r s w a g e d b y the J e w s t h r o u g h l o n g a g e s b e f o r e the r e v o l u t i o n a g a i n s t the R o m a n s (Ant. 1.6). J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s w a r f a r e in his w r i t i n g s for several r e a s o n s . I n the first p l a c e , since h e h a d h i m s e l f b e e n a g e n e r a l in G a l i l e e d u r i n g the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , h e w a s n a t u r a l l y interested in m i l i t a r y details. M o r e o v e r , a d d i n g m i l i t a r y details to his b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e w a s in line w i t h L u c i a n ' s s i n g l i n g o u t o f m i l i t a r y k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e as qualifications n e c e s s a r y for the h i s t o r i a n (Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 37). T h e a t t e n t i o n o f the historian, says L u c i a n (ibid. 49), " s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d to the g e n e r a l s first o f all; their e x h o r t a t i o n s s h o u l d b e r e c o r d e d , as w e l l as the dispositions t h e y m a d e , a n d the m o t i v e s a n d p l a n s t h a t p r o m p t e d t h e m . " L u c i a n w a r n s against focusing exclusively o n great m e n , but J o s e p h u s ' s c e n t e r i n g o f a t t e n t i o n o n n o t a b l e m i l i t a r y figures is p e r h a p s justified b y the fact t h a t L u c i a n h i m s e l f m a k e s a n e x c e p t i o n in cases s u c h as those o f B r a s i d a s a n d D e m o s t h e n e s , w h o s e l e a d e r s h i p w a s so inspiring. Finally, i n a s m u c h as the J e w s h a d b e e n r e p r o a c h e d w i t h c o w a r d i c e b y J e w baiters s u c h as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.148), a n d J o s e p h u s h a d h i m s e l f b e e n c a l l e d a c o w a r d (War 3.358), h e c o n s t a n t l y seeks to e m p h a s i z e the m i l i t a r y e x c e l l e n c e a n d b r a v e r y o f the J e w s . T o t h a t e n d , h e cites the e v i d e n c e o f C h o e r i l u s t h a t J e w s h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d in X e r x e s ' e x p e d i t i o n (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.172-75), as w e l l as H e c a t a e u s ' s assertion t h a t t h e y h a d s e r v e d in the c a m p a i g n s o f A l e x a n d e r a n d o f his successors (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.200-204). I n the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , a c c o r d i n g to H e c a t a e u s , w h o m J o s e p h u s q u o t e s , a J e w i s h soldier n a m e d M o s o l l a m u s w a s d e e m e d the v e r y b e s t o f b o w m e n , w h e t h e r G r e e k o r b a r b a r i a n (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.201). T o s h o w h o w m u c h r e g a r d P t o l e m y P h i l o m e t o r a n d C l e o p a t r a h a d for the J e w s , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t t h e y p l a c e d their entire a r m y u n d e r the c o m m a n d o f J e w i s h g e n e r a l s , O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e u s (Ag. Ap. 2.49). A n d in c i t i n g the d e c r e e s o f Julius C a e s a r o n the subject, h e e x p l a i n s t h a t h e d o e s so in o r d e r t h a t o t h e r n a t i o n s m a y n o t fail to r e c o g n i z e t h a t rulers in the p a s t h a d h e l d the J e w s in e s t e e m a n d h a d a d -
34. It seems likely that the allusion here is to a Jew, since w e find the same phrase, Palaestino. .. Syro, in O v i d (Ars Amatoria 1.416), where the reference is definitely to a Jew, since the passage refers to the Sabbath, w h i c h he observes. See Stern 1974-84, 2:221, n. 4.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
107
m i r e d their b r a v e r y a n d l o y a l t y (Ant. 14.186). T h a t the J e w s ' m i l i t a r y skill h a d t o b e affirmed a n d r e a f f i r m e d m a y b e s e e n f r o m t h e fact t h a t h u n d r e d s o f y e a r s later e v e n a w r i t e r as relatively s y m p a t h e t i c as J u l i a n w o u l d c h a l l e n g e a n y o n e t o p o i n t o u t a single g e n e r a l a m o n g the J e w s o f the c a l i b e r o f a n A l e x a n d e r o r a Julius C a e sar (Contra Galilaeos 218B). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f g e n e r a l s h i p for t h e a n c i e n t s m a y b e d i s c e r n e d i n t h a t it h a d b e e n t h r o u g h c o n s t a n t r e e l e c t i o n t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f arparrfyos
("general") t h a t Per
icles, t h e i d o l o f J o s e p h u s ' s m o d e l , T h u c y d i d e s , w a s a b l e t o d o m i n a t e A t h e n s for three d e c a d e s . I n d e e d , g e n e r a l s h i p w a s t h e k e y factor i n t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e G r e e k s a n d M a c e d o n i a n s o v e r t h e " b a r b a r i a n s " ( H e n g e l 1974, 1:13). T h i s s u p e r i ority b e g a n w i t h t r a i n i n g i n t h e g y m n a s i u m a n d p r o g r e s s e d t h r o u g h tactics a n d strategy t o t h e t e c h n i q u e s o f l a y i n g siege. T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e r a b b i s stress t h e m i r a c u l o u s h e l p t h a t A b r a h a m r e c e i v e d from a n a n g e l n a m e d N i g h t i n a t t a c k i n g t h e A s s y r i a n s (Sanhedrin 96a), J o s e p h u s a d d s a n u m b e r o f details t o e n h a n c e A b r a h a m ' s m i l i t a r y p r o w e s s , n o t a b l y t h a t t h e b a t d e w a s a s t u b b o r n c o n t e s t (Ant. 1.172), t h a t A b r a h a m w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o h e l p the S o d o m i t e s w i t h o u t delay, t h a t h e s u r p r i s e d t h e A s s y r i a n s b e f o r e t h e y h a d t i m e to a r m , a n d t h a t h e slew s o m e i n their b e d s , w h i l e o t h e r s w h o w e r e d r u n k t o o k t o flight (Ant. 1.177). T h i s J e w i s h m i l i t a r y t r a d i t i o n w a s c o n t i n u e d , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e phus, w h o q u o t e s a c e r t a i n C l e o d e m u s - M a l c h u s , b y t w o o f A b r a h a m ' s sons b y K e t u r a h , w h o j o i n e d H e r a c l e s , t h e m o s t f a m o u s o f the G r e e k l e g e n d a r y h e r o e s , i n his c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t L i b y a a n d A n t a e u s , t h e g i a n t s o n o f E a r t h (Ant. 1.240-41). (Jose phus, w h o n o r m a l l y , as w e shall see, i n v e i g h s bitterly a g a i n s t i n t e r m a r r i a g e , h e r e seems t o r e c o r d p r o u d l y t h e fact t h a t H e r a c l e s m a r r i e d t h e d a u g h t e r o f o n e o f these sons o f A b r a h a m . ) M o r e o v e r , J a c o b ' s sons a r e d e s c r i b e d as c o u r a g e o u s i n €L
m a n u a l l a b o r a n d e n d u r a n c e o f toil (npos epya x pd)v €vi/jvxol)
(Ant.
Kal
ttovcov
vTropLovr)v
rjaav
2.7).
T h e s u p r e m e e x a m p l e o f m i l i t a r y a c u m e n a n d c o u r a g e i n J o s e p h u s is M o s e s , w h o is d e p i c t e d as t h e c o n q u e r o r o f E t h i o p i a (Ant. 2 . 2 3 8 - 5 1 ) , a l a n d t h a t h a d s u c cessfully resisted i n v a s i o n b y g e n e r a l s o f t h e c a l i b e r o f C a m b y s e s ( H e r o d o t u s , 3.17-26) a n d A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t . M o s e s is n e v e r c a l l e d rjyepiojv
arpanqyos
or even
i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h e r e a s i n J o s e p h u s these t e r m s a r e f r e q u e n d y u s e d
( H o l l a d a y 1977, 69), p a r t i c u l a r l y t o d e s c r i b e M o s e s ' role i n t h e w i l d e r n e s s , w h e r e he is t h e m o d e l g e n e r a l , u n p e r t u r b e d , like a v e r i t a b l e A e n e a s i n V i r g i l , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g g r e a t difficulties, u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t his o w n safety, despite g r a v e threats to his life, a l w a y s e n c o u r a g i n g his troops, a n d a d m i r e d b y his father-in-law R a g u e l for his g a l l a n t r y
(avhpayadias)
i n s a v i n g his friends (Ant. 3.65). M o s e s s h o w s his m i l
itary ability i n his e x c e l l e n t s t r a t e g y i n e x h o r t i n g his m e n (Ant. 3.47), i n his p r e p a rations for t h e battie (Ant. 3.5), a n d e v e n i n his ability t o l e a d a retreat (Ant. 4.9). H e also s h o w s g r e a t c o u r a g e i n f a c i n g t h e rebellious Israelites (Ant. 3.13—21). E v e n w h e n h e a s c e n d s M o u n t S i n a i t o r e c e i v e t h e T o r a h , h e is r e f e r r e d t o as a g e n e r a l (oTpaTrjyov)
(Ant. 3.78). W h e n M o s e s r e t u r n s w i t h the t w o tablets a n d addresses t h e
Israelites a t S i n a i , h e is d e s c r i b e d as r a d i a n t a n d h i g h - s p i r i t e d
(pteya
tfrpovthv) (Ant.
w8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
3.83). I n his r e c a s t i n g o f t h e B a l a a m p e r i c o p e , J o s e p h u s h a s i n s e r t e d m i l i t a r y ter m i n o l o g y , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e p i s o d e as t h e p r o l o g u e t o Israel's w a r a g a i n s t t h e M i d ianites (Ant. 4.101). I n s u m m a r i z i n g M o s e s ' career, J o s e p h u s selects t w o traits in w h i c h h e p a r t i c u l a r l y e x c e l l e d , his ability as a g e n e r a l , w h e r e h e h a d f e w t o e q u a l h i m , a n d his role as a p r o p h e t , w h e r e h e w a s u n i q u e (Ant. 4.329). O n e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l factors l e a d i n g t o M o s e s ' c h o i c e o f J o s h u a t o l e a d his a r m y is t h a t t h e latter is e x t r e m e l y c o u r a g e o u s (avSpeiorarov) toil
(TTOVOVS
VTTooTrjvai
yevvaiov)
a n d valiant in enduring
(Ant. 3.49). J o s h u a is l a t e r e u l o g i z e d as stout
h e a r t e d (evi/jvxos) a n d g r e a t l y d a r i n g (pLeyaXoroXpuos) (Ant. 5.118). A n o t h e r m e t h o d b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s a g g r a n d i z e s a b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y ' s r e p u t a t i o n for c o u r a g e is b y d i m i n i s h i n g t h e role o f G - d in g i v i n g m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y t o t h e Israelites, a s s i g n i n g the c r e d i t t o t h e b i b l i c a l h e r o instead. F o r e x a m p l e , at t h e siege o f J e r i c h o , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is G - d w h o tells J o s h u a t h a t H e h a s g i v e n t h e c i t y i n t o his h a n d s ( J o s h . 6:2), in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e priests a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders, resolves t o b e s i e g e t h e city (Ant. 5 . 2 2 ) .
35
Similarly, J o s e p h u s stresses t h e u n u s u a l c o u r a g e s h o w n b y P h i n e a s in killing Z a m b r i a s a n d his M i d i a n i t e c o n s o r t (Ant. 4.153). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t the j u d g e K e n a z w a s v i g o r o u s a n d n o b l e - s p i r i t e d (TO cfrpovrjpLa yewaios)
(Ant. 5.182). M o r e
over, J o s e p h u s calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e g r e a t c o u r a g e o f E h u d in d a r i n g l y killing E g l o n , k i n g o f M o a b (Ant. 5.188) ( F e l d m a n i 9 9 4 d , 1 8 7 - 8 9 ) . A n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a successful g e n e r a l is s p e e d o f d e c i s i o n , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in K i n g J e h o r a m o f Israel's i m m e d i a t e d e c i s i o n to m e e t J e h u w h e n h e h e a r s t h a t h e is a p p r o a c h i n g (Ant. 9.117) ( F e l d m a n 1 9 9 4 ^ 10). Still a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e b i b l i c a l h e r o is s h e e r p h y s i c a l strength. T h u s , w e a r e t o l d t h a t A b r a h a m ' s sons w e r e s t r o n g to l a b o r (irpos
. . .
TTOVOVS
Kaprepol,
Ant. 1.238), t h a t G - d p r o m i s e d t o furnish M o s e s s t r e n g t h (loxvv) w h e n a c t i o n w a s c a l l e d for (Ant. 2.272), t h a t E h u d d e r i v e d all his strength (loxvv) f r o m his left h a n d (Ant. 5.188), t h a t S a m s o n ' s v e r y n a m e m e a n s " s t r o n g " (Ant. 5.285), t h a t D a v i d s h o w e d his s t r e n g t h (loxvv) at o n c e b y t h e c a p t u r e o f t h e city o f J e r u s a l e m f r o m t h e Jebusites (Ant. 7.62), t h a t S h a m m a h (one o f D a v i d ' s c h i e f w a r r i o r s ) w a s a n a r m y a n d a b a t d e line all b y himself, w h o s e p o w e r f u l a t t a c k
(TTJV
loxvv
Kal
TT)V
jStav) the
Philistines c o u l d n o t f a c e (Ant. 7.310), a n d t h a t H a z a e l w a s t o l d b y E l i s h a o f the g r e a t p o w e r (loxvv) t h a t h e w a s d e s t i n e d to h a v e (Ant. 9.92). A n d y e t , t h e g o a l o f a successful m i l i t a r y l e a d e r is n o t w a r for its o w n sake b u t r a t h e r a j u s t p e a c e , as w e c a n see f r o m V i r g i l ' s s t a t e m e n t o f t h e R o m a n m i s s i o n , pacisque imponere morem (Aeneid 6.852) a n d f r o m A u g u s t u s ' s p r i d e (in t h e Monumentum Ancyranum) in t h e fact t h a t d u r i n g his rule, t h e T e m p l e o f J a n u s w a s c l o s e d — a n in d i c a t i o n t h a t R o m e w a s at p e a c e . W e c a n therefore a p p r e c i a t e t h e fact t h a t K i n g
35. W h e r e a s in the Bible, it is G - d w h o tells Joshua to lay an ambush against the city o f A i (Josh. 8:1-2), in Josephus, it is Joshua w h o takes the initiative to think o f an ambush (Ant. 5.45). Likewise, whereas the biblical text declares that the L - r d gave L i b n a h and Lachish into the hands o f Israel (Josh. 10:30, 32), in Josephus, it is Joshua w h o captures the kings and punishes all the host (Ant. 5.61).
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
wg
J e h o r a m w e l c o m e s p e a c e w h e n he hears o f the death o f the Syrian king B e n h a d a d (Ant. 9.94; cf. 2 K i n g s 8:15). J o s e p h u s o m i t s details t h a t w o u l d d e t r a c t f r o m t h e h e r o i c stature o f his b i b l i c a l personalities. H e n c e , since t h e G r e e k s g e n e r a l l y h a d c o n t e m p t for m e n i a l labor, a n d since the toil o f w o r k i n g at t h e m i l l w a s a c o m m o n a n d m u c h d r e a d e d p u n i s h m e n t o f slaves, often r e f e r r e d t o in t h e c o m i c p o e t s , J o s e p h u s is careful t o o m i t the fact t h a t S a m s o n " d i d g r i n d in t h e p r i s o n h o u s e " (Judg. 16:21). I n his l o n g a p p r e c i a t i o n o f S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s c a t e g o r i c a l l y t h a t the t e r m s " s t o u t - h e a r t e d " (eviftvxos), " g r e a t l y d a r i n g " (/xcyaAdroA/xos), a n d " c o n t e m p t u o u s o f d a n g e r " (rcov heivchv KaTacf>povr)Trjs) c a n j u s t l y b e a p p l i e d o n l y t o s u c h as h a v e e m u l a t e d S a u l , since h e e n g a g e d in his e x p l o i t s k n o w i n g b e f o r e h a n d that h e w a s d e s t i n e d to die (Ant 6.347). W h e n S a m u e l m i s t a k e n l y thinks t h a t Jesse's eldest s o n is t h e o n e to b e s e l e c t e d as king, G - d tells h i m t h a t t h e qualities t h a t H e seeks in a k i n g a r e piety, j u s t i c e , b r a v e r y (dvSpeia), a n d o b e d i e n c e (Ant
6.160). J o s e p h u s likewise u n d e r l i n e s
the
c o u r a g e o u s e x p l o i t o f D a v i d in w i n n i n g the h a n d o f S a u l ' s d a u g h t e r M i c h a l b y slaying six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant 6 . 1 9 6 - 2 0 4 ) . E l s e w h e r e the Israelites e x p r e s s their fear t h a t t h r o u g h his b r a v e r y (dvhpeiav)
a n d z e a l (TTpoBvpLiav), D a v i d m i g h t
suffer injury a n d thus d e p r i v e t h e m o f his p r o t e c t i o n (Ant 7.300); a n d in his e u l o g y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t h e w a s b r a v e (dvhpeios) as n o o n e else w a s (Ant 7.390). Finally, w e m a y n o t e s u c h a m i l i t a r y a d d i t i o n , i n f l u e n c e d p e r h a p s b y details from T i t u s ' s siege, as H u s h a i ' s s p e a k i n g o f the siege m a c h i n e r y a n d u n d e r g r o u n d m i n e s o f t h e a t t a c k e r s (Ant 7.220), O n e striking e x c e p t i o n to J o s e p h u s ' s m a g n i f y i n g o f t h e q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e o f his biblical h e r o e s is to b e s e e n in his t r e a t m e n t o f H e z e k i a h . N o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s n o t e n h a n c e H e z e k i a h ' s c o u r a g e , b u t h e e v e n g o e s to t h e e x t r e m e o f asserting t h a t it w a s o u t o f c o w a r d i c e (heiXias) t h a t w h e n the A s s y r i a n s e n c a m p e d b e f o r e t h e walls o f J e r u s a l e m a n d a s k e d h i m t o p a r l e y w i t h t h e m , H e z e k i a h d i d n o t c o m e o u t h i m s e l f to m e e t t h e m b u t sent three friends i n s t e a d (Ant 10.5 v s . 2 K i n g s 18:18). A l t h o u g h , to b e sure, J o s e p h u s ' s g e n e r a l p o r t r a i t o f H e z e k i a h is t r u e to t h e B i b l e in n o t i n g his g o o d n e s s , j u s t i c e , a n d p i e t y (Ant 9.260), J o s e p h u s , l o o k i n g at H e z e k i a h from a p u r e l y m i l i t a r y p o i n t o f view, m a y h a v e s e e n a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e situa tion in w h i c h H e z e k i a h f o u n d h i m s e l f o p p o s i n g the m i l i t a r y p o w e r o f his d a y — A s s y r i a — i n s t e a d o f realistically a c c o m m o d a t i n g h i m s e l f to it, a n d t h e situation in w h i c h the v a r i o u s J e w i s h r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p s o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y c h o s e t h e suicidal p a t h o f w a r a g a i n s t t h e m i g h t y R o m a n E m p i r e r a t h e r t h a n o f s e e k i n g a m o d u s v i v e n d i w i t h it. A s o n e w h o h a d c h o s e n t h e latter route, J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m a y h a v e b e e n a r g u i n g in self-defense in his distinct l a c k o f e n t h u s i a s m
for
H e z e k i a h ' s m i l i t a r y j u d g m e n t (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 5 9 7 - 6 1 0 ) . Temperance and Modesty.
O n e o f the t w o f a m o u s m o t t o e s i n s c r i b e d at D e l p h i
w a s pbrjBev dyav, " n o t h i n g in e x c e s s . " T h a t this m o t t o h a d t o b e i n s c r i b e d w o u l d s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e G r e e k s w e r e i n c l i n e d to g o to excess. I n G r e e k literature,
no
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
too, o n e finds d i s p a r a g e m e n t o f rashness, s u c h as I s m e n e ' s bitter c o m m e n t to h e r sister A n t i g o n e in the Antigone (88) o f S o p h o c l e s : " Y o u h a v e a h o t h e a r t [deppurjv . . . Kdphiav] o v e r chilly t h i n g s . " Similarly, the Israelites h a d to b e e x h o r t e d b y M o s e s b e f o r e his d e a t h to l e a r n m o d e r a t i o n (oto<j)povr)oeiv) (Ant. 4.189), w h i c h h e identi fies w i t h c l e m e n c y a n d modesty. It is significant t h a t it is this q u a l i t y o f t e m p e r a n c e , oto
36
It w a s c u s t o m a r y in
J o s e p h u s ' s d a y to a s c r i b e the q u a l i t y o f c l e m e n c y to a ruler, as w e find, for e x a m ple, in C i c e r o ' s e u l o g y o f the clementia a n d mansuetudo o f Julius C a e s a r (Pro Ligario 2.6, 4.10, 5 . 1 5 , 6.19); a n d this b e c a m e a p e r m a n e n t m o t i f a m o n g historians (van d e r M e u l e n 1 9 7 8 , 4 4 - 4 7 ) . W e h e a r o f a n altar ofclementia o f Julius C a e s a r ( D i o C a s sius 44.6.4), as w e l l as o f o n e o f the e m p e r o r T i b e r i u s (Tacitus, Annals 4 . 7 4 . 1 - 3 ) . T h i s v i r t u e is, as w e w o u l d e x p e c t , a r e c u r r i n g t h e m e in e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s to the portraits o f m a n y o f J o s e p h u s ' s b i b l i c a l h e r o e s . I n J o s e p h u s ' s final e u l o g y o f M o s e s , h e is d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g f o u n d favor in e v e r y w a y , b u t chiefly t h r o u g h his c o m m a n d o f his passions (TCOV TTOLOLOV a u r o KpaTtop)
(Ant. 4 . 3 2 8 - 2 9 ) , a m i l i t a r y t e r m t h a t indicates t h a t M o s e s w a s c o m m a n d e r
in c h i e f o f his e m o t i o n s , w a s a b l e to a c t a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n c h o i c e , w a s c o m pletely independent,
a n d e x e r c i s e d a b s o l u t e c o n t r o l . Significantly, b e f o r e his
d e a t h , M o s e s e x h o r t s the Israelites t o l e a r n m o d e r a t i o n (aco^pov^aeiv) (Ant. 4.189). T o J o s e p h u s , this q u a l i t y is o f the g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e , since o n e o f the divisions o f the ethics o f the S t o i c s , the m o s t influential o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s i n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day, w a s , as n o t e d b y D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s (7.84), rrepl iraOcov ( A t t r i d g e 1976, 1 6 5 - 6 6 ) . T h e o p p o s i t e o f t e m p e r a n c e is l a c k o f c o n t r o l , w h i c h is a k i n to l a c k o f r a t i o n a l reflection (Aoy 107x0s), as illustrated, for e x a m p l e , b y J e p h t h a h ' s failing to c o n s i d e r w h a t m i g h t result f r o m his r a s h v o w (Ant. 5.266). T h e o p p o s i t e o f the S t o i c s a g e , in t h a t h e d o e s n o t h a v e c o m m a n d o f his p a s sions, is P h a r a o h ; a n d it w a s his u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o b e m o d e r a t e (ococfypovetv, " t o b e s o u n d o f m i n d , " " t o b e t e m p e r a t e " ) , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.296), t h a t j u s t i fied the infliction o f p l a g u e s u p o n the E g y p t i a n s . It is this i n t e m p e r a n c e , c o u p l e d w i t h P h a r a o h ' s l a c k o f w i s d o m (Ant. 2.299, 307), t h a t i m p e l s h i m t o p r e v e n t the Is raelites f r o m d e p a r t i n g ; a n d it is o n l y fear t h a t l e a d s this u n - S t o i c fool, w h o is o b l i v i o u s o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e (Ant. 2.302), t e m p o r a r i l y to s u b m i t ( H o l l a d a y 1977,
36. S o the philosopher Diotogenes (date unknown) (ap. Stobaeus 4.7.62): "It is proper that the one w h o desires to rule over others should first be able to rule over his own passions." See Wirszubski 1950, 152, and N o r t h 1966, 303.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
///
96). E v e n w h e n , as after the t h i r d p l a g u e , P h a r a o h is f o r c e d (rjvayKaCero) t o listen to r e a s o n (oaxfrpoveiv, " t o b e m o d e r a t e " ) (Ant. 2 . 3 0 1 - 2 ) , h e d o e s so, w e a r e t o l d , o n l y in h a l f m e a s u r e . I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the s e v e n t h p l a g u e , t h a t o f h a i l , J o s e p h u s stresses the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e s o b r i e t y o f M o s e s a n d t h e l a c k o f this q u a l i t y (oaxfrpovL&fjLevov) o n t h e p a r t o f P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.305). T h e E g y p t i a n s a r e d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s , in a c o n s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b lical text, as l a c k i n g this q u a l i t y a n d as b e i n g a v o l u p t u o u s (rpv<j>epois, " l u x u r i o u s , " "effeminate") p e o p l e , slaves t o p l e a s u r e in g e n e r a l a n d t o a l o v e o f l u c r e , s l a c k to labor, a n d c o n s e q u e n d y j e a l o u s o f the p r o s p e r i t y o f t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 2.201). I n contrast, the b i b l i c a l t e x t says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e excesses o f t h e E g y p t i a n s b u t r a t h e r states as t h e c a u s e o f t h e E g y p t i a n e n s l a v e m e n t o f the Israelites t h a t t h e Is raelites w e r e m o r e n u m e r o u s a n d m i g h t i e r t h a n t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d t h a t t h e y feared t h a t t h e y w o u l d j o i n a n e n e m y in fighting a g a i n s t t h e m ( E x o d . 1 : 9 - 1 0 ) .
37
It
is h o t - h e a d e d n e s s (deppuorepov) t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s the E g y p t i a n s , w h o , after b e i n g saved b y M o s e s , t h e n c o n c e i v e a h a t r e d for h i m a n d p u r s u e their plots u p o n his life w i t h g r e a t e r a r d o r (Ant. 2.254). T h e r e a d e r will r e c a l l t h a t it w a s p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f self-control (aKpaoias) in r e v o l t i n g a g a i n s t M o s e s in t h e w i l d e r n e s s after l e a v i n g E g y p t t h a t t h e Israelites w e r e c o n d e m n e d t o w a n d e r for forty y e a r s (Ant. 3.314). I n his e u l o g y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s refers to h i m as self-controlled (oaxfrpcuv) a n d m i l d (ernei/c^s) (Ant. 1
7-39 )- W e see t h e
antithesis
o f moderation
in N a b a l ' s w a n t
of judgment
(dcppoovvrj) in refusing to p r e s e n t gifts to D a v i d (Ant. 6.302). T o Josephus, hot-headedness w a s the defining characteristic o f the revolution aries a g a i n s t R o m e w h o m h e so d e s p i s e d ; h e n c e w e c a n see t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s c l e a r c o n d e m n a t i o n o f J e r o b o a m , w h o m h e d e p i c t s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , as h o t - h e a d e d (OeppLos) b y n a t u r e (Ant. 8.209). F u r t h e r m o r e , it w a s A n tiochus E p i p h a n e s ' u n g o v e r n a b l e (aKpaoias)
p a s s i o n s t h a t l e d h i m to p e r s e c u t e t h e
J e w s (War 1.34). A n d it is this s a m e l a c k o f self-control (aKpaolav)
that characterizes
the G r e e k divinities (Ag. Ap. 2.244). A b o v e all, J o s e p h u s , as a l w a y s , w a s t h i n k i n g o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y situation. T h i s w e c a n see, for i n s t a n c e , in his r e m a r k t h a t o n e o f the factors p r o v o k i n g t h e
37. Apparendy, Josephus, self-conscious about the vast increase in the number of Jews in his o w n day, largely through proselytism, preferred not to remind his readers o f the population explosion of the Jews and the fear of the Romans that their pagan religion would be overwhelmed by the Jews. Cf. Jose phus, Against Apion 2.282: " T h e masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious ob servances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian,. . . to which our customs have not spread." T h e fact that Josephus speaks of the masses (TrX^OeoLv) and that he refers to their zeal (£r}Xos) indicates that we are dealing with a mass movement. Further evidence of the spread of the Torah throughout the world may be seen in Josephus's analogy comparing the spread o f the Law, that is, o f Judaism, to the degree to which G - d permeates the universe (Ag. Ap. 2.284). H e comments on the gracious welcome extended by Jews to all w h o wished to adopt their laws (Ag. Ap. 2.210). H e states that many of the Greeks had agreed to adopt the laws o f Jews (Ag. Ap. 2.123). O n the success of Jews in winning proselytes dur ing the Hellenistic-Roman period, see Feldman 1993a, 288-341.
H2
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
r e v o l u t i o n w a s the a c t i o n b y s o m e o f the m o r e h o t - h e a d e d (ol deppLorepoi) o f the J e w i s h y o u t h s in a t t a c k i n g the b u i l d e r s o f w o r k s h o p s a n d t r y i n g to disrupt o p e r a tors o n
a site n e x t t o the
s y n a g o g u e (War
2.286). A
similar
hot-blooded
(Oeppborepovs) c h a r a c t e r is e v i d e n c e d b y the Z e a l o t s , w h o p l u n g e d b o l d l y into the h e a r t o f the city o f J e r u s a l e m a n d o p e n e d the gates to their allies, the I d u m a e a n s (W^r 4.292). T h e i d e n t i c a l t e r m is u s e d , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s a b h o r r e n c e o f civil w a r , o f the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , w h o t h o u g h d e s s l y r u s h e d into a r m s , their h a n d s yet h o t (Qeppids) w i t h the b l o o d o f their c o u n t r y m e n (War 6.122). T h e s a m e c h a r acteristic is to b e s e e n in the a d v i c e g i v e n b y t h o s e — c l e a r l y b o t h T i t u s a n d J o s e p h u s are in d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e m — i n T i t u s ' s c o u n c i l o f w a r w h o w e r e m o r e h o t - h e a d e d (OeppLorepois) a n d w h o a d v o c a t e d b r i n g i n g u p his entire force a n d at t e m p t i n g to c a r r y the w a l l o f J e r u s a l e m b y s t o r m (War 5.491). T e m p e r a n c e , for the a n c i e n t s , w a s s h o w n p r i m a r i l y in o n e ' s e a t i n g habits; a n d , i n d e e d , a m a j o r criticism l e v e l e d a g a i n s t t h e J e w s b y the p a g a n w r i t e r s is t h a t t h e y are g u i l t y o f s t u b b o r n e x c l u s i v e n e s s a n d s e p a r a t i s m , l a r g e l y b e c a u s e o f their o b s e r v a n c e o f the d i e t a r y l a w s ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 , 28-30). A n d y e t , w h e n A r i s t o d e , a c c o r d i n g to his disciple C l e a r c h u s o f S o l i , m e t a J e w in A s i a M i n o r in the fourth c e n t u r y B.C.E., h e w a s i m p r e s s e d w i t h the J e w ' s t e m p e r a n c e (acoc^poavvrjv) in his w a y o f life
(SICUT^)
(ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.182). T h e G r e e k w o r d
SIAITA,
w h i c h is
h e r e u s e d for " w a y o f life" o r " r e g i m e n , " refers particularly, as d o e s its E n g l i s h d e rivative, to diet. T h e s a m e w o r d , S u u r a , is u s e d four t i m e s in d e s c r i b i n g the diet o f D a n i e l a n d his c o l l e a g u e s (Ant. 10.187, 190, 1 9 1 , 192). Q u i t e clearly, the hiana
of
D a n i e l a n d his c o l l e a g u e s is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h a t o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , w h o s e w a y o f l i v i n g w a s c h a n g e d to t h a t o f beasts (Ant. 10.242). C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h m o d e r a t i o n is the q u a l i t y o f m o d e s t y , w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s identifies it (Ant. 6.63). A n d y e t , the p a g a n s t e n d e d to f r o w n u p o n m o d e s t y . Aristotle, for e x a m p l e , is critical o f the u n d u l y h u m b l e m a n w h o , a l t h o u g h w o r t h y o f g o o d things, r o b s h i m s e l f o f w h a t h e d e s e r v e s (Nicomachean Ethics 4 . 4 . 1 1 2 5 B 7 - 2 7 ) . A r i s t o d e ' s c h a r g e t h a t the u n d u l y h u m b l e m a n d o e s n o t k n o w h i m s e l f is p a r t i c u larly serious, e s p e c i a l l y since h e also says t h a t u n d u e h u m i l i t y is m o r e o p p o s e d to p r i d e t h a n is vanity, b e i n g b o t h c o m m o n e r a n d w o r s e . O n the o t h e r h a n d , M o s e s ' m o d e s t y is s h o w n b y the fact t h a t h e w a s w i l l i n g t o t a k e a d v i c e f r o m his father-inl a w a n d t h a t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d this assistance (Ant. 3.74). L i k e w i s e , M o s e s m o d e s d y r e c o r d e d the p r o p h e c i e s o f B a l a a m , a l t h o u g h h e c o u l d easily h a v e a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e m for himself, since t h e r e w a s n o w i t n e s s to c o n v i c t h i m (Ant. 4.157). T h u s M o s e s w a s n o t g u i l t y o f the sin o f p l a g i a r i s m , so f r e q u e n d y p r a c t i c e d in a n t i q u i t y .
38
S a m s o n s h o w s the q u a l i t y o f h u m i l i t y in a c k n o w l e d g i n g , after h e h a d b e e n s e i z e d b y a m i g h t y thirst, t h a t h u m a n v i r t u e (dperrj) is n o t h i n g , since all is attributable to G-d
(Ant. 5.302). S a u l is p r a i s e d for his restraint (eyKpdreiav)
and
modesty
38. For examples of plagiarism, see Aristophanes' accusation of Eupolis (Clouds 553-54) and Eupolis's o f Aristophanes (fr. 78, Kock). Plato was accused o f deriving the idea o f the Republic from the Sophist Protagoras. In Hellenistic Alexandria, investigations of plagiarism were apparendy frequent.
THE
QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
113
(pa)(j>poavvrjv) w h e n Jie is c h o s e n k i n g (Ant. 6.63). Finally, S o l o m o n , as w e h a v e n o t e d a b o v e , exhibits m o d e s t y in r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a T y r i a n lad, A b d e m o n , w a s able to solve riddles t h a t h e h a d p r e p a r e d , w h e r e a s h e h i m s e l f h a d failed to solve A b d e m o n ' s riddles (Ant. 8 . 1 4 6 - 4 9 ) . For J o s e p h u s oaxfrpoovvr} is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h the issue o f o b e d i e n c e a n d respect for a u t h o r i t y ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . T h e antithesis o f this q u a l i t y is a t h o u g h t less, reckless attitude, s e e n in the ill-advisedness (afiovXia) o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.163) a n d in the l a c k o f j u d g m e n t (ticfrpoovvrj) o f P h a r a o h in his r e s p o n s e t o M o s e s (Ant. 2.307). Justice and Truth.
T h e c r o w n o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, as w e see f r o m the fact t h a t
it is the subject o f Plato's m o s t f a m o u s d i a l o g u e , The Republic, is j u s t i c e ; a n d , in d e e d , this is the m o s t inclusive t e r m for v i r t u e in g e n e r a l . H e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s this q u a l i t y in his m a j o r h e r o e s .
39
A r i s t o d e states t h a t m e n h o n o r m o s t the
j u s t a n d the c o u r a g e o u s , a n d h e c l e a r l y i m p l i e s t h a t j u s t i c e is s u p e r i o r e v e n to c o u r a g e , since, h e r e m a r k s , c o u r a g e is useful to o t h e r s in w a r , w h e r e a s j u s t i c e is useful b o t h in w a r a n d in p e a c e (Rhetoric 1 . 9 . 1 3 6 6 B 5 - 6 ) . P l u t a r c h gives still a n o t h e r r e a s o n w h y j u s t i c e is s u p e r i o r to c o u r a g e — n a m e l y , t h a t s o m e c o u r a g e o u s p e o p l e h a v e a start o r a d v a n t a g e s u p p l i e d b y the g e n e r o s i t y o f n a t u r e , w h e r e a s all m e n start at the s a m e p o i n t in their q u e s t for j u s t i c e (Cato the Younger 44.8). H e d e s c r i b e s the t e r m "just" as the m o s t r o y a l a n d d i v i n e o f tides (Aristides 6.2). T h a t it is a tide o f g r e a t p r a i s e is c l e a r f r o m its h a v i n g b e e n a p p l i e d to the f a m o u s A t h e n i a n states m a n A r i s t i d e s . H e t h e n g o e s o n to r e m a r k that m e n e n v y the g o d s b e c a u s e o f their incorruptibility; w e fear their p o w e r , b u t w e love a n d h o n o r the g o d s for their j u s tice. P l u t a r c h r e m a r k s t h a t j u s t i c e is the m o s t b e c o m i n g f u n c t i o n t h a t a k i n g h a s t o c a r r y o u t (Demetrius 4 2 . 5 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s says t h a t a k i n g s h o u l d h a v e a p e r p e t u a l c a r e for j u s t i c e a n d v i r t u e in e v e r y o t h e r f o r m (Ant. 4.223). It is, h o w e v e r , as r a r e as it is useful ( P l u t a r c h , Titus
1 1 . 4 - 5 ) . T h e r e a s o n for its rarity, a c c o r d i n g to
P l u t a r c h , is that, e v e n t h o u g h it w i n s the c o n f i d e n c e o f t h e m a n y , it p r o v o k e s t h e e n v y o f o n e ' s p e e r s (Cato the Younger 4 4 . 1 1 - 1 4 ) , as w e also see i n the c a s e o f M o s e s , w h o is e n v i e d b y his p e e r K o r a h . B u t t h e g r e a t e s t a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e j u s t m a n , as w e see i n P l u t a r c h ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f Pericles, is t h a t h e n e v e r uses his p o s i t i o n to d e stroy his p o l i t i c a l e n e m i e s (Precepts on Public Life), this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e i n g illus t r a t e d b y the f o r b e a r a n c e w i t h w h i c h M o s e s deals w i t h his g r e a t rivals, K o r a h , D a t h a n , a n d A b i r a m . A n d y e t , g r e a t as j u s t i c e is, the q u e s t i o n arises o f w h e t h e r the j u s t m a n is useful o n l y t o o t h e r s a n d n o t to h i m s e l f ( P l u t a r c h , Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 3 - 4 ) . T o J o s e p h u s , j u s t i c e (hUrj) is a u t o n o m o u s (Ant. 6.305, 13.294; War 5.27, 5.34),
39. Attridge (1976a, 115) states that the quality of justice is ascribed by Josephus to almost every
positively evaluated figure in his Antiquities; but while he then proceeds to cite eight biblical figures as examples, he omits Moses.
ii4
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
a n d the L a w is similarly d e p i c t e d (Pfeifer 1967). J o s e p h u s p r o u d l y r e m a r k s t h a t w h i l e c u s t o m s v a r y e v e n w i t h i n a g i v e n n a t i o n , j u s t i c e is r e g a r d e d as m o s t useful b y b o t h the G r e e k s a n d the n o n - G r e e k s , a n d t h a t the l a w s o f the J e w s e v i d e n c e t h e greatest sense o f j u s t i c e , so that, i f t h e y are k e p t properly, the J e w s m u s t b e k i n d a n d friendly to all m e n (Ant. 16.176). J o s e p h u s , in e x p a n d i n g o n the b i b l i c a l state m e n t "Justice, o n l y j u s t i c e shalt t h o u p u r s u e " ( D e u t . 16:20), g i v e s a t h e o l o g i c a l r e a son w h y a j u d g e must show n o favoritism—namely, that otherwise G - d w o u l d ap p e a r to b e a c c o u n t e d w e a k e r t h a n t h o s e to w h o m , f r o m fear o f strength, the j u d g e a c c o r d s his v o t e . G - d ' s strength, h e says, is j u s t i c e , a n d o n e w h o g i v e s this a w a y o u t o f favor to p e r s o n s o f r a n k m a k e s t h e m a p p e a r m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n G - d H i m self (Ant. 4.217). Justice, h e c o n c l u d e s , is the sole d i v i n e attribute t h a t it is w i t h i n the p o w e r o f m a n to attain. It is m o s t profitable for all m e n , G r e e k s a n d n o n - G r e e k s alike, h e e m p h a s i z e s , to p r a c t i c e j u s t i c e , " a b o u t w h i c h o u r l a w s are m o s t c o n c e r n e d " (Ant. 16.177). W h a t h i g h e r j u s t i c e is there, e x c l a i m s J o s e p h u s i n his p e r o r a t i o n at the e n d o f the essay Against Apion (2.293),
m
a
n
o b e d i e n c e to the l a w s ?
Justice is i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f law, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in S o c r a t e s ' c o m m e n t t h a t the lawful is i d e n t i c a l w i t h the j u s t (ap. X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia 4.4.12). T h e ruler, a c c o r d i n g to the first-century p h i l o s o p h e r M u s o n i u s , J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y , m u s t h i m s e l f b e " A n i m a t e L a w , " t h a t is, t h e e m b o d i m e n t o f law, c r e a t i n g a l a w - a b i d i n g spirit a n d u n a n i m i t y a n d t h r u s t i n g 40
o u t lawlessless a n d strife (On Kingship, ap. S t o b a e u s 4 . 7 . 6 7 ) . W i t h o u t j u s t i c e , says the p h i l o s o p h e r D i o t o g e n e s (ap. S t o b a e u s 4.7.61), n o o n e w o u l d b e k i n g , a n d w i t h o u t law, t h e r e w o u l d b e n o j u s t i c e . L a w , says the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y B.C.E. p h i l o s o p h e r A r c h y t a s o f T a r e n t u m (ap. S t o b a e u s 4 . 1 . 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 - 3 8 , 4.5.61), b e a r s the s a m e rela t i o n s h i p to the h u m a n soul a n d life as h a r m o n y to h e a r i n g a n d s p e e c h . R e s p e c t for l a w w a s a q u a l i t y o f s u p r e m e i m p o r t a n c e to the R o m a n s , w h o p l a c e d s u c h a p r e m i u m u p o n a n d t o o k so m u c h p r i d e in their a l l e g i a n c e t o a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f law. T h e J e w s , for their p a r t , says J o s e p h u s , strive e s p e c i a l l y to e d u c a t e their chil d r e n to k e e p the l a w s a n d the a n c i e n t p i e t y (Ag. Ap. 1.60). J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r sensitive t o the i m p o r t a n c e o f o b s e r v a n c e o f the tradi t i o n a l l a w s , since his favorite historical m o d e l , T h u c y d i d e s , c o n s t a n t l y stresses the dire results arising f r o m their d i s r e g a r d , as for e x a m p l e d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f the p l a g u e in A t h e n s (2.52-53). T h e R o m a n s felt strongly, in the w o r d s o f E n n i u s , t h a t their state a n d its v e r y strength d e p e n d e d u p o n a l l e g i a n c e t o the a n c i e n t l a w s (Moribus antiquis res stat Romana viresque). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s re m a r k s t h a t K i n g D a v i d w a s b y n a t u r e " s t r o n g l y o b s e r v a n t o f the a n c e s t r a l l a w s " (Ant. 7.130). I n fact, it is a c o n t i n u i n g t h e m e in J o s e p h u s t h a t the k i n g s o f Israel c a m e to g r i e f p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t o b s e r v e the a n c e s t r a l l a w s . T h e H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n p h i l o s o p h e r s c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d a r e s p e c t for l a w
40. G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 63, cites Isocrates: " O b e y the laws which the kings lay d o w n , but bear in mind that the mightiest law is the kings' disposition" (Ad Demonianum 36).
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
115
w i t h piety. T h u s M u s o n i u s , in his p o r t r a y a l o f the i d e a l ruler, singles o u t t w o q u a l ities in particular, his e m b o d i m e n t o f l a w a n d his c a r e in the w o r s h i p o f Z e u s ; t h e r o y a l i d e a l is a n imitatio dei, a n d the k i n g is to b e , like Z e u s , a father t o his subjects. T h e reverse, napavopula,
" l a w l e s s n e s s , " l e a d s to daejSeta, " i m p i e t y , " the m a r k o f the
tyrant, w h o , as S o c r a t e s is r e p r e s e n t e d as s a y i n g , rules n o t a c c o r d i n g t o the l a w s b u t a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n w i s h e s (ap. X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia
4.6.12).
41
T o J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o is b o t h the m o s t a n c i e n t a n d the best o f legislators in the h i s t o r y o f the w o r l d , in t h a t his state w a s a t r u e t h e o c r a c y , r u l e d b y G - d H i m s e l f (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 5 4 - 8 9 ) . I n d e e d , the d i v i n e l y g i v e n L a w t h a t h e t r a n s m i t t e d to the Israelites parallels P l a t o ' s Laws in m a n y respects (Ag. Ap. 2.168, 257; see A m i r 1994)J o s e p h u s stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f r e s p e c t for those w h o are c h a r g e d w i t h the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n to his s u m m a r y o f l a w s in the P e n t a t e u c h , h e stresses t h a t the L a w r e q u i r e s t h a t those w h o s e d u t y it is t o a d m i n i s t e r j u s t i c e b e h e l d in all h o n o r , a n d those w h o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e m are n o t p e r m i t t e d to b e a b u s i v e o r insolent in their p r e s e n c e (Ant. 4.215). B y b e h a v i n g r e v erentially t h u s b e f o r e j u d g e s , h e r e m a r k s , p e o p l e will c e r t a i n l y n o t b e c o n t e m p t u ous o f G - d . I n p r e s e n t i n g this view, J o s e p h u s , w h o shortly b e f o r e this p a s s a g e in terprets the w o r d Elokim in E x o d . 22:27 to m e a n " g o d s , " a n d t o signify t h a t o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d to s p e a k in d e r o g a t o r y fashion a b o u t o t h e r p e o p l e ' s g o d s
(Ant.
4.207), h e r e a d d s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f o u n d in the r a b b i n i c tradition, t h a t the w o r d refers to j u d g e s (Tevamot 22b) (see P e a r c e 1995). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e , j u s t i c e is d i s p l a y e d b y A b r a h a m , w h o is termed a just
(hiKaios)
m a n in a p a s s a g e J o s e p h u s q u o t e s f r o m the B a b y l o n i a n his
torian B e r o s s u s (Ant. 1.158). A g a i n , w e r e a d t h a t e v e r y o n e c a m e t o M o s e s t h i n k i n g t h a t o n l y t h u s w o u l d t h e y o b t a i n j u s t i c e (rov htKalov)
(Ant. 3.66), so t h a t e v e n t h o s e
w h o lost their cases w e r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t it w a s j u s t i c e (biKaioovv-qv) r a t h e r t h a n c u p i d i t y t h a t h a d d e t e r m i n e d their fate (Ant. 3.67). T o p a r a l l e l the e m b e z z l e m e n t c h a r g e a g a i n s t Pericles (Plato, Gorgias 5 1 6 A ) , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s the p o i n t t h a t M o s e s d i d n o t a c c e p t a p r e s e n t f r o m a single H e b r e w to p e r v e r t j u s t i c e (Ant. 4.46), t h e r e b y e x h i b i t i n g o n e o f the qualities o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o T h u c y d i d e s (2.60.5), m u s t b e a b l e to resist a b r i b e .
4 2
W h e n the p e o p l e d e m a n d t h a t S a m u e l n a m e a k i n g for t h e m s e l v e s , h e is sorely a g g r i e v e d b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e sense o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 6.36); a n d in his e u l o g y o f h i m , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s h i m as a j u s t (Si/ccuos) a n d k i n d l y m a n (Ant. 6.294). W h e n J o n a t h a n a p p e a l s to S a u l , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t thus a j u s t c a u s e (SUaios
\6yos)
p r e v a i l e d o v e r a n g e r a n d fear (Ant. 6.212). O n e o f the qualities G - d tells S a m u e l to l o o k for w h e n h e is a b o u t to select D a v i d as k i n g is j u s t i c e (Ant. 6.160). W h e n D a v i d
41. Cf. Seneca, De Clementia 1.5.2. See N o r t h 1966, 235, 248-49. 42. Similarly, just as Pericles is depicted by T h u c y d i d e s as not being appreciated by the Athenians despite all his efforts on their behalf, so M o s e s is unappreciated by the Israelites despite his toil for them.
n6
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
spares S a u l ' s life, the latter c o m p l i m e n t s h i m for h a v i n g s h o w n the r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SiKaioovvrjv)
o f the a n c i e n t s (Ant. 6.290). J o s e p h u s editorializes in d e c l a r i n g t h a t
D a v i d w a s j u s t (SIKOLIOS)
b y n a t u r e , a n d t h a t h e l o o k e d o n l y t o w a r d the t r u t h in giv
i n g j u d g m e n t (Ant. 7.110); a n d in his final e u l o g y o f the k i n g , o n e o f the qualities s i n g l e d o u t for praise is t h a t h e w a s j u s t (Ant. 7.391). S o l o m o n , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , w a s n o t h i n d e r e d b y his y o u t h f r o m d i s p e n s i n g j u s t i c e (hiKaioovv-qv) (Ant. 8.21); a n d G - d , in H i s t u r n , p r o m i s e s t o p r e s e r v e t h e k i n g d o m for his d e s c e n d a n t s if h e c o n tinues t o b e r i g h t e o u s
(hUaios).
Similarly, K i n g J o s i a h , w h e n a m e r e t w e l v e y e a r s o l d , gives e v i d e n c e o f his p i e t y a n d r i g h t e o u s n e s s (StKaioGvvrjv) w h e n h e u r g e s the p e o p l e t o g i v e u p their i d o l a t r y (Ant. 10.50). G e d a l i a h , the g o v e r n o r o f J u d a e a , is d e s c r i b e d as k i n d a n d j u s t (hiKaiov) (Ant. 10.155). D a n i e l is s p o k e n o f as g o o d a n d j u s t (hiKalov) e v e n b y B e l s h a z z a r , t o w h o m h e h a d b r o u g h t evil tidings (Ant. 10.246). W h e n E z r a is first in t r o d u c e d t o the reader, h e is t e r m e d a r i g h t e o u s (SIKCLIOS)
m a n (Ant. 11.121); a n d
t h a t m a t t e r s t u r n e d o u t w e l l for h i m is d u e , says J o s e p h u s , t o the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f G - d , w h o d e e m e d h i m w o r t h y o f s u c h a n o u t c o m e b e c a u s e o f his g o o d n e s s a n d r i g h t e o u s n e s s (hiKtxioovvinv)
(Ant. n . 139). I n a n u n s c r i p t u r a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s e u
l o g i z e s N e h e m i a h as a m a n o f k i n d a n d j u s t (St/catov) n a t u r e (Ant. 1 1 . 1 8 3 ) .
43
C o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is the e n o r m o u s responsibility t o tell the truth. A p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , as w e see f r o m the a g e d C e p h a l u s in Plato's Republic (1.331C), is s p e a k i n g the truth. T h a t the G r e e k s r e a l i z e d its i m p o r t a n c e is t o b e seen in the fact t h a t H e r o d o t u s (1.136) quite o b v i o u s l y a d m i r e s the fact t h a t P e r s i a n b o y s are carefully instructed to s p e a k the t r u t h a n d r e g a r d it as the m o s t disgraceful t h i n g in the w o r l d to tell a lie (1.139), this in c o n t r a s t to the r e p u t a t i o n that the G r e e k s t h e m s e l v e s h a d , f r o m O d y s s e u s o n d o w n , for c l e v e r n e s s in lying, a n d in c o n t r a s t p a r t i c u l a r l y to the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the C r e t a n s , the p r o v e r b i a l liars o f a n t i q u i t y ( E p i m e n i d e s 1). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to e x p l a i n w h y A b r a h a m h a s t o d e v i s e a l y i n g s c h e m e w h e n h e c o m e s t o P h a r a o h (Ant. 1.162) a n d later t o A b i m e l e c h w i t h his wife S a r a h (1.207); a n d h e o m i t s the p a s s a g e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h r e b u k e s A b r a h a m for his d e c e i t ( G e n . 20:9 vs. Ant. 1.209). H e d e s c r i b e s M o s e s as o n e w h o h a d in n o r e s p e c t d e v i a t e d f r o m the t r u t h (Ant. 4.303). L i k e w i s e , h e r e m a r k s t h a t D a v i d w a s o f j u s t n a t u r e a n d that w h e n h e g a v e j u d g m e n t , h e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y the t r u t h (Ant. 7.110). A g a i n , M e p h i b o s h e t h d e c l a r e s his c o n f i d e n c e t h a t n o c a l u m n y will e n t e r D a v i d ' s m i n d , "for it is j u s t a n d loves the t r u t h " (Ant. 7.269). C o u p l e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the v i r t u e o f h u m a n i t y (^iXavQpumla),
as w e see in
4 4
P h i l o , j u s t as its L a t i n e q u i v a l e n t , humanitas, is likewise c o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e
43. Attridge 1976a, 115, n. 2, cites seven passages in which Josephus refers to biblical figures as just but omits the rest. H e also incorrecdy cites Ant. 2.149, as alluding to Jacob as just, and Ant. 6.308, as re ferring to David as just. 44. Philo, De Mutatione Nominum 40.225; De Vita Mosis 2.2.9; Decalogo 30.164. See the discussion in Wolfson 1947, 2:218-20, especially the passage in Macrobius in his commentary on Cicero's Somnium
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
of justice.
45
ny
O n e o f the m a j o r a i m s o f J o s e p h u s in his retelling o f the B i b l e is to w i n
the favor o f his n o n - J e w i s h r e a d e r s b y a n s w e r i n g the c h a r g e s so often d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the J e w s in those d a y s . O n e o f the m o s t f r e q u e n t s u c h c h a r g e s w a s t h a t the J e w s h a t e d o t h e r p e o p l e s . T h u s , e v e n H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a , w h o is o t h e r w i s e v e r y f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o w a r d the J e w s , d e c l a r e s t h a t M o s e s , as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e e x p u l s i o n o f his p e o p l e , instituted a w a y o f life t h a t h e t e r m s ( " s o m e w h a t m i s a n t h r o p i c , u n s o c i a l " ) a n d paao^evov
dTrdvdpamov
riva
("hostile to strangers") (ap.
D i o d o r u s 40.3.5). T h e A l e x a n d r i a n L y s i m a c h u s ( p r o b a b l y first c e n t u r y B.C.E.) re flects this c h a r g e w h e n h e says t h a t M o s e s instructed the Israelites " t o s h o w g o o d will to n o m a n , to offer n o t the best b u t the w o r s t a d v i c e a n d t o o v e r t h r o w a n y t e m p l e s a n d altars o f g o d s t h a t t h e y f o u n d " (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.309). A p i o n h a d c h a r g e d t h a t J e w s t o o k a n o a t h to s h o w n o g o o d w i l l t o a n y alien, e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e G r e e k s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.121); a n d h e refers t o t h e m as h a t i n g m a n k i n d (p,ioavQp(x)TTovs) (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.148). T a c i t u s r e m a r k s t h a t w h i l e the J e w s are e x t r e m e l y l o y a l to o n e a n o t h e r a n d a l w a y s r e a d y to s h o w c o m p a s s i o n to c o m p a t r i o t s , t h e y sit a p a r t at m e a l s a n d sleep a p a r t a n d feel o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d all o t h e r p e o p l e s (Histories 5.5.1). J u v e n a l g o e s so far as to a t t a c k the J e w s for n o t s h o w i n g the w a y o r a f o u n t a i n s p r i n g t o a n y b u t fellow J e w s (Satires 14.103-4). H a m a n , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , c h a r g e d t h a t the J e w s refused to m i n g l e w i t h o t h e r s (dpiiKTov, a t e r m u s e d o f the C e n t a u r s in S o p h o c l e s , Trachiniae 1095, a n d o f the C y c l o p e s in E u r i p i d e s , Cyclops 429), w e r e u n s o c i a l (dovpicfrvXov, " n o t a k i n , " " i n c o m p a t i b l e , " " u n s u i t a b l e " ) , a n d w e r e in c u s t o m s a n d p r a c t i c e s the e n e m i e s n o t o n l y o f the Persians b u t o f all m a n k i n d (Ant. 11.212). E v e n the e m p e r o r C l a u d i u s , g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as friendly t o the J e w s or, at a n y rate, " e v e n - h a n d e d , " in his e d i c t a d dressed t o the e m p i r e at l a r g e , enjoins the J e w s t o b e " m o r e
reasonable"
(i7TL€iK€OT€pov) " a n d n o t to set at n o u g h t the beliefs a b o u t the g o d s h e l d b y o t h e r p e o p l e s " (Ant. 19.290) ( T c h e r i k o v e r 1957, 7 3 - 7 4 ) . O n e c l e a r sign o f p r i m i t i v e n e s s to the G r e e k s a n d the R o m a n s w a s the p r a c t i c e o f h u m a n sacrifice. T h e c h a r g e w a s m a d e a g a i n s t the C a r t h a g i n i a n s ( V i r g i l , Aeneid, 1.525), the G a u l s ( S t r a b o 4.4.5.198), a n d the T h r a c i a n s ( S t r a b o 7.3.7.300). T h e historian D a m o c r i t u s , in a p p r o x i m a t e l y the first century, t u r n e d this c h a r g e into w h a t w a s , in effect, a b l o o d l i b e l — n a m e l y , that the J e w s c a p t u r e d a n d sacri ficed a s t r a n g e r e v e r y s e v e n y e a r s (ap. S u i d a s , s.v. AapuoKpiros); a n d his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y A p i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t the J e w s a n n u a l l y fattened u p a n d sacrificed a G r e e k a n d s w o r e a n o a t h o f hostility to the G r e e k s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2 . 8 9 - 9 6 ) . In the G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d , the S t o i c s in p a r t i c u l a r stressed the b r o t h e r h o o d o f m a n k i n d ; a n d this b l o o d - l i b e l c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s t h u s e s p e c i a l l y seri ous. I n reply, J o s e p h u s stresses, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the sacrifice
Scipionis (De Re Publica, bk. 6). In general, see Spicq 1 9 5 8 , 1 6 9 - 9 1 ; id. 1978, 2:922-27; and L e D e a u t 1964, 255-9445. Cf. M a c r o b i u s on Cicero's Somnium Scipionis 1.8, cited in Wolfson 1947, 2:220, n. 146.
n8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
o f Isaac, w h i c h w a s not c o n s u m m a t e d , a n d that o f Iphigenia, w h i c h w a s actually c a r r i e d o u t (Ant. 1.233). ^
n
particular, h e p u t s a s p e e c h into the m o u t h o f G - d ,
r a t h e r t h a n o f a n a n g e l , as in G e n . 22:11, t h a t H e d o e s n o t c r a v e h u m a n b l o o d a n d t h a t H e is n o t c a p r i c i o u s in t a k i n g a w a y w h a t H e h a s g i v e n (Ant. 1.233-36). T h i s is, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o A r t e m i s , w h o "rejoices in h u m a n sacrifices" (Euripides, Iphigenia atAulis
1524-25).
T h e c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s h a d a n i m p l a c a b l e h a t r e d o f all o t h e r p e o p l e s (see, e.g., T a c i t u s , Histories 5.5.1) a n d w e r e d e v o i d o f p i t y for a n y o n e w h o w a s n o t o f their r e l i g i o n is refuted b y J o s e p h u s in s e v e r a l e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l s .
46
H e stresses t h a t the
M o s a i c c o d e w a s d e s i g n e d to p r o m o t e h u m a n i t y t o w a r d the w o r l d at l a r g e (Ag. Ap. 2.146), t h a t " o u r l e g i s l a t o r " — t h a t is M o s e s — i n c u l c a t e d the d u t y o f s h a r i n g w i t h others, a n d t h a t n o t o n l y m u s t the J e w furnish f o o d a n d supplies t o those w h o a s k e d for t h e m b u t t h a t h e m u s t s h o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n e v e n for d e c l a r e d e n e m i e s . I n this c o n n e c t i o n , h e e v e n a d d s u n s c r i p t u r a l provisions, s u c h as t h a t J e w s w e r e for b i d d e n to b u r n u p the c o u n t r y o f their e n e m i e s a n d to d e s p o i l fallen c o m b a t a n t s (Ag. Ap. 2 . 2 1 1 - 1 3 ) .
47
T h i s g e n d e n e s s (rjpLepoTrjra) a n d h u m a n i t y (<j>i\avdpa>TTiav) e x
t e n d e v e n t o a n i m a l s , their use b e i n g a u t h o r i z e d o n l y in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the L a w ( T e r i a n 1985, 1 4 1 - 4 9 ) . M o s t effectively, J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e the s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h , p r e s u m a b l y in c o n t r a s t t o the p r e v a i l i n g x e n o p h o b i c attitude o f the E g y p tians, sold g r a i n n o t o n l y to natives b u t also t o strangers, "for J o s e p h h e l d t h a t all m e n , in v i r t u e o f their kinship, s h o u l d r e c e i v e s u c c o r f r o m t h o s e in p r o s p e r i t y " (Ant. 2.94 a n d 101). I n a n s w e r to the c h a r g e , s u c h as m a d e b y J u v e n a l (14.103), t h a t the J e w s w e r e c o m m a n d e d to p o i n t o u t the w a y o n l y to their fellow c o u n t r y m e n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t J e w s are r e q u i r e d to p o i n t o u t the r o a d to those w h o are i g n o r a n t o f it (Ant. 4.276). A n d y e t , w e m a y n o t e t h a t the B i b l e itself instructs the Israelites, o n c e t h e y e n t e r C a n a a n , to d e s t r o y the C a n a a n i t e altars, pillars, s a c r e d p o l e s , a n d idols (see, e.g., D e u t . 7:5). J o s e p h u s resolves this p r o b l e m b y m a k i n g a distinction b e t w e e n
46. T h u s , w h e n K i n g J e h o r a m o f Israel, K i n g Jehoshaphat of Judaea, and the king o f I d u m a e a see the king o f M o a b sacrifice his eldest son, they show pity for him, being m o v e d by h u m a n e
(avOpooinvov)
and compassionate (eAeeivov) feelings, and lift their siege o f M o a b (Ant. 9.43). Likewise, D a n i e l expresses pity for the C h a l d a e a n wise m e n w h o had been unjusdy ordered to be put to death by N e b u c h a d n e z zar (Ant. 10.204). 47. T h e latter remark would appear to be contradicted by the fact that the Israelites, before leav ing Egypt, despoiled the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36), and by the further fact that, after the victory over the Amalekites, M o s e s ordered the corpses o f the enemies to be stripped (Ant. 3.59). S o also Ant. 4.93, after the victory o f the Amorites, and Ant. 4.162, after the defeat o f the Midianites. Likewise, Philo e m p h a sizes the humanity (iAavdpu)7Tias) shown by M o s e s in being unwilling to take revenge against the Canaanites, since they were his kinsmen (De Vita Mosis 1.44.249). Inasmuch as M o s e s is depicted as the greatest o f legislators, Philo's discussion o f the virtues o f the legislator is particularly relevant (De Vita Mosis 2.2.8-11). T h e r e he enumerates four: love o f humanity (>i\dvdpcu7Tov), of justice, and o f goodness, and hatred o f evil.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
ng
m e a s u r e s t o b e a d o p t e d i n p e a c e t i m e a n d those d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s {Ant. 4 . 2 9 2 - 9 5 ) . I n t h e J o s h u a p e r i c o p e as w e l l , it is a p p a r e n t that J o s e p h u s h a s s o u g h t t o c o u n t e r c h a r g e s o f atrocities a n d h e n c e h a s t o n e d d o w n t h e Israelites' c r u e l t y t o t h e C a n a a n i t e k i n g s considerably. J o s e p h u s h a s k e p t the instructions t o w i p e o u t t h e C a n a a n i t e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h their t e m p l e s (Ant. 4 . 1 9 1 - 9 2 ) ; b u t this is d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y lest t h e y c o r r u p t t h e a n c e s t r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Israelites. For t h e rest, J o s e p h u s utterly c o n t r a d i c t s t h e p a s s a g e i n D e u t e r o n o m y b y stat i n g t h a t t h e l a w p r o h i b i t s r o b b i n g foreign t e m p l e s o r t a k i n g treasures t h a t h a d b e e n d e d i c a t e d i n t h e n a m e o f a n y g o d (Ant. 4.207). F o l l o w i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t " E l o k i m l o t e k a l l e l " in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 22:27 [28]) a n d P h i l o (De Specialibus Legibus 1.9.53), J o s e p h u s says t h a t it forbids J e w s t o b l a s p h e m e the g o d s o f o t h e r s o u t o f r e s p e c t for t h e v e r y w o r d " g o d " (Ant. 4.207 a n d Ag. Ap. 2.237); a n d it is o n l y b e c a u s e t h e a c c u s e r s o f t h e J e w s a t t e m p t t o refute t h e m b y c o m p a r i n g J u d a i s m w i t h o t h e r religions t h a t t h e J e w s m u s t a n s w e r i n self-defense. T h e S p a r t a n s , w h o e x p e l l e d foreigners a n d d i d n o t a l l o w their o w n citizens t o travel a b r o a d , m i g h t w i t h m o r e j u s t i c e b e a c c u s e d o f d i s c o u r t e s y a n d m i s a n t h r o p y (Ag. Ap. 2.259). I n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e J e w s f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f i n t o l e r a n c e o f o t h e r religions, c
J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h G i d e o n pulls d o w n t h e altar o f B a a l t h a t his father h a s built a n d destroys t h e A s h e r a h tree that w a s w o r s h i p p e d b e s i d e it (Judg. 6:25-32). L i k e w i s e , i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f i n h u m a n i t y , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h G i d e o n kills t h e t w o c a p t u r e d k i n g s o f t h e M i d i a n i t e s (Judg. 8:18-21). It is i n line w i t h this t o l e r a n t attitude t o w a r d t h e religions o f o t h e r s t h a t w e find J o s e p h u s o m i t t i n g t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t K i n g A s a p u t a w a y t h e idols f r o m t h e l a n d o f J u d a h (2 C h r o n . 15:8 v s . Ant. 8.297) (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 5 4 - 5 6 ) , j u s t as h e omits J e h o s h a p h a t ' s r e m o v a l o f t h e p a g a n h i g h p l a c e s a n d t h e A s h e r i m f r o m t h e l a n d o f J u d a h (2 C h r o n . 17:6 v s . Ant. 8.394) (
s e e
F e l d m a n 1993I, 1 7 2 - 7 3 ) .
M o r e o v e r , D a v i d , far f r o m b e i n g a m i s a n t h r o p e , is d e s c r i b e d , i n J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y o f his c h a r a c t e r , as tf>i\dvdpLOTTos, " h u m a n e , " t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f a7rdvdpoj7Tos
(Ant. 7.391). I n a n s w e r t o t h e s a m e c h a r g e o f misanthropy, J o s e p h u s ' s
K i n g S o l o m o n , i n d e d i c a t i n g t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m , asks t h a t G - d g r a n t t h e p r a y e r s n o t o n l y o f H e b r e w s b u t also o f foreigners, so t h a t it m a y b e r e a l i z e d t h a t " w e a r e n o t i n h u m a n [dTrdvOpamoi] b y n a t u r e n o r u n f r i e n d l y t o those w h o a r e n o t o f o u r c o u n t r y b u t w i s h t h a t all m e n e q u a l l y s h o u l d r e c e i v e a i d f r o m T h e e a n d enjoy T h y b l e s s i n g s " (Ant. 8 . 1 1 6 - 1 7 ) . K i n d n e s s a n d love o f his f e l l o w m a n (i\dvdpamov) a r e qualities e x p e c t e d in t h e y o u n g R e h o b o a m (Ant. 8.214); a n d w h e n h e asks t h e d e l e g a t i o n s e e k i n g r e l a x a t i o n o f t h e b o n d a g e o f t h e p e o p l e for three d a y s t o c o n s i d e r their request, h e arouses their suspicions. I n d e e d , t h e T e m ple, Z e r u b b a b e l reiterates, is o p e n t o all p e o p l e for w o r s h i p , e v e n t h e S a m a r i t a n s , w h o h a d tried t o i m p e d e its b u i l d i n g (Ant. 11.87). In his c o n c e r n t o defuse J e w i s h - G e n t i l e hostilities, J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t t h e
120
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s c o n t i n u e d t o c h e r i s h K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t o f J u d a h (Ant. 8.396), w h e r e a s his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e attributes t h e i r r e m a i n i n g at p e a c e w i t h J e h o s h a p h a t to t h e fear o f t h e L - r d falling u p o n t h e m (2 C h r o n . 17:10) (see B e g g 1 9 9 5 & 44). It is, m o r e o v e r , m o s t effective t h a t J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e s t o K i n g J e h o r a m o f Israel a n d K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t o f J u d a h t h e qualities o f h u m a n i t y a n d c o m p a s s i o n in t h e i n c i d e n t w h e n M e s h a , k i n g o f M o a b , offers his o w n s o n as a sacrifice (Ant. 9.43). W e see a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f J e h o r a m ' s c o m p a s s i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h t h e w o m a n w h o h a s m a d e the p a c t w i t h h e r n e i g h b o r to e a t their sons b e g s h i m to h a v e p i t y u p o n h e r (Ant. 9.64) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 4 ^ 1 3 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the h o s p i t a l i t y o f J e w s t o w a r d n o n - J e w s in his n o n s c r i p tural a d d i t i o n t h a t K i n g H e z e k i a h g l a d l y r e c e i v e d t h e e n v o y s sent b y t h e k i n g o f B a b y l o n , feasted t h e m , s h o w e d t h e m his treasures, a n d sent t h e m b a c k w i t h gifts (Ant. 10.31) ( B e g g 1995c, 3 7 8 - 7 9 ) . I n t h e c a s e o f J e h u , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a d i l e m m a , in that, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , J e h u ' s m e n w e r e o b v i o u s l y less t h a n t o l e r a n t o f o t h e r reli c
g i o n s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y b r o k e d o w n the h o u s e o f B a a l a n d m a d e it a latrine " u n t o 48
this d a y " (2 K i n g s 1 0 : 2 7 ) . C l e a r l y , m a k i n g a shrine o f a n o t h e r nation's g o d s i n t o a latrine w o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as insulting, as e s p e c i a l l y w o u l d the r e m a r k t h a t it h a d b e e n a latrine d o w n until t h e p r e s e n t day. J o s e p h u s has, therefore, v e r y d e l i b e r ately o m i t t e d these details a n d i n s t e a d retains o n l y the c o m m e n t t h a t t h e y b u r n t c
d o w n the t e m p l e o f B a a l , thus p u r g i n g S a m a r i a o f s t r a n g e rites (Ant. 9.138). A R o m a n , f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e b a n n i n g o f t h e B a c c h a n a l i a n revels in 186 B.C.E., w o u l d have understood such a suppression. L i k e w i s e , in o r d e r n o t to offend n o n - J e w s a n y m o r e t h a n w a s t r u l y justified, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t S e n n a c h e r i b w r o t e letters t o cast c o n t e m p t o n t h e G - d o f Israel (2 C h r o n . 32:17). H e also o m i t s , as a p p a r e n d y t o o strong, the p r o p h e t Isaiah's b l i s t e r i n g p r o m i s e o f G - d t h a t H e w o u l d p u t his h o o k in A s s y r i a ' s n o s e a n d his b i t in t h e A s s y r i a n s ' m o u t h (2 K i n g s 19:28, Ant. 10.16) (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 6 0 7 - 8 ) . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e m e n t i o n s t h a t J o s i a h k n o c k e d d o w n t h e statues b e l o n g i n g t o a l i e n religions (2 C h r o n . 3 4 : 3 - 7 ) , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s J o s i a h ' s positive a c h i e v e m e n t s in t u r n i n g t h e p e o p l e to t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d (Ant. 10.53). I n t h e interest o f d o w n g r a d i n g J o s i a h ' s assault u p o n p a g a n w o r s h i p , J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e l o n g a c c o u n t o f J o s i a h ' s d e m o l i t i o n o f p a g a n t e m p l e s a n d m o n u m e n t s (2 K i n g s 2 3 : 7 - 1 9 v s . Ant. 10.65),
a
s
w
e
^
a
s
his e l i m i n a t i o n o f the n e c r o m a n c e r s a n d d i v i n e r s
(2 K i n g s 23:24) (see F e l d m a n 1993k, 1 2 5 - 2 9 ) . Significandy, a l t h o u g h h e g e n e r a l l y follows c l o s e l y the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n C , w h i c h c o n t a i n s E s t h e r ' s p r a y e r to G - d , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e d e t e s t a t i o n o f n o n - J e w s
48. T h e w o r d for "latrine" as it appears in the written text is limehordot, signifying a place for a privy. It c o m e s from the stem hor, " a hole," and alludes to the orifice from w h i c h the solid wastes are ex creted. A s it is read, the w o r d is lemo^dot and signifies a place for excretion.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
121
expressed b y Esther.(C 26-27). A g a i n , although Additions A a n d F were available t o J o s e p h u s , h e o m i t s t h e m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e in t h e m the struggle b e t w e e n H a m a n a n d M o r d e c a i is v i e w e d n o t as a p e r s o n a l o n e b u t as p a r t o f the e t e r n a l conflict b e t w e e n J e w a n d n o n - J e w (see F e l d m a n 1970b, 1 6 3 - 6 5 ) . A c t u a l l y , a n s w e r s J o s e p h u s , the J e w i s h c o d e is n o t a b l e for its e q u i t a b l e treat m e n t o f aliens; a n d m e m b e r s h i p in the J e w i s h n a t i o n h a s b e e n t h r o w n o p e n u n g r u d g i n g l y to all w h o w i s h to j o i n (Ag. Ap. 2.209). I n e x c l u d i n g those w h o h a v e c h o sen a different m a n n e r o f life (Ag Ap. 2.258), the J e w s a r e n o t u n i q u e , b u t a r e similar t o s u c h G r e e k poleis as S p a r t a . S o g r e a t is the T o r a h ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n for o t h ers t h a t J e w s a r e c o m m a n d e d to furnish fire, water, a n d f o o d t o t h o s e w h o ask for it, a n d n o t to l e a v e a c o r p s e u n b u r i e d , to d e s p o i l the e n e m y , o r to mistreat p r i s o n ers o f w a r (Ag. Ap. 2 . 2 1 1 - 1 2 ) . S u r e l y o n e o f t h e m o s t serious c h a r g e s t h a t m i g h t b e b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e Is raelites b y n o n - J e w s w a s the s e e m i n g l y c r u e l c o m m a n d t o w i p e o u t all the d e s c e n d a n t s o f A m a l e k ( E x o d . 1 7 : 1 4 - 1 6 ; D e u t . 2 5 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) . T h i s w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e earliest f o r m o f g e n o c i d e . I n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n S a m u e l sends S a u l to fulfill this c o m m a n d , h e q u o t e s G - d as s a y i n g t h a t H e r e m e m b e r s w h a t A m a l e k d i d to the Israelites w h e n h e a t t a c k e d t h e m in the w i l d e r n e s s w h e n t h e y h a d c o m e o u t o f E g y p t (1 S a m . 15:2). J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l presents a c a s e t h a t w o u l d b e m o r e c o n v i n c i n g to his R o m a n r e a d e r s in particular, since h e stresses t h a t t h e c o m m a n d w a s to take v e n g e a n c e for w h a t the A m a l e k i t e s h a d d o n e t o the forefathers o f t h e Is raelites (Ant. 6.133). T h e R o m a n s , w h o h a d s u c h a h i g h r e g a r d for their a n c e s t o r s , w o u l d h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d this t o u c h . It is the q u a l i t y o f love o f m a n k i n d t h a t is the m o s t o b v i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e R o m a n k i n g s in the n a r r a t i v e o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s a n d t h a t o c c u r s m o s t f r e q u e n d y in his n a r r a t i v e s o f c o n q u e s t (Fox 1993, 3 1 - 4 7 ) . A s for J o s e p h u s , A b r a h a m is m o v e d w i t h c o m p a s s i o n for his friends a n d n e i g h b o r s the S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.176); a n d R e u b e n , in his s p e e c h to J o s e p h , d e c l a r e s his c o n f i d e n c e in his b r o t h e r ' s h u m a n i t y (
stresses,
among
other
qualities,
that
he
was just
and
humane
(>i\dvdpa)7Tos), " q u a l i t i e s e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to k i n g s " (Ant. 7.391). M o s t signifi c a n t , the v e r y t e r m s u s e d o f t h e b e n i g n i t y a s k e d o f the w o u l d - b e ruler, S o l o m o n ' s son R e h o b o a m , a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y r e j e c t e d b y h i m — n a m e l y , t h a t h e b e Xprjoros,
imeucrjs,
a n d tfyiXdvQpamos (Ant. 8 . 2 1 3 - 1 4 ) — a r e p r e c i s e l y the qualities a s c r i b e d to
K i n g D a v i d (Ant. 7.391) ( B e g g 1 9 9 3 , 15, n. 49). H e r e a g a i n , J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o b e a n s w e r i n g s u c h d e t r a c t o r s o f t h e J e w s as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n a n d L y s i m a c h u s , w h o h a d c h a r g e d the J e w s w i t h h a t r e d o f m a n k i n d (Ag.Ap.
2 . 1 4 5 ) — a n a c c u s a t i o n re
p e a t e d s o m e w h a t later also b y T a c i t u s , w h o cites the J e w s ' h a t r e d o f the h u m a n r a c e ("adversus o m n e s alios hostile o d i u m " [Histories 5.5.1]). I n fact, says J o s e p h u s , h u m a n i t y is o n e o f t h e qualities e s p e c i a l l y fostered b y t h e l a w c o d e o f the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 2.146). C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f h u m a n i t y is the q u a l i t y o f m e r c y . I n e m p h a s i z i n g , t h r o u g h a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , t h e m e r c y t h a t D a v i d
122
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s h o w e d t o S a u l , J o s e p h u s is also stressing his j u s t i c e ; a n d , i n d e e d , S a u l c o m p l i m e n t s D a v i d for h a v i n g s h o w n " t h e r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SLKcuoovvrjv) o f the a n c i e n t s , w h o b a d e those w h o c a p t u r e d their e n e m i e s in a l o n e l y p l a c e t o spare their l i v e s " (Ant. 6.290). T h e u n d e r l y i n g t h e m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish War is his e m p h a s i s t h a t the r e s p o n sibility for the ill-fated revolt w a s the civil strife (ordois J e w i s h " t y r a n t s " (01 lovSalcov
rvpavvoi)
oiKeia) e n g e n d e r e d b y the
(War 1.10). H e contrasts t h e b r u t a l treat
m e n t b y these tyrants o f their fellow c o u n t r y m e n (6jxo<j>vXovs) w i t h the c l e m e n c y t h a t the R o m a n s s h o w e d t o w a r d the J e w s , a l t h o u g h t h e y w e r e a n a l i e n r a c e (aXXocf>vXovs) (War 1.27). A p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t o f the l o v e o f m a n k i n d is the q u a l i t y o f hospitality, a v i r t u e v e r y m u c h p r i z e d in the entire a n c i e n t w o r l d , b o t h in the N e a r E a s t a n d in G r e e c e a n d R o m e , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in the e p i s o d e o f G l a u c u s a n d D i o m e d e s at the b e g i n n i n g o f b o o k 6 o f H o m e r ' s Iliad. T o t h e a n c i e n t s , to b e a g o o d h o s t a n d to b e a g o o d g u e s t w e r e m a j o r virtues, a n d the a l l e g e d inhospitality o f t h e J e w s w a s re g a r d e d as a m a j o r i n d i c t m e n t o f t h e m ( F e l d m a n 1993, 1 2 5 - 3 1 ) . T o t h e G r e e k s , a m a j o r test o f c i v i l i z a t i o n w a s the m a n n e r in w h i c h a s t r a n g e r (£evos) w a s d e a l t w i t h ( R a d i n 1915, 183); a n d the m o s t d a m n i n g c h a r g e a g a i n s t P o l y p h e m u s t h e C y c l o p s i n the Odyssey ( 9 4 7 8 ) is his i n h o s p i t a l i t y t o w a r d strangers. S o i m p o r t a n t w e r e the rights o f t h e ^ivos t h a t it w a s Z e u s himself, u n d e r the e p i t h e t tjevios, w h o w a s re g a r d e d as the p r o t e c t o r o f strangers. J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o refute the i n d i c t m e n t o f inhospitality b y n o t i n g t h a t J e w s are c o m m a n d e d n o t to b e selfish b u t to b e g e n e r o u s t o w a r d t h o s e w h o m t h e y m e e t a n d w h o w i s h to e a t o f the g r a p e s t h a t t h e y are c a r r y i n g t o the w i n e vats (Ant. 4 . 2 3 5 - 3 8 ) ; a n d the e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e a s o n h e gives for the p e n a l t y o f thirty-nine stripes inflicted o n o n e w h o v i o l a t e s this p r e c e p t is t h a t " t h r o u g h slavery t o l u c r e , h e h a s o u t r a g e d his d i g n i t y " (Ant. 1.238).
49
W e see t h e trait o f h o s p i t a l i t y e v i d e n c e d in the w a r m g r e e t i n g g i v e n b y M o s e s t o his f a t h e r - i n - l a w J e t h r o w h e n the latter visits h i m after the e n c o u n t e r w i t h the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 3.63). T h e B i b l e says t h a t J e t h r o offered sacrifices, a n d t h a t A a r o n a n d the p e o p l e j o i n e d h i m in the s a c r e d m e a l , b u t n o t h i n g is said a b o u t a p u b l i c feast g i v e n b y M o s e s ( E x o d . 18:12). I n J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o offers the sacrifi ces a n d m a k e s a feast for the p e o p l e . T o s h o w the r e s p e c t t h a t J e w s h a v e for n o n J e w s , J o s e p h u s h a s a n e x t e n d e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f this b a n q u e t g i v e n b y M o s e s in h o n o r o f his father-in-law, w h e r e a n e c u m e n i c a l spirit prevails, w i t h A a r o n a n d his c o m p a n y b e i n g j o i n e d b y J e t h r o in c h a n t i n g h y m n s to G - d as the a u t h o r a n d dis p e n s e r o f their s a l v a t i o n a n d their l i b e r t y (Ant. 3.64). J o s e p h u s stresses the v i r t u e o f hospitality in a d d i t i o n s to the story o f R u t h in the B i b l e . T h e attentive n e i g h b o r s a r e said t o h a v e p r o v i d e d N a o m i w i t h f o o d (Ant.
49. T h e rabbis also stress the importance o f the virtue o f hospitality in the following passage, a m o n g others: " H e w h o receives his fellowman kindly is regarded as though he h a d received the Shekinah" (Midrash Hagadol 1.267.)
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
123
5.326); a n d B o a z g e n e r o u s l y b i d s R u t h t a k e as m u c h b a r l e y as she c a n c a r r y (Ant. 5.330). A g a i n , t h e g e n e r o s i t y o f the w i t c h o f E n d o r is p r a i s e d at l e n g t h for n o t t u r n i n g a w a y S a u l as a s t r a n g e r b u t offering h i m s y m p a t h y a n d c o n s o l a t i o n despite the fact t h a t she k n e w that she w o u l d r e c e i v e n o benefit f r o m h i m in r e t u r n (since h e w a s a b o u t t o die) (Ant. 6.339-42). J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s his e u l o g y o f h e r w i t h e l o q u e n t w o r d s in p r a i s e o f hospitality: "It is w e l l , t h e n , t o t a k e this w o m a n for a n e x a m p l e a n d s h o w k i n d n e s s t o all w h o a r e in n e e d , a n d t o r e g a r d n o t h i n g as n o b l e r t h a n this o r m o r e befitting the h u m a n r a c e o r m o r e likely to m a k e G - d g r a c i o u s a n d r e a d y t o b e s t o w u p o n us H i s b l e s s i n g s " (see B r o w n 1992, 190-205). W e l i k e w i s e see this trait o f hospitality in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t , to w h i c h n o t h i n g in t h e B i b l e c o r r e s p o n d s , t h a t w h e n the tribal l e a d e r s c a m e to p a y h o m a g e t o D a v i d at H e b r o n , h e e n t e r t a i n e d a n d t r e a t e d t h e m h o s p i t a b l y (>i\ocf)povr}odpL€vos) a n d t h e n sent t h e m to b r i n g all the p e o p l e to h i m (2 S a m . 5:3 v s . Ant. 7.54). C o n n e c t e d w i t h this quality o f cfyiXavSpco-nia is the trait o f s h o w i n g gratitude. W h i l e it is true that this is also f o u n d in traditional J e w i s h sources, the G r e e k r e a d e r s o f J o s e p h u s ' s text m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n r e m i n d e d o f the hospitality s h o w n b y the p o o r a n d p i o u s o l d c o u p l e P h i l e m o n a n d B a u c i s to Z e u s a n d H e r m e s , a n d the re w a r d g r a n t e d b y the g o d s — n a m e l y , that t h e y w e r e saved from the F l o o d a n d w e r e g r a n t e d their p r a y e r that t h e y b e t o g e t h e r priest a n d priestess o f the t e m p l e into w h i c h their h u m b l e c o t t a g e h a d b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d ( O v i d , Metamorphoses 8 . 6 1 1 - 7 3 7 ) .
50
J o s e p h u s , in a s u p p l e m e n t t o the B i b l e , h a s J o s e p h g i v e t h a n k s t o his b r o t h e r s for h e l p i n g to b r i n g G - d ' s p u r p o s e s to fruition (Ant. 2.152). J o s e p h u s m a k e s s p e c i a l n o t e o f t h e g r a t i t u d e t o w a r d M o s e s s h o w n b y R e u e l ' s (Jethro's) d a u g h t e r s
(Ant.
2.262). L i k e w i s e , J e t h r o g o e s b e y o n d t h e b i b l i c a l text in c o m p l i m e n t i n g M o s e s for his sense o f g r a t i t u d e ( E x o d . 2:20 v s . Ant. 2.262). I n his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to the Is raelites, M o s e s r e n d e r s t h a n k s t o G - d for a i d i n g h i m in his struggle to b e t t e r t h e i r lot (Ant. 4.316). J o s h u a s h o w s g r a t i t u d e to R a h a b for p r o t e c t i n g his spies (Ant. 5.30), thanks t h e R e u b e n i t e s for their m i l i t a r y h e l p (Ant. 5.74), a n d , in a f a r e w e l l address, says t h a t h e will forever b e grateful to those tribes w h o d w e l t b e y o n d the J o r d a n for their h a v i n g s h a r e d his perils w i t h h i m (Ant. 5.95). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t S a u l t h a n k e d G - d for his v i c t o r y o v e r the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 6.145)
a
n
d
w
a
s
grateful to
D a v i d for s p a r i n g his life (Ant. 6.316). J o a b u r g e s D a v i d to t h a n k his soldiers for their e a g e r n e s s in f i g h t i n g a n d for their v i c t o r y (Ant. 7.256). D a v i d , says J o s e p h u s , in a d d i t i o n t o his o t h e r fine qualities, a l w a y s s h o w e d g r a t i t u d e to t h o s e w h o h a d b e n e f i t e d h i m at a n y t i m e (Ant. 7 . i n ) . T h u s h e d o e s n o t slay A r a u n a in g r a t i t u d e for the latter's k i n d n e s s to h i m (Ant. 7.69), d e m o n s t r a t e s his g r a t i t u d e to his g e n e r a l J o a b for his l o y a l t y a n d faithfulness (Ant. 7.160), a n d , b y p r o m i s i n g t o p r o v i d e for h i m as for a father, s h o w s his g r a t i t u d e t o B a r z i l l a i for f u r n i s h i n g h i m w i t h supplies (Ant. 7 . 2 7 2 - 7 4 ) . I n t u r n , h e u r g e s his friends a n d g e n e r a l s to s h o w g r a t i t u d e t o h i m self b y b e i n g m i n d f u l o f w h a t e v e r fair t r e a t m e n t t h e y m i g h t h a v e r e c e i v e d f r o m
50. For further parallels, see T h o m p s o n 1957, 2:433-34, E 341.
124
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
h i m (Ant. 7.235). D a v i d ' s subjects, in t u r n , give t h a n k s t o h i m for all the blessings t h a t h e h a s g r a n t e d t h e m (Ant. 7.381). Moreover, Jehoshaphat
is d e p i c t e d as offering t h a n k s t o G - d
(Ant.
H e z e k i a h also offers g r a t i t u d e to G - d for his r e c o v e r y f r o m illness (Ant. 10.29)
9.2). a
n
d
for b e i n g s a v e d f r o m the A s s y r i a n s (Ant. 10.24). P u r i m , says M o r d e c a i , is a t i m e for the J e w s t o give t h a n k s to G - d for h a v i n g e s c a p e d f r o m H a m a n ' s p l o t to d e s t r o y t h e m (Ant. 11.294). J o s e p h u s m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f a t t a c k i n g the i n g r a t i t u d e o f the J e w s t o w a r d G-d
a n d j u s t i f y i n g their b e i n g p u n i s h e d for this i n s o l e n c e b e f o r e the e m e r g e n c e o f
the p r o p h e t e s s D e b o r a h (Ant. 5.200). A n d J o s e p h u s h a s p u t into t h e m o u t h o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r a n attack, w i t h w h i c h h e o b v i o u s l y a g r e e s , o n K i n g Z e d e k i a h for his v i o l a t i o n o f treaties (Ant. 10.138) a n d his i n g r a t i t u d e in h a v i n g f o u g h t a g a i n s t h i m who
h a d b e s t o w e d his k i n g d o m u p o n h i m in the first p l a c e (Ant. 10.139). " G r e a t is
G-d,"
J o s e p h u s ' s N e b u c h a d n e z z a r c o n c l u d e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , " w h o ,
in H i s a b h o r r e n c e o f y o u r [ Z e d e k i a h ' s ] c o n d u c t , h a s m a d e y o u fall into o u r hands." C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e a n d gratefulness is the q u a l i t y of generosity. T h u s J o s e p h u s describes as g e n e r o u s (xprjoros,
"kind," "morally g o o d , " "excellent," "up
right," " g e n u i n e , " " g e n d e , " " b e n e v o l e n t , " " c o n s i d e r a t e , " " g o o d - h e a r t e d , " "worthy," " d e c e n t , " "honest," "friendly," "well-disposed") a n d just (SIKCUOS) the p r o p h e t S a m u e l (Ant. 6.194). H e similarly d e s c r i b e s the h i g h priest J e h o i a d a , w h o s a v e d J o a s h f r o m the h a n d s o f the w i c k e d Q u e e n A t h a l i a h a n d p r o c l a i m e d h i m k i n g (Ant. 9.166), a n d J e h o n a d a b , w h o a c c o m p a n i e d K i n g J e h u o n his w a y t o slay the priests o f c
51
B a a l (Ant. 9 . 1 3 3 ) . T h a t these t w o epithets i n d e e d constitute a t r e m e n d o u s c o m p l i m e n t m a y b e s e e n f r o m the fact t h a t in his final e u l o g y o f S a m u e l , J o s e p h u s sin gles o u t his j u s t (SIKCUOS)
lf
aT
a n d k i n d l y (xp ) ^)
n a t u r e a n d states t h a t it w a s p r e
cisely b e c a u s e h e possessed these t w o qualities t h a t h e w a s d e a r to G - d
(Ant.
s
6.294). I* i significant t h a t w h e n the g o o d K i n g H e z e k i a h is first i n t r o d u c e d to the reader, h e is d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g a c h a r a c t e r t h a t w a s g o o d (xprj arrj), ]mt a n d p i o u s (evoeprjs) (Ant. 9.260). Significandy, the c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n s , a n d SiaKaioovvrj,
(SiKata), xpyarorris
are u s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o K i n g J e h o i a c h i n (Ant. 10.100), as w e l l as
K i n g Z e d e k i a h (Ant. 10.120), w h o , like J e h o i a c h i n , is r e h a b i l i t a t e d b y J o s e p h u s , d e spite his n e g a t i v e p o r t r a y a l in the B i b l e , b e c a u s e , like J e r e m i a h a n d J e h o i a c h i n , h e s u b m i t t e d to the B a b y l o n i a n s . Finally, the s a m e p a i r o f qualities are a s c r i b e d to E z r a ; a n d , in a n editorial c o m m e n t J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e thinks t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e E z r a possessed these v i r t u e s t h a t G - d d e e m e d h i m w o r t h y to o b t a i n his d e sires (Ant. 11.139). The
T0
v e r y positive q u a l i t y a s s i g n e d to the e p i t h e t xpy°" 's
m
a
Y h e s e e n in its
u s a g e in the S e p t u a g i n t , w h e r e it m e a n s " g o o d , " " s e r v i c e a b l e , " " k i n d , "
and
51. Josephus likewise makes a point o f describing as generous (xpyoTos) K i n g Ptolemy Philometor of E g y p t (Ant. 13.114), w h o was clearly a favorite of Josephus's because he favored the Alexandrian Jews in their dispute with the Samaritans (Ant. 13.74,76).
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
125
" b e n e v o l e n t , " a n d w h e r e it is often u s e d as a n e p i t h e t for G - d (e.g., Ps. 106:1; Jer. 33:11). P h i l o uses it in a v e r y positive sense o f " g r a c i o u s , " "friendly," a n d " k i n d , " especially w i t h r e f e r e n c e to G - d a n d to rulers (e.g., Dejosepho
43.264). I n the N e w
T e s t a m e n t , its m e a n i n g is " g o o d , " " k i n d , " a n d " g r a c i o u s " ; a n d it is u s e d t h u s p o s itively w i t h r e f e r e n c e b o t h t o p e o p l e a n d t o G - d ( L u k e 6:35; 1 Peter 2:3). T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n xpyaTQTVS
h a s similar associations o f " g o o d n e s s , " " k i n d n e s s , "
" g r a c i o u s n e s s , " "friendliness," " c l e m e n c y , " "honesty," "piety,"
"magnanimity,"
"piety," a n d " w o r t h i n e s s . " T h e r a n g e o f m e a n i n g is similar in J o s e p h u s . T h u s , N i c a n o r , a n o l d friend o f J o s e p h u s , w h o is sent b y the g e n e r a l V e s p a s i a n to p e r s u a d e J o s e p h u s to s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s , d w e l l s o n the i n n a t e ar
v
(XPV ^ )
°f
m
e
R °
m
a
n
s
t
o
generosity 52
those w h o m t h e y h a v e s u b d u e d (War 3-347), c l e a r l y a
c o m p l i m e n t to the R o m a n s , w h o b e c a m e J o s e p h u s ' s p a t r o n s a n d w h o s e a p p r o v a l h e s o u g h t in w r i t i n g his w o r k . V e r y significandy, it is this q u a l i t y (xprjoTorrjTos)
that
J o s e p h u s ascribes to the e m p e r o r V e s p a s i a n w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s the k i n d n e s s t h a t V e s p a s i a n a l w a y s d i s p l a y e d t o w a r d h i m (Life 423). In
the Antiquities,
L o t is said
to b e
a
student
of Abraham's
liberality
(XprjoTorrjTos) (Ant. 1.200). A b r a h a m ' s s e r v a n t E l i e z e r c o m m e n d s R e b e k a h for h e r g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t (xprjarorrjTos)
in n o t h e s i t a t i n g to m i n i s t e r to the n e e d s o f the
others at the cost o f h e r o w n toil (Ant. 1.247). J o s e p h u s also c o m m e n d s I s a a c for his g o o d n a t u r e (xprjarorrjra)
in b e c o m i n g r e c o n c i l e d w i t h A b i m e l e c h (Ant. 1.264).
J u d a h in his d e s p e r a t e , a p o l o g e t i c s p e e c h to J o s e p h a p p l i e s this e p i t h e t to his father J a c o b (Ant. 2.149). J u d a h a p p e a l s to J o s e p h ' s g e n e r o s i t y (xprjororrjros;)
(Ant. 2.140,
157); a n d , u p o n his d e a t h b e d , in l a v i s h i n g praise u p o n J o s e p h , his father J a c o b sin gles o u t the g e n e r o s i t y (xprjarog) t h a t J o s e p h h a d s h o w n t o w a r d his b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.195). A g a i n , the p e o p l e i m p l o r e the p r o p h e t S a m u e l as a k i n d (xprjorov) a n d g e n d e father (Ant. 6.92). T h i s e p i t h e t is also u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the e x c e l l e n t (Xpyo-Tfj) c o u n s e l g i v e n b y J o n a t h a n to D a v i d (Ant. 6.208). It is u s e d as w e l l o f S a u l ' s k i n d l y (xprjara)
r e a s s u r i n g attitude t o w a r d D a v i d (Ant. 6.212). I n a l o n g editorial
like e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t a b o u t S a u l , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t the g r e a t n e s s o f kings' p o w e r forbids n o t m e r e l y their b e i n g b a d to their subjects b u t e v e n b e i n g less t h a n w h o l l y g o o d (xpyorols)
t o w a r d t h e m (Ant. 6.349. K m g D a v i d , b e c a u s e h e
s h o w e d g r i e f for A b n e r , is d e s c r i b e d as k i n d (xprjarcp) a n d g e n d e in n a t u r e (Ant. 7.43); m o r e o v e r , the o l d w o m a n , in s e e k i n g to g e t D a v i d to b e c o m e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h A b s a l o m , a p p e a l s to D a v i d ' s k i n d n e s s (Ant. 7.184). M e p h i b o s h e t , S a u l ' s g r a n d s o n , c o m p l i m e n t s D a v i d as f o r b e a r i n g a n d k i n d (xprjoros),
even though Saul's family
w a s a c t u a l l y d e s e r v i n g o f e x t i n c t i o n (Ant. 7.270). I n a h i g h c o m p l i m e n t , n o t f o u n d
52. In his note on this passage in the L o e b edition, T h a c k e r a y (1926-34, 2:674), points to the par allel language in Virgil's Aeneid 6.851-53, which summarizes the mission of the Romans: T u regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.
126
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
in the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s c o m m e n d s A r a u n a , o n w h o s e t h r e s h i n g floor D a v i d is or d e r e d b y G - d t o b u i l d a n altar, for offering this l a n d as a gift (Ant. 7.332). H e also praises h i m for his l i b e r a l i t y a n d his g r e a t n e s s o f soul (pueyaXoi/jvxias,
the A r i s
totelian w o r d [Nichomachen Ethics, 2.7.1107B22]) in p r o v i d i n g the site t h a t D a v i d fit t i n g l y c o n s e c r a t e s for the future t e m p l e (Ant. 7.332). I n his e x t r a b i b l i c a l e n c o m i u m o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s singles o u t his q u a l i t y o f b e i n g k i n d (xprjoros)
t o t h o s e in trou
b l e (Ant. 7.391). Similarly, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S o l o m o n ' s g r e a t spirit (pueyaXo^poovvrj)
in g i v i n g gifts t o the Q u e e n o f S h e b a is p r a i s e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant.
8.175)T h a t this is a k e y q u a l i t y o f a k i n g m a y b e inferred f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e n t h e l e a d e r s o f the p e o p l e a n d J e r o b o a m a p p r o a c h R e h o b o a m , t h e y u r g e h i m to b e m o r e l e n i e n t (xprjororepov)
t h a n his father S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.213). T h e c l e a r i m p l i
c a t i o n is t h a t i f R e h o b o a m h a d , in fact, s h o w n this quality, h e w o u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d t h e disastrous b r e a k u p o f the k i n g d o m . T h e y stress t h a t k i n d n e s s
(xprjorov)
a n d friendliness are a n e a s y matter, e s p e c i a l l y for a y o u n g m a n (Ant. 8.214). S i g n i ficandy, k i n d n e s s is also a s c r i b e d t o G e d a l i a h (Ant. 10.164), w h o , like J e r e m i a h , Z e d e k i a h , a n d J e h o i a c h i n , a d o p t e d a s u b m i s s i v e attitude t o w a r d t h e B a b y l o n i a n s . It is also a q u a l i t y a s c r i b e d t o the P e r s i a n K i n g X e r x e s , w h i c h E z r a , in his e x u l t a tion, asserts w a s c o n f e r r e d u p o n h i m b y G - d H i m s e l f (Ant. 11.131). I n the latter p o r t i o n o f his Antiquities, this e p i t h e t is a p p l i e d in p r a i s e to the h i g h priest H y r c a n u s , w h o is d e s c r i b e d as n a t u r a l l y d e c e n t (xpV^os)
in refusing to lis
t e n to s l a n d e r (Ant. 14.13). A u g u s t u s ' s a n d H e r o d ' s friend M a r c u s V i p s a n i u s A g r i p p a , w h o w a s c l e a r l y a favorite o f J o s e p h u s ' s b e c a u s e o f his s t r o n g r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f the rights o f J e w s (Ant. 1 6 . 1 6 7 - 7 3 ) , is d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s as k i n d a n d g e n e r o u s (xprjoros
Kal pLtyaXoifjvxos)
in g r a n t i n g to those w h o a s k e d for t h e m w h a t
e v e r favors m i g h t b e o f profit to t h e m , w i t h o u t c a u s i n g loss t o o t h e r s (Ant. 16.25). A n o t h e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s favorites, A g r i p p a I, is d e s c r i b e d as n o t o n l y b e n e v o l e n t t o those o f o t h e r n a t i o n s b u t also as b e i n g e v e n m o r e g e n e r o u s (xprjoros)
and
m o r e c o m p a s s i o n a t e to his c o m p a t r i o t s (Ant. 19.330). I n e x e r c i s i n g this quality, J e w s are f o l l o w i n g the e x a m p l e o f G - d Himself, as w e c a n see f r o m t h e fact t h a t K i n g I z a t e s o f A d i a b e n e , in his d e s p e r a t e prayer, a p p e a l s to G - d ' s g o o d n e s s (xprjororrjros, Piety.
Ant. 20.90).
T h e fifth o f the c a r d i n a l virtues is piety, as w e see in P l a t o (Protagoras 3 3 0 B ,
349B) a n d in the S t o i c s (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.64.40; D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.119). A r i s t o d e defines p i e t y as e i t h e r a p a r t o f j u s t i c e o r a n a c c o m p a n i m e n t t o it (De Virtutibus et Vxtiis 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 B 2 2 - 2 3 ) . M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (1.17-20) identifies the p a r t s o f j u s t i c e as "piety, fair d e a l i n g , a n d r e v e r e n c e : p i e t y t o w a r d the g o d s , fair d e a l i n g t o w a r d m e n , r e v e r e n c e t o w a r d the d e p a r t e d . " D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s praises X e n o p h o n for d i s p l a y i n g first o f all the v i r t u e o f p i e t y (Ant. Rom. 4.778). D i o d o r u s (1.2.2) in his p r o l o g u e stresses t h a t i f m y t h s a b o u t H a d e s inspire m e n t o p i e t y a n d j u s t i c e , " h o w m u c h m o r e m u s t w e s u p p o s e history, the i n t e r p r e t e r o f t r u t h a n d the s o u r c e o f all p h i l o s o p h y , c a p a b l e o f s h a p i n g m e n ' s c h a r a c t e r s in h o n o r a b l e
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
ways?"
5 3
127
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y p a r t i c u l a r l y for t h e R o m a n s , m a y b e s e e n in t h e
fact t h a t t h e k e y q u a l i t y o f A e n e a s in V i r g i l ' s g r e a t n a t i o n a l p o e m is pietas. I n a n s w e r i n g t h e anti-Jewish attacks o f A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d t h e rest, w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h a t t h e l a w s o f t h e J e w s t a u g h t i m p i e t y {aoefieiav)
{ap. Ag.
Ap. 2.291), J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e first q u a l i t y t h a t the M o s a i c c o d e is d e s i g n e d to p r o m o t e is p i e t y {Ag. Ap. 2.146). H e stresses t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f p i e t y w h e n he declares that even Jewish w o m e n a n d children agree that piety must be the m o tive o f all o n e ' s efforts in life {Ag. Ap. 2.181). J o s e p h u s , i n his p e r o r a t i o n at t h e e n d o f the essay Against Apion (2.293), e x c l a i m s , " W h a t g r e a t e r b e a u t y t h a n i n v i o l a b l e p i e t y ? " J o s e p h u s is b a s i c a l l y r e d e f i n i n g e x c e l l e n c e {aperr/) as p i e t y
{evoefieLa),
w h i c h w a s , i n d e e d , a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f dperrj, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S t o i c s ( H o l l a d a y igyy,
98). It is t h e
(jxeyaXoi/jvxlo:),
r e l a t e d v i r t u e s so i m p o r t a n t
c o u r a g e {dv8p€La), p a t i e n t
in
endurance
Stoicism—magnanimity {Kaprepta),
{avveais) (Epictetus, ap. A r r i a n , Dissertationes 1.6.28-29)—that
and
sagacity
bring a b o u t those
g r e a t d i v i d e n d s , so p r o m i n e n t in M o s e s ' life as w e l l — f r e e d o m f r o m
perturbation
a n d distress. For the J e w a n d e s p e c i a l l y for J o s e p h u s , t h e priest w h o t o o k s u c h p r i d e in b e l o n g i n g t o t h e first o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s o f priests {Life 2), d e v o t i o n t o t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m w a s t h e p r i m a r y i n d i c a t i o n o f piety. H e n c e , t h e m a j o r sin o n the p a r t o f J e r o b o a m w a s t h a t h e set u p his o w n a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m ple. W h e r e a s J e r o b o a m g i v e s n o r e a s o n s in t h e B i b l e for p r e v e n t i n g his p e o p l e from g o i n g t o J e r u s a l e m (1 K i n g s 12:28), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n {Ant. 8.227-28), h e gives n o f e w e r t h a n five r e a s o n s for this i m p i o u s a c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s a m p l i fies the sins o f J e r o b o a m b y r e f e r r i n g t o h i m as c o m m i t t i n g a n o u t r a g e a g a i n s t G - d a n d t r a n s g r e s s i n g H i s l a w s , so t h a t e v e r y d a y h e s o u g h t to c o m m i t s o m e n e w a c t m o r e h e i n o u s t h a n t h e reckless acts o f w h i c h h e w a s a l r e a d y g u i l t y {Ant. 8.245). T o J o s e p h u s t h e priest, J e r o b o a m ' s g r e a t e s t sin w a s the fact t h a t h e c o n t i n u e d t o erect altars a n d to a p p o i n t priests f r o m a m o n g t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e {Ant. 8.265). P i e t y is c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o j u s t i c e , i n a s m u c h as j u s t i c e a p p l i e s to relations a m o n g m e n , w h i l e p i e t y p e r t a i n s t o m a n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G - d ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 115). T h u s , Dionysius o f Halicarnassus remarks that the great R o m a n lawgiver N u m a Pompilius introduced t w o virtues b y reason o f w h i c h the city w o u l d be prosper ous—justice a n d p i e t y {Ant. Rom. 2 . 6 2 - 5 ) .
54
T h e same juxtaposition of justice and
53. D o w n i n g 1980, 64, n. 8, is correct in noting that Attridge 1976a, 183, is wrong, at least in the cases o f Dionysius and Diodorus, in denying that the G r e e k historians placed a stress on piety similar to that found in Josephus. In particular, D o w n i n g (52-53) notes that Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 2.68 et pas sim) h o p e d to reassert a trust in divine providence, that repentance (fxerdvo ia), so frequendy found in Josephus's additions in the Bible, is also stressed by Dionysius, and that the use o f the term
avfifiaxos
in reference to G - d as an ally, w h i c h is so c o m m o n in Josephus, in the sense o f divine grace a n d h u m a n responsibility, w a s perhaps b o r r o w e d from Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 6.63). 54. S o also the terms are used together b y X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia 4 - 8 , 11; Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 2
r
1.5.2, 1.5.3, - 8> 4-92, 6.62, 13.5.3; and D i o d o r u s 1.2.2, cited in Attridge 1976a, 115. A d d D i o d o r u s 12.20.1-3.
128
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
p i e t y is a p p l i e d b y J o s e p h u s to the k i n g s S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.120), J e h o s h a p h a t
(Ant.
9.16), J o t h a m (Ant. 9.236), a n d H e z e k i a h (Ant. 9.260) (Schlatter 1932, 37). T h a t p i e t y is c o u p l e d w i t h the o t h e r virtues is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s
statement
t h a t it w a s u n d e r t h e g r e a t l a w g i v e r M o s e s t h a t the Israelites w e r e t r a i n e d in p i e t y (evoepeiav)
a n d the e x e r c i s e o f the o t h e r v i r t u e s (Ant. 1.6). H e i n d i c a t e s the i m p o r
t a n c e o f p i e t y w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t w h e n o n c e M o s e s h a d w o n the o b e d i e n c e o f the Israelites to the dictates o f piety, h e h a d n o further difficulty in p e r s u a d i n g t h e m o f all the r e m a i n i n g v i r t u e s (Ant. 1.21). I n d e e d , it is the p i e t y o f A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses in his a c c o u n t o f the r e a d i n e s s o f A b r a h a m to sacrifice his s o n (Ant. 1.222-36). I n his o n e - s e n t e n c e e u l o g y o f J a c o b , t h e sole v i r t u e t h a t h e m e n t i o n s is his piety, in w h i c h q u a l i t y J a c o b is said to b e s e c o n d t o n o n e o f the forefathers (Ant. 2.190). I n his e m b e l l i s h m e n t o f the i n c i d e n t o f K o r a h ' s r e b e l l i o n , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s M o s e s ' p i e t y (Ant. 4.47). I n e n u m e r a t i n g the qualities o f a l e a d e r s u c h as J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s stresses t h e o u t s t a n d i n g p i e t y t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m his m e n t o r , M o s e s (Ant. 3.49). I n singling o u t the attributes that S a m u e l is to l o o k for in a king, G - d first m e n tions p i e t y (evoefieia)
a n d o n l y t h e n the virtues o f justice, bravery, a n d o b e d i e n c e ,
d e c l a r i n g that these are the qualities o f w h i c h b e a u t y o f soul consists (Ant. 6.160). A s to S a u l ' s piety, J o s e p h u s stresses his r e s p e c t for a n o a t h (Ant. 6.124),
a
m a t t e r so i m
p o r t a n t to the R o m a n s , as w e see in C i c e r o (De Officiis 1.13.39-40, 3.26.99-31.112); a n d w h e n J o n a t h a n faces d e a t h f r o m his father b e c a u s e o f his v o w , h e d e c l a r e s that h e w o u l d b e v e r y g l a d to die for p i e t y (evoepecas,
Ant. 6.127). E v e n w h e n the B i b l e
exhibits S a u l ' s l a c k o f p i e t y in offering a sacrifice before w a i t i n g for S a m u e l (1 S a m . 13:8-14), J o s e p h u s offers a n e x c u s e — n a m e l y , that h e d i d so o u t o f necessity b e c a u s e o f the desertion o f his f r i g h t e n e d troops (Ant. 6.103). D a v i d , m o r e o v e r , instructs S o l o m o n to b e p i o u s , j u s t , a n d b r a v e (Ant. 7.338); a n d in r e p e a t i n g these instruc tions, h e e x h o r t s his son to rule p i o u s l y a n d j u s d y (Ant. 7.356). F u r t h e r m o r e ,
as
n o t e d , the g o o d K i n g H e z e k i a h is d e s c r i b e d as kindly, u p r i g h t , a n d p i o u s (Ant. 9.260). A n d e v e n in the case o f the non-Jewish k i n g X e r x e s , successor to D a r i u s as k i n g o f Persia, J o s e p h u s a d d s to the scriptural a c c o u n t b y e x p r e s s i n g a d m i r a t i o n for his p i e t y t o w a r d G - d a n d his w a y o f s h o w i n g h o n o r to H i m (Ant. 1 1 . 1 2 0 ) .
55
O n e a s p e c t o f p i e t y t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e s p e c i a l l y a p p r e c i a t e d b y the R o m a n s w a s filial piety. T h i s trait w o u l d h a v e struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d in the R o m a n s , w h o p e r c e i v e d pietas p a r t i c u l a r l y in the l o v i n g c a r e t h a t A e n e a s s h o w e d for his father, A n c h i s e s , in the s c e n e o f t h e d e p a r t u r e f r o m T r o y ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 2.634-751). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f filial p i e t y so far as J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d m a y b e s e e n in his
55. Attridge 1976a, 183, denies that the Hellenistic historians stressed the importance o f the speci fically religious response (ciWjScia) to the facts o f providence. But, w e m a y note, Dionysius o f Halicar nassus praises X e n o p h o n for displaying, first o f all, the virtue o f piety (Ant. Rom. 4.778). Moreover, D i o d o r u s (1.2.2), in his prologue, likewise stresses piety and justice as the t w o virtues that historians extol in their heroes.
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
129
i n c r e a s e d s y m p a t h y for E s a u b e c a u s e o f t h e latter's p i e t y t o w a r d his father I s a a c .
5 6
I n his l o n g a n d p o i g n a n t s p e e c h to J o s e p h , w h o at this p o i n t h a s n o t y e t r e v e a l e d his i d e n t i t y t o his b r o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s ' s J u d a h a p p e a l s to h i m in the n a m e o f fa t h e r h o o d , his c h i e f p o i n t b e i n g t h a t in s h o w i n g p i t y for t h e a g e d J a c o b , J o s e p h w o u l d b e h o n o r i n g his o w n father (Ant. 2.152). W e m a y also d i s c e r n this attribute o f filial d e v o t i o n i n J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f S a u l .
5 7
Likewise, Josephus expands on
the p i e t y s h o w n b y S o l o m o n t o w a r d his father, D a v i d , at t h e latter's f u n e r a l (Ant. 7.392), as w e l l as t o w a r d his m o t h e r (Ant. 8.8). I f w e ask w h y J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t dis cuss this q u a l i t y w h e n h e d e a l s w i t h t h e story o f C a i n , w h o killed his b r o t h e r A b e l (Ant. 1.53-59)? o r w i t h A b i m e l e c h , w h o killed all o f his father's sons e x c e p t o n e (Ant. 5.234), t h e a n s w e r w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e t h a t J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s the t h e m e o f frat ricide in t h e c a s e o f c h a r a c t e r s , s u c h as J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s a n d A b s a l o m , w h o a r e a b l e a n d b a s i c a l l y g o o d b u t w h o s u c c u m b to i r r a t i o n a l e m o t i o n a l drives. J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e e n o r m i t y o f filial i m p i e t y in his p o r t r a y a l o f A b s a l o m . I n his d e s i g n s u p o n t h e k i n g s h i p , A b s a l o m , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , is g u i l t y o f a d o u ble impiety, first a g a i n s t G - d , since H e h a d n o t g r a n t e d h i m the sovereignty, a n d s e c o n d l y a g a i n s t his father, D a v i d (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 4 - 1 2 ) . T h e v i r t u e o f p i e t y is p a r t i c u l a r l y m a n i f e s t in the h o n o r g i v e n to the d e a d , as w e c a n see i n b o o k 24 o f H o m e r ' s Iliad, in b o o k 11 o f H o m e r ' s Odyssey, a n d in S o p h o cles' Antigone. D u e r e s p e c t for t h e d e a d w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to t h e R o m a n s , as w e see in P o l y b i u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f a R o m a n funeral in his b o o k 6, as w e l l as in b o o k 6 o f V i r g i l ' s Aeneid. It is this v i r t u e t h a t is s i n g l e d o u t in J o s e p h u s ' s p r a i s e o f J o a b , for e x a m p l e (Ant. 7.18).
SUMMARY T o d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e y h a d failed to p r o d u c e o u t s t a n d ingly w i s e m e n , J o s e p h u s , like o t h e r H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s , a n d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s c h o o l , stresses t h e role o f g r e a t l e a d e r s . A t
56. T h e Bible unabashedly admits that Isaac favored Esau because he loved to eat his venison (Gen. 25:28); Josephus carefully omits this reason and declares simply that his father favored him espe cially (ioTTovSdKet., "pursue with zeal," "spend all one's energies," "spare no effort," the same verb that is used o f Esau's relationship with his wife Basemath [Ant. 1.277],
a
n
indication that he m a t c h e d in his
relationship to his wife the devotion that his father showed toward him). Josephus depicts Esau as re ciprocating his father's devotion toward him. T h u s , while the biblical passage states that Esau w e n t (vayelek) to the field to get venison for Isaac (Gen. 27:5), Josephus presents him as acting with m u c h greater enthusiasm, since he says that Esau sped (i^copfirjaev, "rushed," "started rapidly") to the chase (Ant. 1.269). 57. T h u s , in the Bible, after S a m u e l anoints Saul and sends him forth, he cites a n u m b e r o f signs that will c o m e to pass and says, in all vagueness, that w h e n they occur, he is to d o whatever his h a n d "finds to d o " (1 S a m . 10:7). Josephus, on the other hand, uses this as an occasion to reinforce the theme of Saul's pietas, since S a m u e l specifically sends him to salute his father and his kinsfolk after the pre dicted signs have c o m e about (Ant. 6.57).
130
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
the s a m e t i m e , t h e r e is t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n in J o s e p h u s , as in the r e w r i t t e n B i b l e o f P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical Antiquities, in the attention g i v e n to these figures a n d e v e n t o i n d i v i d u a l e p i s o d e s . A s to relative l a c k o f a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n figures, this m a y b e b e c a u s e o f their c o m p a r a t i v e u n i m p o r t a n c e historically f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t o f view, o r b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r e j u d i c e s — f o r e x a m p l e , a g a i n s t w o m e n . I n the a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t J o s e p h u s g i v e s t o e n c o m i a for his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , the d e t e r m i n i n g factors a r e the lessons t h a t h e is t r y i n g to c o n v e y a n d the d e g r e e t o w h i c h h e h i m s e l f identified w i t h the c h a r a c t e r in q u e s t i o n . I n listing the qualities t h a t h e a d m i r e d in his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , J o s e p h u s follows the l e a d o f the t r a d i t i o n e m b o d i e d i n Isocrates, X e n o p h o n , P l i n y the Elder, a n d T a c i t u s in their a r e t a l o gies. I n the first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s stresses the antiquity o f his heroes, a p o i n t especially a p p r e c i a t e d b y b o t h the G r e e k s a n d the R o m a n s , since t h e y w e r e r e g a r d e d b y such p e o p l e s as the E g y p t i a n s as l a t e c o m e r s o n the scene o f history. N e x t , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the e m p h a s i s p l a c e d b y rhetoricians a n d as illustrated in the w o r k s o f H o m e r , H e r o d o t u s , A r i s t o d e , C o r n e l i u s N e p o s , a n d Plutarch, h e gives p r o m i n e n c e to his o w n lofty birth a n d the g e n e a l o g y o f his heroes, notably, A b r a h a m , R e b e k a h , J a c o b , Joseph, A m r a m , A a r o n , G i d e o n , Jephthah, Samson, Saul, Shailum, Gedaliah, and Esther. P a r a l l e l i n g the p r e d i c t i o n s a n d w o n d r o u s events a t t e n d i n g the b i r t h o f h e r o e s , b o t h historical a n d m y t h o l o g i c a l , J o s e p h u s stresses these c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c o n n e c tion w i t h M o s e s a n d S a m s o n in particular. T h e g r e a t h e r o , as w e see in d e p i c t i o n s o f R o m u l u s , C y r u s , a n d A l e x a n d e r , m u s t b e p r e c o c i o u s p h y s i c a l l y a n d intellectu ally; a n d t h u s J o s e p h u s , w h o b o a s t s o f his o w n p r e c o c i o u s n e s s , e m p h a s i z e s this characteristic, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the c a s e o f M o s e s . I n a s m u c h as H o m e r , Plato, Isocrates, a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s attach i m p o r t a n c e to p h y s i c a l b e a u t y in a leader, J o s e p h u s calls attention to this attribute in his p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , J o s e p h , S a u l , D a v i d , a n d A b s a l o m . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e the J e w s h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g a n a t i o n o f b e g g a r s , J o s e p h u s , like the rabbis, g o e s o u t o f his w a y to h i g h l i g h t the w e a l t h o f A b r a h a m , M o s e s , S o l o m o n , a n d J o s i a h . J o s e p h u s , like T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o , e m p h a s i z e s the i m p o r t a n c e o f e n l i g h t e n e d l e a d e r s h i p a n d expresses d i s d a i n for the masses. H e stresses M o s e s ' w i l l i n g ness to u n d e r g o toil a n d his careful a v o i d a n c e o f bribery. L i k e P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h e r king, M o s e s e x c e l s as a n e d u c a t o r . T h e g r e a t leader, as s e e n in the i n s t a n c e o f S o l o m o n , s h o w s his ability in b r i n g i n g a b o u t p e r f e c t p e a c e . J o s e p h u s a t t a c h e s p a r t i c u l a r significance t o the possession b y his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s o f the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , to w h i c h is a d d e d the fifth v i r t u e , as r e c o g n i z e d b y P l a t o , o f piety. B e c a u s e the J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f n o t h a v i n g p r o d u c e d w i s e m e n c o m p a r a b l e to S o c r a t e s , J o s e p h u s lays s p e c i a l stress o n the w i s d o m o f A b r a h a m , J a c o b , J o s e p h , a n d M o s e s . A b r a h a m is p o r t r a y e d as possessing i m p e c c a b l e l o g i c a n d as p r e s e n t i n g a u n i q u e p r o o f for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d . T h e ability t o r e a s o n is as c r i b e d to I s a a c , J a c o b , a n d S o l o m o n . J o s e p h a n d D a n i e l are e s p e c i a l l y s i n g l e d o u t
THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES
131
for their w i s d o m in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s . M o s e s is e u l o g i z e d as s u r p a s s i n g in u n d e r s t a n d i n g all those w h o h a v e e v e r lived. E v e n those, s u c h as J o s h u a a n d S a m s o n , w h o are n o t n o t a b l e for their w i s d o m in the B i b l e , are p r e s e n t e d as p o s s e s s i n g w i s d o m . J o s e p h u s also stresses t h a t the gift o f p r o p h e c y w a s possessed b y M o s e s . E x c e l l e n c e in the sciences, p a r t i c u l a r l y m a t h e m a t i c s a n d astronomy, w h i c h w e r e so h i g h l y r e g a r d e d in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , is e m p h a s i z e d b y J o s e p h u s in his p o r trayal o f A b r a h a m in particular. A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s s h o w o p e n - m i n d e d n e s s in their w i l l i n g n e s s to listen to others. T h e ability to p e r s u a d e is e x t o l l e d b y J o s e p h u s , e s p e c i a l l y in his p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m a n d , m o s t strikingly in v i e w o f the b i b l i c a l m e n t i o n o f his s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t , M o s e s , a l t h o u g h h e also n o t e s t h a t this q u a l i t y m a y b e u s e d negatively, as s e e n in s u c h a figure as K o r a h . E v e n e x c e l l e n c e in m u s i c , w h i c h w a s so h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d b y the G r e e k s , is seen e x e m p l i f i e d in M o s e s , w h o likewise is p o r t r a y e d as e x c e l l i n g in the art o f m a g i c , w h i c h so i m p r e s s e d the ancients. I n a s m u c h as the J e w s a n d J o s e p h u s in p a r t i c u l a r h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f c o w ardice, J o s e p h u s takes g r e a t p a i n s to e m p h a s i z e the c o u r a g e a n d skill in b a t d e o f s u c h l u m i n a r i e s as A b r a h a m , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , a n d D a v i d . T h e q u a l i t y o f t e m p e r a n c e (and its allied v i r t u e o f m o d e s t y ) , w h i c h w a s so i m p o r t a n t to the G r e e k s t h a t it w a s i n s c r i b e d as a m o t t o in D e l p h i a n d w a s stressed b y the S t o i c s in particular, is e m p h a s i z e d in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e h e d e c r i e d its a b s e n c e in the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s o f his o w n day. Justice, the c e n t e r p i e c e o f Plato's Republic, is the q u a l i t y p a r e x c e l l e n c e o f the ruler a n d is e x e m p l i f i e d in m a n y e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m , Moses, Samuel, D a v i d , S o l o m o n , Josiah, G e d a l i a h , Daniel, Ezra, and N e h e m i a h . C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the responsibility to tell the t r u t h , as e x e m p l i f i e d in M o s e s a n d D a v i d . I n a s m u c h as o n e o f the r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s their a l l e g e d h a tred o f m a n k i n d , J o s e p h u s takes e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y to stress the h u m a n i t y o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , a n d D a v i d a n d calls a t t e n t i o n to the m e r c y s h o w n p a r t i c u l a r l y b y D a v i d . H e takes p a i n s to d e f e n d S a u l a g a i n s t the c h a r g e t h a t h e h a d b e e n m e r c i less in s l a u g h t e r i n g the w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n o f the A m a l e k i t e s . C o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the trait o f s h o w i n g gratitude, as e x e m p l i f i e d b y J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , D a v i d , J e h o s h a p h a t , a n d M o r d e c a i . J o s e p h u s stresses the g e n e r o s i t y a n d kindness o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , S a m u e l , S a u l , D a v i d , a n d G e d a l i a h . T h e q u a l i t y o f hospitality, so m u c h p r i z e d in the N e a r East, is m a g n i f i e d in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f M o s e s a n d o f D a v i d . Finally, piety, a q u a l i t y so c e n t r a l to the R o m a n s , as w e see n o t a b l y in the g r e a t n a t i o n a l p o e m , V i r g i l ' s Aeneid, is u n d e r l i n e d b y J o s e p h u s in m a n y a d d i t i o n s , e s p e cially in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d H e z e k i a h . It is e x t r e m e l y effective for J o s e p h u s to j u x t a p o s e the virtues o f j u s t i c e a n d p i e t y in S o l o m o n , J e h o s h a p h a t , J o t h a m , a n d H e z e k i a h . I n particular, h e stresses the filial p i e t y s h o w n b y E s a u , J o s e p h , a n d D a v i d .
C H A P T E R
F O U R
Josephus as Apologist to Non-Jews and to Jews
A N S W E R S T O THE C H A R G E S OF A N T I - J E W I S H W R I T E R S I f w e seek to identify t h e g e n r e o f J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities, w e shall find t h a t it c o m e s closest to a p o l o g e t i c h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , w h i c h , in the c o n t e x t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c A g e , G r e g o r y S t e r l i n g h a s carefully d e f i n e d as " t h e story o f a s u b g r o u p o f p e o p l e in a n e x t e n d e d p r o s e n a r r a t i v e w r i t t e n b y a m e m b e r o f the g r o u p w h o follows the g r o u p ' s o w n traditions b u t H e l l e n i z e s t h e m in a n effort to establish the identity o f t h e g r o u p w i t h i n the setting o f the l a r g e r w o r l d " (Sterling 1992, 17). W h i l e a n u m b e r o f w o r k s — s u c h as t h o s e o f B e r o s s u s , M a n e t h o , D e m e t r i u s , A r t a p a n u s , E u p o l e m u s , a n d P s e u d o - E u p o l e m e u s — b e l o n g t o this c a t e g o r y , t h e greatest, b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e l y a n d qualitatively, is c l e a r l y t h e Antiquities. A p p a r e n d y , at a n earlier p o i n t in his life (ca. 7 9 - 8 1 C.E., w h e n w r i t i n g his a c c o u n t o f t h e Jewish
War, J o s e p h u s h a d d e c i d e d t h a t it w a s s u p e r f l u o u s t o n a r r a t e
t h e a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f the J e w s , i n a s m u c h as m a n y J e w s h a d a l r e a d y d o n e so, a n d i n a s m u c h as these a c c o u n t s h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d b y c e r t a i n o f t h e G r e e k s into their 1
n a t i v e t o n g u e w i t h o u t serious d e p a r t u r e f r o m the t r u t h (War 1.17). Later, a p p a r endy, h e d e c i d e d to w r i t e s u c h a h i s t o r y b u t w a s d e t e r r e d b y t h e s h e e r size o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e (Ant. 1.6-7). J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f states t h a t the i m p e t u s for w r i t i n g t h e w o r k c a m e f r o m his p a t r o n E p a p h r o d i t u s (Ant. 1.8-9);
D
U
t
w
e
m
a
v
conjecture that
t h e r e a l m o t i v e w a s t h a t h e felt e i t h e r t h a t the p r e v i o u s v e r s i o n s w e r e unsatisfac t o r y o r t h a t t h e r e w a s i n c r e a s e d n e c e s s i t y for a n a n s w e r to m a l i c i o u s critics o f t h e J e w s . T h e p a g a n s h a d a p p a r e n d y n o t , in g e n e r a l , c o n s u l t e d t h e S e p t u a g i n t , i f w e
1. T h a t Josephus is not referring here, as T h a c k e r a y 1927, 2:10-11, w o u l d have us believe, to the works o f Demetrius, Philo the Elder, Eupolemus, and so on, w o u l d seem to be indicated by his state ment that these accounts h a d b e e n translated by certain o f the Greeks into their native tongue. T h e r e is no indication that the G r e e k o f Demetrius, Philo, Eupolemus, and Artapanus, for example, is a trans lation.
132
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
133
m a y j u d g e f r o m t h e p a u c i t y o f r e f e r e n c e s to it in classical literature (the o n l y c l e a r r e f e r e n c e is t h a t in P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s 9.9); a n d it is m a n i f e s t f r o m a w r i t e r s u c h as T a c i t u s , w h o gives n o f e w e r t h a n six different t h e o r i e s as t o the o r i g i n o f t h e J e w s (Histories 5.2-3) (see F e l d m a n 1991a, 3 3 1 - 6 0 ) , t h a t h e h a d n o t b o t h e r e d t o ask t h e J e w s t h e m s e l v e s for their v e r s i o n (so R a j a k 1982, 475). I n a d d i t i o n t o a n s w e r i n g the anti-Jewish c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e J e w s h a d p r o d u c e d n o g r e a t m e n , J o s e p h u s seeks to a n s w e r o t h e r c h a r g e s (see H a d a s - L e b e l x
995)- L i v i n g in R o m e d u r i n g the p e r i o d f r o m 70 to the e n d o f the century, J o s e 2
p h u s m a y h a v e h a d c o n t a c t w i t h t h e w r i t i n g s , o r at least t h e ideas, o f s u c h critics o f t h e J e w s as Q u i n t i l i a n a n d M a r t i a l , a n d p e r h a p s T a c i t u s a n d J u v e n a l . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective for J o s e p h u s to h a v e n o n - J e w s p r a i s e t h e J e w s . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , the n o n - J e w J e t h r o expresses a d m i r a t i o n for M o s e s ' g a l l a n t r y in h e l p i n g his d a u g h t e r s (Ant. 2.262), a n d , in a striking a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l text, h e e v e n a d o p t s M o s e s as his s o n (Ant. 2.263). It is m o s t effective, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , to h a v e the n o n - J e w i s h p r o p h e t B a l a a m p r o n o u n c e t h e Is raelites t h e m o s t b l e s s e d o f m e n (Ant. 4.118) a n d t o p r e d i c t t h a t t h e y w i l l n e v e r b e o v e r w h e l m e d , since d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e is p r o t e c t i n g t h e m (Ant. 4 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 ) . I f the J e w s a r e h a t e d , says J o s e p h u s , it is b y i n d i v i d u a l s , r a t h e r t h a n b y w h o l e nations. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is t h e A m a l e k i t e s as a n a t i o n w h o b e s e t t h e Is raelites in the d e s e r t ( E x o d . 1 7 : 8 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , it is t h e k i n g s o f t h e A m a l e k i t e s w h o are to b l a m e for s e n d i n g m e s s a g e s to the kings o f n e i g h b o r i n g tribes e x h o r t i n g t h e m to m a k e w a r o n t h e Israelites (Ant. 3.40).
E S T A B L I S H M E N T OF THE H I S T O R I C I T Y OF BIBLICAL E V E N T S O n e o f the r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s , e s p e c i a l l y as w e m a y see f r o m J o s e phus's v i g o r o u s r e p l y in his essay Against Apion, is t h a t t h e B i b l e l a c k s historicity (see G e r b e r 1994). D e s p i t e his c o u n t e r a t t a c k t h a t the G r e e k historians a r e t h e m s e l v e s unreliable, b e i n g m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h style t h a n w i t h a c c u r a c y , a n d often c o n t r a dict o n e a n o t h e r (Ag. Ap. 1.15-27), J o s e p h u s , in his Antiquities, f r e q u e n d y resorts t o these v e r y historians to s u p p o r t the historicity o f b i b l i c a l events. J o s e p h u s e s t a b lishes the historicity o f the F l o o d b y u s i n g the s a m e w o r d for N o a h ' s ark (XdpvaKa) that is u s e d b y A p o l l o d o r u s (1.7.2), L u c i a n (De Dea Syria 12), a n d J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y P l u t a r c h (De Sollertia Animalium 13.968F) in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the ark o f D e u c a l i o n , the s u r v i v o r o f t h e G r e e k f l o o d story, r a t h e r t h a n the w o r d (/ajStoros), w h i c h is e m p l o y e d b y t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( G e n . 6:14) a n d P h i l o (De Plantatione 11.43) (Ant. 1.77) (see F e l d m a n 1988b, 4 4 - 4 6 ) . T o refute the c l a i m t h a t the F l o o d , as d e s c r i b e d in the B i b l e , is a m y t h , J o s e p h u s cites the e v i d e n c e o f t h e B a b y l o n i a n Berossus, t h e E g y p t i a n H i e r o n y m u s , M n a s e a s o f P a t a r a , a n d N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s — a l l o f t h e m n o n - J e w s (Ant. 1.93-94).
2. O n the question o f Josephus's knowledge o f Latin, see T h a c k e r a y 1929, 119-20, N a d e l 1966, 256-72, D a u b e 1977, 191-94, and Feldman 1984a, 836.
134
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
O c c a s i o n a l l y , to b e sure, J o s e p h u s cites i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m n o n - J e w i s h historians t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s the B i b l e . T h u s , in his discussion o f the F l o o d , h e q u o t e s the state m e n t o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s t h a t m a n y refugees f r o m the F l o o d f o u n d safety o n a m o u n t a i n in A r m e n i a (Ant. 1.95). T h i s , o f c o u r s e , c o n t r a d i c t s the b i b l i c a l state m e n t , w h i c h J o s e p h u s a d o p t s , t h a t o n l y N o a h a n d his f a m i l y s u r v i v e d (Ant. 1.89). O n e w o u l d t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d nevertheless h a v e a v o i d e d c i t i n g s u c h a c o n f i r m i n g a u t h o r in v i e w o f the fact t h a t h e also c o n t r a d i c t s the B i b l e ; a n d p r e s u m a b l y s o m e o f his r e a d e r s , n o t a b l y those w h o h a d a c c e s s t o the
Septuagint,
w o u l d h a v e n o t i c e d this. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s cites h i m w o u l d h a v e c o n f i r m e d his o w n r e p u t a t i o n as a fair a n d critical h i s t o r i a n w h o d i d n o t h e s itate t o cite s o u r c e s w h e r e v e r h e m i g h t find t h e m , e v e n i f t h e y d i d n o t w h o l l y c o n firm the b i b l i c a l text. I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s r e a s o n for q u o t i n g N i c o l a u s , as h e m a k e s c l e a r in c i t i n g a n u m b e r o f n o n - J e w i s h a u t h o r s (Ant. 1.93), is m e r e l y t o establish the historicity o f the F l o o d a n d the fact t h a t the ark c a m e to rest in A r m e n i a (cf. B o w ley 1994, 2 0 9 - 1 1 ) . H e also p o i n t s to the e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l r e m a i n s o f the ark p r e s e r v e d in A r m e n i a (Ant. 1.95 a n d 20.25). T o establish the historicity o f the story o f the b u i l d i n g o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , J o s e p h u s cites the S i b y l l i n e O r a c l e s , w h i c h w e r e w i d e l y r e v e r e d in b o t h the G r e e k a n d R o m a n w o r l d s (Ant. 1.118). I n v i e w o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f A b r a h a m as f o u n d e r o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e , it w a s i m p o r t a n t for J o s e p h u s t o establish his historicity. H e n c e , o n c e a g a i n , h e t u r n s to n o n - J e w i s h historians w h o m e n t i o n h i m , since b y d o i n g so h e seeks t o s h o w his i m partiality as a researcher. I n particular, h e cites the B a b y l o n i a n B e r o s s u s for confir m a t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s d a t e in the t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after the F l o o d a n d o f his p l a c e o f o r i g i n a m o n g the C h a l d a e a n s , Berossus's o w n p e o p l e (Ant. 1.158). H e t h e n m e n tions the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n H e c a t a e u s , w h o , h e says, a c t u a l l y w r o t e a w h o l e b o o k a b o u t A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.159). Finally, h e n o t e s t h a t N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s r e p o r t s t h a t A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y r e i g n e d in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159-60); p r e s u m a b l y , since this w a s N i c o l a u s ' s n a t i v e city, s u c h d a t a w o u l d h a v e i m p r e s s e d r e a d e r s .
Josephus
c l i n c h e s his p o i n t b y c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o c o n t e m p o r a r y e v i d e n c e — n a m e l y , N i c o laus's s t a t e m e n t t h a t the n a m e o f A b r a m is still c e l e b r a t e d in the r e g i o n o f D a m a s cus, a n d t h a t t h e r e is a v i l l a g e c a l l e d " A b r a m ' s a b o d e " n a m e d after h i m (Ant. 1.160). A s to the historicity o f A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h , J o s e p h u s r e c o r d s the e v i d e n c e o f the prolific non-Jewish p o l y m a t h A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o , in t u r n , cites the historian C l e o d e m u s - M a l c h u s , w h o states that t w o o f the sons o f A b r a h a m b y K e t u r a h j o i n e d H e r a c l e s ' c a m p a i g n in A f r i c a , a n d that H e r a c l e s , w i t h o u t d o u b t the greatest G r e e k h e r o o f t h e m all, m a r r i e d the d a u g h t e r o f o n e o f t h e m (Ant. 1.240). J o s e p h u s establishes the a u t h e n t i c i t y o f e v e n t s in the r e i g n o f K i n g S o l o m o n b y c i t i n g the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s , w h o s e v a l u e is all the g r e a t e r since, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , h e a c t u a l l y translated
the T y r i a n r e c o r d s
from
P h o e n i c i a n into G r e e k (Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 4 9 , Ag. Ap. 1.116-20). J o s e p h u s buttresses his c a s e b y c i t i n g the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n D i o s , w h o refers to the riddles e x c h a n g e d b y S o l o m o n a n d K i n g H i r a m o f T y r e (Ant. 8 . 1 4 7 - 4 9 ) .
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
135
I n a s m u c h as r e a d e r s m i g h t w e l l q u e s t i o n the historicity o f e v e n t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h the m i r a c l e s p e r f o r m e d b y the p r o p h e t E l i j a h , J o s e p h u s a p p e a l s to t h e e v i d e n c e o f the h i s t o r i a n M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s in o r d e r t o c o n f i r m the B i b l e ' s a c c o u n t o f a d r o u g h t d u r i n g the r e i g n o f A h a b (Ant. 8.324). It w a s d u r i n g s u c h a d r o u g h t , h e n o t e s , t h a t the w i d o w for w h o m E l i j a h p r o p h e s i e d n o l a c k o f f o o d , h a d n o t h i n g in h e r h o u s e save a h a n d f u l o f m e a l a n d a little oil. H o w e v e r , M e n a n d e r also states t h a t the d r o u g h t w a s e n d e d w h e n K i n g I t h o b a l o s o f T y r e m a d e s u p p l i c a t i o n to the P h o e n i c i a n g o d s (Ant. 8.324). N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h i l e this latter s t a t e m e n t surely d o e s c o n t r a d i c t the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , J o s e p h u s passes o v e r it in silence, since his r e a s o n for c i t i n g it is to c o n f i r m t h e historicity o f the d r o u g h t itself, as h e m a k e s c l e a r in his c l o s i n g s t a t e m e n t (ibid.): " T h i s , t h e n , is w h a t M e n a n d e r w r o t e , refer r i n g to the d r o u g h t t h a t c a m e in A c h a b ' s r e i g n , for it w a s in his t i m e t h a t I t h o b a los w a s k i n g o f T y r e " (Ant. 8.324). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h e r e cites the full p a s s a g e in M e n a n d e r ' s w o r k , i n c l u d i n g the c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f the B i b l e , w o u l d h a v e s e r v e d , in the eyes o f c r i t i c a l l y m i n d e d r e a d e r s , to reinforce J o s e p h u s ' s status as a n i m p a r tial, critical h i s t o r i a n , w h i l e c o n f i r m i n g t h e o n e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e seeks t o c o n f i r m — n a m e l y , t h e historicity o f the d r o u g h t .
THE REHABILITATION OF N O N - J E W I S H L E A D E R S A s p a r t o f his overall p l a n o f a p o l o g e t i c s , a n d in p a r t i c u l a r to u n d e r l i n e his i m p a r tiality a n d his respect for authority, J o s e p h u s g o e s further in his rehabilitation o f n o n J e w i s h leaders. T h u s , J o s e p h u s c o m e s to the defense o f the p h a r a o h w h o t o o k S a r a i into his h o u s e ( G e n . 12:15) b y r e m a r k i n g that o n c e h e d i s c o v e r e d h e r identity, h e a p o l o g i z e d to A b r a m , stressing t h a t h e h a d w i s h e d to c o n t r a c t a legitimate m a r riage alliance w i t h h e r a n d n o t to o u t r a g e h e r in a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (Ant. 1.165). M o r e o v e r , w e a d m i r e J o s e p h ' s P h a r a o h , i n a s m u c h as h e expresses his a p p r e c i a t i o n o f J o s e p h w i t h m u c h g r e a t e r e n t h u s i a s m t h a n d o e s his b i b l i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t ( G e n . 41:39 vs. Ant. 2.89). P h a r a o h is likewise m o r e m a g n a n i m o u s t o w a r d J o s e p h ' s b r o t h ers in p e r m i t t i n g t h e m to c o n t i n u e in their o c c u p a t i o n as s h e p h e r d s (Ant. 2.185 vs. G e n . 46:34). E v e n the p h a r a o h o f the E x o d u s e m e r g e s m o r e favorably, since, in J o s e phus's v e r s i o n , t h e b l a m e is p l a c e d n o t o n h i m p e r s o n a l l y b u t r a t h e r o n the E g y p tians, w h o are d e s c r i b e d as a v o l u p t u o u s a n d l a z y p e o p l e (Ant. 2.201). A s to the d e cree to p u t all m a l e b a b i e s to d e a t h , the b l a m e is transferred f r o m P h a r a o h to o n e o f the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d scribes (Ant. 2.205 vs. E x o d . 1:8-10) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 b , 4 9 - 6 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , b y shifting the focus f r o m B a l a a m ' s p e r s o n a l i t y to t h e historical, m i l itary, a n d p o l i t i c a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Israel a n d h e r e n e m i e s , J o s e p h u s g i v e s a relatively u n b i a s e d p o r t r a i t o f B a l a a m (see, e.g., Ant. 4.105, 106, 112), t h e p a g a n p r o p h e t w h o s o u g h t to c u r s e Israel, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e c o m p a r e his v e r s i o n w i t h that o f P h i l o , t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , a n d the b o o k o f N u m b e r s itself (see F e l d m a n i 9 9 3 g , 4 8 - 9 3 ) . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e illustrating J o s e p h u s ' s e a g e r n e s s n o t t o cast a s p e r s i o n s o n non-Jews m a y b e s e e n in his r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f E g l o n , the k i n g o f M o a b . I n s t e a d o f
136
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
b l a m i n g E g l o n for s u b j u g a t i n g t h e Israelites, h e p l a c e s t h e o n u s u p o n t h e Israelites t h e m s e l v e s for their a n a r c h y a n d for t h e failure to o b e y t h e l a w s (Ant. 5.185). H e likewise o m i t s s u c h d i s p a r a g i n g e l e m e n t s as E g l o n ' s o b e s i t y (Judg. 3:17) a n d his d e f e c a t i n g (Judg. 3:24 a c c o r d i n g t o T a r g u m J o n a t h a n ) (see F e l d m a n
i994d,
E v e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , w h o w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e First T e m p l e , e m e r g e s m o r e favorably, i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e c r u e l d e c r e e t h a t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r issued, in w h i c h h e d e c l a r e d t h a t a n y o n e w h o s p o k e a w o r d a g a i n s t t h e J e w i s h G - d s h o u l d b e t o r n l i m b f r o m l i m b ( D a n . 3:29). M o r e o v e r , Josephus considerably tones d o w n the g r u e s o m e picture o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s be h a v i n g like a n a n i m a l (Ant. 10.217). L i k e w i s e , o n e m i g h t w e l l b e critical o f D a r i u s for s i g n i n g his n a m e t o a n e d i c t a r b i t r a r i l y f o r b i d d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n i n g o f a n y g o d o r m a n for thirty d a y s ( D a n . 6:7, 9); b u t J o s e p h u s p r o t e c t s D a r i u s ' s r e p u t a t i o n b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t D a r i u s e n d o r s e d t h e d e c r e e o n l y b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n m i s l e d b y his advisers (Ant. 10.254) (
s e e
Feldman 1993b, 52-54).
W h a t is m o s t striking a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f A h a s u e r u s is t h a t there is n o t e v e n a single hint in it t h a t is n e g a t i v e . J o s e p h u s stresses A h a s u e r u s ' s r e s p e c t for law. H i s a p p a r e n t l y c a p r i c i o u s t r e a t m e n t o f Q u e e n V a s h t i is e x p l a i n e d as b e i n g b e c a u s e o f h e r i n s o l e n c e after she h a d b e e n s u m m o n e d r e p e a t e d l y b y h e r h u s b a n d (Ant. 1 1 . 1 9 1 - 9 2 ) . A n d e v e n t h e n , J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s o n A h a s u e r u s ' s d e e p love for h e r a n d o n his r e m o r s e (Ant. n . 195). A s to A h a s u e r u s ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Esther, al t h o u g h t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to q u e s t i o n its n a t u r e , J o s e p h u s insists t h a t it w a s l a w ful (Ant. 11.202). H e e x p a n d s o n A h a s u e r u s ' s g e n d e a n d t e n d e r c o n c e r n for E s t h e r (Ant. 11.236). I n d e e d , A h a s u e r u s is glorified as the i d e a l r u l e r w h o s e g o a l is p e a c e a n d g o o d g o v e r n m e n t for his subjects (Ant. 11.216). H e is p a r t i c u l a r l y m a g n a n i m o u s t o w a r d t h o s e w h o d o favors for h i m (Ant. 11.252). I f h e d i d s e n d o u t t h e e d i c t c o n d e m n i n g all t h e J e w s in his r e a l m t o d e a t h , t h e b l a m e is p l a c e d u p o n his a d visers (Ant. 11.215, 2 7 5 - 7 6 ) (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 1 7 - 3 9 ) . Finally, in c o n t r a s t t o t h e e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e v i e w o f E s a u f o u n d in t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , P h i l o , a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e , is careful n o t t o offend his R o m a n p a t r o n s a n d thus says n o t h i n g , for e x a m p l e , a b o u t E s a u ' s d e s p i s i n g his b i r t h r i g h t ( G e n . 25:34). H e thus arouses m o r e s y m p a t h y for E s a u in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E s a u ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his father I s a a c , as w e l l as in t h e s c e n e i n w h i c h I s a a c blesses his sons.
THE P R O B L E M O F A S S I M I L A T I O N AND
INTERMARRIAGE
O n e o f t h e r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in T a c i t u s (Histories 5 . 5 . 1 - 2 ) , w a s t h a t t h e y s u n d e r e d t h e m s e l v e s o f f f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e s (the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y w e r e s u p e r i o r to all others) a n d re fused t o i n t e r m a r r y w i t h t h e m . T h i s l e d T a c i t u s to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t w h i l e J e w s w e r e e x t r e m e l y l o y a l t o o n e a n o t h e r , t h e y felt o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d others. E v e n H e c a t a e u s , w h o is o t h e r w i s e so a p p r e c i a t i v e o f J e w i s h v i r t u e s , r e m a r k s , i n his
JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST
137
o n e n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t , t h a t t h e J e w s a r e s o m e w h a t u n s o c i a l a n d hostile to strangers (d7rdv6pa>7T6v n v a Kal puootjevov) (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.4). J o s e p h u s t h u s felt a n u r g e n t n e e d t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s ' s e p a r a t i s m a n d refusal t o i n t e r m a r r y . J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f assimilation a n d i n t e r m a r r i a g e . W e m a y see this f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e d w e l l s o n the Israelites' sin w i t h t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , e x p a n d i n g it f r o m n i n e v e r s e s ( N u m . 2 5 : 1 - 9 ) to t w e n t y - f i v e p a r a g r a p h s (Ant. 4 . 1 3 1 - 5 5 ) (
v a n
U n n i k 1974, 2 4 1 - 6 1 ) . I n d e e d , t h e s p e e c h o f Z a m b r i a s s e e m s t o
reflect the a r g u m e n t s o f a s s i m i l a t e d J e w s o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y (Ant. 4 . 1 4 5 - 4 9 ) . T h e s a m e c o n c e r n m a y also b e s e e n in the m o r a l t h a t h e p o i n t s o u t in his treat m e n t o f the S a m s o n narrative—namely, that one must not debase u s e d o f coins) o n e ' s rule o f life (oianav)
(Trapexdpaootv,
b y i m i t a t i n g f o r e i g n w a y s (Ant. 5.306).
T h e r e is a similar lesson d r a w n in his a c c o u n t o f A n i l a e u s a n d A s i n a e u s , t w o J e w ish b r o t h e r s w h o e s t a b l i s h e d a n i n d e p e n d e n t state in M e s o p o t a m i a in the first c e n tury, o n l y t o lose it w h e n , at t h e v e r y p e a k o f their success, A n i l a e u s h a d a n affair w i t h a P a r t h i a n g e n e r a l ' s wife (Ant. 18.340). T h e c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d t h e m e , t h a t o n e m u s t not, as d i d S a m s o n , s u b m i t to o n e ' s p a s s i o n a t e instincts, is f r e q u e n t in J o s e p h u s . T h u s J o s e p h tries to t u r n P o t i p h a r ' s wife f r o m p a s s i o n (oppLrjv) to r e a s o n (Xoyiopiov) (Ant. 2.53). T h e E g y p t i a n s are a t t a c k e d as a v o l u p t u o u s (rpv^epols)
p e o p l e a n d slack (pdOvpiois) to labor, slaves
to p l e a s u r e s (r)8ovtov) in g e n e r a l a n d to a l o v e o f g a i n in p a r t i c u l a r (Ant. 2.201). M o s e s , in a s p e e c h to the p e o p l e at t h e t i m e o f the s e d u c t i o n o f t h e Israelite y o u t h s b y the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , asserts, in a J o s e p h a n a d d i t i o n , t h a t c o u r a g e consists, n o t in v i o l a t i n g t h e l a w s , b u t in resisting t h e p a s s i o n s (ZinQvpLiais) (Ant. 4.143). T h e Is raelites in t i m e o f p e a c e b e c o m e c o r r u p t t h r o u g h a b a n d o n i n g t h e o r d e r o f their constitution a n d l i v i n g lives o f l u x u r y (rpv^rf) a n d v o l u p t u o u s n e s s (rjSovrf) (Ant. 5.132). J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t t h e d e g e n e r a c y o f t h e Israelites u n d e r t h e C a n a a n i t e s w a s c a u s e d b y t h e i r drifting f r o m their o r d e r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n into l i v i n g in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h their o w n p l e a s u r e (r)hovr)v) a n d c a p r i c e (PovXrjow), a n d t h a t t h e y t h u s b e c a m e c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h t h e v i c e s c u r r e n t a m o n g t h e C a n a a n i t e s (Ant. 5.179). L i k e w i s e , in his d y i n g c h a r g e to S o l o m o n , D a v i d e x h o r t s h i m to y i e l d n e i t h e r t o favor, flattery, lust (emfltYxia), n o r a n y o t h e r p a s s i o n (TrdOei) (Ant. 5.384). A m n o n is d e s c r i b e d as g o a d e d (pLvajm^opievos) b y the spurs (Kevrpois) (Ant. 7.169); a n d S o l o m o n ' s e x c e s s e s o f p a s s i o n (aKpaoia a n d t h o u g h d e s s p l e a s u r e (r)8ovr) dXoyLOTOS.
o f passion
(irdOovs)
dpooioiojv [Ant. 8.191])
Ant. 8.193) are likewise c o n d e m n e d .
J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y f o u n d h i m s e l f in a d i l e m m a , h o w e v e r , i n a s m u c h as a l t h o u g h t h e B i b l e itself d e c i s i v e l y forbids i n t e r m a r r i a g e ( D e u t . 7:3), h e a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t t o o s t r e n u o u s a n o b j e c t i o n to it w o u l d p l a y into t h e h a n d s o f t h o s e o p 3
ponents o f the J e w s w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h misanthropy. H e therefore care fully o m i t s t h e m a r r i a g e s o f I s a a c ' s s o n E s a u w i t h Hittite w o m e n , w h i c h , a c c o r d ing to the B i b l e , m a d e life b i t t e r for I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h ( G e n . 26:35 v s . Ant. 1.266).
3. W e m a y here note, of course, that "marrying out" was frowned upon by many ancient nations. In particular, the Greeks disapproved even of marrying citizens of other Greek cities.
138
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
L i k e w i s e , in d e a l i n g w i t h H a m o r ' s r e q u e s t for the h a n d o f D i n a h ( G e n . 34:6), J o s e p h u s carefully b a l a n c e s a g a i n s t the r a n k o f the p e t i t i o n e r the fact t h a t it is u n l a w ful to m a r r y o n e ' s d a u g h t e r t o a f o r e i g n e r (Ant 1.338). A g a i n , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y J o s h u a ' s w a r n i n g n o t t o m i x w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s (Josh. 2 3 : 1 2 - 1 3 v s . Ant
5.98). J o s e p h u s n o t a b l y m o d u l a t e s the severe o b j e c t i o n s o f S a m s o n ' s p a r e n t s to his
p r o p o s e d i n t e r m a r r i a g e ; a n d in p l a c e o f "Is t h e r e n e v e r a w o m a n a m o n g the d a u g h t e r s o f t h y b r e t h r e n , o r a m o n g all m y p e o p l e , t h a t t h o u g o e s t t o t a k e a wife o f the u n c i r c u m c i s e d Philistines?" (Judg. 14:3), h e h a s the m e r e d e c l a r a t i o n that " t h e y w e r e for refusing b e c a u s e she w a s n o t o f their r a c e " (Ant 5.286). H e leaves w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d d e s i g n e d the m a r r i a g e in the inter ests o f the H e b r e w s a n d t h u s o m i t s a n y c a s t i g a t i o n o f S a m s o n at t h a t p o i n t b e c a u s e o f this i n c i d e n t , r e a l i z i n g p r e s u m a b l y t h a t to criticize S a m s o n w o u l d b e to criticize G - d , since, after all, a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , S a m s o n ' s m a r r i a g e w i t h the T i m n i t e w o m a n w a s p a r t o f a d i v i n e p l a n (Judg. 14:4). I n his final estimate o f S a m son, J o s e p h u s e x c u s e s his b e h a v i o r in a l l o w i n g h i m s e l f to b e e n s n a r e d b y a w o m a n b y i m p u t i n g this to h u m a n n a t u r e , " w h i c h s u c c u m b s to sins," a n d is q u i c k to a d d t h a t " t e s t i m o n y is d u e t o h i m for his s u r p a s s i n g e x c e l l e n c e [aperrjs] in all the rest" ^nt
5.317). Significantly, o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s , w h e n the B i b l e m e n t i o n s t h a t R u t h w a s
a Moabitess, Josephus
o m i t s s u c h references, j u s t as h e o m i t s m e n t i o n
M o a b i t e s s e s in his r e f e r e n c e to the f o r e i g n w i v e s w h o m S o l o m o n m a r r i e d
of (Ant
8.191; cf. 1 K i n g s 11:1). It is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n m a r r i a g e w i t h M o a b i t e s in his list o f p r o h i b i t e d m a r r i a g e s (Ant 3 . 2 7 4 - 7 5 , 4 . 2 4 4 - 4 5 ) , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d to a v o i d the issue o f h o w B o a z c o u l d h a v e m a r r i e d a M o a b i t e w h e n this is p r o h i b i t e d in the P e n t a t e u c h ( D e u t . 23:4) (see F e l d m a n 1991c, 4 9 - 5 0 ) . I n the last analysis, J o s e p h u s b a s e s his o p p o s i t i o n t o i n t e r m a r r i a g e , in the cases o f the Israelites w i t h the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n a n d o f S a m s o n , n o t so m u c h o n o p p o s i t i o n to t a k i n g f o r e i g n w i v e s as t o y i e l d i n g to p a s s i o n . I n the case o f E z r a , a l t h o u g h his b r e a k i n g u p o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e s is c e n t r a l t o his activities, in J o s e p h u s , h e d o e s n o t t a k e the l e a d in d o i n g so. I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t the initiative t o enforce the l a w r e g a r d i n g inter m a r r i a g e c a m e f r o m others, w h o b e s o u g h t E z r a t o take a c t i o n (Ant 11.141 v s . 1 E s dras 8:68-70). It is o n e o f the J e w s n a m e d S h e c a n i a h ( J e c h o n i a s ) w h o b o l d l y calls o u t a n d asks E z r a t o take s t r o n g a c t i o n to dissolve the i n t e r m a r r i a g e s (1 E s d r a s 8:92-95); b u t in J o s e p h u s , this is w a t e r e d d o w n , so t h a t A c h o n i o s ( = S h e c a n i a h ) tried to p e r s u a d e (eireide) E z r a t o adjure the J e w s to p u t a w a y their f o r e i g n w i v e s a n d the c h i l d r e n b o r n o f t h e m (Ant 11.145). T h e use o f the i m p e r f e c t tense o f the v e r b " t o p e r s u a d e " indicates t h a t h e h a d to a t t e m p t r e p e a t e d l y to c o n v i n c e E z r a . W h e n the b i b l i c a l E z r a is t o l d a b o u t the i n t e r m a r r i a g e s , h e sits a p p a l l e d , full o f h e a v i n e s s , u n a b l e to act, b u t w e are n o t t o l d w h y (1 E s d r a s 8:72). J o s e p h u s is e x plicit in telling his r e a d e r s t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y E z r a is i m m o b i l i z e d is t h a t h e rea sons t h a t the i n t e r m a r r i e d J e w s w i l l n o t listen t o h i m in a n y c a s e if h e c o m m a n d s
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
jjg
t h e m to p u t a w a y their w i v e s a n d c h i l d r e n (Ant. 11.142). I n t h e b i b l i c a l text, w h e n E z r a is a p p r o a c h e d b y J e c h o n i a s , h e d o e s take a c t i o n a n d d o e s a s s u m e r e s p o n s i bility, f o r c i n g all the J e w s to s w e a r t h a t t h e y w i l l d o as h e dictates (1 E s d r a s 8:96). J o s e p h u s ' s E z r a stresses t h a t h e d o e s so b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n p e r s u a d e d (Treiodeis) b y the c o u n s e l o f A c h o n i o s (Kara, TTJV Ayovlov
av^ovXiav)
(Ant. 11.146). E z r a ' s
p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e r n , in a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e , is n o t w i t h i n t e r m a r r i a g e g e n erally b u t r a t h e r w i t h m i x t u r e in t h e strain o f priestly families s u c h as his o w n (1 E s dras 8:70 v s . Ant. 11.140). M o r e o v e r , a careful c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e B i b l e w i t h J o s e p h u s w i l l s h o w t h a t w h e r e a s in the f o r m e r (1 E s d r a s 9:8-9), E z r a o r ders the J e w s to s e n d a w a y their f o r e i g n w i v e s , in t h e latter (Ant. n . 149), h e d i p l o m a t i c a l l y suggests m e r e l y t h a t t h e y w i l l b e d o i n g w h a t is p l e a s i n g t o G - d a n d b e neficial to t h e m s e l v e s i f t h e y d o so. W h e n the J e w s finally d o s e p a r a t e t h e m s e l v e s from their f o r e i g n w i v e s , it is n o t , as in t h e b i b l i c a l text (1 E s d r a s 9 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) , E z r a w h o takes the initiative, b u t r a t h e r the o t h e r l e a d e r s (Ant. 11.151). J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e l o n g list o f n a m e s o f s i x t e e n priests, six L e v i t e s , f o u r t e m p l e singers a n d d o o r k e e p e r s , a n d seventy-five Israelites w h o h a d t a k e n f o r e i g n w i v e s , offering n o e x c u s e for this o m i s s i o n o t h e r t h a n t h a t h e thinks it u n n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e their n a m e s (Ant. n . 1 5 2 ) . B u t aside f r o m t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t t h a t this w o u l d h a v e c a u s e d their d e s c e n d a n t s , t h e o m i s s i o n also serves to further d i m i n i s h t h e e m p h a sis o n t h e v a s t n u m b e r o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e s r e c o r d e d in t h e B i b l e . Finally, as in t h e case o f t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n a n d S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o s i t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is b a s e d o n his o p p o s i t i o n to y i e l d i n g to p a s s i o n — g r o u n d s t h a t w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e S t o i c s in his a u d i e n c e — a n d o n his c o n v i c t i o n t h a t inter m a r r i a g e v i o l a t e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n (TToXireiav) a n d b r o k e the l a w s o f t h e c o u n t r y ; consequently, w h e n t h e J e w s d o dismiss their f o r e i g n w i v e s , h e , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , r e m a r k s t h a t in d o i n g so t h e y h a d m o r e r e g a r d for the o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e laws t h a n for t h e o b j e c t s o f their affection (cfriXrpcov " l o v e p o t i o n s " ) (1 E s d r a s 9:20 vs. Ant. 11.152). H e r e , t o o , w e see t h e e m p h a s i s o n o b e d i e n c e to l a w t h a t w a s so i m p o r t a n t to the P e r s i a n g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h a t w o u l d b e so i m p r e s s i v e to his R o m a n readers. E z r a ' s a c h i e v e m e n t , in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l text, is v i e w e d n o t so m u c h as r e s o l v i n g t h e i m m e d i a t e m a t t e r o f m i x e d m a r r i a g e s b u t r a t h e r as setting a s t a n d a r d o f o b e d i e n c e to the law, " s o t h a t it r e m a i n e d fixed for the f u t u r e " (1 E s dras 9:36 v s . Ant. 11.153) ( F e l d m a n 1993b, 204-7). O n c e the m a t t e r o f m i x e d m a r riages is f o r m u l a t e d , as it is b y J o s e p h u s , in p o l i t i c a l t e r m s — n a m e l y , the n e c e s s i t y for the state to p r e s e r v e t h e h o m o g e n e o u s c h a r a c t e r o f its p o p u l a t i o n — t h e r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l h a v e t h o u g h t o f t h e p a r a l l e l to the c i t i z e n s h i p l a w o f 4 5 1 / 4 5 0 a t t r i b u t e d to the m u c h - a d m i r e d Pericles, w h i c h restricted c i t i z e n s h i p to t h o s e w h o c o u l d 4
p r o v e t h a t b o t h their p a r e n t s w e r e citizens o f A t h e n s . A b o v e all, this w o u l d h a v e served to defuse t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s h a t e strangers.
4. See O s t w a l d 1986, 182-83,
a n
d
m
e
literature cited there. O s t w a l d notes that after the restora
tion o f d e m o c r a c y u p o n the conclusion o f the Peloponnesian War, this restrictive provision o f the citi zenship law was revived (ibid., 507-8).
140
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
APPEAL TO POLITICAL INTERESTS T o further a p p e a l t o t h e n o n - J e w s a n d s e c u l a r l y e d u c a t e d J e w s in his a u d i e n c e , J o s e p h u s c a t e r e d t o their p o l i t i c a l , military, a n d g e o g r a p h i c interests. T h u s , in his p r o e m , h e sets forth as t h e g o a l o f his w o r k t h a t it s h o u l d e m b r a c e , n o t o n l y t h e e n tire a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s , b u t also a n e v a l u a t i o n o f their p o l i t i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n (Sidra^Lv rod TTOXLT€V pharos) (Ant. 1.5). H e a p p e a l s t o his p o l i t i c a l l y m i n d e d a u d i e n c e b y stressing t h e t h e m e o f civil strife (ardais) so f a m i l i a r t o r e a d e r s o f T h u c y dides
5
d e s c r i p t i o n (3.82-84) o f r e v o l u t i o n at C o r c y r a . T h i s t h e m e w o u l d h a v e
struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d in m a n y o f J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s , w h o m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e terrible c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e lawlessness
(dvopiia)
b r o u g h t o n b y t h e p l a g u e in A t h e n s ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.53.1). T h e R o m a n s , w h o t h e m selves h a d e x p e r i e n c e d a c e n t u r y o f c o n s t a n d y r e c u r r i n g civil strife f r o m t h e strug gle o f t h e S e n a t e a g a i n s t t h e G r a c c h i , o f S u l l a a g a i n s t M a r i u s , o f C a e s a r a g a i n s t Pompey, o f Brutus against Antony, a n d of A n t o n y against O c t a v i a n , a n d w h o h a d a g r e a t t r a d i t i o n o f r e s p e c t for l a w g o i n g b a c k at least t o t h e T w e l v e T a b l e s , w o u l d surely h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d s u c h a n e m p h a s i s o n t h e dire c o n s e q u e n c e s o f i n t e r n e c i n e bloodshed. The
t h e m e o f t h e d r e a d f u l effects o f a n a r c h y a n d civil w a r is a c e n t r a l m o t i f in
b o t h t h e Jewish War a n d t h e Antiquities. T h u s w e m a y n o t e , for e x a m p l e , t h e strik ing c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t t h e p h r a s e t h a t J o s e p h u s uses t o d e s c r i b e J e r o b o a m ' s sedi t i o n — t h a t h e w a s " a m b i t i o u s o f g r e a t t h i n g s " (pLeydXwv i7ndvpLrjrr)s TTpaypbdrcov, Ant. 8.209)—is similar t o t h o s e t h a t h e uses t o d e s c r i b e b o t h t h e a r c h r e v o l u t i o n a r y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (iindvpiiqaas
/xeyaAcov, War 2.587) a n d his o w n l i t e r a r y a r c h r i v a l ,
Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h o w a s " a m b i t i o u s for n e w e r t h i n g s " (vetorepcov . . . TrpayfjudrcDv,
kir^dv^i
Life 36) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 3 - 4 6 ) . V e r y pointedly, h e contrasts t h e
b r u t a l t r e a t m e n t b y these " t y r a n t s " o f their fellow c o u n t r y m e n (opuocfrvXovs) w i t h the c l e m e n c y that the R o m a n s s h o w e d t o w a r d the Jews, although the J e w s were a n a l i e n r a c e (dXXocfrvXovs) ( War 1.27). One
o f t h e leitmotifs o f b o t h t h e Jewish
War a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a u t o b i o g r a p h y is
t h a t it w a s civil strife t h a t c o s t t h e J e w s m o s t d e a r l y in t h e w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s . I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his o w n c o m m a n d i n G a l i l e e , h e n o t e s t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l insti g a t o r o f t h e m o b c l a i m i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a traitor w a s a c e r t a i n J e s u s s o n o f S a p p h i a s , t h e c h i e f m a g i s t r a t e o f T i b e r i a s , w h o m J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s as " u n r i v a l e d in f o m e n t i n g sedition (araoLOTToios) a n d r e v o l u t i o n (v€coT€piOTr)s)"
(Life 134).
J o s e p h u s also d e p i c t s civil dissension as a p u n i s h m e n t inflicted b y G - d for sin. T h u s he portrays the penalty imposed b y G - d u p o n the builders o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l i n c a u s i n g t h e m t o s p e a k v a r i o u s l a n g u a g e s (Ant. 1.117) as d i s c o r d (ordcns,
a
w o r d n o t f o u n d in t h e S e p t u a g i n t p a r a l l e l , G e n . 11:9). A g a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s unjust p a s s i o n for S a r a i b y b r i n g i n g a b o u t a n o u t b r e a k o f disease a n d o f p o l i t i c a l strife (ardaei
rwv Trpaypidrcov) (Ant.
1.164). Similarly, i n his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t it w a s a s e d i t i o n (ardois)
"for w h i c h w e k n o w o f n o parallel, w h e t h e r a m o n g
JOSEPHUS
AS A P O L O G I S T
141
G r e e k s o r b a r b a r i a n s " (Ant. 4.12), c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t sedi tions w a s familiar t o his r e a d e r s . O n e will r e c a l l t h a t for J o s e p h u s , as w e see in the e p i s o d e w i t h K o r a h , the w o r s t p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o r is w h e n p e o p l e t r o o p to the as s e m b l y in d i s o r d e r l y w i s e w i t h t u m u l t a n d u p r o a r (rapaxys)
(Ant. 4.22); a n d , in
d e e d M o s e s a p p e a l s to the p e o p l e to desist f r o m their sedition a n d d i s t u r b a n c e (rapaxys).
It is this t u r b u l e n c e (rapaxrf)
t h a t K o r a h h a s a r o u s e d a n d t h a t w e find
referred to n o f e w e r t h a n four t i m e s in the b r i e f p a s s a g e d e s c r i b i n g the e x c i t e m e n t a n d d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t o f the p e o p l e (Ant. 4.22, 32, 3 5 , 36) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 2 - 1 5 ) . It is a g a i n in p o l i t i c a l a n d m i l i t a r y t e r m s t h a t J o s e p h u s discusses the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the s e d u c t i o n o f the H e b r e w y o u t h b y the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , stating, as h e d o e s , t h a t the w h o l e a r m y w a s s o o n p e r m e a t e d b y a sedition (OTOLOLV) far w o r s e t h a n t h a t o f K o r a h (Ant. 4.140). A g o o d p o r t i o n o f b o o k 4 ( 1 1 - 6 6 , 1 4 1 - 5 5 ) o f the Antiquities is d e v o t e d to a c c o u n t s t h a t illustrate the d e g r e e t o w h i c h ardois
is t h e
m o r t a l e n e m y o f p o l i t i c a l states, a subject p a r t i c u l a r l y stressed b y J o s e p h u s as a c o m m e n t o n the w a r r i n g factions in c o n t e m p o r a r y J u d a i s m d u r i n g the w a r against the R o m a n s . I n particular, u n l i k e the B i b l e , w h i c h m e r e l y p r e s e n t s t h e c o m m a n d m e n t n o t to r e m o v e o n e ' s n e i g h b o r ' s l a n d m a r k ( D e u t . 19:14), J o s e p h u s a d d s a r e a s o n , a g a i n in p o l i t i c a l t e r m s — n a m e l y , t h a t r e m o v a l o f l a n d m a r k s l e a d s to w a r s a n d seditions (ardoewv)
(Ant. 4.225). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p e t i t i o n p u t into t h e m o u t h o f M o s e s , h e
asks that, after t h e y h a v e c o n q u e r e d the l a n d o f Israel, the Israelites n o t b e o v e r c o m e b y civil strife (ordoews),
" w h e r e b y y e shall b e l e d t o a c t i o n s c o n t r a r y t o
those o f y o u r fathers a n d d e s t r o y the institutions t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d "
(Ant.
4.294). J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , in a p a s s a g e i m i t a t i n g T h u c y d i d e s (6.72), t h a t d i v i d e d c o n t r o l (iroXvapxio)
m a k e s p r o m p t g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n i m p o s s i b l e a n d t h u s in
j u r e s those w h o p r a c t i c e it (Ant. 4.297). T h e r e is a further p u r p o s e in s u c h a dis cussion in t h a t o n e o f t h e c h a r g e s m a d e b y the anti-Jewish A p i o n is t h a t t h e J e w s f o m e n t e d s e d i t i o n (seditionis) i n A l e x a n d r i a (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.68); J o s e p h u s , o n t h e c o n trary, stresses t h r o u g h o u t t h a t the Israelites are c o n s p i c u o u s l y w e l l a w a r e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f s u c h strife, a n d t h a t it is the e n e m i e s o f the J e w s (namely, the E g y p tians) w h o a r e t h e r e a l p r o m o t e r s o f s e d i t i o n , w h e r e a s the J e w s are n o t e d for t h e i r concord. In a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that b y his p a c i f y i n g w o r d s to the a g g r i e v e d tribe o f E p h r a i m , G i d e o n r e s c u e d t h e m f r o m civil strife (ordoeojs),
thus
p e r f o r m i n g a g r e a t e r s e r v i c e for the H e b r e w s t h a n h e d i d b y his m i l i t a r y success (Ant. 5.231) (see F e l d m a n 1993], 2 2 - 2 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , D a v i d c o m p l a i n s that, in a d dition to i n g r a t i t u d e , A b s a l o m h a s b e e n g u i l t y o f the m u c h g r e a t e r sin o f l a w l e s s ness (7TapavopLO)T€poLs) in h a v i n g designs u p o n the k i n g s h i p (Ant. 7.198). T h e s e d e signs, h e says are d o u b l y sinful in t h a t the k i n g s h i p h a d n o t b e e n g i v e n t o h i m b y G - d . W h e r e a s the S e p t u a g i n t t e r m s S h e b a , w h o i n c i t e d the Israelites a g a i n s t D a v i d , a transgressor (irapdvopios)
(2 S a m . 20:1), J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s p o l i t i c a l l a n
g u a g e a n d calls h i m a l o v e r o f dissension (ordaei
xcupcov) (Ant. 7.278). It is signifi
c a n t that in his s u m m a r y o f D a v i d ' s instructions to S o l o m o n c o n c e r n i n g the T e r n -
142
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
pie, J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e , h a s G - d p r o m i s e t h a t H e will g r a n t the H e b r e w s the greatest o f all blessings, w h i c h are t h e n e n u m e r a t e d as " p e a c e a n d f r e e d o m f r o m civil dissension [ardoecovY (Ant. 7.337). T h e r e are several i n d i c a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f J e h o s h a p h a t o f his desire to p r o m o t e the u n i t y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t it w a s b y g u i l e t h a t K i n g A h a b o f Israel p e r s u a d e d J e h o s h a p h a t (2 C h r o n . 18:2), J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to s m o o t h relations b e t w e e n the J e w i s h k i n g d o m s , says m e r e l y that A h a b i n v i t e d J e h o s h a p h a t t o b e c o m e his ally (Ant. 8.398). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s c o n s i d e r a b l y the w a r m t h w i t h w h i c h A h a b g r e e t e d J e h o s h a p h a t
(Ant.
8.398).
A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t t h e k i n g s o f Israel, J u d a h , a n d E d o m j o i n e d in their e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t the M o a b i t e s (2 K i n g s 3:9), J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y s e e k i n g to s h o w t h a t the a l l i a n c e w a s m o r e t h a n o n e o f c o n v e n i e n c e , a d d s t h a t J e h o r a m , the k i n g o f Israel, r e c e i v e d a s p l e n d i d r e c e p t i o n b y J e h o s h a p h a t (Ant. 9.31). W e t h e n see t h a t J e h o r a m a n d J e h o s h a p h a t
are true p a r t n e r s in f o r m i n g their m i l i t a r y
s t r a t e g y (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) . W h e n the k i n g d o m o f Israel c o m e s to a n e n d a n d J o s e p h u s seeks to a n a l y z e the u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e o f its d e m i s e , h e insists t h a t Israel's troubles b e g a n w i t h its c h o i c e o f J e r o b o a m as k i n g , a r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t the l e g i t i m a t e k i n g , R e h o b o a m
(Ant.
9.282). It is a l m o s t as if J o s e p h u s is h e r e a n a l y z i n g the d e m i s e o f the J e w i s h state o f his o w n day, w h i c h h e likewise ascribes to r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t the l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r ity, in this case, R o m e . I n a w o r d , J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s J e r o b o a m ' s lawlessness (TrapavofjLLav) (Ant. 9.282), the v e r y q u a l i t y t h a t h e d e n o u n c e s in the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s — n o t a b l y , in his bitter a t t a c k o n the S i c a r i i as the first t o set a n e x a m p l e o f l a w lessness (TTapavofiias) a n d c r u e l t y ((LpLOTrjTos)
to their k i n s m e n (War 7.262) (see
F e l d m a n 1993$ 4 3 - 4 6 ) . J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d to e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f s h o w i n g r e s p e c t for the l e g i t i m a t e ruler o f a n a t i o n , e v e n if t h a t ruler m i g h t b e g u i l t y o f r e p r e h e n s i b l e acts. O n e r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d s w h y J o s e p h u s a d o p t e d this p o s i t i o n , i n a s m u c h as h e w a s the r e c i p i e n t o f a m u l t i t u d e o f favors f r o m the R o m a n a u t o crats. W e m a y see this t e n d e n c y p a r t i c u l a r l y in his portraits o f those t w o a r c h r o g u e s A h a b a n d M a n a s s e h . O f the t w o , A h a b is at least p a r d y e x c u l p a t e d in the i n c i d e n t w i t h N a b o t h b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h h e h a d u s e d m i l d w o r d s w i t h N a b o t h , h e w a s still insulted b y h i m (Ant. 8.356). T h e fact t h a t the J e w s , a n d J o s e p h u s in particular, h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f b e i n g c o w a r d s m a k e s all the m o r e m e a n i n g f u l his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A h a b as a g r e a t t a c t i c i a n a n d a b r a v e l e a d e r w h o is, a b o v e all, c o n c e r n e d for his p e o p l e (Ant. 8.370, 415). Finally, in a n editorial c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to a b s o l v e A h a b o f b l a m e for l i s t e n i n g to a false p r o p h e t ; rather, it is i n e x o r a b l e a n d i n e v i t a b l e fate t h a t is b l a m e d (Ant. 8.409) (see F e l d m a n 1992b, 373-77). L i k e w i s e , in his p o r t r a y a l o f M a n a s s e h , w e are told, in details t h a t g o b e y o n d the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , o f M a n a s s e h ' s m a j o r a c h i e v e m e n t s in i m p r o v i n g the city o f J e r u s a l e m (Ant. 10.44). I*
1
a
n
e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w e h e a r t h a t the d e g r e e o f
Manasseh's repentance w a s such that he w a s a c c o u n t e d a blessed a n d enviable m a n (Ant. 10.45).
JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST
143
J o s e p h u s finds n o r e d e e m i n g features at all in J e r o b o a m ; h e is a d e m a g o g u e w h o m i s l e a d s the p e o p l e a n d c a u s e s t h e m to transgress the l a w s (Ant. 8.229). S u c h d e m a g o g u e r y , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , in a n editorial r e m a r k , w a s the b e g i n n i n g o f the J e w s ' misfortunes a n d l e d to their defeat in w a r a n d their b e i n g t a k e n c a p t i v e b y o t h e r p e o p l e s (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 - 4 3 ) . A b o v e , all, J e r o b o a m is a n o u t s t a n d i n g e x a m p l e o f the disaster b r o u g h t o n b y secession a n d civil strife. J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n t l y m a k e s a p o i n t o f c o n n e c t i n g GTOLOLS in the f a m i l y w i t h rit u a l p o l l u t i o n . W e see this c o n n e c t i o n o f fratricide w i t h p o l l u t i o n i n R e u b e n ' s s p e e c h to his b r o t h e r s d e c l a r i n g t h a t s l a u g h t e r i n g their b r o t h e r J o s e p h w o u l d b e far fouler (puapwrepov)
t h a n m u r d e r i n g s o m e o n e w h o w a s n o t their k i n (Ant. 2.22).
L i k e w i s e , w h e n A m n o n a p p r o a c h e s his sister T a m a r to v i o l a t e her, she u r g e s h i m to give u p his u n r i g h t e o u s (OLSLKOV) a n d u n c l e a n (puapas) desire (Ant. 7.168). S i m i larly, A r i s t o b u l u s I confesses to c o m m i t t i n g i m p i o u s ( d a e / f e W ) a n d
polluted
(jjLiapois) c r i m e s , a n d q u i c k l y a d d s , d e f i n i n g those c r i m e s , t h a t "swift p u n i s h m e n t has o v e r t a k e n m e for the m u r d e r o f m y k i n , " a l l u d i n g to his m u r d e r o f his m o t h e r a n d his b r o t h e r A n t i g o n u s (Ant. 13.316). M o r e o v e r , H e r o d a c c u s e s his sons o f sav age a n d u n h o l y (pnapov) h a t r e d , asserting t h a t t h e y h a d s o u g h t to kill h i m (Ant. 16.93). T h e t h e m e t h a t the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s d a y w e r e p o l l u t e d b y the m u r d e r o f their o w n k i n s m e n is r e i t e r a t e d several times. W e m a y n o t e , for e x a m ple, T i t u s ' s addresses to the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s as m o s t a b o m i n a b l e
(pLiapwraToi,
" m o s t p o l l u t e d " ) ( War 6.124, 347). W e m a y cite J o s e p h u s ' s o w n editorial s u m m a r y c o n c e r n i n g the r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p s , in w h i c h h e refers to the I d u m a e a n s
as
"those m o s t p o l l u t e d [pLiapcoTarot] w r e t c h e s " (War 7.267). T h r o u g h o u t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , o n e c a n see that J o s e p h u s is c o m m e n t i n g o n the c u r r e n t situation in his o w n day. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says v e r y simply that S a m u e l ' s sons d i d n o t w a l k in the w a y s o f their father (1 S a m . 8:3), J o s e p h u s uses the o c c a s i o n to p r e a c h a lesson in politics, n o t i n g t h a t these sons fur nish a c l e a r illustration a n d p r o o f t h a t sons n e e d n o t b e similar in c h a r a c t e r t o their fathers, a n d that, in fact, s o m e t i m e s g o o d , h o n e s t folk are s p r u n g f r o m k n a v e s , while the offspring o f v i r t u o u s p a r e n t s h a v e p r o v e d to b e d e p r a v e d (Ant. 6.33). O n e wonders w h e t h e r Josephus m a y not here obliquely be suggesting that D o m i t i a n , the e m p e r o r at the t i m e w h e n h e c o m p l e t e d the Antiquities (so Ant. 20.267), h a d t u r n e d o u t to b e m u c h inferior in c h a r a c t e r to his father, V e s p a s i a n . J o s e p h u s ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h the t e r m i n o l o g y o f politics is e s p e c i a l l y m a n i f e s t in his g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h is a n a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f the scriptural a c c o u n t , o f the results o f the p e a c e t h a t the Israelites m a d e w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s after their ini 5
tial e n t r y into C a n a a n (Ant. 5 . 1 3 2 - 3 5 ) . T h e s e q u e n c e o f l u x u r y (Tpv^rjs),
volup
tuousness (r)8ovrjs), d e l i g h t in l u c r e (r)oovfj rov KepSaiveiv), a n d gross recklessness
5. A similar criticism o f luxury (rpv^dv) a n d o f lack o f exertion (dirovojs) is to be found in Moses' condemnation of the tribes of G a d , Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh for requesting the recendy won Amorite land for their flocks (Ant. 4.167). Likewise, Samuel's sons are condemned for abandoning themselves to luxury (rpv^-qv), thereby acting in defiance o f G - d (Ant. 6.34). O n the contrary, w h e n
144
GENERAL
(aSeiav,
CONSIDERATIONS
" l a c k o f s c r u p l e , " " l a c k o f restraint"), l e a d i n g to d i s d a i n for the o r d e r
(KOO/JLOV) o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n (TroXirelas) a n d for the l a w s (vopucuv), a n d h e n c e to g r a v e sedition (ordois
. . . oeivrj), t h u s c o r r u p t i n g the a r i s t o c r a c y
(apiOTOKparlav),
w o u l d h a v e b e e n f a m i l i a r to r e a d e r s o f the G r e e k a n d R o m a n o r a t o r s a n d histori ans.
6
T h e effect o f a p l a g u e o r a f a m i n e u p o n the m i n d s o f p e o p l e w a s a s u b j e c t that g r e a d y interested p o l i t i c a l historians s u c h as T h u c y d i d e s , as w e see f r o m the lat ter's r e m a r k s (2.61.3) t h a t s u c h a s u d d e n a n d u n e x p e c t e d o c c u r r e n c e enslaves the m i n d (SovXot . . . (f)p6vr)p,a). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s , a p p e a l i n g to the student o f polit ical s c i e n c e w h o r e a d s h i s t o r y for its lessons, c o m m e n t s t h a t the f a m i n e p r e d i c t e d b y J o s e p h e n s l a v e d (iSovXov) n o t o n l y the b o d i e s o f the E g y p t i a n s b u t also their m i n d s (Siavolas)
(Ant 2.191).
T h e t h e m e o f the effect o f l u x u r y u p o n the b o d y politic, w h i c h so i n t r i g u e d a n c i e n t historians s u c h as L i v y (see his p r e f a c e ) , is d e v e l o p e d b y J o s e p h u s n o t o n l y in the p a s s a g e s c i t e d a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h vfipis b u t also in his s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g the l a w s g i v e n b y G - d t h r o u g h M o s e s , w h i c h , h e r e m a r k s , are so e x c e l l e n t that " n e i t h e r in p e a c e , t h r o u g h l u x u r y (rpv^rjs), n o r in war, u n d e r constraint, h a v e H e b r e w s t r a n s g r e s s e d a n y o n e o f t h e s e " (Ant 3.223). I n contrast, the E g y p t i a n s are d e s c r i b e d as l u x u r y - a d d i c t e d (rpv^epois)
p e o p l e w h o are l a z y a n d slaves to p l e a
sure in g e n e r a l a n d to a love o f g a i n in p a r t i c u l a r a n d w h o s e e n v y o f the H e b r e w s l e a d s first to their o p p r e s s i n g t h e m a n d later to their o w n d o w n f a l l (Ant 2.201). It w a s l u x u r y (rpv^yv) t h a t l e d the Israelites to cast a w a y all the p r o s p e r i t y t h a t t h e y h a d w o n t h r o u g h v a r i o u s l a b o r s (Ant 5.180). J o s e p h u s , c i t i n g S a u l ' s c u r s e u p o n the H e b r e w s if a n y o n e s h o u l d eat b e f o r e p u r s u i n g the e n e m y , r e c o r d s the a p h o r i s m t h a t m e n are a p t to lose c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n w h e n blessed b y g o o d fortune (Ant 6.116). I n c o m m e n t i n g o n R e h o b o a m ' s d e g e n eracy, J o s e p h u s a g a i n s e e m s to b e r e c o r d i n g a n a p h o r i s m w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is the v e r y g r e a t n e s s in m e n ' s affairs a n d the i m p r o v e m e n t in their p o s i t i o n that l e a d s to evil a n d lawlessness (Ant 8.251). F u r t h e r m o r e , h e says t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f his successes, his brilliant g o o d fortune, a n d his g r e a t p o w e r t h a t K i n g U z z i a h d e g e n e r a t e d into sin (Ant 9.222). J o s e p h u s also a p p e a l s to his e d u c a t e d r e a d e r s b y his c o m m e n t s o n the q u e s t i o n o f the i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t . A s e a r l y as H e r o d o t u s (3.80-83) in the fifth c e n t u r y B.C.E., w e see a n interest in c o m p a r i n g the v a r i o u s f o r m s o f g o v e r n m e n t — m o n a r c h y , oligarchy, a n d d e m o c r a c y — t o d e t e r m i n e the best. Similarly, P l a t o , after d e s c r i b i n g the i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , discusses the v a r i o u s d e g e n e r a t e f o r m s — t i m o c r a c y , oligarchy, d e m o c r a c y , a n d t y r a n n y (Republic 8.543-9.576). I n his p r o e m , J o s e p h u s sets forth as the g o a l o f his w o r k that it s h o u l d e m b r a c e n o t o n l y
David refuses to succumb to idleness or slackness (firjSev dpyov firjSe padv^xov), this leads to victory over the Philistines and his other enemies (Ant. 7.96). 6. Cf. Polybius, 6.57, and Livy, preface to bk. 1, for the political effects o f prosperity and luxury.
JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST
145
the e n t i r e a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s b u t a l s o a n e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l c o n stitution (Ant. 1.5). T o J o s e p h u s , a r i s t o c r a c y , w h i c h for h i m m e a n t t h e r u l e o f t h e b e s t , w h i c h h e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e o c r a c y o r t h e r u l e o f G—d, a n d l i k e w i s e as t h e r u l e o f law, w a s 7
t h e b e s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t (Ant. 4 . 2 2 3 ) . J o s e p h u s
insists t h a t it w a s in
the
s u p r e m e i n t e r e s t o f t h e Israelites t o h a v e t h e b e s t o f all r u l e r s at t h e i r h e a d , G - d H i m s e l f . W e see this e m p h a s i s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , w h e n t h e Israelites a s k S a m u e l t o c h o o s e a k i n g for t h e m s e l v e s . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t this d i s p l e a s e d S a m u e l (1 S a m . 8:6), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s at s o m e l e n g t h w h y S a m u e l w a s g r i e v e d at this r e q u e s t — n a m e l y , b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e r i g h t e o u s n e s s (oLKaioavv-qs) a n d his h a t r e d o f k i n g s ; b y c o n t r a s t , h e w a s k e e n l y (oeivcos) e n a m o r e d (rJTTrjro) o f a r i s t o c r a t i c g o v e r n m e n t (rrjs apiGTOKparias)
(Ant. 6.36).
J o s e p h u s b e t r a y s his c o n t e m p t for t h e i g n o r a n t m o b in his c i t a t i o n o f t h e c o m m e n t o f P l a t o , w h o w a s p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s i n g l e i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r c e in t h e p r o c e s s o f h e l l e n i z a t i o n in t h e E a s t d u r i n g t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d (so H a d a s 1 9 5 8 ,
7. D . R . Schwartz 1983-84, 30-52, is troubled by the apparent contradiction in Josephus concern ing forms of government, even though it is clear, as he remarks, that Josephus h a d given a great deal o f thought to providing a consistent theory about the political status o f the Jewish nation. O n the o n e hand, Josephus designates the period o f the Judges as an aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), but at a n other point, he refers to it as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229). A n o t h e r apparent contradiction arises in Jose phus's designation o f the period from the return from the Babylonian Captivity until the H a s m o n e a n s as an aristocracy a n d a n oligarchy (Ant. 11.111), while elsewhere (Ant. 20.234), he refers to the govern ment during this period as a democracy. Schwartz conjectures that the contradiction m a y reflect diff erent sources, but concludes that it is more likely that it reflects a shift between the time w h e n he wrote the early part of the Antiquities and the period w h e n he concluded the work, perhaps, h e thinks, because of a change in historical circumstances. W e m a y here respond that it is more likely that Josephus used the term "aristocracy" to refer, not to a particular form of government, but rather, as the e t y m o l o g y o f the term implies, to the government by the best, w h i c h for him means the rule o f G - d , that is, a theoc racy. Therefore, the government under M o s e s (Ant. 4.223), under the Judges, a n d under the high priests after the return from the Babylonian Captivity is termed a n aristocracy, the c o m m o n denominator in both periods, from Josephus's point o f view, being that the nation was in reality being ruled b y G - d . Hence, the appropriateness of the term "theocracy," a term that Josephus apparendy invented for such a government (Ag. Ap. 2.165. W h e n Josephus designates the period o f the Judges as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229), even though he has previously referred to it as an aristocracy, he is using the term " m o n a r c h y " in the etymological sense a n d is stating that it consisted o f a single ruler; this is not in contradiction to his earlier statement that it was a n aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), that is, the government by the best, inasmuch as the rulers, that is, the Judges, were directed by G - d . T h a t Josephus is using the term "monarchy" in this sense is clear from the fact that h e states that the period o f monarchy was followed by the rule o f kings (Ant. 20.229), the latter term being a reference to a form o f government. O n e con tradiction does remain, namely, that between Josephus's designation o f the government o f the Jews during the period between the return from the Babylonian Captivity a n d the rise o f the H a s m o n e a n s as an oligarchy (Ant. 11.111) a n d his subsequent designation o f this period as a d e m o c r a c y (Ant. 20.234). Perhaps the solution to this apparent contradiction is that Josephus regarded the rule o f the high priests—clearly the rule of the few a n d hence a n oligarchy—during this period as having the approval of the people at large.
146
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
3-13;
1 9 5 9 , 7 2 - 8 2 ) , t h a t it is h a z a r d o u s to d i v u l g e t h e t r u t h a b o u t G - d to t h e i g
n o r a n t m o b (oxAcov) (Ag. Ap. 2.224). T h u c y d i d e s , w h o m J o s e p h u s a d m i r e d a n d i m itated so m u c h , p o i n t s o u t (2.65.4) t h e t r u i s m t h a t the w a y o f t h e m u l t i t u d e is fickle, as s e e n b y t h e fine t h a t t h e A t h e n i a n s , in their a n g e r at t h e terrible losses t h a t h a d b e f a l l e n t h e m d u r i n g t h e g r e a t p l a g u e , i m p o s e d u p o n their g r e a t l e a d e r Pericles, o n l y to r e v e r s e t h e m s e l v e s s h o r d y thereafter a n d to c h o o s e h i m a g a i n as g e n e r a l . T h u c y d i d e s (2.49-53) g r a p h i c a l l y p o r t r a y s t h e effects o f t h e p l a g u e u p o n the A t h e nians, e s p e c i a l l y u p o n their m i n d s , n o t i n g t h a t it l e d to d e s p a i r a n d lawlessness (2.51.4, 2.53.4, 2.61.3). C o n s e q u e n d y , o n e o f t h e m a j o r qualities o f t h e i d e a l states m a n , as w e see in T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t (2.60) o f Pericles, is t h e ability to p e r s u a d e the masses. J o s e p h u s also stresses t h a t m a n k i n d is b y n a t u r e m o r o s e (dvoapeorov, t e n t e d , " " g r u m b l i n g , " "irritable") a n d c e n s o r i o u s (>L\CUTIOV,
"discon
" f o n d o f h a v i n g re
p r o a c h e s at h a n d " ) (Ant. 3.23). H e c o m m e n t s o n t h e effects o f t h e E g y p t i a n f a m i n e in t h e d a y s o f J o s e p h t h a t it e n s l a v e d n o t o n l y t h e b o d i e s o f t h e E g y p t i a n s b u t also their m i n d s (Siavoias,
"thought," "intelligence," "understanding") and drove them
thereafter to d e g r a d i n g m e a n s o f s u b s i s t e n c e (Ant. 2.191). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s a d d s a snide r e m a r k , d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e r a b b l e (6'xAo?) o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , w h o , h e says, w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for v i t i a t i n g t h e n o b l e r instincts o f t h e Israelites in the d e s e r t (Ant. 3.5). H e d e s c r i b e s t h e r e b e l l i o u s Israelite assembly, in t e r m s f a m i l i a r f r o m P l a t o (Laws 2.671 A ) , as a t u m u l t u o u s (dopvfiajorj) m a s s (opu\os), w i t h its i n n a t e d e l i g h t in d e c r y i n g t h o s e in a u t h o r i t y a n d r e a d i n e s s to b e s w a y e d b y w h a t a n y o n e said (Ant. 4 . 3 6 - 3 7 ) . H e r e t u r n s to t h e t h e m e o f the fickleness o f t h e m o b w h e n h e speaks s n e e r i n g l y o f " a l l t h a t a c r o w d , e l a t e d b y success, is w o n t t o u t t e r a g a i n s t t h o s e w h o w e r e o f late d i s p a r a g i n g t h e a u t h o r s " o f their g o o d fortune (Ant. 6.81). T h a t J o s e p h u s is t h i n k i n g in c o n t e m p o r a r y t e r m s in his snide r e m a r k s a b o u t 8
t h e m a s s e s m a y b e s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e War. T h e use o f t h e w o r d o^Ao? in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m o b (6'xAov) o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n d r a f t e d b y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , t h a t m o s t d e s p i s e d o f r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , is h i g h l y significant ( ^ 7 - 4 . 1 0 7 ) .
9
It is i n d i c a t i v e o f J o s e p h u s ' s n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d r e v o l t a g a i n s t established a u t h o r i t y t h a t h e asserts t h a t J e r o b o a m w a s c a l l e d to p o w e r b y t h e l e a d e r s o f the r a b b l e (rtov b'xXojv) i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e d e a t h o f K i n g S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.212) (see
8. In War i.iJ2, w e read o f K i n g Aristobulus o f J u d a e a disencumbering himself o f his rabble (6'xAtov) o f inefficient followers. S u c h language is also used with reference to the revolutionaries during the w a r against R o m e , as w e see in Titus's address to his troops in w h i c h he remarks that the Jews, how ever daundess and reckless o f life they m a y be, are undisciplined and deserve to be called a mere rab ble (oxAo?) rather than an a r m y (War 3475). 9. Similar disparaging remarks in Josephus's War about the m o b o f revolutionaries are found at 3.542: " T h e remainder o f the m o b [who h a d congregated at T a r i c h a e a e ] — a c r o w d o f seditious indi viduals and fugitives to w h o m their infamous careers in peacetime gave w a r its attractions"; 6.283: "the p o o r w o m e n and children o f the populace and a m i x e d multitude (had taken refuge [in the Temple])."
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
I _
Feldman 1993^ 4 4 3 ) -
1 0
147
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f s h o w s his c o n t e m p t for the m a s s e s
w h e n h e r e m a r k s t h a t the advisers o f K i n g R e h o b o a m o f J u d a h w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the n a t u r e o f c r o w d s (6'xAOJV), i m p l y i n g that s u c h m o b s are fickle a n d u n r e l i able, a n d t h a t t h e y u r g e d the k i n g to s p e a k to t h e m in a friendly spirit a n d in a m o r e p o p u l a r style t h a n w a s u s u a l for r o y a l t y {Ant. 8.215). T h a t J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n the c o m m o n p e o p l e w i t h c o n t e m p t m a y b e s e e n from a p e j o r a t i v e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e m b y T i t u s in the War (3.475), w h e r e h e d e s c r i b e s those at T a r i c h a e a e as u n d i s c i p l i n e d , a m e r e r a b b l e (6'xAos" . . . aAAoo?), r a t h e r t h a n a n army. L i k e w i s e , w e h e a r o f the m e r e r a b b l e (6'xAov aAAoos) o f J e w s at M a c h a e r u s 11
(Wary.191).
J o s e p h u s shares w i t h T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o a d i s d a i n for d e m a g o g u e s . T h i s c o n t e m p t g r e w o u t o f e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t e a c h s a w as d e s t r o y i n g his state in his o w n lifetime. O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the w a y in w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to T h u c y d i d e s (3.36, 6.19), the A t h e n i a n m a s s e s w e r e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s s u c h as G l e o n a n d A l c i b iades, as w e l l as o f the t e c h n i q u e b y w h i c h the gullible c a p t a i n o f the ship, r e p r e senting the m a s s e s , in Plato's p a r a b l e , i n s t e a d o f listening to the true n a v i g a t o r , is w o n o v e r b y the f a w n i n g sailors (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 2 - 8 9 A 2 ) . In particular, J o s e p h u s c o n n e c t s the a c t o f a d e m a g o g u e c u r r y i n g favor w i t h t h e c r o w d to r e b e l l i o n , as seen, for e x a m p l e , in his c o m m e n t t h a t A b s a l o m , w h e n re b e l l i n g a g a i n s t his father, D a v i d , c u r r i e d favor (SrjfjLaywycjv, " a c t i n g as a d e m a g o g u e " ) w i t h the m u l t i t u d e ; w h e n h e t h o u g h t t h a t the l o y a l t y o f the p o p u l a c e (oxAcov) h a d b e e n s e c u r e d , h e p r o c e e d e d to p l o t a g a i n s t the state, w h e r e u p o n a g r e a t m u l t i t u d e (6'xAos) s t r e a m e d t o h i m (Ant. 7.196) (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 1 7 - 2 1 ) . A n aphoristic c o n t e m p t for the m o b m a y likewise b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t all the p e o p l e s w a r m e d a r o u n d the b o d y o f A m a s a a n d , "as is the w a y o f c r o w d s [6'xAos], p r e s s e d f o r w a r d to w o n d e r at it" (Ant. 7 . 2 8 7 ) .
12
O n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , as in P l a t o
(Republic
8 . 5 6 6 C - 8 0 B ) , is tyranny. T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s that the r e b e l N i m r o d g r a d u a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d his state into a tyranny, c o m p l e t e l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n his o w n p o w e r (Ant. 1.114). A g a i n , w h e n Z a m b r i a s (Zimri) attacks M o s e s , it is for a c t i n g t y r a n n i c a l l y (rvpavviKcos),
u n d e r p r e t e x t o f law, b u t a c t u a l l y
10. Weinfeld 1 9 8 2 , 1 8 9 - 9 4 , notes that w e find here the concept o f the king as the servant o f the p e o ple; but it is quite clear from the context that the aristocratic Josephus himself views such a relationship disparagingly. 11. T h e same pejorative attitude toward the masses is evident in the fact that Josephus frequendy uses the w o r d 6'xAo? in conjunction with w o m e n and children, for w h o m he seems to have litde regard. T h i s attitude is evident in Josephus's remark that w h e n N a i a was captured, a crowd (o^Aos) o f children, w o m e n , and slaves were taken (Ant. 5.48). 12. Similar negative connotations o f the w o r d 6'xAo? m a y be seen in the following statements: " O f the impious people [o^Aou], A z a e l o s shall destroy some and J e h u others" (Ant. 8.352); " T h e entire mul titude [oxAos] [during the reign o f Zadekiah] had license to act as outrageously as it pleased" (Ant. 10.103).
148
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
r o b b i n g t h e Israelites o f t h e s w e e t t h i n g s o f life a n d o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n e^ovGiov) (Ant. 4 . 1 4 6 ) .
13
(avr-
M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s attacks A b i m e l e c h , the s o n o f G i d e o n ,
for t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e g o v e r n m e n t into a tyranny, a c t i n g in d e f i a n c e o f t h e l a w s a n d o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 5.234). L i k e w i s e , the b e h a v i o r o f t h e sons o f t h e h i g h priest E l i is said to differ n o t at all f r o m a t y r a n n y in their v i o l a t i o n o f all t h e l a w s (Ant. 5.339). O n e m i g h t a l m o s t say t h a t l i b e r t y is t h e l e i t m o t i f o f the h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e as J o s e p h u s sees it. It is M o s e s w h o d e v o t e s all his efforts t o p r o c u r i n g his p e o p l e ' s l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)
f r o m t h e o p p r e s s i v e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.290). W h e n t h e
Israelites c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t h i m b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f f o o d a n d w a t e r in the desert, M o s e s a n s w e r s t h e m b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t it is n o t f r o m n e g l i g e n c e t h a t G - d h a s t h u s t a r r i e d in h e l p i n g t h e m b u t r a t h e r t o test their m a n h o o d a n d their d e l i g h t i n l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav)
(Ant. 3.19). I n d e e d , w h e n M o s e s addresses his p e o p l e o n t h e
b o r d e r s o f C a n a a n , j u s t b e f o r e t h e spies a r e sent i n t o Palestine t o s c o u t t h e l a n d , h e r e m i n d s t h e n a t i o n t h a t G - d h a d r e s o l v e d to g r a n t t h e m t w o blessings, l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)
a n d t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f a f a v o r e d l a n d (Ant. 3.300; cf. 4.2).
T h e Israelites, S a m u e l insists, o u g h t n o t to b e c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o y e a r n for lib e r t y (iXevdepias),
b u t o u g h t to d o t h e d e e d s n e c e s s a r y to attain it (Ant. 6.20). A g a i n ,
J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t (1 S a m . 10:19), e m p h a s i z e s t h e l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)
t h a t G - d h a d g r a n t e d t h e m in d e l i v e r i n g t h e m f r o m E g y p t (Ant. 6.60).
W h e n t h e Philistines, a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , m u s t e r a h u g e a r m y a g a i n s t t h e Is raelites a n d r e d u c e t h e m to t r e m b l i n g (1 S a m . 13:5-7), S a u l , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , sends h e r a l d s t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y t o c a l l u p the p e o p l e in t h e n a m e o f l i b e r t y (iXevdepia)
t o w a r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.98). Significandy, J o s e p h u s e m
p h a s i z e s t h a t u n d e r S o l o m o n , t h e J e w s e n j o y e d the fullest m e a s u r e o f f r e e d o m (Ant. 8.38). I n d e e d , R o m a n r e a d e r s w o u l d r e c a l l t h a t in t h e c o n s p i r a c y to assassi n a t e t h e m a d G a i u s C a l i g u l a , t h e p a s s w o r d a d o p t e d b y the c o n s p i r a t o r s w a s the s a m e w o r d , " L i b e r t y " (iXevOepca) (Ant. 19.54).
J O S E P H U S AND
NATIONALISM
A t the y o u n g a g e o f t w e n t y - s i x , J o s e p h u s w a s a l r e a d y w e l l e n o u g h k n o w n to b e sent t o R o m e o n t h e v e r y d e l i c a t e m i s s i o n o f s e e k i n g to free f r o m c a p t i v i t y s o m e priests w h o h a d b e e n sent in c h a i n s t o R o m e b y the p r o c u r a t o r Felix o n a trifling c h a r g e (Life 13). T h r o u g h the g o o d offices o f a J e w i s h a c t o r n a m e d A l i t u r u s , w h o was
a s p e c i a l favorite o f t h e e m p e r o r N e r o ' s , h e w a s i n t r o d u c e d to P o p p a e a
S a b i n a , N e r o ' s c o n s o r t , t h r o u g h w h o s e a i d h e m a n a g e d t o w i n t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f the priests. J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e c r y p t i c s e n t e n c e t h a t P o p p a e a , w h o m h e h a d j u s t m e t ,
13. Cf. V a n Unnik 1974, 255-56, w h o notes the philosophico-ethical context in which this word oc curs in Epictetus (ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 4.1.62 and 4.1.68), Diogenianus Epicureus (fr. 3, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 6.8.36), and C l e m e n t of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvetur 10.1). O n the other hand, Moses is praised for leaving nothing, however insignificant, to individual discretion (avretjovoLov) (Ag. Ap. 2.173).
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
149
g a v e h i m l a r g e gifts, after w h i c h h e says h e r e t u r n e d t o Palestine (Life 16). It is surely significant t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y after this s e n t e n c e , h e writes: " T h e r e I f o u n d r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s a l r e a d y o n foot a n d w i d e s p r e a d e l a t i o n at the p r o s p e c t o f revolt f r o m R o m e . I a c c o r d i n g l y e n d e a v o r e d to repress these p r o m o t e r s o f sedi tion a n d to b r i n g t h e m o v e r to a n o t h e r f r a m e o f m i n d " (Life 17). H e says t h a t h e u r g e d t h e m to p i c t u r e to t h e m s e l v e s the n a t i o n o n w h i c h t h e y w e r e a b o u t t o m a k e war. T h e i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f the successful m i s s i o n to R o m e , the m e e t i n g w i t h P o p p a e a , the l a r g e gifts t h a t she g a v e h i m , a n d J o s e p h u s ' s efforts t o d i s s u a d e the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w o u l d s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t the trip to R o m e i m p r e s s e d J o s e p h u s w i t h the p o w e r o f R o m e a n d the fruidessness o f r e b e l l i o n ; a n d o n e is surely t e m p t e d t o t h i n k t h a t P o p p a e a h o p e d , w i t h the gifts, to i n f l u e n c e J o s e p h u s t o h e l p defuse the i n c i p i e n t r e v o l u t i o n .
14
J o s e p h u s w a s k e e n l y a w a r e t h a t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e also h a d c o n s i d e r able c o n t e m p o r a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n v i e w o f the loss o f J e w i s h s o v e r e i g n t y in the w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s w a s f a c e d w i t h the d e l i c a t e task of, o n the o n e h a n d , a n s w e r i n g the c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s w e r e a r a c e o f w e a k l i n g s , w h i l e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , m a k i n g sure n o t to give the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e y w e r e so c o n f i d e n t o f their p o w e r as o n c e a g a i n to seek a c t u a l i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m R o m a n rule, as in d e e d t h e y d i d a m e r e t w o g e n e r a t i o n s after the terrible d e b a c l e o f the w a r o f 6 6 - 7 4 . H i s s o l u t i o n is to e m p h a s i z e t h a t the J e w s are a m i g h t y p e o p l e b u t also l o y a l to their rulers. T h i s is s h o w n , for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s p r i d e in the fact t h a t P t o l e m y P h i l o m e t o r a n d his c o n s o r t C l e o p a t r a in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. e n trusted their entire r e a l m to J e w s a n d p l a c e d their a r m y u n d e r the c o m m a n d o f t w o J e w i s h g e n e r a l s , O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e u s (Ag. Ap. 2.49). Similarly, in his v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e , a n d e s p e c i a l l y in his c o n c e r n t o b u i l d u p further the p e r s o n a l i t y o f J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s his p o w e r . T h u s , the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n d e s c r i b e s the s h e a v e s o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s as b o w i n g d o w n to his s h e a f ( G e n . 37:7), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , the l a n g u a g e is m u c h stronger, in t h a t the s h e a v e s b o w d o w n like slaves b e f o r e their m a s t e r s (Ant. 2.11). T h a t J o s e p h , the p r o t o t y p e o f the J e w i s h p u b l i c s e r v a n t , t u r n s o u t to b e a n i d e a l administrator, o n t h e o n e h a n d loyal to his s o v e r e i g n a n d o n the o t h e r h a n d c o n c e r n e d for the w e l f a r e o f the
14. Sterling 1992, 231, n. 24, cites m y statement (Feldman 1984a, 782) that the gifts were given by Poppaea to Josephus because he promised to try to defuse the revolution that was starting in J u d a e a and remarks that there is n o basis for this whatsoever. B u t if so, w e m a y ask, w h y w o u l d Poppaea, w h o m Nero, according to Suetonius (Nero 35.3), dearly loved and w h o w a s clearly influential with him, have given the y o u n g Josephus, w h o m she h a d just met, not only gifts but large gifts? A n d w h y d o w e find, immediately after the mention o f these gifts, the statement that Josephus found revolutionary move ments afoot w h e n he returned to Judaea? Sterling says that the gifts were probably personal, since if they had been otherwise, Josephus w o u l d certainly have mentioned it, inasmuch as he w a s eager in the Life to defend his hesitancy to j o i n the revolutionaries. But if Josephus h a d stated openly that the gifts were given with the understanding or h o p e that he w o u l d defuse the revolution, this w o u l d have played into the hands o f his accusers, w h o would, and with g o o d reason, have charged h i m with b e i n g b o u g h t off by the R o m a n s and as b e i n g a traitor to their cause.
/jo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
E g y p t i a n p e o p l e , is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . I n t h e H e b r e w , P h a r a o h tells J o s e p h : " T h o u shalt b e o v e r m y h o u s e , a n d a c c o r d i n g u n t o t h y w o r d shall all m y p e o p l e b e r u l e d " ( G e n . 41:40). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t P h a r a o h g a v e J o s e p h the p o w e r to a c t as h e t h o u g h t fit " b o t h for the p e o p l e o f E g y p t a n d for their s o v e r e i g n " (Ant. 2 . 8 9 ) . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t P h a r a o h set J o s e p h o v e r all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 41:43), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s b y n o t i n g the s y m b o l s o f J o s e p h ' s a u t h o r i t y — h i s seal a n d r o b e s o f p u r p l e — a n d t h e c h a r i o t in w h i c h h e d r o v e t h r o u g h o u t t h e l a n d (Ant. 2 . 9 0 ) .
15
T h a t J e w s a r e l o y a l to their m a s t e r s is also the t h e m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i cal a d d i t i o n in J o s e p h ' s s t a t e m e n t to t h e b u d e r t h a t e v e n t h e l u r e o f his o w n p l e a sure w o u l d n o t i n d u c e h i m to d i s h o n o r his m a s t e r P o t i p h a r (Ant. 2 . 6 8 - 6 9 ) . J o s e p h u s is careful to stress J o s e p h ' s l o y a l t y to P h a r a o h e v e n w h e n , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f his t r e m e n d o u s a c h i e v e m e n t in s a v i n g the c o u n t r y f r o m starvation, h e m i g h t h a v e r u l e d himself, a n d h a d , in fact, b e e n r o b e d in p u r p l e b y P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.90). T h a t J o s e p h is o b e d i e n t to his s o v e r e i g n m a y b e i n f e r r e d f r o m the fact t h a t w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h , as P h a r a o h ' s vizier, c a m e h o m e a n d g r e e t e d his b r o t h e r s , w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g f r o m w h a t p l a c e h e w a s c o m i n g ( G e n . 43:26), J o s e p h u s , e a g e r to stress J o s e p h ' s loyalty, fills this l a c u n a b y stating t h a t h e c a m e f r o m his a t t e n d a n c e (depanelas,
"service," "attention," " h o m a g e , " "alle
g i a n c e , " " c o n c e r n " ) u p o n t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.121). J o s e p h u s strives e a g e r l y t o m a k e c l e a r t h a t J o s e p h h a d n o d e s i g n to s u p p l a n t P h a r a o h a n d c o n s e q u e n d y o m i t s s o m e t h i n g t h a t the B i b l e h a s J u d a h s a y to J o s e p h : " T h o u art e v e n as P h a r a o h " (Gen.
16
4 4 : 1 8 v s . Ant. 2 . 1 4 0 ) . J o s e p h u s is careful to a v o i d r e p e a t i n g t h e scriptural
s t a t e m e n t o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s to J a c o b t h a t J o s e p h is t h e r u l e r o f all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 45:26); i n s t e a d , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e r e a d t h a t J a c o b is t o l d t h a t J o s e p h is s h a r i n g (OVV8L€7TCUV " a d m i n i s t e r i n g s o m e t h i n g w i t h s o m e o n e " ) t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f E g y p t w i t h P h a r a o h a n d h a s a l m o s t the w h o l e c h a r g e o f it in his h a n d s (Ant. 2.168). T h u s , w h e n G - d d e s c r i b e s J o s e p h ' s status i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E g y p t , H e says t h a t H e h a s m a d e h i m l o r d o f E g y p t a n d t h a t his status differs o n l y s l i g h d y (ws dXiyco) f r o m t h a t o f t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.174). I n particular, J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d to a n s w e r the c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s o f d u a l loyalty. T h u s A p i o n , in t h e earlier p a r t o f the first century, n o t o n l y a c c u s e d t h e J e w s o f sedition a n d failure t o w o r s h i p the civic deities b u t also e x p r e s s e d as t o n i s h m e n t t h a t t h e y w e r e c a l l e d A l e x a n d r i a n s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.38). W e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t this c h a r g e o f d o u b l e l o y a l t y w a s also a f a c t o r in a w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d c o u r t case. C i c e r o ' s client F l a c c u s h a d s e i z e d m o n e y t h a t t h e J e w s o f A s i a M i n o r h a d s o u g h t to ship o u t o f t h e p r o v i n c e to the T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m . T h i s
15. Similarly, Philo mentions that P h a r a o h bestowed the royal seal and a sacred robe u p o n Joseph (De Josepho 21.120). 16. T h e rabbinic tradition actually speaks of Joseph as having been appointed "king in E g y p t " (Sifre Deuteronomy 334.3). T h e Septuagint resolves this delicate problem by reading <Papaa>, w h i c h the Vulgate renders as "after P h a r a o h . "
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
75/
m a y w e l l h a v e s e e m e d u n p a t r i o t i c t o the R o m a n s b e c a u s e o f the scarcity o f m o n e y t h r o u g h o u t the R e p u b l i c at this t i m e . I n 63 B.C.E., four y e a r s b e f o r e the trial, the S e n a t e h a d p a s s e d a r e s o l u t i o n f o r b i d d i n g the e x p o r t o f g o l d a n d silver f r o m Italy b e c a u s e o f the s h o r t a g e ; a n d F l a c c u s h a d sent the J e w i s h m o n e y to R o m e for d e posit in the p u b l i c treasury. C i c e r o therefore t o o k c a r e t o i m p l y t h a t the J e w s w e r e u n p a t r i o t i c , s a y i n g , " T h e r e is n o l a c k o f m e n , as y o u w e l l k n o w , t o stir these fellows u p a g a i n s t m e a n d e v e r y p a t r i o t i c c i t i z e n " (Pro Flacco 28.66). H e u r g e d the j u r y to s h o w their c o n c e r n for the w e l f a r e o f the state a n d to r e b u f f the J e w i s h p r e s s u r e group. I n a n s w e r t o t h e c h a r g e o f e c o n o m i c a g g r e s s i v e n e s s b y the J e w s , s u c h as w e find in this c a s e c i t e d in C i c e r o , J o s e p h u s h a s J o s e p h tell P h a r a o h t h a t his b r o t h e r s are s h e p h e r d s , so t h a t t h e y m a y n o t a p p e a r to b e c o m p e t i n g w i t h the E g y p t i a n s , w h o w e r e f o r b i d d e n t o o c c u p y t h e m s e l v e s w i t h this c a l l i n g (Ant. 2 . 1 8 5 - 8 6 ) . T h i s is in di r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o the B i b l e , w h e r e J o s e p h tells his b r o t h e r s to s a y t h a t t h e y are k e e p e r s o f cattle, since s h e p h e r d s are a n a b o m i n a t i o n to the E g y p t i a n s ( G e n . 46:34). J o s e p h u s a n s w e r s this c h a r g e o f e c o n o m i c a g g r e s s i o n w i t h p a r t i c u l a r effective ness in his v e r s i o n o f the J o s e p h story, n o t i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h J o s e p h m i g h t w e l l h a v e t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f the fact t h a t it w a s h e w h o h a d s a v e d the k i n g d o m f r o m f a m i n e , a n d h e thus m i g h t h a v e r e s e r v e d the l a n d o f E g y p t for his o w n benefit, h e nevertheless d i d n o t d o so b u t r a t h e r r e t u r n e d the l a n d to the o r i g i n a l o w n e r s , thus i n c r e a s i n g the g r a t i t u d e a n d l o y a l t y o f the E g y p t i a n s to their s o v e r e i g n (Ant. 1
1 7
s.ig ^)T h e r e is r e a s o n to think, despite the efforts o f d e J o n g e ( 1 9 6 6 , 1 3 2 - 4 8 ) , N e u s n e r (1987b), a n d o t h e r s (e.g., H o r s l e y 1992, 4 : 7 9 1 - 9 7 ) , t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n o f a m e s s i a n i c figure, w h e t h e r o r n o t h e w a s c a l l e d b y the n a m e " m e s s i a h , " w a s w i d e s p r e a d a m o n g J e w s . I n particular, w e call attention to J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h a t m o r e t h a n all else i n c i t e d the J e w s to w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s in 6 6 w a s " a n a m b i g u o u s o r a c l e , likewise f o u n d in their s a c r e d scriptures, t o the effect t h a t at t h a t time, o n e f r o m their c o u n t r y w o u l d b e c o m e r u l e r o f the w o r l d " (War 6.312). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t this, m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else, d r o v e the J e w s to w a r w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t it w a s a s t r o n g l y a n d w i d e l y h e l d belief. T h a t it w a s i n d e e d w i d e l y h e l d s e e m s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t a similar p r e d i c t i o n is m e n t i o n e d b y T a c i t u s , w h o states t h a t the m a j o r i t y (pluribus) w e r e p e r s u a d e d t h a t " t h e i r a n c i e n t p r i e s d y w r i t i n g s c o n t a i n e d the p r o p h e c y t h a t this w a s the v e r y t i m e w h e n the E a s t s h o u l d g r o w s t r o n g a n d t h a t m e n starting f r o m J u d a e a s h o u l d possess the w o r l d " (Histories 5.13.2). S i m i l a r e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h a b e l i e f w a s w i d e l y h e l d is to b e f o u n d in S u e t o n i u s , w h o r e p o r t s t h a t " t h e r e h a d s p r e a d o v e r all the O r i e n t a n o l d a n d es t a b l i s h e d belief, t h a t it w a s fated at t h a t t i m e for m e n c o m i n g f r o m J u d a e a to rule
17. Similarly, Josephus goes so far in his rehabilitation o f the wicked B a l a a m as to indicate that B a laam's motive in seeking to curse the Israelites was not Jew-hatred but rather loyalty to his sovereign; and this, in Josephus's eyes, is certainly praiseworthy.
ij2
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
the w o r l d " (Vespasian 4.5). M e n a h e m , the l e a d e r o f the S i c a r i i , w h o a p p e a r e d in the T e m p l e d r e s s e d in r o y a l r o b e s (War 2.444), c e r t a i n l y gives the a p p e a r a n c e o f a m e s siah-like figure, as d o e s the J e w f r o m E g y p t w h o , w i t h 30,000 followers, p r o p o s e d to o v e r p o w e r the R o m a n g a r r i s o n in J e r u s a l e m (War 2 . 2 6 1 - 6 3 ) . T h e fact t h a t n o t l o n g after the g r e a t revolt, L u k u a s - A n d r e a s in 115 a n d B a r K o c h b a in 132 a p p e a r e d as m e s s i a n i c figures w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t the y e a r n i n g for a m e s s i a h w a s persistent a n d w i d e s p r e a d (see T c h e r i k o v e r 1957, 1:88; B e n - S a s s o n 1971). J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t b e l i e f in a m e s s i a h ipso facto i m p l i e d revolt a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , o m i t s all r e f e r e n c e to D a v i d as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h . H e is c o n t e n t to say t h a t D a v i d ' s h o u s e will b e g l o r i o u s a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 7.94). W h e r e a s i n the b i b l i c a l text, the p r o p h e t N a t h a n assures D a v i d that G - d will establish the t h r o n e o f his k i n g d o m f o r e v e r (2 S a m . 7:13; 1 C h r o n . 17:12), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t D a v i d r e j o i c e d g r e a d y to k n o w t h a t t h e r o y a l p o w e r w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h his d e s c e n d a n t s , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t this w o u l d b e so forever (Ant. 7.94). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e refers t o G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f a n everlasting l a m p for D a v i d a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s (2 K i n g s 8:18; 2 C h r o n . 21:7), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t G - d d i d n o t w i s h utterly to d e s t r o y D a v i d ' s line (Ant. 9.96), since the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t i m p l i e s m e s s i a n i c aspirations (see B e g g , 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 328). I n contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o r e m a r k s t h a t the p r o p h e t S a m u e l , m i s t a k e n l y think i n g t h a t E l i a b , the oldest s o n o f Jesse, w a s the o n e to b e a n o i n t e d k i n g , d e c l a r e d , " B e h o l d , the h o l y o n e , the a n o i n t e d o f the L—rd [sanctus christus=meshiah doshY
(Bib. Ant. 59.2), c l e a r l y a l l u d i n g t o h i m as m e s s i a h , " a n o i n t e d , "
J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s the w o r d
1 8
ha-qa-
whereas
19
xp^ds.
It is surely significant t h a t despite the fact t h a t E l i j a h w a s m o r e p o p u l a r w i t h the m a s s e s t h a n w a s his p u p i l E l i s h a , J o s e p h u s identified h i m s e l f m o r e c l o s e l y w i t h E l i sha, p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e E l i j a h w a s r e g a r d e d as a p a t r o n o f the z e a l o t s a n d b e c a u s e h e w a s r e g a r d e d as the f o r e r u n n e r o f t h e m e s s i a h (see Baba Me^ia 8 3 b - 8 4 a a n d Sanhedrin 98a). T h i s p r e f e r e n c e m a y p e r h a p s b e seen in the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s a e u l o g y for E l i s h a (Ant. 9.182), b u t n o t for E l i j a h . M o r e o v e r , in his a d d i t i o n s to the B i b l e , h e c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e often refers to E l i s h a t h a n h e d o e s t o E l i j a h as a p r o p h e t . It is o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E l i s h a t h a t J o s e p h u s m a k e s a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the p r o p h e t a n d his o w n craft o f history. E l i s h a is a g e n d e r p r o p h e t in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e t h a n h e is in the B i b l e . I n particular, J o s e p h u s , in his a c c o u n t o f E l i s h a ' s d o i n g s , o m i t s g o r y s c e n e s t h a t w o u l d b e r e d o l e n t o f a r e v o l u t i o n a r y figure (see F e l d m a n 1994a, 6 1 - 8 6 ; 1 9 9 4 b , 1-28). For p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s , J o s e p h u s is a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y e v a s i v e in his r e m a r k t h a t B a l a a m foretold w h a t c a l a m i t i e s w e r e to c o m e for "cities o f the h i g h e s t
18. T h e rabbis likewise portray D a v i d , in the days to come, as the viceroy o f the messiah, w h o also will be n a m e d D a v i d (Sanhedrin 98b). 19. T h e w o r d does appear in the much-disputed Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63) pertaining to Jesus, as well as in the passage (Ant. 20.200), generally regarded as genuine, pertaining to James, the brother o f Jesus, " w h o w a s called the Christ."
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
133
c e l e b r i t y (of w h i c h s o m e h a d n o t y e t so m u c h as b e e n i n h a b i t e d at all)" (Ant. 4.125). O n e m a y g u e s s t h a t t h e r e is h e r e a v e i l e d hint o f the o v e r t h r o w o f the R o m a n E m pire, b u t J o s e p h u s is careful to k e e p t h a t h i n t as v a g u e as possible (see F e l d m a n i g 9 3 g , 5 9 - 6 1 ) . T h e r e is similar a m b i g u i t y w i t h r e g a r d to the m e a n i n g o f the stone that, in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s d r e a m , destroys the k i n g d o m o f i r o n ( D a n . 2 : 4 4 - 4 5 v s . Ant. 10.210). T h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , w h i c h p r e d i c t s a m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m , a p p a r e n d y t h a t o f J u d a e a , t h a t will d e s t r o y all p r e v i o u s k i n g d o m s ( p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g R o m e ) , a n d t h a t will itself last f o r e v e r ,
20
w o u l d c l e a r l y h a v e b e e n r e p u g n a n t t o the
R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s ' s p a t r o n s . J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t this w o u l d h a r d l y e n d e a r h i m t o his R o m a n hosts, w h o h a d g i v e n h i m a tract o f l a n d outside J e r u s a l e m , s o m e s a c r e d b o o k s , the l i b e r a t i o n o f v a r i o u s friends, R o m a n citizenship, l o d g i n g in the f o r m e r h o m e o f V e s p a s i a n , a n d a p e n s i o n (Life 423), c r y p t i c a l l y r e m a r k s t h a t h e h a s n o t t h o u g h t it p r o p e r to relate the m e a n i n g o f the stone, since h e is e x p e c t e d , as a historian, t o w r i t e o f w h a t is p a s t a n d n o t o f the future. I n d e e d , this is the o n l y p l a c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s m a k e s s u c h a s t a t e m e n t as to the role o f the historian; a n d , in fact, n o o t h e r a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n m a k e s a n y s u c h r e m a r k . O f c o u r s e , i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s is h i g h l y selective, e s p e c i a l l y in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the p r o p h e t s , h e m i g h t s i m p l y h a v e o m i t t e d the p a s s a g e a b o u t the stone, w h i c h , stricdy s p e a k i n g , is n o t r e l e v a n t t o his history. T h e fact t h a t h e d o e s n o t is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f d e l i b e r a t e a m b i g u i t y in his a t t e m p t t o r e a c h b o t h his a u d i e n c e s , the n o n J e w s a n d the J e w s . P e r h a p s h e felt t h a t to o m i t it a l t o g e t h e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n re g a r d e d b y J e w i s h r e a d e r s as a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e h a d sold o u t t o the R o m a n s . Significandy, w h e n J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s it, h e a d d s the e v a s i v e r e m a r k t h a t i f a n y o n e w i s h e s t o o b t a i n m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t it, h e s h o u l d r e a d the B o o k o f D a n i e l . Surely, J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e d t h a t o n l y J e w s w e r e likely t o d o so a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e a w a r e o f a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this p a s s a g e as r e f e r r i n g to the m e s s i a n i c t r i u m p h o v e r the R o m a n E m p i r e . T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this p a s s a g e m a y b e s e e n also in his o m i s s i o n , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B o o k o f D a n i e l , o f the p a s s a g e in w h i c h it is m a d e c l e a r t h a t the fifth, w o r l d w i d e , a n d e v e r l a s t i n g e m p i r e w o u l d b e r u l e d b y a p e o p l e o f "saints o f the M o s t H i g h " ( D a n . 7:18), t h a t is, the J e w s — a p a s s a g e t h a t w o u l d , to the o b v i o u s e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f J o s e p h u s as s p o k e s m a n for the R o m a n s , i m p l y the o v e r t h r o w o f Rome. T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s r e a l l y w a l k i n g a t i g h t r o p e in his p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t the R o m a n s m a y b e s e e n in his a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y a m b i g u o u s c o m m e n t t h a t D a n i e l w r o t e a b o u t the e m p i r e o f the R o m a n s , a n d t h a t J e r u s a l e m w o u l d b e t a k e n b y
20. Josephus's excuse for omitting this passage is that, as an historian, he is expected to discuss the past and not to predict the future, although Josephus certainly saw a kinship between the prophet and the historian (see Feldman 1990, 397-400), particularly since he must have been aware o f the dictum o f T h u c y d i d e s (1.22.4),
o
n
e
o f his favorites (see D r u n e r 1896, 1-35; T h a c k e r a y 1929, 110-14), that " w h o
ever wishes to have a clear v i e w o f the events that have happened and o f those that will some day, in all h u m a n probability, h a p p e n again in the same or a similar w a y " will find his history useful.
154
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
t h e m a n d t h e T e m p l e l a i d w a s t e (Ant. 10.276). B u t , as this t e x t s h o w s , J o s e p h u s w a s a p p a r e n t l y r e l u c t a n t t o tell t h e r e a d e r w h a t D a n i e l w r o t e a b o u t t h e R o m a n s — n a m e l y , t h a t t h e R o m a n E m p i r e w o u l d itself b e o v e r t h r o w n a n d t h a t t h e J e w s w o u l d ultimately triumph. Indeed, although h e devotes m o r e attention to D a n i e l than to a n y other prophet, h e omits a n y reference to the celebrated seventy-weeks p r o p h e c y o f D a n . 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , w h i c h foretells t h e c o m i n g o f a m e s s i a n i c r e d e e m e r .
21
L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s , w r i t i n g f r o m R o m e u n d e r t h e p a t r o n a g e o f the R o m a n e m p e r o r a n d in t h e w a k e o f the disaster o f the J e w i s h revolt o f 6 6 - 7 4 , p l a c e s less e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f Palestine t o A b r a h a m (see A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 2 0 1 - 2 9 ) ; i n d e e d , J o s e p h u s is m o r e interested in p o r t r a y i n g t h e m a r r i a g e a l l i a n c e a r r a n g e d b y A b r a h a m t h a n h e is i n t h e b i b l i c a l t h e m e o f t h e fulfillment o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s will i n h e r i t t h e L a n d o f Israel (Bailey 1987, 162). S u r e l y t h e latter t h e m e w o u l d h a v e a p p e a r e d t r e a s o n o u s t o R o m a n s i n his a u d i e n c e . I n fact, this p r o m i s e is o m i t t e d in t h e p a s s a g e (Ant. 1.157) t h a t p a r a l l e l s G e n . 12:7, as w e l l as in t h e p a s s a g e (Ant. 1.170) t h a t parallels G e n . 1 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 , i n t h a t (Ant. 1.184) p a r a l l e l i n g G e n . 15:18, a n d i n t h a t (Ant. 1.193) p a r a l l e l i n g G e n . 1 7 : 1 9 - 2 1 . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e p a s s a g e a b o u t G - d ' s blessing t o I s a a c p r o m i s i n g t h e l a n d t o A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s ( G e n . 2 6 : 3 - 5 ) . I n s t e a d , J o s e p h u s shifts t h e stress f r o m t h e c o v e n a n t e d L a n d o f Israel, so d e a r t o t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , t o t h e b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s a n d t o t h e role o f t h e D i a s p o r a . I n fact, J o s e p h u s n e v e r uses t h e w o r d " c o v e n a n t " (SiadrjKr)), w h i c h is t h e S e p t u a g i n t ' s e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e 22
H e b r e w berit.
I n p l a c e o f p r o m i s e s t h a t the J e w s will h a v e t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n , w e
h a v e p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t t h e y will i n h a b i t it. W e m a y see this shift a w a y f r o m l a n d t h e o l o g y also i n t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f J e h o s h a p h a t ' s p r a y e r w h e n h e p r e p a r e s for w a r a g a i n s t t h e M o a b i t e s a n d A m m a n i t e s (Ant. 9 . 8 - 9 ) . W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , J e h o s h a p h a t r e m i n d s G - d t h a t it w a s H e w h o d r o v e o u t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f the l a n d a n d g a v e it t o t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f A b r a h a m as a n e t e r n a l possession (2 C h r o n . 2 0 : 5 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s ' s J e h o s h a p h a t speaks o f G - d as h a v i n g g i v e n t h e l a n d t o t h e Israelites as a (KaToiKrjoiv) (Ant. 9 - 9 ) .
23
habitation
T h e c e n t r a l focus o f his p r a y e r is n o t o n t h e l a n d b u t o n
the T e m p l e ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , J o s e p h u s h a s c o n v e r t e d a p o l i t i c a l gift o f G - d into a religious o n e (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 173-74). W e c a n see a n o t h e r o f the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s in t h e o r d e r g i v e n b y M a r -
21. T h a t the later rabbis did understand the stone (Dan. 2:44-45) to refer to the messiah is clear from Tanhuma B 2.91-92 a n d Tanhuma Terumah 7. 22. Paul 1985, 473-80, suggests that Josephus's substitution o f the w o r d navXav ("truce") for the w o r d berit (Gen. 9:9, Septuagint, SiadrjKrjv) arises from his desire to dissociate himself from the N e w Testament's emphasis o n the doctrine o f the " n e w covenant." But see Feldman 1988b, 5 6 - 5 7 , in w h i c h I note, a m o n g other things, that if Josephus were writing a n anti-Christian polemic, h e w o u l d have been expected to b e m o r e o p e n about it, inasmuch as Christians were few in n u m b e r a n d hardly held in favor b y D o m i t i a n , under w h o m Josephus wrote his Antiquities. 23. T h i s is the reading adopted b y M a r c u s 1934-37, 6:6. S o m e manuscripts, to b e sure, read Kardaxcatv, "possession."
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
/JJ
sus, the g o v e r n o r o f S y r i a , to A g r i p p a I, to b r e a k u p , b e c a u s e o f the s u s p i c i o n t h a t A g r i p p a w a s t r y i n g to o r g a n i z e a c o n s p i r a c y a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , the c o n f e r e n c e o f v a r i o u s k i n g s t h a t A g r i p p a h a d c o n v e n e d at T i b e r i a s (Ant. 1 9 . 3 4 0 - 4 2 ) .
24
Jose
phus's r e p l y t o a similar c h a r g e , as it a p p e a r s in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t in J o s e phus's v e r s i o n o f the B a l a a m e p i s o d e , is t h a t G - d h a s f o r b i d d e n the J e w s to inter fere in the affairs o f o t h e r n a t i o n s (Ant. 4.102). J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y h a d a v e s t e d interest in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the e v e n t s l e a d i n g to the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the First T e m p l e , i n a s m u c h as h e s a w a striking p a r a l l e l to the events p r e c e d i n g the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e in his o w n day. H e c o n s e q u e n t l y felt a s p e c i a l n e e d t o d e f e n d J e h o i a c h i n ' s d e c i s i o n t o s u r r e n d e r to the e n e m y a n d d e v o t e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f s p a c e to it as c o m p a r e d w i t h the b i b lical text; a n d , v e r y significantly, in the o n e p l a c e in the Jewish War (6.103-4) w h e r e h e refers t o this p e r i o d , h e recalls the e x a m p l e o f J e h o i a c h i n as a n o b l e p r e c e d e n t in s e e k i n g to spare his c o u n t r y a n d to save the T e m p l e f r o m d e s t r u c t i o n ( F e l d m a n 2
2
i995> 5 - 7 ) A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , the p r o p e r attitude t o w a r d the o c c u p y i n g p o w e r , R o m e , was s u b s e r v i e n c e . T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f a i m , in his r e w o r k i n g o f the b i b l i c a l a c counts o f E z r a (Feldman
1993b, 190-214) a n d
Nehemiah
(Feldman
1992c,
187-202), is to stress t h e i r l o y a l t y t o t h e i r rulers a n d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , t o u n d e r s c o r e the similar l o y a l t y o f J e w s t o the g o v e r n m e n t o f the state in w h i c h t h e y reside. F r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f the P e r s i a n k i n g a n d in the c o n t e x t o f the o c c u p a t i o n o f Palestine's c o a s t a n d E g y p t b y the forces o f the D e l i a n L e a g u e in the m i d d l e o f the fifth
c e n t u r y B.C.E., E z r a ' s m i s s i o n w o u l d a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n i n t e n d e d
to
strengthen the c o n t r o l o f the Persians o v e r this strategic a r e a ( M a r g a l i t h 1 9 8 6 , no-12).
2 5
It is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t , therefore, t h a t w h e n h e is first i n t r o d u c e d to his readers b y J o s e p h u s , E z r a is t e r m e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n n o t t o b e f o u n d in 1 E s d r a s 8:4, " f r i e n d l y " (cj>i\os, Ant. 11.121) to K i n g X e r x e s . T h e office o f b o d y g u a r d o f the k i n g w a s h e l d o n l y b y "friends o f the k i n g , " as the n u m e r o u s e x a m ples cited b y L a m m e r t (1927) i n d i c a t e .
26
A p r e c e d e n t for E z r a ' s status m a y b e s e e n
in J o s e p h u s ' s references to H e z e k i a h , w h o w a s i n v i t e d b y the k i n g o f B a b y l o n ,
24. D . R . S c h w a r t z argues convincingly that actually Marsus was jealous of A g r i p p a , and that he took advantage of this opportunity to cast a shadow upon his n a m e (D. R . S c h w a r t z 1990, 137-40). 25. A s M . Smith 1971, 122-23, has noted, in appointing, financing, and authorizing Ezra, the Per sian court was motivated not by pure piety but by practical reasons. In particular, E g y p t in 458 B.C.E., supported by some two hundred A t h e n i a n galleys, was in the midst of a major revolt against Persia; a n d the Athenians themselves were fighting on the coast o f Syria and Palestine, a mere fifty miles from Jerusalem. T h e loss o f Jerusalem w o u l d have cut the line o f communications between Persia a n d Egypt. 26.
O n the tide "friend o f the king," see D o n n e r 1961, 269-77. Cf. Ant. 13.45, where A l e x a n d e r
Balas, the king o f Syria, writes to J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n that he is electing him high priest o f the Jews with the tide o f "friend." Cf. also Ant. 14.250, where Josephus quotes a decree o f the R o m a n S e n ate exempting K i n g Ptolemy o f E g y p t from taxation on the ground that he is "our ally a n d friend."
IJ6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
B e r o d a c h - b a l a b a n , to b e c o m e his ally a n d " f r i e n d " (Ant. 10.30), as w e l l as to D a n i e l , w h o w a s g i v e n the e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y h i g h h o n o r of b e i n g d e s i g n a t e d b y K i n g D a r i u s o f M e d i a as the first o f his " f r i e n d s " (Ant. 10.263), a n d to Z e r u b b a b e l , w h o h a d a n " o l d f r i e n d s h i p " w i t h K i n g D a r i u s o f Persia a n d w h o w a s o n t h a t a c c o u n t " j u d g e d w o r t h y o f a p l a c e in the k i n g ' s b o d y g u a r d " (Ant. 11.32). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E z r a himself, J o s e p h u s ' s stress is o n his l o y a l service to the k i n g a n d o n his c o n c e r n for u p h o l d i n g the law. T h u s , w h e r e a s in 1 E s d r a s 8:36, it is the J e w i s h exiles w h o d e l i v e r the o r d e r s o f the P e r s i a n k i n g t o the g o v e r n o r s o f the p r o v i n c e A c r o s s the R i v e r , in J o s e p h u s , it is E z r a h i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 11.138); a n d this results, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a p o l o g e t i c a d d i t i o n , in the g o v e r n o r s ' b e i n g c o m p e l l e d t o h o n o r the J e w i s h n a t i o n a n d to assist t h e m in all n e c e s s a r y w a y s . W h e r e a s w e are t o l d in the b i b l i c a l t e x t t h a t the l e a d e r s a n d p r i n c i p a l m e n o f the J e w s s h a r e d in the v i o l a t i o n o f the l a w (1 E s d r a s 8:70), a n d w h e r e a s w e are i n f o r m e d b y J o s e p h u s t h a t t h e y v i o l a t e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d b r o k e their a n c e s t r a l l a w s (Ant. 11.140), E z r a is s o u g h t b y s o m e o f the l e a d e r s to c o m e t o the a i d o f the l a w s (Ant. 11.141). It is this q u a l i t y o f o b e d i e n c e t o the l a w t h a t is stressed b y J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e (1 E s d r a s 8:68), w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t E z r a t o o k the l e a d e r s h i p in p l a n n i n g (i^ovXevaaro),
b u t t h a t it w a s d u e to G - d t h a t all
t u r n e d o u t w e l l for h i m , since G - d s a w fit to r e w a r d h i m for his g o o d n e s s (xprjarorrjTa)
a n d for his r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SiKcuoavvrjv) (Ant. 11.139). It is this latter
t e r m , " r i g h t e o u s n e s s , " t h a t is c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e l a w (81/07) (see F e l d m a n 1993b, 1 9 8 - 2 0 4 ) . A litmus test is J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d G e d a l i a h , w h o w a s a p p o i n t e d b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r as a p u p p e t g o v e r n o r o f J u d a e a (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 1-10). O n e w o u l d h a r d l y t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d e v i n c e s y m p a t h y for this p u p p e t g o v e r n o r — a c o l l a b o r a t o r o f a c o n q u e r i n g k i n g w h o h a d b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for the d e struction o f the T e m p l e , the c e n t r a l feature o f the religious s y s t e m o f the J e w s . How
to justify s u c h s u b s e r v i e n c e , w h e t h e r in the case o f G e d a l i a h o r in J o s e p h u s ' s
own
case, m u s t h a v e p r e s e n t e d J o s e p h u s w i t h a real p r o b l e m . H i s a n s w e r is t h a t it
was
a c a s e o f m i l i t a r y necessity. T h a t t h e r e w a s n o m i l i t a r y possibility o f c o n t i n u
ing
the w a r a g a i n s t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t
10.155)
t n a t
(Ant.
t h o s e w h o w e r e left in J u d a e a a n d o v e r w h o m G e d a l i a h w a s m a d e g o v
e r n o r w e r e the p o o r (so also Jer. 40:7) a n d the deserters ( J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n ) . On
the o t h e r h a n d , in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f I s h m a e l , the s o n o f N e t h a n i a h , w h o
was r e s p o n s i b l e for the assassination o f G e d a l i a h , J o s e p h u s refers to h i m as w i c k e d (TTOVTJPOS) a n d v e r y crafty (SOXIMTCLTOS)
(Ant. 10.160). It is n o c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t these
epithets are also, o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s , u s e d of J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , J o s e p h u s ' s bitter r i v a l (Life 85, 102; War 2.585, 4.208, 4.389, 5.441). I n his p o r t r a y a l o f D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to stress D a n i e l ' s l o y a l t y to his s o v e r e i g n a n d , in particular, his c o n c e r n n o t to a p p e a r b r a z e n . H e n c e , w h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, D a n i e l g o e s d i r e c d y t o K i n g N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , a s k i n g h i m to give h i m t i m e to solve the riddle o f his d r e a m ( D a n . 2:16), J o s e p h u s ' s D a n i e l o b s e r v e s p r o t o c o l in r e q u e s t i n g the c o m m a n d e r o f the k i n g ' s b o d y g u a r d , A r i o c h e s , to a p -
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
757
p r o a c h t h e k i n g in o r d e r to p u t o f f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e k i n g ' s w i s e m e n for a d a y (Ant 10.198). T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s h i g h l y sensitive to t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s w e r e d i s l o y a l to t h e r e i g n i n g a u t h o r i t y m a y b e s e e n in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h certain C h a l d a e a n s accuse the Jewish youths S h a d r a c h , M e s h a c h , a n d A b e d n e g o , w h o m N e b u c h a d n e z z a r h a d a p p o i n t e d to h i g h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e posts, o f p a y i n g n o h e e d to h i m , as w i t n e s s e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e y d i d n o t serve his g o d s o r w o r s h i p his i m a g e — o b v i o u s l y i m p o r t a n t s y m b o l s in m a i n t a i n i n g t h e u n i t y a n d a l l e g i a n c e o f the m a n y e t h n i c g r o u p s in his k i n g d o m ( D a n . 3 : 8 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e is careful to shift t h e e m p h a s i s f r o m t h e failure o f t h e J e w s t o serve N e b u c h a d n e z zar's g o d s a n d to w o r s h i p his i m a g e — a p o l i t i c a l d e m a n d — t o t h e religious m o t i v e o f the y o u t h s — n a m e l y , t h e i r u n w i l l i n g n e s s to transgress t h e i r fathers' l a w s (Ant 10.214). I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s sensitivity to t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w s c o n s t i t u t e d a n a t i o n w i t h i n a n a t i o n , w h o s e a l l e g i a n c e , w h e r e v e r t h e y w e r e scattered, w a s to t h e L a n d o f Israel, a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e f o r e v e r s u b v e r s i v e until their r e t u r n f r o m c a p t i v ity, it is instructive to n o t e J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the w a r n i n g issued b y t h e p r o p h e t A z a r i a h to K i n g A s a . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , if the J e w s forsake G - d , H e w i l l p u n i s h t h e m b y f o r s a k i n g t h e m ; " t h e y w i l l b e b r o k e n in p i e c e s , n a tion a g a i n s t n a t i o n a n d city a g a i n s t c i t y " (2 C h r o n . 15:6). J o s e p h u s , in his p a r a phrase, i n t r o d u c e s a n e w e l e m e n t w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t as a p u n i s h m e n t ,
G-d
will scatter t h e J e w s o v e r the f a c e o f the e a r t h , so t h a t t h e y w i l l l e a d a life as aliens (€7rr)Xvv) a n d w a n d e r e r s (dXrfrrjv) (Ant 8 . 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) . F r o m this w e m i g h t c o n c l u d e t h a t the D i a s p o r a is a c u r s e a n d a p u n i s h m e n t , w h e r e a s o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e p h u s , w h o s p e n t t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f his life in the D i a s p o r a u n d e r R o m a n p r o t e c tion, to h a v e glorified this e v e n t in J e w i s h history, since h e c l e a r l y o p p o s e d a n in dependent Jewish state.
27
H o w e v e r , w e m u s t n o t e t h a t t h e r e is n o h i n t h e r e o f t h e
traditional J e w i s h h o p e t h a t t h e J e w s w i l l s o m e d a y b e g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r f r o m t h e exile a n d r e t u r n to t h e L a n d o f Israel.
RESPONSE TO PROSELYTISM O n e o f t h e m o s t serious c h a r g e s m a d e a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s a g g r e s s i v e n e s s in p r o s elytism (see F e l d m a n 1993, 2 8 8 - 3 4 1 ) . T h u s H o r a c e , in t h e first c e n t u r y B.C.E., speaks o f t h e m i s s i o n a r y z e a l o f t h e J e w s as s o m e t h i n g p r o v e r b i a l : " W e , like t h e J e w s , will c o m p e l y o u to j o i n o u r t h r o n g " (Satires 1.4.139-43). A l t h o u g h satirists e x a g g e r a t e , the p o i n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n lost if t h e r e h a d n o t b e e n s o m e basis to t h e c h a r g e o f m i s s i o n a r y activity. J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y T a c i t u s a l l u d e s bitterly to the m i s s i o n a r y z e a l o f t h e J e w s , n o t i n g t h a t the m o s t d e g r a d e d o f o t h e r r a c e s ,
27. Pace S h o c h a t 1953, 43-50, w h o points to this passage as evidence that Josephus viewed the D i aspora as a punishment.
158
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s c o r n i n g t h e p e o p l e s o f their o r i g i n , b r o u g h t to the J e w s their c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d gifts, thus a u g m e n t i n g the J e w s ' w e a l t h (Histories 5.5). T h e R o m a n s w e r e p a r t i c u larly sensitive to the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a p r o s e l y t e give u p his b e l i e f in the R o m a n g o d s , since for t h e m r e l i g i o n a n d state w e r e o n e a n d indivisible, a n d since t h e y b e l i e v e d t h a t the g r o w t h a n d t r i u m p h o f R o m e w e r e d u e t o the f a v o r o f the g o d s , as w e see t h r o u g h o u t the e a r l y b o o k s o f L i v y ' s history. C o n v e r t s t o J u d a i s m , o n the o t h e r h a n d , a c c o r d i n g to T a c i t u s , w e r e t a u g h t to despise all the g o d s , to d i s o w n their country, a n d to d i s r e g a r d their families. P e r c e i v i n g a d e c l i n e in p i e t y (see, for e x a m p l e , the p r e f a c e t o L i v y ' s history), the R o m a n s b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y bitter a b o u t those w h o w e r e t r y i n g t o d r a w t h e m a w a y f r o m their a n c e s t r a l r e l i g i o n a n d v a l u e s . T h e e x p u l s i o n o f 139 B.C.E. (as re p o r t e d b y V a l e r i u s M a x i m u s 1.3.3)
a
n
o
o
a p p a r e n d y , t h a t o f 19 C . E . ( J o s e p h u s , Ant.
1 8 . 8 1 - 8 4 ; T a c i t u s , Annals 2.85.4; S u e t o n i u s , Tiberius 3 6 . 1 ; D i o C a s s i u s 5 7 . 1 8 . 5 a )
28
w e r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h the a l l e g e d a t t e m p t s o f the J e w s to c o n v e r t n o n - J e w s to J u d a i s m ; a n d w e m i g h t n o t e t h a t s u c h drastic a c t i o n h a d t a k e n p l a c e despite the g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e attitude o f the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t t o w a r d the J e w s . It is surely significant t h a t in the Antiquities, aside f r o m the p a s s a g e a b o u t the c o n v e r s i o n o f the r o y a l f a m i l y o f A d i a b e n e (Ant. 2 0 . 1 7 - 9 6 ) ( w h i c h w a s , after all, u n d e r P a r t h i a n d o m i n a t i o n a n d h e n c e o f n o i m m e d i a t e c o n c e r n to the R o m a n s ) , J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e p r o p a g a n d i z e s for p r o s e l y t i s m as s u c h . If, in t h e essay Against Apion, h e d e c l a r e s (2.261) t h a t the J e w s g l a d l y w e l c o m e a n y w h o w i s h t o share their c u s t o m s , h e is careful to n o t e t h a t J e w s d o n o t take the initiative in s e e k i n g o u t t o
p r o s e l y t e s a n d that, in fact, t h e y t a k e p r e c a u t i o n s ( 2 . 2 5 7 ) p r e v e n t f o r e i g n e r s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h t h e m at r a n d o m . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h a t w h e n the G a l i l e a n J e w s tried to c o m p e l s o m e non-Jews to b e c i r c u m c i s e d as a c o n d i t i o n for d w e l l i n g a m o n g t h e m , h e refused to a l l o w a n y c o m p u l s i o n t o b e u s e d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t e v e r y o n e s h o u l d w o r s h i p G - d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the dictates o f his o w n c o n s c i e n c e (Life 113). O n e w o u l d h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e in 70 C.E. a n d the t r e m e n d o u s loss o f p r e s t i g e for the J e w s t h a t m u s t h a v e a c c o m p a n i e d it w o u l d h a v e d e a l t the p r o s e l y t i z i n g m o v e m e n t a b l o w f r o m w h i c h it w o u l d n o t h a v e r e c o v e r e d . A n d y e t , it w a s after this p e r i o d t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t w a s a p p a r e n d y m o s t success ful in official circles in R o m e , e s p e c i a l l y u n d e r D o m i t i a n , p r e c i s e l y the t i m e
2 9
when
28. See A b e l 1968, 383-86. Williams 1989, 765-84, argues that the expulsion o f 19 C.E. w a s the conventional response o f a beleaguered administration to a group d e e m e d to be posing a threat to law a n d order, but her case is hardly convincing. Moreover, according to Suetonius (Claudius 25.4), the e m peror Claudius in the middle o f the first century expelled the Jews, w h o h a d been constandy making disturbances at the instigation o f Chrestus (presumably Christus), from R o m e . T h e N e w Testament (Acts 18:2) explicidy states, in agreement with Suetonius, that Claudius c o m m a n d e d all the Jews to leave R o m e . 29. Josephus (Ant. 20.267) says that he completed his Antiquities in the thirteenth year o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n , that is, 93-94.
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
759
30
J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g the Antiquities ( G r a e t z 1 8 8 4 ) . I n d e e d , in the r e i g n o f D o m i t i a n (95 C.E.), w e h e a r t h a t F l a v i u s C l e m e n s , the c o u s i n o f D o m i t i a n , a n d his wife, F l a v i a D o m i t i l l a , the e m p e r o r ' s n i e c e , w e r e c h a r g e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h m a n y o t h e r s , w i t h a t h e i s m a n d w i t h h a v i n g drifted (igoKeWovres) (rd ro)v lovhaiaiv
i n t o the p r a c t i c e s o f the J e w s
rjdrj) ( D i o C a s s i u s 67.14; cf. S u e t o n i u s , Domitian 15.1). I n v i e w o f
D i o ' s l a n g u a g e , a n d e s p e c i a l l y the w o r d "drifted," w e c a n n o t b e sure t h a t it w a s a question o f actual proselytes; they m a y rather have b e e n "sympathizers" w h o adopted certain Jewish practices without actually converting.
31
I n a n y c a s e , in a
bitter attack, J u v e n a l ( 1 4 . 9 6 - 1 0 6 ) c h a r g e s t h a t s y m p a t h y w i t h J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s i n o n e g e n e r a t i o n l e a d s in the n e x t g e n e r a t i o n to full c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m . J o s e p h u s therefore h a d to b e e x t r e m e l y careful n o t to offend his R o m a n hosts b y r e f e r r i n g t o the i n r o a d s t h a t the J e w s h a d m a d e t h r o u g h p r o s e l y t i s m into the R o m a n p o p u l a c e . I n d e e d , his a i m in the Antiquities is t o follow in the footsteps o f P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s in s e e k i n g to m a k e the B i b l e b e t t e r k n o w n a n d c o n s e q u e n d y to g a i n r e s p e c t for the J e w s , r a t h e r t h a n to c o n v e r t the p a g a n s . O n e sees this sensitivity t o the c h a r g e o f p r o s e l y t i s m in J o s e p h u s p a r t i c u l a r l y in his h a n d l i n g o f t h e J e t h r o e p i s o d e . I n the B i b l e , the fact t h a t J e t h r o blesses G - d for h a v i n g d e l i v e r e d the Israelites f r o m the E g y p t i a n s a n d e v e n offers a sacrifice to G - d ( E x o d . 1 8 : 8 - 1 2 ) w o u l d l e a d the r e a d e r to a s s u m e t h a t J e t h r o h a d c o n v e r t e d to J u d a i s m .
3 2
J o s e p h u s q u i t e carefully o m i t s J e t h r o ' s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t G - d ' s g r e a t
ness a n d h a s M o s e s offer the sacrifice (Ant. 3.63). M o r e o v e r , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g a b o u t R u t h ' s c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d t o a v o i d l e n d i n g c r e d e n c e t o the c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s w e r e a g g r e s s i v e missionaries (see F e l d m a n 1991c, 5 0 - 5 2 ) . A c c o r d i n g to the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n K i n g A s a o f J u d a h w a s g a t h e r i n g his
30. U n d o u b t e d l y the main reasons for the success o f proselytism were political, social, a n d reli gious developments in R o m e itself and, above all, the inherent appeal o f Judaism. See Feldman 1993a, 288-341. Perhaps this success w a s also, in part, o w i n g to admiration for the heroism that the Jews h a d shown in the great w a r against the R o m a n s . T h u s , even Tacitus, although showing utter contempt for the Jews, grudgingly admits that during the siege "both m e n and w o m e n showed the same determina tion; and if they were forced to change their h o m e , they feared life more than death" (Histories 5.13.3). D i o Cassius (66.5), in a detail omitted, one w o u l d guess, intentionally by the p r o - R o m a n Josephus, notes that a n u m b e r o f R o m a n soldiers defected to the Jews during the course o f the siege, persuaded that the city was actually impregnable. W e m a y further suggest that Josephus's extensive account o f the defenders o f M a s a d a (War 7.252-406), w h i c h w a s relatively unimportant from a military point o f view, and o f their grisly act o f committing mutually assisted suicide rather than submitting to the R o m a n s , might have aroused the admiration o f the R o m a n s , as, indeed, it did o f the R o m a n soldiers w h o en tered M a s a d a a n d w h o were "incredulous o f such a m a z i n g fortitude" (War 7.405). 31. Christian tradition makes C l e m e n s and Domitilla martyrs during Domitian's persecution o f the Christians; but by the time o f D i o (150-235) the distinction between Jews a n d Christians w a s p r o b ably clear to the R o m a n world, as L e o n i 9 6 0 , 3 3 - 3 4 , remarks, although D i o himself never mentions the Christians by name. 32. In the rabbinic tradition, Jethro is represented as a proselyte (Exodus Rabbah 1.32; Tanhuma B , Exodus 71).
i6o
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
a r m y , a n u m b e r o f J e w s f r o m t h e k i n g d o m o f Israel w h o h a p p e n e d to b e s o j o u r n i n g in the k i n g d o m o f J u d a h d e s e r t e d t o h i m w h e n t h e y s a w t h a t G - d w a s w i t h h i m (2 C h r o n . 15:9). T h e S e p t u a g i n t , in its v e r s i o n o f this p a s s a g e , d e c l a r e s t h a t Asa
assembled the
(irpooT)\vTovs)
tribes
of Judah
and
Benjamin,
together
with
strangers
t h a t d w e l t w i t h t h e m . T h e w o r d h e r e t r a n s l a t e d as " s t r a n g e r s " is the
s a m e as t h e w o r d for p r o s e l y t e s a n d i m p l i e s t h a t t h e y w e r e a c t u a l l y c o n v e r t s . J o s e p h u s , i n his sensitivity to t h e issue, o m i t s this p a s s a g e (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 56). A g a i n , in t h e J o n a h p e r i c o p e , it is c l e a r t h a t the B i b l e l o o k s u p o n t h e p e o p l e o f N i n e v e h n o t o n l y as r e p e n t i n g b u t also as a c t u a l l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e G - d o f Is 33
r a e l , a n d h e n c e o f c o n v e r t i n g t o J u d a i s m ( J o n a h 3 : 5 ) . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , totally o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t the N i n e v i t e s b e l i e v e d in G - d . H e a v o i d s t h e issue b y s i m p l y n o t i n d i c a t i n g to w h i c h g o d s t h e sailors a r e p r a y i n g (Ant. 9.209) (see F e l d m a n i992d, 21-26). Moreover, the biblical statement that the Ninevites feared the L - r d exceedingly ( J o n a h 1:16) m i g h t w e l l h a v e r u n g a b e l l a m o n g r e a d e r s as a r e f e r e n c e to t h e socalled " G - d - f e a r e r s , " w h o accepted certain practices of Judaism without actually c o n v e r t i n g (see F e l d m a n , 1993, 3 4 2 - 8 2 ) , a n d w h o are w e l l k n o w n f r o m the e l e v e n p a s s a g e s i n A c t s (10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 4 3 , 50; 16:14, 17:4, 17; 18.7) r e f e r r i n g to <^oj8ou/x€vot TOV Oeov ("fearers o f G - d " ) a n d aePofxevoi rov Oeov ( " r e v e r e n c e r s o f G-d")
a n d f r o m t h e p a s s a g e in J u v e n a l r e f e r r i n g to o n e w h o fears (metuentem) t h e
Sabbath
and
who
has
a
son
who
eventually becomes
a full-fledged
Jew
( 1 4 . 9 6 - 1 0 6 ) . It is t r u e t h a t these t e r m s , in a n d o f t h e m s e l v e s , d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y refer to " s y m p a t h i z e r s " a n d m a y , i n d e e d , d e n o t e p i o u s J e w s , as I h a v e n o t e d (1950, 200-208). B u t t h e n e w inscriptions f r o m A p h r o d i s i a s m a k e it m o r e likely t h a t these a r e i n d e e d t e r m s r e f e r r i n g to " s y m p a t h i z e r s , " at least in the t h i r d century, the a p p a r e n t d a t e o f the inscriptions (see F e l d m a n 1 9 8 6 a , 5 8 - 6 9 , a n d 1 9 8 9 a , 2 6 5 - 3 0 5 ) .
34
SUMMARY A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s h a d earlier d e c i d e d n o t t o r e c o u n t the h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s , d e t e r r e d b y t h e s h e e r m a s s i v e n e s s o f t h e u n d e r t a k i n g , h e e v e n t u a l l y c h a n g e d his m i n d , w h e t h e r it w a s b e c a u s e h e felt t h a t it h a d b e c o m e i m p e r a t i v e to d e f e n d the J e w s a g a i n s t c h a r g e s l o d g e d a g a i n s t t h e m o r b e c a u s e the a c c o u n t s o f J e w i s h his-
33. This is the rabbinic tradition as well (Tanhuma Vayikra 8 end; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 10.72-73; Midrash Jonah 97). 34. T h e r e can be n o doubt that by the third century, there was a class of "sympathizers," as is clear from a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 3.2.74a; see the discussion o f this passage in Lieberman 1942, 78-80) that quotes R a b b i Eleazar, a third-century Palestinian rabbi, as saying that only the Gentiles w h o h a d h a d nothing to d o with the Jews during their bitter past would not be permitted to convert to Judaism in the time o f the messiah, but that those "Heaven-fearers" (yirei shamayim) w h o h a d shared the tribulations o f Israel would be accepted as full proselytes, with the emperor Antoninus at their head. Attempts to identify "Antoninus" with any o f the Antonine or Severan emperors at the end of the second or at the beginning o f the third century have proven unsuccessful. See G u t m a n n 1971.
JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST
161
t o r y in t h e S e p t u a g i n t o r e l s e w h e r e w e r e i n a d e q u a t e , p a r t i c u l a r l y f r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f style. I n his c o n c e r n to a n s w e r t h e c h a r g e t h a t the B i b l e l a c k e d historicity, J o s e p h u s f o u n d it p a r t i c u l a r l y effective to cite the s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e o f several n o n - J e w i s h writers, n o t a b l y B e r o s s u s , H i e r o n y m u s , M n a s e a s o f P a t a r a , M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s , a n d N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , as w e l l as G l e o d e m u s - M a l c h u s ( s u p p o s e d l y a n o n Jew), for c e r t a i n b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s a n d p e r s o n a l i t i e s — n a m e l y , t h e F l o o d , A b r a h a m , S o l o m o n , a n d Elijah. I n particular, J o s e p h u s felt a n e e d to a n s w e r t h e c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s h a t e d non-Jews. H e is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s , in h a v i n g n o n J e w s , s u c h as J e t h r o a n d B a l a a m , p r a i s e J e w s . H e l i k e w i s e s h o w s his l i b e r a l attitude t o w a r d n o n - J e w s b y p r e s e n t i n g s u c h p e r s o n a l i t i e s as B a l a a m , N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , D a r i u s , a n d the p h a r a o h s o f A b r a h a m ' s , J o s e p h ' s , a n d e v e n M o s e s ' d a y in a m o r e favorable light. J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h a v e b e e n w e l l a w a r e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e a n d as similation, a n d his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e sin o f t h e Israelite m e n w i t h t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n a n d o f S a m s o n ' s m a r r i a g e s to n o n - J e w s reflects this; b u t , sensitive as h e was to the a c c u s a t i o n o f m i s a n t h r o p y , his o p p o s i t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is b a s e d n o t so m u c h o n his a b h o r r e n c e o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e as s u c h as o n his insistence t h a t o n e o u g h t n o t to s u b m i t to p a s s i o n , g r o u n d s t h a t w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d to S t o i c s in his a u d i e n c e . E v e n E z r a ' s s t r o n g d e n u n c i a t i o n o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e is t o n e d d o w n , a n d the initiative is said t o c o m e f r o m others. S u c h resistance to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is b a s e d o n political g r o u n d s — t h e n e e d for t h e state to p r e s e r v e t h e h o m o g e n e o u s c h a r a c ter o f its p o p u l a t i o n . J o s e p h u s a p p e a l s to the p o l i t i c a l interests o f his a u d i e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y in his d e scription o f t h e terrible c o n s e q u e n c e s o f lawlessness a n d civil strife, s u c h as h a d cost the J e w s so h e a v i l y in t h e g r e a t w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s in 6 6 - 7 4 . T h e R o m a n s , w h o t h e m s e l v e s h a d e x p e r i e n c e d a c e n t u r y o f i n t e r m i t t e n t civil w a r f r o m the t i m e o f t h e G r a c c h i in 133 B.C.E. t o t h e battle o f A c t i u m in 31 B.C.E., w o u l d h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d his r e m a r k s . H e h i g h l i g h t s this t h e m e p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f the rebellions o f K o r a h , A b s a l o m , a n d J e r o b o a m ; b e c a u s e h e p l a y e d the k e y role in splitting t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e into t w o nations, J e r o b o a m e m e r g e s as e v e n w o r s e t h a n A h a b a n d M a n a s s e h in J o s e p h u s ' s eyes. I n a n a l y z i n g t h e c a u s e s o f d e g e n e r acy, J o s e p h u s stresses n o t o n l y civil strife b u t also l u x u r y a n d p r o s p e r i t y as k e y fac tors. T h e i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , in J o s e p h u s ' s view, is aristocracy, w h i c h h e i d e n tifies w i t h t h e o c r a c y a n d w i t h t h e rule o f law. H e s h o w s c o n t e m p t for the i g n o r a n t a n d fickle m o b , as w e see in his t r e a t m e n t o f their attitude t o w a r d R e h o b o a m , a n d n o less for d e m a g o g u e s , as w e see in his p e r i c o p e o n A b s a l o m . T h e w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t for J o s e p h u s , as for P l a t o , is tyranny, as e v i d e n c e d in the rule o f A b i m e l e c h the s o n o f G i d e o n ; a n d h e c o n s t a n t l y stresses t h e t h e m e o f liberty. Faced with the contradictory charges that the J e w s w e r e a nation o f weaklings a n d t h a t t h e y w e r e a n a t i o n o f rebels, J o s e p h u s in his b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e c a r e f u l l y
162
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
e m p h a s i z e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f J o s e p h , b o t h the m i g h t o f the J e w s a n d their l o y a l t y to their rulers. J o s e p h u s m a k e s a s p e c i a l effort to refute the c h a r g e s o f d u a l l o y a l t y a n d e c o n o m i c a g g r e s s i v e n e s s . I n v i e w o f the e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e , J o s e p h u s is careful t o p a i n t a m o r e positive p i c t u r e o f E s a u . Similarly, in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t t r a d i t i o n s p o k e o f D a v i d as the a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h , o n e o f w h o s e c h i e f functions w a s t o establish a n i n d e p e n d e n t s t a t e — a role t h a t w o u l d c l e a r l y b e offensive to the R o m a n s — J o s e p h u s is careful to a v o i d m e n t i o n o f D a v i d as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h . W h e r e a s a m o n g the masses, E l i j a h w a s m o r e p o p u l a r t h a n E l i s h a , J o s e p h u s favors E l i s h a , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e E l i j a h w a s identified as a z e a l o t a n d as the f o r e r u n n e r o f the m e s s i a h . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s is d e l i b e r a t e l y e v a s i v e in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s d r e a m p r e d i c t i n g t h e c o m i n g o f a m e s s i a h . W e m a y e x p l a i n J o s e p h u s ' s a m b i g u o u s c o m m e n t a b o u t D a n i e l ' s refer e n c e to the R o m a n E m p i r e as o c c a s i o n e d b y his role as a p r o t e g e o f the r u l i n g F l a v i a n family. Similarly, J o s e p h u s shifts the e m p h a s i s f r o m the c o v e n a n t e d l a n d o f Is rael, w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n offensive to his R o m a n p a t r o n s , to the b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e c o r r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the r u l i n g p o w e r is e x e m p l i fied b y J e h o i a c h i n , G e d a l i a h , D a n i e l , a n d E z r a , all o f w h o m w e r e p r o p e r l y s u b missive. T h e R o m a n s w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive a b o u t the a p p a r e n d y h u g e success o f the J e w s in w i n n i n g c o n v e r t s , since t h e y r e g a r d e d this as u n d e r m i n i n g the R o m a n state, w h i c h , in their view, h a d t r i u m p h e d b e c a u s e o f their d e v o t i o n to their g o d s . It is significant that, aside f r o m his a c c o u n t o f the c o n v e r s i o n o f the r o y a l f a m i l y o f A d i a b e n e , w h i c h w a s , after all, o u t s i d e the R o m a n E m p i r e , J o s e p h u s a v o i d s p r o p a g a n d i z i n g for p r o s e l y t i s m . O n e sees this sensitivity in his h a n d l i n g o f the episodes o f Jethro, Ruth, and J o n a h .
C H A P T E R
FIVE
Stylistic and Other Changes
I n v i e w o f his i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e , J o s e p h u s s o u g h t n o t o n l y to a n s w e r the c h a r g e s of e n e m i e s o f t h e J e w s b u t also to i m p r o v e u p o n t h e style o f his s o u r c e s . A s to t h e latter, J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t h e p r o p o s e s to set forth t h e details o f b i b l i c a l h i s t o r y in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r p r o p e r o r d e r (Kara TTJV OIKICLV
ra^iv), u s i n g t h e m i l i t a r y
t e r m rd£is ( a r r a n g e m e n t o r o r d e r o f t r o o p s , battle a r r a y o r o r d e r o f battle), as if h e w e r e in literature t h e g e n e r a l h e h a d b e e n in t h e field d u r i n g t h e w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s (Ant. 1.17). A t t h e e n d o f his s u m m a r y o f the l a w s , h e d e c l a r e s a p o l o g e t i cally t h a t h e h a s a d d e d n o t h i n g for t h e sake o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t , a n d t h a t his o n e in n o v a t i o n h a s b e e n to classify (rd£ai) t h e subjects (Ant. 4.197); a g a i n t h e v e r b t h a t h e uses h a s m i l i t a r y c o n n o t a t i o n s , s i g n i f y i n g d r a w i n g u p t r o o p s in o r d e r of b a t d e . T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s uses the word rd^is a n d its r e l a t e d v e r b rdrroj
indicates that
h e c o n c e i v e d o f his task as the careful m a r s h a l i n g o f his d a t a . I n a r e v e a l i n g r e m a r k , h e states t h a t M o s e s left his w r i t i n g s in d i s a r r a y (o7ropdor)v, s c a t t e r e d like seed), j u s t as h e h a d r e c e i v e d t h e m f r o m G - d (Ant. 4.197). J o s e p h u s c o n c e i v e d o f his task as b e i n g similar, w e m a y s u g g e s t , to t h a t o f the A t h e n i a n Peisistratus, w h o s o u g h t to b r i n g o r d e r into the c h a o t i c state o f the G r e e k e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e B i b l e , the H o m e r i c p o e m s . I n d e e d , significandy, in c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e state in w h i c h M o s e s left the S c r i p t u r e s , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e w o r d , G7Topd8rjv, t h a t is u s e d to d e s c r i b e t h e d i s a r r a y o f H o m e r ' s p o e m s (Palatine Anthology 11.442). J o s e p h u s u n d e r t o o k to r e a r r a n g e t h e b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l , w i t h i n , o f c o u r s e , a b r o a d l y s e q u e n t i a l story, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e " t h e m a t i c " s c h o o l f o l l o w e d b y a n u m b e r o f H e l l e n i s tic historians ( A v e n a r i u s 1 9 5 6 , 1 1 9 - 2 7 ; S.J. D . C o h e n 1 9 7 9 , 3 9 - 4 2 ) . H e t h e r e b y b r o u g h t i n t o j u x t a p o s i t i o n t h o s e i t e m s t h a t b e l o n g e d t o g e t h e r o n t h e basis o f s u b j e c t , r e g a r d l e s s o f c h r o n o l o g y o r s o u r c e . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e first h a s t h e s t o r y of N o a h ' s d r u n k e n n e s s a n d his c u r s i n g o f C a n a a n , t h e s o n of H a m ( G e n . 9:20-25), a n d t h e n h a s t h e d e t a i l e d g e n e a l o g i e s of all o f N o a h ' s sons, J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s in se-
163
164
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
q u e n c e t h e g e n e a l o g y o f H a m ' s sons, i n c l u d i n g C a n a a n (Ant. 1.130-39), a n d t h e a c c o u n t o f N o a h ' s c u r s e u p o n C a n a a n (Ant. 1.140-42). W i t h D a v i d ' s c e n s u s (2 S a m . 2 4 : 1 - 2 5 ) , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 7 . 3 1 8 - 3 4 ) h a s r e a r r a n g e d t h e m a t e r i a l in a m o r e l o g i c a l f a s h i o n ( B e g g 1994b, 224); a n d in his r e w r i t i n g o f 2 K i n g s 1:2-17 a n d 1 3 : 1 0 - 2 5 , h e (Ant. 9 . 1 9 - 2 7 a n d 1 7 7 - 8 5 ) h a s r e p l a c e d t h e B i b l e ' s p a r a t a x i s w i t h a h y p o t a x i s m o r e t y p i c a l o f G r e e k u s a g e ( B e g g 1 9 9 5 a , 38; 1994c, 43; 1 9 9 5 b , 27). I n his r e w r i t i n g o f his s o u r c e , J o s e p h u s , like t h e r h e t o r i c i a n , is c o n s t a n d y c o n c e r n e d w i t h h o w his w o r k w i l l s o u n d to t h e ear. H e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e is i n c l i n e d to o m i t , b e c a u s e o f their s t r a n g e n e s s to a G r e e k ear, the n a m e s o f t h e s e v e n t y d e s c e n d a n t s o f J a c o b w h o w e n t d o w n t o E g y p t (Ant. 1.176-77); b u t h e e n d s u p c i t i n g t h e n a m e s , o n l y to refute t h o s e o p p o n e n t s o f t h e J e w s w h o h a d c o n t e n d e d t h a t the J e w s w e r e o f E g y p t i a n rather than o f M e s o p o t a m i a n origin. O n the other h a n d , he o m i t s t h e n a m e s o f the families t h a t r e t u r n e d to J e r u s a l e m f r o m B a b y l o n i a n c a p tivity ( E z r a 2 : 2 - 6 1 , 1 E s d r a s 5 : 4 - 3 8 , Ant. 11.68), the n a m e s o f t h o s e J e w s w h o sent a w a y their f o r e i g n w i v e s at t h e r e q u e s t o f E z r a ( E z r a 1 0 : 1 8 - 4 4 , 1 E s d r a s 9 : 1 8 - 3 5 , Ant. 11.152), t h e n a m e s o f K i n g A h a s u e r u s ' s s e v e n c h a m b e r l a i n s (Esther 1:10, Ant. 11.190), the n a m e s o f his s e v e n c o u n s e l o r s (Esther 1:14, Ant. 11.192), a n d t h o s e o f H a m a n ' s t e n sons (Esther 9 : 7 - 9 , Ant. 11.289). I n a n y case, w e m a y n o t e t h a t in p a r a p h r a s i n g
t h e Letter of Aristeas
(Ant.
1 2 . 1 1 - 1 1 8 ) , aside f r o m a single b r o k e n s e q u e n c e o f t w e l v e w o r d s a n d a n o t h e r o f t e n w o r d s , J o s e p h u s d e l i b e r a t e l y v a r i e s t h e l a n g u a g e o f his s o u r c e , e v e n g o i n g so far as t o substitute s y n o n y m s for i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s , a l t e r i n g the prefixes in his v e r b s , a n d v a r y i n g t h e s y n t a x , a l t h o u g h h e sticks t o t h e s e q u e n c e o f events in t h e o r i g i n a l (Pel letier 1962a). I n this a v o i d a n c e o f c o p y i n g t h e l a n g u a g e o f his s o u r c e , J o s e p h u s is f o l l o w i n g A e s c h i n e s (2.172-76) in his p a r a p h r a s e o f A n d o c i d e s (3.3-12), as w e l l as L i v y ' s p a r a p h r a s e (7.9.6-10.14) o f C l a u d i u s Q u a d r i g a r i u s , L i v y ' s v e r s i o n o f P o l y bius, D i o d o r u s ' s v e r s i o n o f A g a t h a r c h i d e s , a n d P l u t a r c h ' s p a r a p h r a s e (in his life o f C o r i o l a n u s ) o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s (S.J. D . C o h e n 1 9 7 9 , 2 9 - 3 1 ) . I n J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f t h e B i b l e , w e also see this t e n d e n c y to r e p l a c e v e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n w i t h v a r i e d f o r m u l a t i o n s a n d to r e p l a c e d i r e c t w i t h i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e (see, e.g., B e g g 1 9 9 5 a , 38). A p p a r e n d y , t h e r e w a s a l w a y s the fear o f t h e d r e a d e d a c c u s a t i o n o f plagiarism.
R E S O L U T I O N O F DIFFICULTIES AND C O N T R A D I C T I O N S IN THE T E X T G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , J o s e p h u s ' s w a y o f h a n d l i n g p r o b l e m p a s s a g e s is n o t to o m i t t h e m , i n a s m u c h as, p r e s u m a b l y , s o m e o f his r e a d e r s , n o t a b l y t h o s e w h o h a d a c c e s s 1
to the S e p t u a g i n t , w o u l d h a v e r e g a r d e d t h a t as b l a t a n t c e n s o r s h i p . H i s p r e f e r r e d
1. T h e s e would, for the most part, be Jews. W h i l e it is true that Josephus intended his work chiefly for non-Jews, his comments, particularly with regard to the danger o f assimilation, were, it w o u l d seem, directed at Jews.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
165
m e t h o d is r a t h e r t o r e i n t e r p r e t the p a s s a g e s . For e x a m p l e , in his v e r s i o n o f the scene o f J a c o b ' s d e c e p t i o n o f his father in o r d e r to o b t a i n the blessing, J o s e p h u s transfers the b l a m e c o m p l e t e l y to R e b e k a h (Ant. 1.269). A s to J a c o b ' s t r i c k e r y in his d e a l i n g s w i t h L a b a n , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the effusive craftiness o f L a b a n (Ant. 1.297). I n his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g G e n t i l e r e a d e r s , J o s e p h u s is careful to stress t h a t S i m e o n a n d L e v i , in m a s s a c r i n g the S h e c h e m i t e s , d i d so w i t h o u t their father's p e r m i s s i o n (Ant. 1.340). A s to J a c o b ' s favoritism t o w a r d J o s e p h , h e explains this as d u e to J o s e p h ' s v i r t u o u s qualities o f soul a n d p r o f o u n d
under
s t a n d i n g (Ant. 2.9). J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s S a u l ' s a t t e m p t s to kill D a v i d as the result o f a m e d i c a l disor d e r (Ant. 6.166); m o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s g r e a d y e x p a n d s o n S a u l ' s r e m o r s e (Ant. 6.317). H e e x p l a i n s S a u l ' s i r r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r t o w a r d his son J o n a t h a n b y n o t i n g t h a t S a u l w a s n o t r e a l l y a w a r e o f w h a t h e w a s d o i n g b u t r a t h e r w a s m o t i v a t e d b y s h e e r fear (Ant. 6.205). H e d e f e n d s S a u l ' s s e e m i n g l y i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e
s l a u g h t e r o f the
A m a l e k i t e w o m e n a n d infants b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e e n e m i e s a n d t h a t t h e d e e d w a s in fulfillment o f a d i v i n e c o m m a n d (Ant. 6.136). A s for D a v i d ' s sin w i t h B a t h s h e b a , J o s e p h u s , r a t h e r t h a n d e n y i n g it, e l a b o r a t e s o n D a v i d ' s r e m o r s e (Ant. 2
7-i3°)In his r e c a s t i n g o f the n a r r a t i v e , J o s e p h u s seeks to resolve t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s , as w e l l as o t h e r difficulties a n d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the text. T h u s in his p a r a p h r a s e o f G e n . 1:1 (Ant. 1.27), h e substitutes the v e r b e W i a e v , " f o u n d e d , " for the S e p t u agint's iiroirjoev,
" m a d e , " his p u r p o s e b e i n g , p r e s u m a b l y , to a v o i d the i n f e r e n c e
that G - d h a d c r e a t e d the w o r l d o u t o f p r e e x i s t i n g matter, since t h a t w o u l d b e i m p l i e d b y the use o f the v e r b iroiecx). T h a t this is a d e l i b e r a t e c h a n g e s e e m s clear, since J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e , i n c l u d i n g w o r d order, is e x a c d y the s a m e as it is in t h e S e p t u a g i n t (and P h i l o ) — e x c e p t for this o n e w o r d . A g a i n , it is b y n o m e a n s c l e a r w h a t G - d m e a n s w h e n H e says, " L e t t h e r e b e a firmament
in the m i d s t o f the w a t e r s , a n d let it d i v i d e the w a t e r s f r o m the w a t e r s "
( G e n . 1:6). J o s e p h u s clarifies the m a t t e r b y n o t i n g t h a t w h a t G - d d i d w a s to set the h e a v e n a b o v e the u n i v e r s e a n d to c o n g e a l ice a r o u n d it, t h u s e x p l a i n i n g , as the Bible d o e s not, the o r i g i n o f r a i n (Ant. 1.30). T h e r e is a g e n u i n e t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m in the use o f the p l u r a l " L e t us m a k e m a n in o u r i m a g e " ( G e n . 1:26), as i f G - d h a d c o l l a b o r a t o r s in H i s c r e a t i o n o f m a n 3
o r as i f G - d w e r e H i m s e l f a p l u r a l i t y o f forces, s u c h as a T r i n i t y . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f — p e r h a p s in a n s w e r to P l a t o (Timaeus 4 1 C , 42E) a n d P h i l o (De Opificio
Mundi
24.72), w h o h a d asserted t h a t G - d h a d e m p l o y e d c o l l a b o r a t o r s — s p e c i f i c a l l y
2. In contrast, the rabbis seek to exonerate D a v i d by declaring (Shabbat 56a) that he h a d decreed that everyone g o i n g to batde w a s required to divorce his wife, so that Bathsheba had actually been di vorced by U r i a h w h e n D a v i d had relations with her, or by asserting that he did not go through with the act at all (ibid.). 3. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbis (Megillah 9a), the translators o f the T o r a h into G r e e k changed the verse to read "I shall m a k e m a n . "
166
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
stresses t h a t G - d p e r f o r m e d his c r e a t i o n " n o t w i t h assistants, o f w h o m H e h a d n o n e e d " (Ag. Ap. 2.192). H e resolves this p r o b l e m b y asserting t h a t " o n this d a y also H e f o r m e d m a n . " A g a i n , b y o m i t t i n g the t r o u b l e s o m e p h r a s e " i n H i s i m a g e , " h e a v o i d s the p r o b l e m o f the a p p a r e n t
anthropomorphism.
J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.28) also o m i t s " t h e r e w a s e v e n i n g a n d t h e r e w a s m o r n i n g , o n e d a y " ( G e n . 1:5) b e c a u s e the J e w i s h d a y d o e s n o t e n d at sunrise a n d b e c a u s e there c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e b e e n e v e n i n g b e f o r e the d a y o n w h i c h light w a s c r e a t e d . I n the B i b l e , G - d tells A d a m t h a t h e will die o n the d a y h e eats f r o m the tree o f k n o w l e d g e ( G e n . 2:17). A d a m d o e s n o t die o n t h a t day, h o w e v e r ; in fact h e lives to b e 930. J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g the p h r a s e " o n the d a y " a n d b y g e n e r a l i z i n g that i f t h e y t o u c h e d the tree, it w o u l d b e the e n d o f A d a m a n d o f E v e (Ant. 1.40). W e m a y w e l l ask w h y J o s e p h u s , i m m e d i a t e l y after r e p o r t i n g the b i r t h o f C a i n a n d A b e l , states t h a t A d a m a n d E v e also h a d d a u g h t e r s (Ant. 1.52); the r e a s o n p r e s u m a b l y is t h a t o t h e r w i s e the r e a d e r w o u l d b e f o r c e d to c o n c l u d e t h a t C a i n h a d i m p r e g n a t e d his o w n m o t h e r . T h e r e a d e r o f the B i b l e m a y w e l l w o n d e r w h y G - d , b e i n g p e r f e c t a n d p r e s u m ably unchanging, should have changed His mind and repented creating m a n (Gen.
6:6).
The
oldest m a n u s c r i p t s
o f the
Septuagint
have
"was
angry"
(iveSvpLrjOr]); o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s r e a d " p o n d e r e d , " p r e s u m a b l y t o a v o i d this p r o b l e m . J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to a v o i d s u c h t h e o l o g i c a l h o r n e t s ' nests, solves the p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g the p a s s a g e a l t o g e t h e r (Ant. 1.73) (see F e l d m a n 1988b, 3 5 - 3 6 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s detail t h a t N o a h e m i g r a t e d to a n o t h e r c o u n t r y is u n i q u e to h i m (Ant. 1.74). H e i n t r o d u c e s it p r e s u m a b l y i n o r d e r to e x p l a i n h o w the a r k h a d c o m e t o rest in A r m e n i a . T h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t G - d s a w t h a t the w i c k e d n e s s o f m a n w a s g r e a t ( G e n . 6:5) a n d t h a t N o a h w a s a r i g h t e o u s a n d w h o l e h e a r t e d m a n ( G e n . 6:9), b u t the r e a d e r m a y w e l l w o n d e r w h y n e i t h e r G - d n o r N o a h d i d a n y t h i n g to g e t m a n k i n d to r e p e n t so as to avert d o o m . J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t N o a h u r g e d his fell o w m e n to reflect o n their errors a n d c h a n g e their w a y s (Ant. 1.74) (so also the r a b bis, Sanhedrin i o 8 a - b ) (see F e l d m a n 1988b, 4 0 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s carefully r e m a r k s t h a t G - d l o v e d N o a h for his r i g h t e o u s n e s s (Ant. 1.75 a n d 1.99) b u t o m i t s c o m p l e t e l y the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w a s p e r f e c t ( G e n . 6:9), p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e to s p e a k o f N o a h thus, e s p e c i a l l y in v i e w o f his d r u n k e n n e s s , w o u l d raise the q u e s t i o n o f in w h a t sense M o s e s a n d the T o r a h m a r k e d a n y a d vance. For J o s e p h u s ' s p a g a n G r e e k r e a d e r s , the r a i n b o w w a s a s y m b o l o f w a r (see, e.g., H o m e r , Iliad 17.547) a n d thus h a d the o p p o s i t e c o n n o t a t i o n t o t h a t in G e n e s i s . 4
J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s stating t h a t G - d c r e a t e d the r a i n b o w ( G e n . 9 : i 3 ) . H i s
4. T h e rabbis are troubled that G - d should have set the rainbow in the cloud as a kind o f after thought to the F l o o d and that H e seemingly did not have the foresight to do so earlier; hence they de clare Qhot 5.6) that G - d created the rainbow on the eve o f the Sabbath o f Creation.
*
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
167
solution is to s a y that G - d d i s p l a y e d (aTToa^fxalvoyv) the r a i n b o w (Ant. 1.103), w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y h a d b e e n c r e a t e d l o n g b e f o r e (see F e l d m a n 1988b, 5 2 - 5 3 ) . T h e r e a d e r m a y w e l l w o n d e r w h y N o a h d i d n o t c u r s e H a m , w h o h a d s e e n the n a k e d n e s s o f his father, N o a h , b u t r a t h e r H a m ' s s o n C a n a a n , w h o p r e s u m a b l y w a s guiltless. J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s , as the B i b l e ( G e n . 9:27) d o e s n o t , t h a t N o a h d i d n o t c u r s e H a m h i m s e l f b e c a u s e o f his n e a r n e s s o f k i n (Ant. 1.142) (see F e l d m a n 1998b, 54). It is n o t c l e a r f r o m the H e b r e w B i b l e w h e t h e r A b r a m g a v e a t e n t h o r h i m s e l f r e c e i v e d it f r o m M e l c h i z e d e k ( G e n . 14:20). J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.181) is h e r e in line w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t , the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 22, line 17), Jubilees (13:25-27), a n d the rabbis in i n t e r p r e t i n g
this p a s s a g e to m e a n
that A b r a m gave a tenth
to
Melchizedek. J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.6) s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t , w h i c h w o u l d s e e m to b e w r i t t e n f r o m a m u c h later v a n t a g e p o i n t , w h e n the Israelites h a d k i n g s , t h a t "these are the k i n g s t h a t r e i g n e d in E d o m b e f o r e there r e i g n e d a n y k i n g o v e r the children o f I s r a e l " ( G e n . 36:31). A n o t h e r o b s c u r i t y t h a t J o s e p h u s clarifies is the " s t r a n g e " fire t h a t N a d a b a n d A b i h u , the sons o f A a r o n , offered a n d o n a c c o u n t o f w h i c h t h e y suffered d e a t h 5
(Lev. 10: i ) . J o s e p h u s is u n i q u e in p r e s e n t i n g the r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e y b r o u g h t o n the altar n o t the i n c e n s e t h a t M o s e s h a d c o m m a n d e d b u t o n e t h e y h a d u s e d previously (Ant. 3.209) (see S h i n a n 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 0 1 - 1 4 ) . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s resolves the difficulty in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t that a l t e r n a t e s b e t w e e n v i e w i n g M o a b a n d M i d i a n as the Israelites' foes b y p r e s e n t i n g
the
episodes in N u m . 2 2 - 2 5 : 9 as a single e v e n t , a n d b y m o r e d i r e c d y c o n n e c t i n g the story o f B a l a a m w i t h the i n c i d e n t o f the Israelites' w a r a g a i n s t the M i d i a n i t e s (Ant. 4.100-55). T h e r e is a r e a l t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m in the B a l a a m e p i s o d e in that, despite the fact that G - d a l l o w s B a l a a m to a c c o m p a n y the e n v o y s to B a l a k ( N u m . 22:20), w h e n h e d o e s g o , G - d is a n g r y w i t h h i m ( N u m . 22:20). J o s e p h u s resolves this a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b y l o o k i n g u p o n B a l a a m , n o t as w i c k e d , b u t as stupid, b e cause h e failed to r e a l i z e t h a t G - d w a s a c t u a l l y s p e a k i n g sarcastically in a l l o w i n g h i m to g o to c u r s e the Israelites (Ant. 4.107). J o s e p h u s clarifies a n u m b e r o f obscurities in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f E h u d . T h u s h e m a k e s it c l e a r t h a t the Israelites h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n u n a w a r e o f E h u d ' s p l a n to assassinate E g l o n (Judg. 3:16 v s . Ant. 5.194). T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f difficulties a n d improbabilities in the b i b l i c a l text, n o t a b l y E h u d ' s a p p a r e n d y useless trip to the sculptured stones n e a r G i l g a l (Judg. 3:19), the r e d u n d a n c y in h a v i n g E h u d c o m e twice to the k i n g (Judg. 3:19-20), the l a c k o f a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n as to h o w E h u d m a n a g e d to e s c a p e (Judg. 3:24), a n d the failure o f K i n g E g l o n ' s c o u r t i e r s to
5. N o t i n g the juxtaposition in the Bible o f the w a r n i n g to priests not to partake of wine and strong
drink before entering the sanctuary (Lev. 10:9), the rabbis suggest that they were intoxicated w h e n they
offered the fire (Leviticus Rabbah 20.8-9).
168
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
c h e c k the u n l o c k e d a c c e s s t h a t E h u d h a d u s e d (Judg. 3:25). I n all o f these cases, J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m s b y s i m p l y o m i t t i n g these details. O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s satisfactorily e x p l a i n s h o w E g l o n h a d c o m e t o trust E h u d ; the lat ter, h e says, h a d w o n E g l o n ' s c o n f i d e n c e w i t h f r e q u e n t gifts a n d b e c a u s e h e h a d c o m e to h i m w i t h a n a l l e g e d l y d i v i n e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a d r e a m (Ant. 5.191) (see Feldman 1 9 9 4 ^ 193-97). A n o t h e r o b s c u r i t y is the p a s s a g e in w h i c h the w i t c h o f E n d o r , after c a l l i n g forth S a m u e l f r o m the d e a d , says to S a u l , " W h y hast t h o u d e c e i v e d m e ? for t h o u art S a u l " (1 S a m . 28:12) T h e r e a d e r w i l l , o f c o u r s e , w o n d e r h o w she w a s t h u s a b l e to r e c o g n i z e S a u l . J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r the s o u r c e o f h e r k n o w l e d g e , i n a s m u c h as it is S a m u e l w h o reveals to h e r w h o S a u l is (Ant. 6.332). A n o t h e r r e a s o n for r e c a s t i n g the n a r r a t i v e is t o r e m o v e c h r o n o l o g i c a l difficul ties. T h u s , in d e a l i n g w i t h the p r o b l e m o f the u n u s u a l l o n g e v i t y o f the patriarchs, J o s e p h u s a d o p t s a threefold a p p r o a c h . I n the first p l a c e , h e cites the e v i d e n c e o f a host o f n o n - J e w i s h historians f r o m v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s — t h e E g y p t i a n M a n e t h o , the B a b y l o n i a n B e r o s s u s , the E g y p t i a n H i e r o n y m u s , a n d the P h o e n i c i a n s M o c h u s a n d H e s t i a e u s (Ant. 1.107). J o s e p h u s buttresses the figures t h a t h e gives b y n o t i n g t h a t m a n y writers, a m o n g t h e m p o e t s s u c h as the r e v e r e d H e s i o d a n d historians s u c h as H e c a t a e u s , H e l l a n i c u s , A c u s i l a u s , E p h o r u s , a n d N i c o l a u s , all r e p o r t that the a n c i e n t s g e n e r a l l y l i v e d for a t h o u s a n d y e a r s (Ant. 1.108), j u s t as d i d the patri archs. I n the s e c o n d p l a c e , J o s e p h u s tries t o r a t i o n a l i z e b y n o t i n g four factors that h e l p to e x p l a i n their l o n g e v i t y : t h e y w e r e d e a r to G - d ; t h e y h a d a diet (rpoas\ p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e v e g e t a r i a n s , m o r e c o n d u c i v e t o l o n g life; t h e y p o s sessed m e r i t (dper^v); a n d t h e y h a d t o live l o n g lives in o r d e r to p r o m o t e the utility o f their discoveries in a s t r o n o m y a n d g e o m e t r y , since t h e y c o u l d n o t h a v e p r e d i c t e d a n y t h i n g w i t h c e r t a i n t y i f t h e y h a d n o t l i v e d for six h u n d r e d y e a r s (Ant 6
1.106). Finally, J o s e p h u s closes w i t h his f a m i l i a r f o r m u l a l e a v i n g the j u d g m e n t to the r e a d e r : " O n these m a t t e r s let e v e r y o n e d e c i d e a c c o r d i n g to his f a n c y " (Ant 1.108) A n o t h e r c h r o n o l o g i c a l difficulty arises in the B o o k o f E s t h e r (2:6). T h e r e , since M o r d e c a i w a s o n e o f the c a p t i v e s c a r r i e d a w a y b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r at the time w h e n K i n g J e h o i a c h i n w a s e x i l e d in 597 B.C.E., h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n 122 y e a r s o l d at the t i m e o f the H a m a n e p i s o d e in the twelfth y e a r (474) o f the r e i g n o f X e r x e s 7
(with w h o m m o s t scholars identify A h a s u e r u s ) ; a n d Esther, as his c o u s i n (Esther 8
2:7), m u s t h a v e b e e n a n o l d w o m a n at the t i m e w h e n she w o n the P e r s i a n b e a u t y contest. J o s e p h u s resolves this p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g a l t o g e t h e r the s t a t e m e n t that
6. O n e is reminded o f the discussion in Herodotus (3.23) o f diet as the factor responsible for the length o f the lives o f the Ethiopians. 7. T h e problem is even greater for Josephus, w h o identifies Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes, the son o f Xerxes. 8. T h u s the rabbis (Genesis Rabbah 39.13) say that she was seventy-five years old.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
i6g
M o r d e c a i h a d b e e n c a r r i e d o f f to B a b y l o n i a a n d b y d e s c r i b i n g E s t h e r as M o r d e cai's n i e c e (Ant. 11.198). A n o t h e r a p p a r e n t difficulty f a c i n g J o s e p h u s w a s the fact t h a t t h o u g h t h e r e w a s a d e l a y o f a l m o s t a y e a r b e t w e e n the t i m e w h e n A h a s u e r u s issued his e d i c t t o d e stroy the J e w s (Esther 3:12) a n d the d a t e w h e n it w a s to b e c a r r i e d o u t (Esther 3:13), the J e w s d i d n o t find a n y m e a n s o f e s c a p e . J o s e p h u s resolves this p r o b l e m b y o m i t ting the d a t e o f the e d i c t a n d b y stating m e r e l y t h a t H a m a n sent o u t the e d i c t in the king's n a m e " i m m e d i a t e l y " (Ant
n.215).
S o m e t i m e s , p r e s u m a b l y o n the basis o f non-Jewish sources, J o s e p h u s
disre
g a r d s b o t h the M a s o r e t i c T e x t a n d the S e p t u a g i n t , a n d , for E z r a , his p r e s u m e d source, the a p o c r y p h a l 1 E s d r a s , in c o r r e c t i n g b i b l i c a l c h r o n o l o g y . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e o m i t s C a m b y s e s a n d p l a c e s X e r x e s a n d A r t a x e r x e s b e f o r e D a r i u s , J o s e p h u s restores the p r o p e r c h r o n o l o g i c a l s e q u e n c e , c h a n g i n g the n a m e o f A r t a x erxes (1 E s d r a s 2:16) to C a m b y s e s (Ant 11.21) (see M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 , 6:324, n. b; T u land 1966, 176-92). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e are a n u m b e r o f p a s s a g e s in the B i b l e t h a t raise serious questions a b o u t the a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f v a r i o u s b o o k s o f the Bible. T h e f a m o u s t w e l f t h - c e n t u r y c o m m e n t a t o r o n the B i b l e , A b r a h a m I b n E z r a , in his n o t e o n D e u t . 1:1, cites six o f these in the P e n t a t e u c h ,
9
all o f w h i c h , signifi
cantly, are s i m p l y o m i t t e d in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e . L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s the p a s s a g e in J o s h . 8:28 states t h a t after J o s h u a b u r n e d A i , it r e m a i n e d a h e a p o f r u i n "to this day," thus i m p l y i n g t h a t the b o o k h a d b e e n w r i t t e n s o m e t i m e after J o s h u a ,
1 0
Jose
p h u s avoids the p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g the k e y p h r a s e " t o this day." S o m e t i m e s in his p a r a p h r a s e , J o s e p h u s seeks to a v o i d a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s ,
as
in G e n . 1:2, w h e r e t h e r e is a n a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m i m p l i e d in the w o r d merahefet, w h i c h indicates n o t m e r e l y h o v e r i n g b u t also b r o o d i n g , as o v e r a w o r l d - e g g , a c o n c e p t familiar f r o m t h e O r p h i c t h e o g o n y . T h e S e p t u a g i n t p a r t l y a v o i d s this p r o b l e m b y asserting t h a t " t h e spirit o f G - d w a s b o r n e " a b o v e the water, b u t e v e n this does n o t c o m p l e t e l y a v o i d the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m . J o s e p h u s resolves the difficulty by asserting t h a t " a b r e a t h f r o m a b o v e s p e d " (Ant. 1.27), t h u s r e f e r r i n g to s o m e t h i n g distinct f r o m G - d Himself. Similarly, to s p e a k o f G - d , as d o e s G e n . 2:7, as b r e a t h i n g the b r e a t h o f life into m a n ' s nostrils m u s t h a v e s e e m e d a g r o t e s q u e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m t o J o s e p h u s , a n d so h e says s i m p l y t h a t G - d instilled (ivrjKev) into m a n spirit a n d soul (Ant. 1.34). W e m a y also n o t e the significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s omission (Ant. 1.73) o f the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d r e p e n t e d t h a t H e had c r e a t e d m a n ( G e n . 6:6), as w e l l as (Ant. 1.92) the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m t h a t G - d smelled the s w e e t s a v o r o f N o a h ' s sacrifice ( G e n . 8:21). J o s e p h u s seeks in his p a r a p h r a s e to p r o v i d e b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n a n d to i n c r e a s e
9. T h e s e are D e u t . 34:1-12, E x o d . 24:4, G e n . 12:6, G e n . 22:14, D e u t . 3:11, and D e u t . 1:1. 10. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbinic tradition (Baba Batra 14b), it was Joshua w h o wrote the b o o k that
bears his name.
iyo
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
the plausibility o f events. W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e gives n o r e a s o n for the sacrifice t h a t N o a h offered u p o n e m e r g i n g f r o m t h e ark, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t N o a h d i d so b e c a u s e h e w a s fearful t h a t G - d w o u l d s e n d a n o t h e r f l o o d a n d s o u g h t thus to b e s e e c h H i m n o t to d o so (Ant. 1.96). A g a i n , w h e r e a s M a n o a h ' s desire in t h e B i b l e to recall t h e a n g e l is n o t w e l l m o t i v a t e d (Judg. 13:8), J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t i o n m a k e s it m o r e p l a u s i b l e , for h e h a s M a n o a h ' s w i f e e n t r e a t G - d to s e n d t h e a n g e l a g a i n so t h a t h e r h u s b a n d m a y see h i m a n d thus a l l a y t h e suspicions a r i s i n g f r o m his j e a l o u s y o f t h e a n g e l (Ant. 5.280). I n o r d e r to r e m o v e t h e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y o f the n a r r a t i v e , D e l i l a h in J o s e p h u s , full o f f e m i n i n e wiles, uses S a m s o n ' s l o v e for h e r as a w e a p o n a g a i n s t h i m ; thus she k e e p s s a y i n g to h i m t h a t she takes it ill t h a t h e h a s so little c o n f i d e n c e in h e r affec t i o n for h i m as t o w i t h h o l d f r o m h e r w h a t she desires to k n o w , " a s t h o u g h , " she a d d s , w i t h w h a t J o s e p h u s r e g a r d s as t y p i c a l strategy, " s h e w o u l d n o t c o n c e a l w h a t she k n e w m u s t in his interests n o t b e d i v u l g e d " (Ant. 5.310). T h e r e a d e r o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e m i g h t w e l l ask h o w M o r d e c a i w a s a b l e to d i s c o v e r t h e c o n s p i r a c y o f B i g t h a n a n d T e r e s h a g a i n s t K i n g A h a s u e r u s (Esther 2:22). J o s e p h u s h a s a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i c h is f o u n d in n o o t h e r s o u r c e — n a m e l y , t h a t t h e p l o t w a s e x p o s e d b y a c e r t a i n Jew, B a r n a b a z o s , t h e s e r v a n t o f o n e o f t h e e u n u c h s , w h o , in t u r n , r e v e a l e d it t o M o r d e c a i (Ant. 11.207). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l ask h o w H a r b o n a h w a s a b l e to l e a r n a b o u t t h e g a l l o w s t h a t H a m a n h a d p r e p a r e d for M o r d e c a i (Esther 7:9). J o s e p h u s (Ant. 11.261 a n d 266) e x p l a i n s this b y n o t i n g t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d it f r o m o n e o f H a m a n ' s servants w h e n H a r b o n a h h a d g o n e to s u m m o n h i m to Esther's s e c o n d b a n q u e t . A n o t h e r " i m p r o v e m e n t " m a d e b y J o s e p h u s in his r e w o r k i n g o f t h e b i b l i c a l nar rative is a v o i d a n c e o f u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d t h e g r o t e s q u e , w h i c h m i g h t h a v e p r o v o k e d t h e r i d i c u l e o f a later satirist s u c h as L u c i a n .
1 1
H e n c e , t h e r e is signifi
c a n c e in his o m i s s i o n o f e x a g g e r a t i o n s a b o u t the strength o f S a m s o n . W e m a y also n o t e t h e significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s o m i s s i o n (Ant. 1.54) o f G e n . 4:7, w h i c h w a s r e g a r d e d b y the r a b b i s (Toma 5 2 a - b ) as o n e o f t h e five v e r s e s o f the T o r a h the g r a m m a t i c a l construction o f w h i c h w a s undecided. O n e d e v i c e t h a t J o s e p h u s resorts t o o n l y r a r e l y ( p e r h a p s in r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Philo) in s o l v i n g difficulties is t h e use o f allegory, a l t h o u g h h e a d m i t s t h a t o n e o f t h e m e t h o d s o f t h e T o r a h is s o l e m n a l l e g o r i z i n g (Ant. 1.24), a n d a l t h o u g h this pat t e r n h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d b y t h e S t o i c s in i n t e r p r e t i n g H o m e r ' s a n d H e s i o d ' s refer e n c e s to t h e o b s c e n i t i e s o f t h e g o d s (see W o l f s o n 1 9 4 7 , 1 : 1 3 2 - 3 3 ) . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s speaks s n e e r i n g l y o f t h e "frigid s u b t e r f u g e s " (ijjvxpas
irpo<j>aG€is) o f the allegorists
(Ag. Ap. 2.255). N o n e t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s d o e s resort to a l l e g o r y in e x p l a i n i n g the t a b e r n a c l e as s y m b o l i c o f t h e e a r t h a n d the sea, t h e t w e l v e l o a v e s u p o n the table as t h e t w e l v e m o n t h s , the c a n d e l a b r u m w i t h its s e v e n l a m p s as t h e s e v e n planets,
11. T h u s , for example, whereas the Bible (Judg. 16:9) reports that S a m s o n "broke the bowstrings as a string o f tow is broken w h e n it touches the fire," Josephus avoids this gross exaggeration, and his Samson simply bursts the shoots asunder (Ant. 5.310).
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
iyi
the tapestries o f four m a t e r i a l s d e n o t i n g t h e four e l e m e n t s , a n d t h e h i g h priest's garments signifying t h e p a r t s o f t h e u n i v e r s e (Ant 3 . 1 8 1 - 8 3 ) . T h u s the J e w s ' s e e m ingly i r r a t i o n a l rules w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e T e m p l e a n d its c u l t a r e m a d e to s e e m t o b e in accord w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f the c o s m o s . W e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t resort to m o r e a l l e g o r i z i n g b e c a u s e h e m a y h a v e s e e n , as d o e s P h i l o (De Migratione Abrahami 16.89), t h e d a n g e r p o s e d b y t h e e x c e s s i v e allegorists, in t h a t t h e y t r e a t e d the literal sense o f t h e l a w s w i t h e a s y g o i n g n e g l e c t (see F e l d m a n 1993, 7 5 - 7 6 ) . F o r Philo, a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a n effort to m a k e G r e e k c u l t u r e J e w i s h r a t h e r than to dissolve J e w i s h identity i n t o G r e e k culture; a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is central to J e w i s h c o m m u n a l i d e n t i t y a n d s u r v i v a l in a hostile e n v i r o n m e n t ( D a w son 1992, 74)- C o m i n g f r o m A l e x a n d r i a , w h e r e t h e s t u d y o f H o m e r w a s the c e n t r a l focus of s c h o l a r s h i p in t h e M u s e u m , a n d w h e r e H o m e r w a s a l l e g o r i z e d in o r d e r to save him f r o m t h e c h a r g e s l e v e l e d a g a i n s t h i m b y P l a t o in the Republic, P h i l o m a y well have t h o u g h t t h a t t h e B i b l e m i g h t similarly b e s a v e d b y a l l e g o r i z a t i o n for those intellectuals w h o q u e s t i o n e d its a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s .
12
For J o s e p h u s ,
the
Jerusalem Jew, h o w e v e r , s u r v i v a l w a s h a r d l y a p r o b l e m , since t h e J e w s w e r e b y far the m a j o r i t y in their l a n d ; a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , f r o m a c u l t u r a l a n d r e l i g i o u s point o f view, w a s h a r d l y hostile. M o r e o v e r , to m a k e G r e e k c u l t u r e J e w i s h smacked o f p r o s e l y t i s m , o f w h i c h J o s e p h u s w a s u n u s u a l l y w a r y , since this w o u l d b e a threat to t h e G r a e c o - R o m a n w a y o f life. O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s w a s a p parently n o t afraid to a l l e g o r i z e t h e p r i e s t h o o d a n d the T e m p l e , b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s no d a n g e r t h a t p e o p l e w o u l d c o m p r o m i s e their o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e T e m p l e cult, so awed w e r e t h e y b y it.
HELLENIZATIONS T h e a p o l o g e t i c a i m o f J o s e p h u s m a y often b e s e e n in t h e h e l l e n i z a t i o n o f his n a r rative, b o t h in l a n g u a g e a n d in ideas, so as to a p p e a l to his G r e e k - e d u c a t e d r e a d ers. T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s b y n a m e n o f e w e r t h a n fifty-five G r e e k authors, e v e n if h e m a y s i m p l y h a v e c o p i e d m a n y o f these n a m e s f r o m s e c o n d h a n d sources,
13
is a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e w a s o u t to i m p r e s s his r e a d e r s w i t h his k n o w l
edge o f G r e e k literature. I n particular, w e m a y n o t e his d e b t to H o m e r , H e s i o d , Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, T h u c y d i d e s , Plato, a n d Aristotle. J o s e p h u s s h o w s his k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r in a n u m b e r o f p a s s a g e s (Ant 7.67; Ag Ap. 1.12, 2.14, 2.155, 2.256). I n the first p l a c e , h e m e n t i o n s H o m e r as a n o r a l p o e t , n o t i n g his n u m e r o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s (Ag Ap. 1.12). I n a n e r a w h e n d i c t i o n a r i e s a n d
12. L a m b e r t o n 1 9 8 6 , 4 9 , notes that in Philo, De Providentia 2.40-41, w e find explicit mention o f mul tiple levels o f m e a n i n g in H o m e r and Hesiod and o f their importance. 13. T h e fact that on two occasions (Ant. 10.219-28 and Ag. Ap. 1.134-44), Josephus cites the same passage about N e b u c h a d n e z z a r from Berossus, together with precisely the same confirmatory refer ences from Philostratus and Megasthenes, w o u l d indicate that there, at least, he was using a handbook.
IJ2
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
c o n c o r d a n c e s w e r e u n a v a i l a b l e , J o s e p h u s is a b l e to state t h a t H o m e r nowhere e m p l o y s t h e w o r d vopuos ("law," " c u s t o m " ) (Ag. Ap. 2.155), w h i c h w o u l d p e r h a p s i n d i cate that he h a d studied H o m e r thoroughly, although he may, o f course, have de r i v e d this f r o m a h a n d b o o k . H e a c t u a l l y q u o t e s H o m e r ' s Iliad ( 1 4 . 9 0 - 9 1 ) w h e n d i s c u s s i n g the c o n s p i r a c y to assassinate G a i u s C a l i g u l a (Ant. 19.92), a l t h o u g h a g a i n h e m a y h a v e f o u n d this in t h e s o u r c e h e u s e d for the a c c o u n t o f the c o n s p i r a c y . H e often uses distinctively H o m e r i c epithets, i n p a r t i c u l a r TTOXVTPOTTOS
14
("mani
f o l d , " "versatile") (War 1.347, 7.272, 7.451; Ant. 1.8, 2.303, 10.142, 15.179, 15.416, 17.125). H e s h o w s a f o n d n e s s for o t h e r H o m e r i c e x p r e s s i o n s as w e l l , for e x a m p l e , dverXrj ( " e n d u r e d " ) (Ant. 19.321; cf. Odyssey 3.104, 10.327, 14.47), rXrjpLoveoTdTr) ("most w r e t c h e d " ) (War 5 . 1 9 ; cf. Iliad 10.231, 10.498, 21.430; n o r m a l l y , in later G r e e k literature, u s e d o n l y in p o e t r y ) , a n d x&pos
("place") (War 5.19;
cf. Iliad 3.315,
3.344, 8.491, 10.520, 13.474; Odyssey 11.94, 14.2, n o r m a l l y u s e d o n l y in p o e t r y ) .
1 5
In
particular, w e m a y c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o a p h r a s e c l e a r l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f H o m e r w h e n J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t I s a a c w a s b o r n o n t h e t h r e s h o d o f A b r a h a m ' s o l d a g e (im yrjpcos ovotp) (Ant. 1.222). T h e fact t h a t this p h r a s e o c c u r s in t h e Iliad (22.60) w h e r e P r i a m a d d r e s s e s his s o n H e c t o r b e f o r e t h e latter g o e s o f f t o his fateful last b a t d e c
w i t h A c h i l l e s , m a k e s its use in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e A q e d a h all t h e m o r e p o i g n a n t a n d p a t h e t i c b e c a u s e o f t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n the a g e d fathers, A b r a h a m a n d P r i a m , a n d t h e i r p r o m i s i n g sons, w h o a r e a p p a r e n d y a b o u t t o die in t h e f l o w e r o f c
y o u t h . J o s e p h u s h a s h e l l e n i z e d t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f the A q e d a h so t h a t it a c q u i r e s p r e c i s e l y t h o s e qualities t h a t a r e m i s s i n g in the B i b l e , n o t a b l y c l a r i t y a n d uniform illumination. J o s e p h u s is c l e a r l y i n d e b t e d t o H e s i o d in a n u m b e r o f p l a c e s , e s p e c i a l l y in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the e a r l y a g e s o f m a n k i n d . T h u s , the n o t i o n t h a t e a r l y m a n l i v e d free f r o m evils a n d toil, a n d t h a t o l d a g e d i d n o t s o o n o v e r t a k e h i m is f o u n d i n H e s iod's d e s c r i p t i o n in Works and Days (90-93), w h i c h e m p l o y s s e v e r a l w o r d s f o u n d 16
later in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1 . 4 6 ) . J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e m e n t i o n s H e s i o d ' s r e p o r t that the a n c i e n t s l i v e d for a t h o u s a n d y e a r s (Ant. 1.108) a n d n o t e s t h a t t h e historian A c u s i l a u s often c o r r e c t s H e s i o d (Ag. Ap. 1.16). T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e w o r k s o f A e s c h y l u s is i n d i c a t e d b y his use o f a p h r a s e s u c h as dnopa
piiv ylverai
rd iropipia ("the p r a c t i c a b l e t h i n g s b e -
14. M o m m s e n 1870, 320-22, suggests that the source is the lost history o f Cluvius Rufus; but I have challenged this (Feldman 1962, 320-33). 15. O n Josephus's knowledge o f Homer, see Schaublin 1982, 319, and K o p i d a k i s 1986, 3-25. T h e fact that H o m e r is mentioned by n a m e in rabbinic literature (Mishnah, Tadaim 4:6), and that the rab bis even use phrases taken from Homer, w o u l d further support the v i e w that in the learned circles that Josephus (Life 9) claims to have frequented, his works were probably k n o w n . See L i e b e r m a n 1950, 105-14. 16.
D r o g e 1989, 37, likewise concludes that it is reasonable to think that Josephus h a d read Hesiod
and h a d h i m in m i n d while "translating" the prehistory o f Genesis into language intelligible for his G r e e k audience.
STYLISTIC A N DO T H E R C H A N G E S
173
c o m e i m p r a c t i c a b l e " ) (Ant. 1.14), w h i c h is c l e a r l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e v e r y r e v e r s e f o r m u l a t i o n i n t h e c h o r a l p a s s a g e drropa
Tropipuos ( " m a k i n g p o s s i b l e t h e i m p o s s i
ble") i n A e s c h y l u s ' s Prometheus Bound (904), t h e o n l y o t h e r e x t a n t t e x t t h a t h a s t h e s e two w o r d s thus in p a r a d o x i c a l juxtaposition. J o s e p h u s admits that despite the fact that h e h a d e v e r y material
(TrpaypbareLas,
" t r e a t m e n t , " " t r e a t i s e " ) a t his d i s p o s a l , h e e m p l o y e d assistants (ovvepyois) s p e c t t o t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e (irpos TTJV 'EWyvioa c o u n t of the Jewish
w i t h re
^ajvrjv) w h e n h e c o m p o s e d h i s a c
War(Ag. Ap. 1.50). T h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s h a d assis
tants t o h e l p h i m w i t h t h e G r e e k w h e n h e w r o t e t h e Antiquities o v e r t h e n e x t d o z e n y e a r s h a s , h o w e v e r , b e e n d e b a t e d . H e n r y S t . J. T h a c k e r a y , for e x a m p l e , d e v i s e d a k i n d o f d o c u m e n t a r y h y p o t h e s i s for t h e l a t e r b o o k s o f t h e Antiquities,
indicating, o n
t h e b a s i s o f a c l o s e s t u d y o f J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y a n d style, t h a t h e h a d a n assis t a n t for b o o k s 15 a n d 16 w h o h a d a p a r t i c u l a r l o v e o f G r e e k p o e t r y , e s p e c i a l l y Sophocles,
1 7
a n d t h a t for b o o k s 17 t h r o u g h 1 9 , h e h a d a n assistant w h o w a s p a r t i c
ularly fond o f T h u c y d i d e s ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 107-18). T h e r e is v e r y g o o d r e a s o n for t h i n k i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s k n e w t h e w o r k s o f S o p h o cles, p e r h a p s b e i n g a t t r a c t e d b y t h e s a m e e m p h a s i s o n h e r o i c h u m a n i s m i n t h e l a t ter's r e w r i t i n g o f t h e G r e e k m y t h s t h a t h e , J o s e p h u s , h i g h l i g h t e d i n his r e w r i t t e n B i b l e . D i s t i n c t e c h o e s o f S o p h o c l e a n style a r e t o b e f o u n d i n a n u m b e r o f p l a c e s i n t h e e a r l y b o o k s o f t h e Antiquities,
n o t a b l y i n t h e p r o e m (Ant. 1 . 1 - 2 6 ) , t h e w o o i n g o f
R e b e k a h (Ant. 1 . 2 4 2 - 5 5 ) , t h e w o o i n g o f R a c h e l (Ant. 1 . 2 8 5 - 3 0 2 ) , t h e t e m p t a t i o n o f J o s e p h b y P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e (Ant. 2 . 3 9 - 5 9 ) , t h e e x o d u s a n d t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e S e a o f R e e d s (Ant. 2 . 3 1 5 - 4 9 ) , t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h (Ant. 4 . 1 1 - 6 6 ) , a n d t h e s t o r y o f B a l a a m (Ant. 4 . 1 0 2 - 3 0 ) . T h e r e a r e a l s o n u m e r o u s d i s t i n c t v e r b a l e c h o e s f r o m S o p h o cles, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e e a r l y b o o k s o f t h e
18
Antiquities.
17. T h e S o p h o c l e a n element in books 15 a n d 16 m a y be d u e to Herod's secretary, Nicolas o f D a m ascus, w h o w a s steeped in Sophocles a n d w h o was Josephus's chief source for the extensive a c c o u n t o f Herod in books 14-17. 18. T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:xv, cites Ant. 2.254: diTTeaOaL povXev/xdrajv 2.300:
KOLKOI
(Sophocles, Antigone 179); Ant.
drroXXvoOai (Philoctetes 1369); Ant. 3.15: rd iv rroal /ca/ca (Antigone 1327); Ant. 3.99:
KOLKCOS
npovoiav €X€iv wept rivos (Antigone 283); Ant. 3.141 a n d 165: ircpovis (found in extant literature only in these two places in Josephus a n d in Sophocles, Trachiniae 925); Ant. 3.264:
dtjiKereveiv
(Oedipus the King
760); Ant. 4.15: drjpdadai with the infinitive (Ajax 2); Ant. 4.265: d/xotpos yrjs (Ajax 1326-27). Still another characteristic o f Josephus's style in these early books, w h i c h , as T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 , 4 : x v - x v i , remarks, he shares with Sophocles a n d m a y have derived from him, is his fondness for groups o f threes: three reasons for the longevity o f the patriarchs (Ant. 1.106), for narrrating in full the plagues inflicted u p o n the Egyptians (Ant. 2.293), f °
rt
n
e
r
° u t e o f the exodus (Ant. 2.322-23), for the three annual festivals o f
the H e b r e w s (Ant. 4.203); three different w a y s available to G - d to rescue the Israelites at the S e a o f Reeds (Ant. 2.337);
m
e
three miracles that M o s e s experienced a n d that h e recounted to P h a r a o h (Ant.
2.283); three requests m a d e b y M o s e s to G - d (Ant. '3.22-23); three respects in w h c h the Israelite a r m y was not lacking a n d three respects in w h i c h the a r m y o f the Amalekites w a s inferior (Ant. 3.45); three aspects o f the tumult in heaven w h e n the revelation at Sinai occurred (Ant. 3.80); three groups holding contrary opinions c o n c e r n i n g M o s e s ' absence (Ant. 3.96-97); three solutions adopted by travelers w h o were forbidden to partake o f sacrifices in the T e m p l e (Ant. 3.319); three reasons that will not explain
i?4
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
W e m a y n o t e t h e similarity in the e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m as gifted in i n t e l l i g e n c e (oeivos wv auvievcu, i.e., c l e v e r in u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) (Ant. 1.154) a n d the d e s c r i p t i o n o f O e d i p u s b y Teiresias as c l e v e r in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (<j>povelv . . . O€LVOV, Oedipus the King 316). L i k e w i s e , the s a m e w o r d s t h a t are u s e d b y J o s e p h u s to i n d i c a t e t h a t A b r a h a m h a d a r r i v e d at m o r e lofty c o n c e p t i o n s (poveiv puel^ov) o f v i r t u e t h a n o t h e r m e n (Ant. 1.155) are t h o s e (^poveirco puei&v, Antigone 768) a p p l i e d b y S o p h o c l e s ' C r e o n to his s o n H a e m o n . T h e r e are distinct r e m i n i s c e n c e s f r o m S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the lung (760 [Ant. 3.264]), Antigone (179 [Ant. 2.254], 283 [Ant. 3.99], 1327 [Ant. 3.15]), Philoctetes (1369 [Ant. 2.300]), Ajax (2 [Ant. 4 . 1 5 ] , 1326 [Ant. 4.265]), a n d Trachiniae (925 [Ant. 3.141, 165], w h e r e w e h a v e t h e w o r d irepovis,
f o u n d in e x t a n t literature o n l y h e r e in
S o p h o c l e s a n d in J o s e p h u s ) . I n particular, w e m a y n o t e that to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' d e a t h ( D e u t . 3 4 : 1 - 6 ) J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d l a m e n t i n g p e o p l e , a w a l k t o the m o u n t a i n , c o m p a n i o n s o n M o s e s ' final w a l k , a n d " d i s a p p e a r a n c e " (Ant. 4.323-26), details f o u n d in n o o t h e r p o s t b i b l i c a l s o u r c e , t h o u g h t h o s e s o u r c e s r e c o u n t M o s e s ' last h o u r s in far g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h a n d o e s the B i b l e . A n d y e t , it is p r e c i s e l y these d e tails t h a t a r e f o u n d in S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus at
19
Colonus.
T h e r e are s e v e r a l t o u c h e s i n J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the a c c o u n t o f S o l o m o n t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t h e h a d O e d i p u s in m i n d . T h u s , in S o l o m o n ' s p r a y e r at the d e d i c a t i o n o f the T e m p l e , h e specifies as the evils w i t h w h i c h the J e w s will b e s m i t t e n i f t h e y s h o u l d sin, "unfruitfulness o f the soil o r a destructive pesti l e n c e " (Ant. 8.115). T h e a n a l o g y w i t h the o p e n i n g s c e n e o f S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King (25-29) is striking, w h e r e w e are t o l d t h a t the p l a g u e h a s afflicted the b l o s s o m o f t h e l a n d a n d its herds. T h e k e y i n c i d e n t illustrating S o l o m o n ' s w i s d o m is the c a s e o f the t w o m o t h e r s (1 K i n g s 3 : 1 6 - 2 8 ) . A n o t a b l e a d d i t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f this i n c i d e n t is his s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n n o o n e c o u l d see w h a t j u d g m e n t to give, b u t all w e r e m e n t a l l y b l i n d e d , as b y a riddle, in finding a s o l u t i o n , S o l o m o n a l o n e d e v i s e d a p l a n (Ant. 8.30). T h e r e are four distinctive e l e m e n t s in this s t a t e m e n t t h a t d o n o t a p p e a r in the o r i g i n a l (1 K i n g s 3:23-27), w h e t h e r in the H e b r e w o r in t h e S e p t u a g i n t o r in the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n : (1) o t h e r s h a d a t t e m p t e d a n d failed t o d e t e r m i n e w h o the real m o t h e r w a s ; (2) these o t h e r s are s p o k e n o f as m e n t a l l y b l i n d e d ; (3) to solve the q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e d the use o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ; (4) the case is c o m p a r e d to a riddle. W h a t
w h y A a r o n w a s presented with the priesthood (Ant. 4.26); three different attitudes toward M o s e s in the tumultuous assembly (Ant. 4.36-37); three areas in w h i c h G - d is L - r d according to M o s e s ' address to him (Ant. 4.40); a n d the threefold punishment that M o s e s invokes against K o r a h a n d his followers (Ant. 4.48). 19. See J a c o b s o n 1993 and, m o r e briefly, T a b o r 1989, 225. B e g g 1990, 692, objects that in the end, Josephus negates the w h o l e impression o f M o s e s ' disappearance with his closing affirmation that in re ality M o s e s did not "return to the divinity" but simply died. T h i s does not, however, detract from the point that prior to this "correction," Josephus has described the disappearance o f M o s e s in terms closely parallel to those used by Sophocles.
STYLISTIC A N DO T H E R C H A N G E S
775
is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g is t h a t all f o u r e l e m e n t s a r e f o u n d in S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King. J o s e p h u s f u r t h e r d r a m a t i z e s S o l o m o n ' s w i s d o m in his p o r t r a y a l o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h S o l o m o n s o l v e d t h e Q u e e n o f S h e b a ' s p r o b l e m s (Ant. 8.167). T h e B i b l e s i m p l y s a y s t h a t h e a n s w e r e d all o f h e r q u e s t i o n s (1 K i n g s 10:3), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , like S o p h o c l e s in his p o r t r a y a l o f O e d i p u s , stresses t h e e a s e w i t h w h i c h h e m e n t a l l y grasped the ingenious problems a n d the speed with w h i c h he solved t h e m
(Ant.
8.167). Josephus's
indebtedness
t o E u r i p i d e s is c o n s i d e r a b l e . I n d e e d ,
Euripides
be
c a m e t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o f all a n c i e n t G r e e k d r a m a t i s t s a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y after his d e a t h ( B e e r s 1 9 1 4 , 1 3 ) 1.5), a n opus.
2 0
I n a s m u c h as h i s t o r y is, a c c o r d i n g t o C i c e r o (De Legibus
. . oratorium maxime ( " a b o v e all, a n o r a t o r ' s w o r k " ) , t h e s t u d y o f E u
r i p i d e s , w h i c h w a s r e g a r d e d b y Q u i n t i l i a n (10.68) as so useful for a n o r a t o r , w o u l d also h a v e b e e n m o s t useful for a h i s t o r i a n s u c h as J o s e p h u s . T h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e (see J a c o b s o n 1 9 8 3 , 3 7 - 3 8 ) t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s fa miliar w i t h the Hellenistic Jewish tragedian
E z e k i e l ' s p l a y Exagoge, w h i c h w a s
m u c h i n f l u e n c e d b y E u r i p i d e s , b o t h in v o c a b u l a r y a n d style, as w e l l as in d r a m a t i c t e c h n i q u e a n d s t r u c t u r e ( W i e n e k e 1931; a n d F r a s e r 1 9 7 2 , 1 : 7 0 7 - 8 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , E u r i p i d e s ' i n f l u e n c e o n J o s e p h u s m a y b e s e e n in t h e latter's d e s c r i p t i o n o f I s h m a e l ' s d y i n g state, w h e r e J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s a r a r e w o r d for e x p i r i n g , i/jvxoppayovv,
liter
ally " l e t t i n g t h e s o u l b r e a k l o o s e , " t h a t E u r i p i d e s a l s o uses (Alcestis 20 a n d Hercules Furens 1 2 3 , 324, t h e l a t t e r i n p r e c i s e l y this f o r m ) (Ant. 1.218). T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l strik i n g p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d I p h i g e n i a , n o t a b l y in t h e e n t h u s i a s m w i t h w h i c h t h e y b o t h a p p r o a c h t h e sacrifice a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , in I s a a c ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e
20. T h e popularity o f Euripides m a y be inferred from the fact that Plato a n d Aristode quote from him more often than from any other tragedian (and in a manner that implies that the lines w o u l d be readily recognized). D u r i n g the third century B.C.E., only H o m e r was more frequendy quoted b y writ ers o f diatribe, protreptic, or consolation. H e w a s the most popular o f poets (except for Homer) throughout the Hellenistic a n d R o m a n eras, as Sifakis 1967, 133, a n d Jacobson 1983, 23, have re marked, a n d w a s m u c h imitated b y the n e w poets o f Hellenistic A l e x a n d r i a in the third century B.C.E. a
and thereafter. D i o C h r y s o s t o m ( 1 8 . 6 . 7 ) , rhetorician contemporary with Josephus, advises the student of oratory to study Euripides, w h o , he says, is especially helpful to the politician, since he w a s skilled in portraying character a n d feelings, a n d since, as w e see from his gnomic utterances, he w a s not unskilled in philosophy. H e n c e it is not surprising that in Dio's work, only H o m e r is more frequendy quoted than Euripides (who is cited sixteen times). A n indication o f Euripides' popularity m a y also b e seen in L u cian's burlesque essay, Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 1, where h e describes h o w the people o f A b d e r a in T h r a c e , a city famous for its obtuseness, caught tragedy fever so badly w h e n a visiting dramatic troupe put o n Euripides' Andromeda that they w e n t through the streets declaiming a line from the play until they were cooled b a c k to sanity by the autumn frosts. W e hear also that it w a s the performance o f Euripides' play Telephus that influenced Crates, a philosopher o f the fourth century B.C.E., to b e c o m e a C y n i c ascetic, that Z e u s always h a d the lines o f Euripides' play Suppliants o n his lips, a n d that C h r y s i p pus incorporated so m u c h o f Euripides' Medea into his own work that he absentmindedly declared that he was studying the Medea o f Chrysippus. In view o f the importance assigned to the study o f Euripides in the training o f a n orator, Paul's portrait o f the self-sacrifice of Jesus m a y have been influenced not only by the parallel o f Isaac but also by his knowledge o f Euripides' Iphigenia atAulis.
iy6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
c o u l d n o t e v e n c o n s i d e r r e j e c t i n g G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232) a n d I p h i g e n i a ' s o b s e r v a t i o n , t h a t she, a m o r t a l w o m a n , c a n n o t stand in the w a y o f the g o d d e s s (Eu ripides, Iphigenia at Aulis 396). T h e r e is p a t h e t i c i r o n y in the fact t h a t A b r a h a m seeks h a p p i n e s s o n l y t h r o u g h his son, w h o , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , is a b o u t t o b e sacrificed, j u s t as t h e r e is i r o n y in the C h o r u s ' s o d e (Iphigenia at Aulis 5 9 0 - 9 1 ) t h a t b e g i n s , " O h ! o h ! g r e a t h a p p i n e s s o f the g r e a t ! " O n e m a y also n o t e the r e m a r k a b l e a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e in w h i c h G - d d e c l a r e s t h a t H e g a v e H i s o r d e r to A b r a h a m " f r o m n o c r a v i n g for h u m a n b l o o d " (Ant. 1.233), w h i c h is c l e a r l y in c o n t r a s t to the s t a t e m e n t o f A r t e m i s , w h o is said t o rejoice in h u m a n sacrifices (Iphigenia at Aulis 1524-25). D u r i n g the R o m a n p e r i o d , i f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m the f r a g m e n t s o f literary p a p y r i t h a t h a v e thus far b e e n r e c o v e r e d , H e r o d o t u s w a s o n e o f the m o s t p o p u l a r p r o s e w r i t e r s , after D e m o s t h e n e s , P l a t o , Isocrates, T h u c y d i d e s , a n d X e n o p h o n (so M u r r a y 1972, 200-213); i n d e e d , the earliest k n o w n c o m m e n t a r y o n a p r o s e a u t h o r is t h a t o f the g r e a t A l e x a n d r i a n s c h o l a r A r i s t a r c h u s o n H e r o d o t u s . H e n c e , it s h o u l d n o t b e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a t t r a c t e d to H e r o d o t u s t o o . H e s h o w s his i n d e b t e d n e s s to H e r o d o t u s in n u m e r o u s p l a c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f M o s e s ' m a r c h d u r i n g his c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s . H e t h e r e gives d e tails a b o u t the w i n g e d serpents M o s e s p u t to flight w i t h ibises, a p a s s a g e t h a t w o u l d r e m i n d the r e a d e r o f H e r o d o t u s ' s story (2.75) o f the w i n g e d snakes t h a t c o m e flying t o w a r d E g y p t e v e r y s p r i n g f r o m A r a b i a a n d a r e s t o p p e d b y ibises, w h i c h destroy t h e m all. J o s e p h u s w o u l d s e e m to b e a l l u d i n g t o this p a s s a g e w h e n h e r e m a r k s t h a t h e will refrain f r o m s a y i n g m o r e a b o u t the ibises a n d snakes, "for G r e e k s are n o t u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the n a t u r e o f the i b i s " (Ant. 2 . 2 4 7 ) .
21
J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the d e a t h o f A h a b (Ant. 8.409, 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) s h o w s his t e n d e n c y to restate J e w i s h c o n c e p t s o f d i v i n e p o w e r a n d p r o p h e t i c d e t e r m i n a t i o n in t e r m s o f the classical G r e e k c o n c e p t s o f fate a n d tragic destiny, as f o u n d e s p e c i a l l y in G r e e k t r a g e d y a n d in H e r o d o t u s ( B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 3 9 - 6 2 ) . T h e a n c i e n t r e a d e r w o u l d also t h i n k o f L a i u s a n d O e d i p u s , w h o , as m u c h as t h e y tried to a v o i d the fate a b o u t w h i c h t h e y h a d b e e n w a r n e d b y the o r a c l e , failed to d o so. F u r t h e r m o r e , o n e recalls the s t a t e m e n t o f the C h o r u s in E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus w h e n t h e y b e h o l d the b l a m e l e s s H i p p o l y t u s in his stricken state. A l t h o u g h t h e y feel a n g e r at the g o d s e(
(1146), y e t , as t h e y k n o w , t h e r e is n o e s c a p e f r o m w h a t m u s t b e (1256, rod xp *>v). Similarly, in E u r i p i d e s ' Helen (1301), the D i o s c u r i d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y d i d n o t save
21. O n Josephus's indebtedness to Herodotus, see also Brune 1913, 164-68, w h o gives a list o f 63 words from b o o k 1 o f Herodotus that are distinctive with him and appear in Josephus. From the other books o f Herodotus, he counts over 1,100 expressions that are used b y Josephus. For further parallels, see also Schmidt 1894, 509-10, and Ek 1945-46, 27-62, 213, esp. 3 9 - 4 9 . 1 have already remarked above that the phrase em yripaos ot>8a> ("on the threshold o f old age"), w h i c h I cited from Homer, also ap pears in Herodotus (3.14). In all fairness, I should note that here Herodotus (1.30) actually says some thing slighdy different from Josephus (Ant. 1.223), f °
r n
e
speaks o f the blessing o f living to see grand
children b o r n to one's sons, whereas Josephus speaks o f the hope o f seeing one's son unscathed.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
their sister C l y t e m n e s t r a , "for M o i r a ' s c o m p u l s i o n \dvdyKrj\ €(
V
XP *> ]"
177
l e d w h e r e it m u s t [ T O
O n e also recalls h o w , in H e r o d o t u s (7.14-18), after a delusive d r e a m
w a r n s X e r x e s t h a t unless h e u n d e r t a k e s the w a r a g a i n s t G r e e c e , h e will b e b r o u g h t l o w as swiftly as h e h a d b e c o m e g r e a t , a similar d r e a m o c c u r s to A r t a b a n u s , X e r x e s ' u n c l e , w a r n i n g h i m a g a i n s t o p p o s i n g " w h a t m u s t b e " (7.17,
€
TO
V
XP ° )>
w h e r e u p o n X e r x e s is c o n v i n c e d t h a t this is a d i v i n e w a r n i n g . T h u s w e see, as C h r y s i p p u s the S t o i c p u t it, t h a t t h e r e w a s n o w a y in all o f these cases t o a v o i d t h e dire p r e d i c t i o n s , b e c a u s e o f the necessity t h a t is p a r t o f fate (von A r n i m 1903, i:27o~7i).
22
T h e influence o f T h u c y d i d e s u p o n Josephus w a s profound, w h e t h e r direcdy a n d / o r i n d i r e c d y t h r o u g h D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , w h o w r o t e a treatise o n T h u c y d i d e s ' style a n d w h o s e Roman Antiquities, t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e , infl u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish Antiquities. T h a t J o s e p h u s a d m i r e d h i m g r e a d y is c l e a r f r o m his r e m a r k , in his c o u n t e r a t t a c k o n G r e e k historians, t h a t e v e n T h u c y d i d e s is a c c u s e d o f e r r o r b y s o m e critics (Ag. Ap. 1.18), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t T h u c y dides r e p r e s e n t s the h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d o f the art o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . H e t h e n p r o c e e d s t o m e n t i o n T h u c y d i d e s ' r e p u t a t i o n for w r i t i n g the m o s t a c c u r a t e h i s t o r y o f his t i m e . H i s t o r i c a l a c c u r a c y , as J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s , is the m o s t i m p o r t a n t crite r i o n in j u d g i n g historians (War 1.2). J o s e p h u s m a y also h a v e b e e n a t t r a c t e d to the p e r s o n a l i t y o f T h u c y d i d e s b e c a u s e h e t o o , b e c a m e i n v o l v e d in politics, s e r v e d as a g e n e r a l , w a s e x i l e d f r o m his native country, a n d w r o t e a h i s t o r y o f a w a r in w h i c h his c o u n t r y h a d b e e n d e f e a t e d l a r g e l y t h r o u g h i n t e r n a l strife a n d in w h i c h h e h a d s e r v e d so unsuccessfully. T h e i n f l u e n c e o f T h u c y d i d e s m a y b e s e e n b o t h c o n c e p t u a l l y a n d linguistically. A s to t h e former, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e s are to b e s e e n in the m o l d i n g o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , in the guise o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f his i d e a l leader, Pericles. Just as T h u c y d i d e s (2.60) u n d e r l i n e s P e r i c l e s ' ability t o p e r s u a d e the m a s s e s , so J o s e p h u s , despite the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t M o s e s h a d a s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t ( E x o d . 4:10 a n d 6:12), stresses (Ant. 4.328) M o s e s ' ability to find favor w i t h the m a s s e s in e v e r y w a y t h r o u g h s p e e c h . B o t h T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.4) a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 3.23, 4 . 2 2 - 2 3 , 26) h i g h l i g h t the fickleness o f the m a s s e s a n d their r e a d i ness to b e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s , w h o m b o t h despise so g r e a d y . L i k e T h u c y d i d e s in his p o r t r a y a l o f Pericles, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the c o n s t a n t criticism b y the m a s s e s o f their g r e a t leader, M o s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , T h u c y d i d e s stresses t h a t civil strife (oraois)
is the g r e a t e n e m y o f
22. Likewise, H e c a b e , before giving birth to Paris, dreamt that she had given birth to a firebrand that c o n s u m e d all o f T r o y and consequendy exposed the infant, only to have h i m suckled by a bear, found by a shepherd, and eventually raised to fulfill the prophecy (Apollodorus 3.12.5; Hyginus, Fabulae 91). A g a i n , an oracle foretold that the son o f D a n a e , the daughter o f K i n g Acrisius o f A r g o s , w a s des tined to kill Acrisius, w h e r e u p o n he shut her up in an underground chamber, only to have Z e u s visit her and beget a child, Perseus, w h o , indeed, fulfilled the prophecy (Apollodorus 2.4.1; Hyginus, Fabulae 63).
iy8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s t a b i l i t y (3.82-84); a n d J o s e p h u s o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n m e n t i o n s this t h e m e , n o t a b l y i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h (Ant. 4 . 1 1 - 6 6 ) a n d t h e a p o s t a s y o f Z i m r i ( Z a m b r i a s ) (Ant. 4 . 1 4 1 - 5 5 ) . O n e p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e t h a t w i l l illustrate J o s e p h u s ' s d e p e n d e n c e u p o n T h u c y d i d e s is his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p l a g u e t h a t f o l l o w e d D a v i d ' s c e n s u s . T h e B i b l e (2 Sam.
2 4 : 1 0 - 1 7 ) g i v e s n o d e s c r i p t i o n at all o f this p l a g u e , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s
(Ant.
7.324-26) presents several details that b e a r a striking r e s e m b l a n c e to T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t (2.48-52) o f t h e g r e a t p l a g u e t h a t afflicted A t h e n s at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r (Kottek 1994, 156-60). D r u n e r ( 1 8 9 6 , 1 - 3 5 ) , T h a c k e r a y (1929, 1 1 0 - 1 4 ) , a n d S h u t t ( 1 9 6 1 , 6 8 - 7 5 )
n
a
v
e
c i t e d J o s e p h u s ' s u s e o f a n u m b e r o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f style t h a t a r e f a v o r i t e s o f Thucydides.
2 3
In particular,
i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e flight o f t h e A m o r i t e s
(Ant.
4 . 8 9 - 9 5 ) , J o s e p h u s h a s d r a w n u p o n T h u c y d i d e s ' d e s c r i p t i o n (7.83-84) o f t h e r e treat from S y r a c u s e ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, i n ) . I n a s m u c h as P l a t o w a s p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s i n g l e i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r c e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f h e l l e n i z a t i o n i n t h e E a s t d u r i n g t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d (see H a d a s 1958, 1—13; 1 9 5 9 , 7 2 - 8 2 ) , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s d i s p l a y s his k n o w l e d g e o f P l a t o in a n u m b e r o f p l a c e s . T h u s h e b o r r o w s , w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n i n g it, f r o m t h e Timaeus ( 2 2 B - C ) t h e n o t i o n t h a t " i n t h e G r e e k w o r l d e v e r y t h i n g w i l l b e f o u n d t o b e m o d e r n , a n d d a t i n g , so t o s p e a k , f r o m y e s t e r d a y o r t h e d a y b e f o r e " (Ag. Ap. 1.7). H e c o r r e c d y r e m a r k s t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f P l a t o is a d d r e s s e d o n l y t o
23. T h a c k e r a y 1929, n o , goes so far as to posit a " T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " whose assistance to Jose phus is particularly evident in books 1 7 - 1 9 o f the Antiquities. W e m a y question this theory, w h i c h also posits an assistant steeped in the works o f Sophocles for books 15 a n d 16 o f the Antiquities, for the fol lowing reasons: (1) Josephus's statement (Ag. Ap. 1.50) that he used fellow workers for the sake o f the G r e e k occurs in his discussion o f the composition o f the War, where T h a c k e r a y (106) is ironically forced to admit that he cannot pinpoint the nature a n d extent o f their help, although, o f course, w e m a y add, it w a s not u n c o m m o n in antiquity for an author to indicate a source where h e employed none a n d to fail to indicate it where h e did use it; (2) there are S o p h o c l e a n a n d T h u c y d i d e a n traces throughout the War a n d the Antiquities, as E . Stein 1937 has shown; (3) the presence o f m a n y o f the S o p h o c l e a n a n d T h u c y d i d e a n phrases in the other G r e e k works o f the period, notably Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, as L a d o u c e u r 1977 has pointed out, shows that they are characteristic o f first-century G r e e k rather than reflecting the proclivities o f a special assistant; (4) the fact that Josephus used Strabo in books 1 3 - 1 5 shows that there is not a sharp dividing line, as T h a c k e r a y contends, between Josephus's work ending in b o o k 14 a n d the assistant's work, c o m m e n c i n g in b o o k 15; (5) if Josephus used an assistant for the An tiquities, w e w o u l d expect h i m to have used o n e for Against Apion, which w a s completed not l o n g after wards and, b y T h a c k e r a y ' s o w n admission, shows great literary skill, but for the writing o f w h i c h he postulates n o assistant; (6) the Antiquities w a s written after Josephus h a d been in R o m e for twenty years. If he h a d h a d a n y contact with the Jews o f R o m e , it must have been in Greek, to j u d g e from the in scriptions o f the Jewish catacombs. H e n c e , h e h a d hardly the same need for assistants for the Antiqui ties as for the War. M o s t likely, Josephus himself w a s at that time m a k i n g a special study o f T h u c y d i d e s , for example, a n d hence the T h u c y d i d e a n phraseology. See m y review o f T h a c k e r a y ' s Josephus: The Man and the Historian (Feldman 1970a, 545-46). T h a c k e r a y ' s assistant hypothesis is also criticized by Richards 1939, 36-40; Shutt 1961, 30-35, 59-77; Pelletier 1962a, 251 ff.; Rajak 1984, 6 2 - 6 3 , 233-36; a n d Bilde 1988, 132-34.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
179
t h e few, w h e r e a s t h e T o r a h ' s t e a c h i n g s are i n t e n d e d for t h e m a n y (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 6 8 - 6 9 ) . H e d e l i b e r a t e l y c o m b a t s t h e i d e a t h a t G - d h a d c o l l a b o r a t o r s in t h e w o r k o f c r e a t i o n (Ag. Ap. 2.192), a l t h o u g h h e m e n t i o n s t h e n a m e s o f n e i t h e r P l a t o n o r P h i l o , w h o h e l d s u c h a view. H e cites P l a t o b y n a m e as o n e a d m i r e d b y t h e G r e e k s for his d i g n i t y o f c h a r a c t e r a n d p e r s u a s i v e e l o q u e n c e b u t r i d i c u l e d b y selfstyled e x p e r t s t a t e s m e n (Ag. Ap. 2.223). T h a t h e w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h P l a t o is c l e a r f r o m his r e m a r k t h a t if o n e e x a m i n e s P l a t o ' s l a w s , t h e y will f r e q u e n d y b e f o u n d less d e m a n d i n g than the Jewish c o d e a n d m o r e closely a p p r o x i m a t i n g the practice o f the m a s s e s (Ag. Ap. 2.224). H e k n o w s (ibid.) t h a t P l a t o h i m s e l f h a s a d m i t t e d t h a t it is n o t safe to e x p r e s s the t r u e o p i n i o n a b o u t G - d t o t h e i g n o r a n t m a s s e s
(Timaeus
2 8 C ) . H i s use o f t h e w o r d 8rj paovpyet in referring t o G - d ' s c r e a t i o n o f a n i m a l s (Ant. 1.32) is p r e s u m a b l y i n t e n d e d to r e m i n d t h e r e a d e r o f P l a t o ' s Srjpuovpyos,
the cre
a t o r o f P l a t o ' s visible w o r l d in the Timaeus (40C). H e cites t h e o p i n i o n o f t h o s e w h o r e g a r d P l a t o ' s d i s c o u r s e s as brilliant b u t e m p t y (Ag. Ap. 2.225). H e is a w a r e t h a t P l a t o b a n i s h e s the p o e t s , i n c l u d i n g H o m e r , f r o m his i d e a l state in o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m o b s c u r i n g w i t h t h e i r fables t h e c o r r e c t d o c t r i n e a b o u t G - d (Ag. Ap. 2.256). Finally, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t P l a t o f o l l o w e d M o s e s in p r e s c r i b i n g t h a t all the cit i z e n s m u s t s t u d y t h e l a w s a n d l e a r n t h e m v e r b a t i m , a n d t h a t foreigners m u s t n o t b e p e r m i t t e d to m i x at r a n d o m w i t h t h e citizens (Ag Ap. 2 . 2 5 7 ) .
24
J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e o f A r i s t o d e is c l e a r f r o m his s e v e r a l m e n t i o n s o f A r i s t o d e by n a m e
2 5
a n d f r o m his a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h A r i s t o t e l i a n t e r m i n o l o g y .
26
W e m a y l i k e w i s e see h e l l e n i z a t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s a s s o c i a t i o n o f the d i v i n e spirit w i t h p y r o m a n c y , w h e r e B a l a a m d i s c o v e r s G - d ' s r e v e l a t i o n in t h e color, s m o k e , disfigurations, o r f l a m e s o f t h e sacrificial v i c t i m s (Ant. 4 . 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) , s u c h as w e find in E u r i p i d e s (Phoenissae 1 2 5 5 - 5 8 ) ( L e v i s o n 1994, 1 2 6 - 2 7 ) . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s ' s d e scription o f t h e n a t u r e o f B a l a a m ' s i n s p i r a t i o n (Ant. 4. n 9) is c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d in P l a t o (Symposium 2 0 2 E - 3 A ) a n d P l u t a r c h (De Defectu Oraculorum 4 1 8 D ; De Genio Socratis 5 8 0 B - 8 2 C , 5 8 8 B - 8 9 F ) a n d is n o t to b e f o u n d in t h e B i b l e o r in o t h e r J e w ish s o u r c e s ( L e v i s o n 1994, 130-32).
D R A M A T I C M O T I F S AND
LANGUAGE
In addition to including m a n y phrases from Aeschylus, Sophocles, a n d Euripides, J o s e p h u s also seeks t o w i n his i n t e l l e c t u a l a u d i e n c e b y p r e s e n t i n g t h e m w i t h t h e m e s f a m i l i a r t o t h e m f r o m the t r a g e d i a n s . T h u s his b i b l i c a l figures a r e s o m e times p o r t r a y e d as t r a g i c h e r o e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the d e s c r i p t i o n in A r i s t o d e (Po etics 1 3 . 1 4 5 3 A 7 - 1 7 ) . K i n g Z e d e k i a h o f J u d a h , for e x a m p l e , as B e g g h a s n o t e d , is, like t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n t r a g i c h e r o , g o o d a n d r i g h t e o u s , l o y a l to f a m i l y a n d friends, y e t suffering f r o m a decisive flaw, his inability to assert h i m s e l f a g a i n s t friends a n d
24. O n Josephus's indebtedness to Plato, see further Briine 1 9 1 3 , 1 9 4 - 9 8 . 25. See Feldman 1965, index, s.v. "Aristode." 26. See the numerous examples cited in Briine 1913, 210-14.
180
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
false p r o p h e t s w h o d o n o t h a v e his o r the c o u n t r y ' s true interests at h e a r t ( B e g g 1989b, 1 0 2 - 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , G e d a l i a h is p r e s e n t e d as a s e c o n d D a v i d , since the four t e r m s a p p l i e d t o h i m b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 10.155, 164) are p r e c i s e l y t h o s e t h a t a p p e a r in J o s e p h u s ' s e u l o g y o f D a v i d (Ant. 7.391). A n d y e t , his sterling qualities are v i t i a t e d b y the f l a w t h a t h e is so n a i v e l y n e g l i g e n t in his d e a l i n g s w i t h I s h m a e l ( B e g g 1994a, 39-40)M o r e o v e r , w e f r e q u e n d y find t h e m o t i f o f vfipis a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s . For e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s p e a k s m e r e l y o f t h e w i c k e d n e s s a n d the evil t h o u g h t s o f s o m e o f the sons o f G - d ( G e n . 6:5), J o s e p h u s c o n v e r t s this i n t o the l a n g u a g e o f G r e e k t r a g e d y b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e o v e r b e a r i n g (vfipiords)
a n d disdainful
(v7T€po7TTas) o f e v e r y v i r t u e , b e i n g o v e r c o n f i d e n t o f their strength (Ant. 1.73). W h e r e the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d d e c i d e d to d e s t r o y the h u m a n r a c e b e c a u s e the e a r t h w a s c o r r u p t a n d filled w i t h v i o l e n c e ( G e n . 6 : 1 1 - 1 3 ) , J o s e p h u s , e m p l o y i n g the l a n g u a g e o f tragedy, says t h a t h e d i d so b e c a u s e o f the o u t r a g e s (e£ujfyn£ov) w i t h w h i c h m a n k i n d m e t G - d ' s r e v e r e n t r e g a r d a n d g o o d n e s s (Ant. 1.100). J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , d w e l l s o n the willful b l i n d n e s s (dpuaOias, " i g n o r a n c e , " "stupid ity") o f the g e n e r a t i o n o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l in refusing to listen to G - d ' s a d v i c e t o f o u n d c o l o n i e s (Ant. 1.110) (an a d d i t i o n t h a t the G r e e k s , so r e n o w n e d for the f o u n d a t i o n o f c o l o n i e s in the s e v e n t h a n d sixth c e n t u r i e s B.C.E., w o u l d surely h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d ) a n d in failing in t h e i r insolent p r i d e to p e r c e i v e t h a t their blessings w e r e d u e to G - d ' s b e n e v o l e n c e a n d n o t to their o w n m i g h t (Ant. I . I I I ) . H e d e scribes
the
events
in
terms
o f the
(evSoLLpioveiv), insolent c o n t e m p t (vfipis
t y p i c a l tragic
sequence
of
prosperity
. . . Kal Karcufrpovrjoiv), a n d p u n i s h m e n t
(au/x>o/oafr"calamities," Ant. 1.110, 113). A n o t h e r s c e n e r e m i n i s c e n t o f G r e e k t r a g e d y is t h a t in w h i c h G - d
thwarts
P h a r a o h ' s c r i m i n a l p a s s i o n for S a r a i b y c a u s i n g a n o u t b r e a k o f disease (Ant. 1.164), w h i c h is r e m i n i s c e n t o f the p l a g u e inflicted u p o n T h e b e s b e c a u s e o f O e d i p u s ' s in cest. I n d e e d , in o r d e r t o find a r e m e d y for the p l a g u e , P h a r a o h , like O e d i p u s , c o n sults priests (tepefr), w h o d e c l a r e t h a t G - d is w r a t h f u l b e c a u s e P h a r a o h h a d w i s h e d to o u t r a g e (vfipioai)
the stranger's wife (Ant. 1.164).
T h e h a r s h b e h a v i o r o f S a r a i t o w a r d h e r h a n d m a i d H a g a r ( G e n . 16:6), w h o , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , d e s p i s e d S a r a i after she ( H a g a r ) h a d b e c o m e
pregnant
t h r o u g h A b r a h a m ( G e n . 16:4), is m o r e c l e a r l y justified in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e , w h i c h h a s the r i n g o f G r e e k tragedy, t h a t H a g a r ' s p l i g h t w a s d u e to h e r a r r o g a n t (dyvwpiova,
"unreasonable," "obstinate," "rebellious," "unruly")
and
s y n o n y m o u s l y p r e s u m p t u o u s (avddSrj, " a r r o g a n t , " " i n s o l e n t , " " s t u b b o r n , " " r e b e l lious") b e h a v i o r t o w a r d h e r mistress (Ant. 1.189). O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the s t u b b o r n ness (avOaSiav) o f P r o m e t h e u s in A e s c h y l u s ' s Prometheus Bound (1034) a n d o f C r e o n ' s s t a t e m e n t t o O e d i p u s t h a t " i f y o u t h i n k o b s t i n a c y [avOaSiav] w i t h o u t t h o u g h t to b e s o m e t h i n g , y o u are m i s g u i d e d " ( S o p h o c l e s , Oedipus the King 5 4 9 - 5 0 ) , as w e l l as o f the C h o r u s ' s s t a t e m e n t in E u r i p i d e s ' Bacchae (884-86) t h a t the g o d s b r i n g to c o r r e c t i o n those m e n w h o h o n o r a r r o g a n c e (dyvajpuoovvav) a n d w h o d o n o t , in their s o u n d j u d g m e n t , foster t h i n g s d i v i n e .
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
181
I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n t o J u d g . 4:3, J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e t w e n t y - y e a r p e r i o d o f suffering b e f o r e t h e a d v e n t o f D e b o r a h ' s j u d g e s h i p , G - d h a d s o u g h t to t a m e t h e i n s o l e n c e (vfipw) t h a t the Israelites, t h r o u g h their a r r o g a n c e (dyvcopuoovvrj,
" o b s t i n a c y , " t h e n o u n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e adjective,
dyvcLpuova,
n o t e d a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h H a g a r ) , h a d s h o w n t o w a r d H i m , so t h a t t h e y m i g h t b e m o r e m o d e r a t e (ow(f>povd)oiv) in the future (Ant. 5.200). T h i s is t h e lesson in m u c h o f G r e e k t r a g e d y ; o n e m a y cite, as a n e x a m p l e , t h e p a s s a g e in A e s c h y l u s ' s Agamemnon (176-78) t o t h e effect t h a t Z e u s , w h o h a s g u i d e d m e n to think, h a s l a i d d o w n t h e rule t h a t w i s d o m c o m e s o n l y t h r o u g h suffering (irdOei pudOos). T h e Philistines, in details a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , s h o w i n s o l e n c e (evvfiplowoiv) w a r d S a m s o n o v e r their c u p s ; a n d h e , his p r i d e insulted (vfipi^opuevos)
to
by such
m o c k e r y , d e t e r m i n e s to g e t r e v e n g e (Ant. 5 . 3 1 4 - 1 5 ) . A g a i n , Eli's sons a r e c o n d e m n e d as b e i n g insolent (vfipiorai)
to m e n a n d i m p i o u s t o w a r d G - d (Ant. 5.339).
T h a t J o s e p h u s is, i n d e e d , t h i n k i n g in t e r m s o f t r a g e d y m a y b e s e e n in his use o f t h e w o r d " s t a g e m a s k s " (7rpooco7T€ia), w h e r e , in c o m m e n t i n g o n S a u l ' s c r u e l t y in s l a u g h t e r i n g t h e priests o f N o b , h e reflects t h a t it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h u m a n n a t u r e t h a t w h e n m e n attain to p o w e r , t h e y p u t aside their m o d e r a t e a n d j u s t w a y s " a s i f t h e y w e r e stage m a s k s " a n d i n s t e a d a s s u m e a n attitude o f audacity, recklessness, a n d c o n t e m p t for t h i n g s h u m a n a n d d i v i n e (Ant. 6.264). W e r e a d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t K i n g A m a z i a h , after his m i l i t a r y v i c tories, w a s u n a b l e t o c o n t a i n h i m s e l f at his g o o d fortune (evirpayiais)^ r a g e d (igvppi^ev)
a n d out
G - d , f r o m W h o m h e h a d r e c e i v e d it (Ant. 9.196). C o n s e q u e n t l y ,
J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t s t h a t h e thinks t h a t it w a s G - d W h o u r g e d A m a z i a h o n t o m a k e w a r a g a i n s t the k i n g d o m o f Israel so t h a t h e m i g h t suffer p u n i s h m e n t for his t r a n s g r e s s i o n s a g a i n s t H i m (Ant. 9.199) (see B e g g 1995b, 29). L i k e w i s e , U z z i a h ' s l e p r o s y is s a i d to b e t h e p e n a l t y t h a t h e p a i d for his i n s o l e n c e in t h i n k i n g t h a t h e c o u l d r e a c h a station h i g h e r t h a n m a n ' s (Ant. 9.226) ( B e g g 1 9 9 5 b , 1 9 - 2 0 ) .
27
F u r t h e r m o r e , w e m a y n o t e , K i n g A h a s u e r u s is said t o h a v e b e e n insulted (v^pLaOetrj) b y Q u e e n V a s h t i (Ant.
11.192-94). Josephus,
moreover, castigates
H a m a n , in t e r m s o f G r e e k tragedy, for n o t s h o w i n g m o d e r a t i o n in t i m e o f p r o s p e r i t y : h e n e i t h e r b o r e his g o o d fortune (evrvxtav) w i s e l y n o r m a d e t h e b e s t use o f his p r o s p e r i t y w i t h p r u d e n t r e a s o n (oaxfrpovi Xoyiopbtp) (Ant. 11.277). O n e o f t h e w a y s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s interest in his n a r r a t i v e is b y in c r e a s i n g suspense, n o t a b l y in his v e r s i o n o f t h e J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e w e l e a r n m e r e l y t h a t the b r o t h e r s e n v i e d J o s e p h ( G e n . 37:11), J o s e p h u s says t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s p r e d i c t e d t h a t h e w o u l d e x e r c i s e p o w e r a n d m a j e s t y a n d s u p r e m a c y o v e r t h e m (Ant. 2.12); h o w e v e r , t h e b r o t h e r s r e v e a l e d n o t h i n g o f this to J o s e p h , p r e t e n d i n g t h a t t h e d r e a m s w e r e u n intelligible t o t h e m . T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e b u i l d u p o f suspense in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r sion o f t h e s e a r c h for J o s e p h ' s c u p in t h e sacks o f his b r o t h e r s . I n t h e B i b l e , e a c h o f
27. It is true that the rabbis and Pseudo-Philo also expatiate on the sins o f the Israelites, but they d o not use the language and the conceptual framework o f G r e e k tragedy.
/&?
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
t h e b r o t h e r s , w e a r e told, o p e n e d his sack, a n d the s e a r c h p r o c e e d e d f r o m t h e o l d est to the y o u n g e s t ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) ; J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s b y d e s c r i b i n g t h e f e e l i n g o f relief t h a t e a c h felt w h e n t h e c u p w a s n o t f o u n d in his s a c k (Ant. 2.133). H e n o t e s t h e c o n f i d e n c e t h e y felt, ironically, t h a t t h e g o b l e t w o u l d n o t b e f o u n d in B e n j a m i n ' s sack, a n d c o n c l u d e s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the a b u s e t h a t t h e y p o u r e d u p o n their p u r s u e r s for i m p e d i n g their j o u r n e y (Ant. 2.133). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e story o f Esther, t h e r e is a h e i g h t e n i n g o f d r a m a t i c suspense i n J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f H a r b o n a h at a n earlier p o i n t t h a n h e a p p e a r s in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n t h e B i b l e , it is n o t until H a m a n h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b y E s t h e r as t h e o n e w h o s o u g h t to d e s t r o y h e r p e o p l e t h a t H a r b o n a h r e m a r k s (Esther 7:9) t h a t H a m a n h a d also b u i l t g a l l o w s for M o r d e c a i ; a n d t h e k i n g t h e r e u p o n o r d e r s H a m a n t o b e h a n g e d t h e r e o n . I n J o s e p h u s (Ant. n . 2 6 1 ) , H a r b o n a h , o n e o f E s t h e r ' s e u n u c h s sent to h a s t e n H a m a n ' s c o m i n g t o t h e b a n q u e t , n o t i c e s t h e g a l l o w s a n d l e a r n s t h a t it h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d for the q u e e n ' s u n c l e M o r d e c a i , b u t for t h e t i m e b e i n g h o l d s his p e a c e . A s a s t o r y t e l l i n g d e v i c e , this detail b u i l d s u p suspense, a n d H a r b o n a h ' s later r e v e l a t i o n is therefore all the m o r e effective (Feld m a n 1970b, 153). J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e d r a m a t i c e x c i t e m e n t in a series o f a d d i t i o n s to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w e are g i v e n a v i v i d p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m as a g e n e r a l w h o d e t e r m i n e s t o h e l p t h e S o d o m i t e s w i t h o u t delay, w h o sets o u t in h a s t e a n d falls u p o n t h e A s s y r i a n s o n t h e fifth n i g h t in a n a t t a c k in w h i c h h e c a t c h e s t h e e n e m y b y surprise b e f o r e t h e y h a v e t i m e to a r m t h e m s e l v e s . T h e n w e a r e g i v e n t h e g r a p h i c details o f his s l a u g h t e r o f the e n e m y , h o w h e slays s o m e w h i l e t h e y a r e still a s l e e p , w h i l e h e p u t s to flight o t h e r s w h o a r e n o t y e t a s l e e p b u t w h o a r e i n c a p a c i t a t e d b y d r u n k e n ness (Ant. 1.177). T h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d o e s n o t s p e a k o f t h e t i m e a n d cir c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a t t a c k ( G e n . 14:14) a n d says m e r e l y t h a t A b r a h a m c o n t i n u e d his p u r s u i t o f t h e e n e m y , after n i g h t h a d fallen, w i t h d i v i d e d forces ( G e n . 14:15). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is A b r a h a m w h o b u i l d s t h e altar for the sacrifice o f I s a a c ( G e n . 22:9), J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s t h e d r a m a t i c interest b y h a v i n g I s a a c h i m s e l f s
c o n s t r u c t t h e altar for his o w n sacrifice (Ant. 1.227). ^ i l i k e w i s e m o r e d r a m a t i c to h a v e A b r a h a m r e c a l l his p r a y e r s for a s o n w h i l e h e is a b o u t to p l a c e I s a a c o n t h e altar to b e sacrificed a n d to h a v e h i m r e c o l l e c t t h a t at t h a t t i m e , h e h a d h a d n o t h o u g h t o f h i g h e r h a p p i n e s s t h a n t o see I s a a c g r o w to m a n ' s estate a n d t o l e a v e h i m at his o w n d e a t h t o b e h e i r t o his d o m i n i o n (Ant. 1.228). J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e K o r a h r e b e l l i o n is u n u s u a l l y d r a m a t i c . I n p a r t i c u lar, w e m a y n o t e t h e s c e n e d e s c r i b i n g t h e e x c i t e d r e a c t i o n o f t h e m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 4.22), as w e l l as the g r a p h i c d e p i c t i o n o f t h e e a r t h q u a k e t h a t e n g u l f e d D a t h a n ' s c o m p a n y (Ant. 4.51) a n d t h e fire t h a t c o n s u m e d K o r a h ' s c o m p a n y (Ant. 4 . 5 4 - 5 6 ) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) . I n the c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s supplies a n u m b e r o f d r a m a t i c details to e n h a n c e his m i l i t a r y r e p u t a t i o n ; thus, in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e b a t d e w i t h A m a l e k , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e a d v e r s a r i e s m e t in a h a n d - t o - h a n d c o n t e s t a n d f o u g h t w i t h g r e a t spirit a n d m u t u a l shouts o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t (Ant. 3.53). T h e r e is also in-
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
183
c r e a s e d d r a m a in M o s e s ' r e p l y t o the c h a r g e s o f K o r a h , w i t h M o s e s m a k i n g q u i t e a s c e n e , r a i s i n g his h a n d s to h e a v e n a n d s p e a k i n g i n s t e n t o r i a n t o n e s (Ant. 4.40). E v e n in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i c a l l y q u o t e s w h a t the t h r e a t e n e d trees w o u l d s a y i f t h e y w e r e e n d o w e d w i t h v o i c e s (Ant. 4.299). F u r t h e r m o r e , the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the w a i l i n g for M o s e s ' a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h is m u c h m o r e g r a p h i c (Ant. 4.320-22). T h e d r a m a o f S a u l ' s s e l e c t i o n b y G - d is i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e it is at n i g h t (Ant. 6.37-40) a n d n o t d u r i n g the d a y (1 S a m . 9:15); a n d it is w h i l e S a m u e l is tossing w i t h sleeplessness t h a t G - d instructs h i m to c h o o s e the k i n g w h o m H e will p o i n t o u t . T h i s d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t is a u g m e n t e d still m o r e b y the fact t h a t o n the d a y b e f o r e S a u l ' s a r r i v a l , G - d h a s d e c l a r e d t h a t at p r e c i s e l y t h a t h o u r o n the f o l l o w i n g day, S a u l w o u l d a r r i v e (Ant. 6.49), w h e r e a s the H e b r e w d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e the p r e c i s e h o u r b u t m e r e l y d e c l a r e s t h a t it will b e " t o m o r r o w a b o u t this t i m e " (1 S a m . 9:16), a n d the S e p t u a g i n t d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the h o u r at all. J o s e p h u s builds u p the d r a m a s u r r o u n d i n g D a v i d ' s c h a l l e n g e t o G o l i a t h a n d a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 17:26) t h a t w h e n D a v i d h e a r d the Philistine g i a n t r e v i l i n g a n d a b u s i n g the Israelite army, h e b e c a m e i n d i g n a n t (Ant. 6.177). A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f i n c r e a s e d d r a m a is to b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f A b s a l o m ' s r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t a n d later r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h his father, K i n g D a v i d . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , D a v i d finally a g r e e s t o m e e t A b s a l o m a n d kisses h i m (2 S a m . 14:33), n o s t a t e m e n t b y D a v i d is c i t e d at the m o m e n t o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e , as A b s a l o m t h r o w s h i m s e l f d o w n to t h e g r o u n d a n d asks p a r d o n for his sins, w h e r e u p o n D a v i d , i n t u r n , raises h i m u p a n d specifically p r o m i s e s to forget w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d (Ant. 7.193). A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c effect is J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the cli m a c t i c i n c i d e n t in w h i c h D a n i e l is cast into the l i o n s ' d e n . A c c o r d i n g to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w h e n K i n g D a r i u s h e a r d f r o m the satraps t h a t D a n i e l h a d v i o l a t e d his e d i c t , h e w a s v e r y u p s e t a n d set his h e a r t to d e l i v e r D a n i e l a n d tried until sun d o w n to w o r k o u t a p l a n t o save h i m ( D a n . 6:14). J o s e p h u s a d d s to the a p p r e h e n siveness o f the s c e n e b y d e p i c t i n g the plotters a n t i c i p a t i n g t h a t D a r i u s m i g h t treat D a n i e l w i t h g r e a t e r favor t h a n t h e y h a d e x p e c t e d a n d t h a t h e m i g h t b e r e a d y t o p a r d o n h i m despite his c o n t e m p t for the r o y a l d e c r e e (Ant. 10.257). J o s e p h u s e v e n a d d s at this p o i n t t h a t t h e y w e r e e n v i o u s o f D a n i e l b e c a u s e o f the r e g a r d in w h i c h h e w a s h e l d b y D a r i u s a n d h e n c e refused to a d o p t a m i l d e r c o u r s e . T h e d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t is i n c r e a s e d b y the a d d i t i o n a l detail, w h i c h a p p e a r s in the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n b u t n o t in the H e b r e w text o r in the S e p t u a g i n t , t h a t w h e n H a m a n tells M o r d e c a i t o dress h i m s e l f in r o y a l g a r m e n t s so t h a t h e m a y l e a d h i m t h r o u g h the city, M o r d e c a i at first is suspicious o f his intentions, a n d , t h i n k i n g t h a t h e is b e i n g m o c k e d , r e m a r k s "Is this the w a y y o u m a k e sport o f m y m i s f o r t u n e s ? " (Ant. 11.257). O n e k e y e l e m e n t t h a t r e n d e r s J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e m o r e effective is i n c r e a s e d irony. T h e i r o n y o f the b i r t h o f I s a a c is h e i g h t e n e d b y the fact t h a t A b r a h a m is " o n the t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (inl
yrjpws
ovSto) (Ant. 1.222), a p h r a s e b o r r o w e d , as
184
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
n o t e d , f r o m H o m e r , w h o uses it o f P r i a m w h e n h e addresses his s o n H e c t o r b e f o r e the latter g o e s off to the c o m b a t w i t h A c h i l l e s t h a t will b r i n g a b o u t his d e a t h (Iliad 22.60), thus h i g h l i g h t i n g the p a t h e t i c p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n the a g e d father a n d the p r o m i s i n g s o n w h o is a b o u t to die. H o m e r also uses the p h r a s e in n o t i n g t h a t A c h i l l e s ' father, Peleus, w a s as o l d as P r i a m , " o n the d e a d l y t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (oXocp c m yrjpaos
ovSco) (Iliad 24.487). H e n c e the literate r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l h a v e
s e e n the p a r a l l e l s a m o n g the a g e d A b r a h a m , P r i a m , a n d P e l e u s o n the o n e h a n d , a n d y o u t h f u l I s a a c , H e c t o r , a n d A c h i l l e s , all a p p a r e n d y d o o m e d to die at a n e a r l y age. I n particular, w e m a y call a t t e n t i o n t o the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s , in the b r i e f p e r i c o p e in w h i c h he paraphrases
A b r a h a m ' s intended
sacrifice o f I s a a c
(Ant.
1.222-36), o n five o c c a s i o n s uses a w o r d for h a p p i n e s s . T h i s s h o w s , o n the o n e h a n d , h o w m u c h h a p p i n e s s m e a n t to A b r a h a m , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h o w r e a d y h e w a s t o f o r g o t h a t h a p p i n e s s b e c a u s e o f his faith in G - d . T h e i r o n y is in c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m s o u g h t t o l e a v e his s o n diradrj (Ant. 1.223), a w o r d t h a t h a s t w o v e r y different m e a n i n g s , b o t h o f w h i c h are a p p l i c a b l e h e r e : " u n s c a t h e d , " in the sense t h a t in the e n d , I s a a c will b e u n h a r m e d ,
and
" e m o t i o n l e s s , " in the sense t h a t I s a a c will a c t u a l l y w e l c o m e his b e i n g sacrificed. T h e r e is likewise a d d e d i r o n y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f D a n i e l , w h e n h e e m e r g e s u n s c a t h e d f r o m the l i o n s ' d e n . T h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e states t h a t K i n g D a r i u s o r d e r e d t h a t D a n i e l ' s a c c u s e r s b e cast into the l i o n s ' d e n , t o g e t h e r w i t h their w i v e s a n d c h i l d r e n , w h e r e u p o n the lions b r o k e all their b o n e s into p i e c e s ( D a n . 6:24). T h e r e is m u c h g r e a t e r d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t D a n i e l ' s e n e m i e s tell the k i n g their t h e o r y t h a t the r e a s o n w h y D a n i e l w a s n o t h a r m e d w a s t h a t the lions w e r e sated, w h e r e u p o n the k i n g takes t h e m at their w o r d a n d feeds the lions a l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f m e a t b e f o r e t h r o w i n g t h e m into the l i o n s ' d e n , w h e r e , fittingly e n o u g h , t h e y are c o n s u m e d (Ant. 10.260). T h i s is the s a m e k i n d o f i r o n y t h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t o n the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the fact t h a t H a m a n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n h a n g e d o n the g a l l o w s t h a t h e h a d p r e p a r e d for his e n e m y M o r d e c a i , a n d o n G - d ' s w i s d o m a n d j u s t i c e in b r i n g i n g this a b o u t (Ant. 11.268). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the i r o n y in his v e r s i o n o f the E s t h e r n a r r a t i v e b y i n t r o d u c i n g G - d ' s ironic l a u g h t e r at H a m a n ' s h o p e s j u s t b e f o r e the reversal o f for 28
t u n e c a l l e d a nepnTeTeia.
W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , A h a s u e r u s asks H a m a n w h a t
s h o u l d b e d o n e for the m a n w h o m the k i n g w i s h e s to h o n o r (Esther 6:6), J o s e p h u s ' s A h a s u e r u s a d d s to the i r o n y b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e k n o w s t h a t H a m a n is the o n l y friend l o y a l to h i m (Ant. 11.252). T h e i r o n y is i n c r e a s e d , for w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t H a m a n t o o k the a p p a r e l a n d the h o r s e a n d a r r a y e d M o r d e c a i (Es t h e r 6:11), J o s e p h u s stresses the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n M o r d e c a i c l o t h e d in s a c k c l o t h a n d in the n e w p u r p l e r o b e t h a t h e is n o w t o l d b y H a m a n t o p u t o n (Ant. 11.256). J o s e p h u s u n d e r s c o r e s the s u p r e m e i r o n y t h a t H a m a n w a s h a n g e d o n the v e r y
28. O n the theme of irepLireTeia
in Josephus, see Attridge 1976a, 98.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
185
s a m e g a l l o w s t h a t h e h a d p r e p a r e d for M o r d e c a i , m a r v e l i n g at G - d ' s w i s d o m a n d j u s t i c e in b r i n g i n g a b o u t the result (Ant. 1 1 . 2 6 7 - 6 8 ) , a n d a d d s t o the d r a m a o f t h e s c e n e b y h a v i n g Q u e e n E s t h e r s h o w the k i n g t h e letter in w h i c h H a m a n h a d or d e r e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f all the J e w s (Ant. 11.270). I n a d d i t i o n to u s i n g d r a m a t i c t e c h n i q u e s , J o s e p h u s m a k e s his w o r k m o r e r e a d a b l e a n d instructive in t h e t r a d i t i o n o f t h e a n c i e n t historians g e n e r a l l y b y i n c l u d i n g g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d a p h o r i s m s . E x a m p l e s o f s u c h s a y i n g s in J o s e p h u s a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : T h o s e w h o o b e y w e l l w i l l k n o w h o w to rule w e l l (Ant. 4.186); T r o u bles a n d perils m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r for m a n (Ant. 4.293); N o t h i n g is m o r e d e ceitful t h a n a w o m a n w h o b e t r a y s o u r s p e e c h (Ant. 5.294); M e n a r e affected m o s t b y t h o s e s h o c k s t h a t fall u n e x p e c t e d l y (Ant. 5.358); S o n s n e e d n o t b e like their fa thers (Ant. 6.33); M e n lose c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n w h e n blest b y fortune (Ant. 6.116); J u s tice p r e v a i l s o v e r a n g e r a n d fear (Ant. 6.212); Fears o v e r c o m e t r u t h (Ant. 6.259); W h e n m e n attain to p o w e r , o f f c o m e s the m a s k (Ant. 6.262); M e n o f p o w e r listen t o unsifted a c c u s a t i o n s (Ant. 6.267); M e n e m u l a t e t h o s e w h o h a v e b e s t o w e d s o m e k i n d n e s s u p o n t h e m o r flatter t h e m in a d v a n c e (Ant. 6.341); T h e g r e a t n e s s o f k i n g s ' p o w e r forbids t h e m to b e less t h a n w h o l l y g o o d (Ant. 6.349); W e h a v e m o r e faith in w h a t w e d o o u r s e l v e s t h a n in w h a t is d o n e t h r o u g h o t h e r s (Ant. 7.29); T r e a c h e r o u s m e n often a s s u m e the role o f g o o d m e n to a v e r t s u s p i c i o n (Ant. 7.34); P r o s p e r i t y m a k e s o n e a n o b j e c t o f e n v y (Ant. 7.84); K i n g s are m o r e i n f l u e n c e d b y p a s s i o n t h a n b y j u s t i c e (Ant. 7.147); C r o w d s are a t t r a c t e d to l o o k at a c o r p s e (Ant. 7.287); W a t e r is w o r t h m o r e t h a n m o n e y (Ant. 7.312); It is n o t terrible to serve e v e n a f o r e i g n m a s ter, let a l o n e o n e ' s b r o t h e r (Ant. 7.373); E v i l d o e r s g a i n n o t h i n g b y p o s t p o n e m e n t o f their p u n i s h m e n t s (Ant. 8.20); T o p r e s e r v e is g r e a t e r t h a n to a c q u i r e (Ant. 8.121); P r o s p e r i t y b e g e t s sin (Ant. 8.251); T o s h o w a p p r o v a l o f t h e acts o f kings, subjects m u s t i m i t a t e t h e m , e v e n w h e n t h e y a r e evil (Ant. 8.252); Fate is n o t d e c e i v e d b y a c h a n g e o f g a r m e n t s (Ant. 8.413); O n e s h o u l d n o t b e l i e v e flattery m o r e t h a n t r u t h (Ant. 8.418); T h e p o w e r o f fate secretly enters i n t o the souls o f m e n a n d flatters t h e m w i t h fair h o p e s (Ant. 8.419); It is m o s t p l e a s a n t for a g o o d m a n to see t h e w i c k e d p u n i s h e d (Ant. 9.133); S u c c e s s e s a n d brilliant g o o d fortune l e a d to t h e r u i n o f k i n g s (Ant. 9.223); D e s t i n y seeks a p r e t e x t for d e s t r u c t i o n (Ant. 10.76); W h a t is w i s e a n d d i v i n e c a n n o t b e b o u g h t w i t h gifts (Ant. 10.241); B u i l d i n g s , like m e n , in t i m e t u r n g r a y a n d lose strength a n d b e a u t y (Ant. 10.265); B e f o r e t h e y e x p e r i e n c e m i s f o r t u n e , m e n d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is g o o d for t h e m (Ant. 13.152).
ROMANTIC
MOTIFS
J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e his n a r r a t i v e m o r e a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s b y intro d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs r e m i n i s c e n t o f H o m e r in t h e Odyssey, A e s c h y l u s ' s a c c o u n t (Choephoroe 6 1 3 - 2 2 ) o f S c y l l a ' s b e t r a y a l o f h e r father o u t o f love for M i n o s (cf. O v i d , Metamorphoses 8 . 6 - 1 5 1 ) , X e n o p h o n ' s Cyropaedia, a n d H e l l e n i s t i c novels. H e a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t the r e a d e r ' s interest c o u l d h a r d l y b e m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h t w e n t y
186
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
b o o k s o f p o l i t i c a l a n d m i l i t a r y h i s t o r y w i t h o u t digressions in the f o r m o f p u r p l e p a s s a g e s a n d e s p e c i a l l y o f r o m a n t i c n a r r a t i v e s (see M o e h r i n g 1957). I n this r e s p e c t , J o s e p h u s follows in t h e footsteps p a r t i c u l a r l y o f H e r o d o t u s ; o n e thinks o f H e r o d o t u s ' s a c c o u n t o f C a n d a u l e s ' wife a n d G y g e s (Histories 1.8-12), as w e l l as the e p i s o d e o f the S c y t h i a n y o u t h s a n d the A m a z o n w o m e n
(Histories
4 . 1 1 1 - 1 6 ) . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t h a s n o r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l , J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the E g y p t i a n s ' f r e n z y for w o m e n a n d A b r a m ' s fear t h a t P h a r a o h will p u t h i m to d e a t h so as to h a v e S a r a i (Ant. 1.162). T h e erotic m o t i f is further d e v e l o p e d i n P h a r a o h ' s m e e t i n g w i t h S a r a i , w h e r e , in terror, h e asks w h o she is a n d w h o the m a n is w h o h a s a c c o m p a n i e d h e r (Ant. 1.165). T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), o n the o t h e r h a n d , e m p h a s i z e s n o t P h a r a o h ' s terror b u t A b r a m ' s grief. T h e r e is m o r e r o m a n c e in J o s e p h u s t h a n in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 12:19) in P h a r a o h ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e h a d set his affections o n S a r a i b e c a u s e h e h a d b e l i e v e d t h a t she w a s A b r a m ' s sister, a n d h e h a d h o p e d to m a r r y r a t h e r t h a n o u t r a g e (itjvpploaL)
h e r in
a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (KCLT* eiriOvpLiav (hpparjpievos, i.e., " h a v i n g r u s h e d h e a d l o n g into p a s s i o n " ) (Ant. 1.165). J o s e p h u s also i n t r o d u c e s a n u m b e r o f o t h e r r o m a n t i c el e m e n t s in his a c c o u n t s o f A b i m e l e c h ' s a t t e m p t e d s e d u c t i o n o f S a r a h (Ant. 1.208). T h e r e is a n a d d e d r o m a n t i c flavor in J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the e p i s o d e o f E l i e z e r ' s s e a r c h for a wife for I s a a c . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l t o u c h r e m i n i s c e n t o f H e l l e n i s t i c novels, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the difficulty o f his j o u r n e y , in t h a t h e m u s t pass t h r o u g h a c o u n t r y t h a t is m u d d y in w i n t e r a n d p a r c h e d b y d r o u g h t i n s u m m e r a n d t h a t is infested b y b r i g a n d s (Ant. 1.244). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e n E l i e z e r arrives, the o t h e r m a i d e n s , j u s t as in H o m e r ' s Odyssey ( 6 . 1 3 7 - 4 1 ) , e x c e p t for R e b e k a h , refuse t o s h o w h i m hospitality (Ant. 1.245). R e b e k a h r e b u k e s the o t h e r m a i d e n s (Ant. 1.246) in t e r m s r e m i n i s c e n t o f N a u s i c a a ' s a d d r e s s to h e r c o m p a n i o n s (Odyssey 6 . 1 9 8 - 2 1 0 ) . T h e r e u p o n , Eliezer, i n a r e m a r k t h a t r e m i n d s the r e a d e r o f O d y s s e u s ' s r e a c t i o n to N a u s i c a a ' s hospitality, d e c l a r e s t h a t the p a r e n t s o f s u c h a c h i l d s h o u l d b e c o n g r a t u l a t e d a n d t h a t she d e s e r v e s to b e m a r r i e d to the s o n o f his m a s t e r (Ant. 1.247). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the erotic e l e m e n t in his a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s falling in love w i t h R a c h e l at first sight (Ant. 1.288) a n d the p r o t r a c t e d n e g o t i a t i o n s b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d L a b a n in o r d e r to e m p h a s i z e t h e i r love (Ant. 1.298); D i n a h ' s s e d u c t i o n at a festival (Ant. 1.337) a n d H a m o r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t D i n a h b e g i v e n to S h e c h e m (Ant. 1.338); the infatuation o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife w i t h J o s e p h (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) ; M o s e s ' m a r r i a g e w i t h the E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s (Ant. 2.252-53), p e r h a p s b a s e d o n the S c y l l a l e g e n d ( B r a u n 1938, 9 7 - 1 0 2 ) ; the c o n n e c t i o n that J o s e p h u s establishes b e t w e e n the story o f B a l a a m a n d the s e d u c t i v e w o r d s o f the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n to the Israelite y o u t h s , the l e i t m o t i f b e i n g h o w t o s u b v e r t o n e ' s e n e m y t h r o u g h sex (Ant. 4.129);
29
the failure o f the L e v i t e c o n c u b i n e to r e t u r n the love o f h e r h u s b a n d (Ant.
29. V a n U n n i k 1974, 243, notes the significant fact that Josephus expands at great length (Ant. 4.126-51) the story of the seduction o f the Israelite youths by the Midianite w o m e n , whereas he deals
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
187
5 . 1 3 6 - 3 7 ) ; t h e a p o l o g y offered for t h e r a p e o f the w o m e n o f S h i l o h b y t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s — n a m e l y , t h e failure o f t h e p e o p l e o f S h i l o h to p r o t e c t t h e i r d a u g h t e r s (Ant 5.171), a n d t h e a c t u a l s e i z u r e o f t h e w o m e n o f S h i l o h b y t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s (Ant 5 . 1 7 2 - 7 3 ) , in a m a n n e r r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e r a p e o f t h e S a b i n e w o m e n b y t h e R o m a n s ( L i v y 1.9); M a n o a h ' s m a d l o v e for his wife a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y his i n o r d i n a t e (oLKpartbs, i.e., " w i t h o u t c o m m a n d o v e r o n e s e l f o r o n e ' s p a s s i o n , " " i n c o n t i n e n t , " " i m m o d e r a t e , " " i n t e m p e r a t e " ) j e a l o u s y (^rjXorvTros) (Ant 5.277); t h e e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e r o m a n t i c a s p e c t in t h e e p i s o d e o f S a m s o n a n d t h e T i m n i t e w o m a n b y J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s in t h e c o u r s e o f his c o n s t a n t visits to h e r h o m e t h a t h e p e r f o r m e d his first g r e a t e x p l o i t , s t r a n g l i n g t h e l i o n (Ant 5.287); t h e e x a g g e r a t i o n o f t h e m e l o d r a m a i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h S a m son's w i f e b e g s h i m , b u r s t i n g (TrpoTTnrTovorjs, " r u s h i n g h e a d l o n g " ) into tears, to r e v e a l t h e a n s w e r to t h e r i d d l e (Ant 5.292); the d e s c r i p t i o n o f D e l i l a h as a c o u r t e s a n (iTaipo£,opL€vr)s) (Ant 5.306) r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h o s e for w h o m t h e G r e e k s w e r e fa m o u s , r a t h e r t h a n as a h a r l o t (Tropvirj), as in t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Judg. 16:1); t h e dis h o n o r i n g b y t h e sons o f E l i , t h e h i g h priest, o f t h e w o m e n w h o c a m e to w o r s h i p (Ant 5.339); t h e fact t h a t D a v i d ' s e x p l o i t s a r e c e l e b r a t e d b y m a i d e n s (Ant 6.193), w h e r e a s S a u l ' s a r e e x t o l l e d b y o l d e r w o m e n ; the fact t h a t S a u l ' s d a u g h t e r M i c h a l h a s s u c h a g r e a t p a s s i o n for D a v i d t h a t it b e t r a y s h e r (Ant 6 . 1 9 6 , 215); t h e fact t h a t D a v i d ' s love, in r e t u r n , for M i c h a l is so g r e a t t h a t h e p r o c e e d s t o fulfill S a u l ' s d e m a n d for six h u n d r e d Philistine h e a d s as a d o w r y w i t h o u t s t o p p i n g to c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e to d o so (Ant 6.203); the lovesickness o f A m n o n , D a v i d ' s s o n , b e c a u s e o f his i n f a t u a t i o n w i t h his sister T a m a r , w h o m h e r a p e s (Ant 7.164); t h e a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f D a v i d ' s affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a (Ant 7 . 1 3 0 - 5 3 ) ; A h a s u e r u s ' s s e a r c h for b e a u t i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e entire h a b i t a b l e (oiVou/xeVq) w o r l d (Ant n . 196), in c o n trast to t h e B i b l e , w h e r e his r e s o l v e t o find a r e p l a c e m e n t for the d e p o s e d Q u e e n V a s h t i is a p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n , s u g g e s t e d b y the k i n g ' s a t t e n d a n t s (Esther 2:2); t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s g i v e s t h e e x a c t n u m b e r o f m a i d e n s (400) in A h a s u e r u s ' s h a r e m (Ant
11.200), j u s t as t h e H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s a r e a d d i c t e d to p r e s e n t i n g e x a c t d a t a
a b o u t e r o t i c m a t t e r s ; t h e m o r e e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e (in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A h a s u e r u s ' s s e a r c h for a r e p l a c e m e n t for Q u e e n V a s h t i ) to s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e (Ant 11.201); A h a suerus's a c t u a l l y falling i n l o v e w i t h E s t h e r (Ant 11.202); a n d J o s e p h u s ' s e x a g g e r a t i o n o f t h e b e a u t y o f a n u m b e r o f w o m e n — R a c h e l (Ant 1.288), S a m s o n ' s m o t h e r (Ant
5.276), B a t h s h e b a (Ant
7.130), D a v i d ' s d a u g h t e r T a m a r (Ant
(Ant 11.190), a n d E s t h e r (Ant 1 1 . 1 9 9 ) .
30
7.162), V a s h t i
W e m a y well conjecture that Josephus re
w o r k e d t h e a b o v e b i b l i c a l stories w i t h full a w a r e n e s s o f his p o s t b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s ,
only briefly with the Phinehas episode (Ant. 4.152-55), even though they are o f approximately equal length in the Bible ( N u m . 25:1-5 a n d 6-13). 30. If Josephus, in his paraphrase o f the story o f Ruth (Ant. 5.318-37), compresses, rather than ex pands, as one might expect in view o f w h a t w e have noted above, the potentially sexually c h a r g e d scene o f the threshing floor, this m a y be, not because Josephus failed to realize the erotic potential o f the scene, but because he apologetically sought to avoid suspicion o f immoral behavior o n the part o f the
188
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
in w h i c h p r o m i n e n t a n d influential m e n w e r e b r o u g h t t o g r i e f b y their p a s s i o n for b e a u t i f u l w o m e n (see B a i l e y 1987, 170). Similarly, J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s t h e r o m a n t i c interest i n his a c c o u n t s o f a n u m b e r o f e v e n t s o f his o w n era: H e r o d ' s p a t h o l o g i c a l p a s s i o n for M a r i a m n e (War 1 . 4 3 1 - 4 4 , Ant 15.202-36), A n t o n y ' s p a s s i o n for C l e o p a tra (War 1.243; Ant 14.324), C l e o p a t r a ' s a t t e m p t t o s e d u c e H e r o d (Ant 1 5 . 9 6 - 1 0 3 ) , D e c i u s M u n d u s ' s p a s s i o n a t e love for t h e v i r t u o u s P a u l i n a (Ant 18.65-80), a n d t h e J e w i s h r o b b e r - b a r o n A n i l a e u s ' s p a s s i o n a t e affair w i t h a P a r t h i a n g e n e r a l ' s wife (Ant 18.342-52).
APPEAL TO S O C I A L INTERESTS: JOSEPHUS'S ATTITUDE TO WOMEN D a u b e h a s c o m m e n t e d o n J o s e p h u s ' s self-identification w i t h J o s e p h ( w h o w a s also falsely a c c u s e d ) , J e r e m i a h ( w h o w a s similarly a p r o p h e t w h o suffered at t h e h a n d s o f his f e l l o w J e w s ) , D a n i e l (a p r o p h e t w h o w a s e n v i e d a n d s l a n d e r e d b y his rivals), E s t h e r ( w h o u s e d h e r h i g h p o l i t i c a l status t o h e l p h e r p e o p l e ) , a n d M o r d e c a i ( w h o 3 1
also w a s totally c o m m i t t e d t o h e l p i n g his p e o p l e ) ( D a u b e 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 ) . L i k e w i s e , w e m a y e x p e c t J o s e p h u s ' s portraits o f w o m e n t o reflect t h e w o m e n i n his o w n life. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s significantly, J o s e p h u s tells u s n e x t t o n o t h i n g a b o u t his m o t h e r , n o t i n g o n l y t h a t s h e w a s d e s c e n d e d f r o m t h e r o y a l h o u s e o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s (Life 2). H e n e g l e c t s t o g i v e e v e n h e r n a m e , or, for t h a t matter, t h e n a m e s o f a n y o f his o t h e r f e m a l e a n c e s t o r s . P l u t a r c h , a n a l m o s t e x a c t c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s , o n t h e contrary, a p p a r e n d y t h o u g h t t h a t it w a s i m p o r t a n t t o k n o w t h e n a m e s o f the m o t h e r s o f f a m o u s m e n , since h e m e n t i o n s his surprise t h a t although Nicias, Demosthenes, Lamachus, Phormio, Thrasybulus, a n d T h e r a m e n e s w e r e all f a m o u s m e n i n A l c i b i a d e s ' t i m e , w e d o n o t so m u c h as k n o w t h e n a m e o f the m o t h e r o f a n y o f t h e m (Alcibiades 1.2). O n e guesses t h a t J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e b e e n difficult t o live w i t h , t o j u d g e f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e w a s , it a p p e a r s , m a r r i e d t h r e e t i m e s (Life 4 1 4 - 1 5 , 4 2 6 - 2 7 ) . D e s p i t e his fondness for g i v i n g p r e c i s e n a m e s , h e fails t o g i v e t h e n a m e o f a n y o f his w i v e s , e v e n o f his t h i r d wife, w h o m h e praises as h a v i n g s u r p a s s e d m a n y w o m e n i n c h a r acter
(rjdei
noXXcov
yvvcuKwv
Sta^e'/oouaav), " a s h e r s u b s e q u e n t life s h o w e d " (Life
427). T h e c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n o f this s t a t e m e n t is t h a t w o m e n c a n b e p r a i s e d o n l y i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r w o m e n , since t h e y a r e o b v i o u s l y inferior t o m e n .
3 2
A sim-
ancestors o f K i n g D a v i d . Moreover, to have e x p a n d e d such a n episode w o u l d have diverted the reader's attention from the p r i m a r y historical thrust o f his narrative, since the whole story o f Ruth is re ally secondary to Josephus's main interest in the history of the Jewish people; a n d h e r story is told only because she is the great-grandmother o f D a v i d . 31. T o this list w e m a y add Josephus's identification with Saul, w h o m he v i e w e d as a martyred gen eral like himself. See also Johnson 1983, 337-46, w h o comments o n the similarities between the life o f Josephus a n d those o f the biblical Joseph, Jeremiah, D a n i e l , a n d Esther-Mordecai. 32. T o b e sure, S t a g g a n d S t a g g 1978,45, assert that Josephus can b e positive in his attitude toward w o m e n , as w h e n he refers to " a certain wise a n d intelligent old w o m a n " (yvvaiov
. . . n ouxfrpov
Kal
S T Y L I S T I C A N DO T H E R C H A N G E S
i8g
i l a r p h r a s e a n d i m p l i c a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s r e f e r e n c e t o a f e m a l e r e l a tive o f t h e l e a d e r o f t h e S i c a r i i at M a s a d a , E l e a z a r b e n Jair, w h o is d e s c r i b e d as su p e r i o r i n s a g a c i t y a n d t r a i n i n g t o m o s t w o m e n (^pov^aei Kal iraiheia vaiKwv
bia<j)€povaa) (War 7 . 3 9 9 ) .
One
TrXeiarwv
yv-
33
m a y g e t a c l u e t o J o s e p h u s ' s a t t i t u d e t o w o m e n i n his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e
Hasmonean queen Salome Alexandra.
3 4
J o s e p h u s d i s p a r a g e s h e r for l i s t e n i n g t o
t h e P h a r i s e e s w i t h t o o m u c h d e f e r e n c e (irepiGoov,
" e x c e s s i v e l y " ) a n d for a l l o w i n g
t h e m t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h e r n a i v e t e (a7TX6rrjra, " s i m p l i c i t y , " " p l a i n n e s s , " " s i m plemindedness,"
" g u l l i b i l i t y " ) (War
1. 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) — h a r d l y a d e s i r a b l e q u a l i t y i n
a
q u e e n . T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , she p e r m i t t e d the Pharisees to b e c o m e the r e a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t h e state, s o t h a t , in effect, a l t h o u g h she r u l e d t h e n a t i o n , t h e P h a r i s e e s r u l e d her. T h i s c r i t i c i s m is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t J o s e p h u s e v e n t u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d h i m s e l f w i t h t h e s e s e l f s a m e P h a r i s e e s (Life 12) after h a v i n g t r i e d t o live b y t h e p r e c e p t s o f all t h r e e J e w i s h s e c t s — t h e P h a r i s e e s , t h e S a d d u c e e s , a n d t h e E s s e n e s — , as w e l l as w i t h t h e h e r m i t B a n n u s . M o r e o v e r , s u c h a n i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e War o f P h a r i s a i c i n f l u e n c e o n t h e q u e e n is all t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e i f t h e r e is a n y validity in M o r t o n Smith's o b s e r v a t i o n that the Pharisees h a r d l y figure in Jose p h u s ' s a c c o u n t i n t h e War, a n d t h a t it is i n t h e Antiquities t h a t t h e c l a i m is first m a d e t h a t P a l e s t i n e is u n g o v e r n a b l e w i t h o u t P h a r i s a i c s u p p o r t .
3 5
P r e s u m a b l y o u t o f m i s o g y n y , J o s e p h u s cites a n u m b e r o f a d d i t i o n a l u n f l a t t e r i n g d e t a i l s in h i s p o r t r a i t o f S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a in t h e Antiquities.
T h u s he blames her
y o u n g e r s o n , A r i s t o b u l u s , a n d his s u p p o r t e r s for " l e t t i n g a w o m a n , g o n e m a d i n
OVV€T6V) (Ant. 7.289) w h o saved the city o f S h e b a b y appealing to Joab, w h o w a s besieging it. W e may, however, counter b y remarking that the biblical passage o n w h i c h this is based (2 S a m . 20:16) also speaks of a wise w o m a n (ishah hakamah); moreover, a n d significandy, Josephus refers to her not as a y vvr) ("woman") but as a yvvaiov
("litde w o m a n , " " w e a k w o m a n " ) , a w o r d frequendy employed by Josephus
in a contemptuous sense (cf. LSJ, s.v.) a n d often coupled with "children." 33.
T h e fact that this w o m a n , together with the others w h o h a d hidden in the subterranean aque
ducts at M a s a d a , is regarded (Ant. 7.404) as a yvvaiov,
a term, as noted, often implying w o m a n i s h weak
ness a n d even contempt, confirms the v i e w that Josephus did not admire even her very m u c h , despite her sagacity. 34.
S e e M a c u r d y 1937, 6 3 - 9 1 , w h o , after examining Josephus's portraits o f S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a ,
Herod's sister Salome, Herod's wife M a r i a m n e a n d his other wives, Herodias, and Julia Berenice, con cludes that these Jewish queens a n d princesses acted in typically Hellenistic ways a n d that, with the names a n d places changed, the same type o f court could b e found in any o f the other Hellenistic monarchies. T h e talmudic rabbis, w e m a y remark, poured lavish praise u p o n S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , not ing (Sifra Behuqotai 1.1, ed. Weiss n o b ; cf. Taanit 23a) that during h e r tenure as queen, rain fell every W e d n e s d a y a n d Sabbath evening, so that grains of w h e a t g r e w to b e as large as kidneys, grains of bar ley like the stones o f olives, a n d lentils like golden denarii, a n d that the scribes preserved samples o f these growths to show future generations the effects of piety. 35.
M . Smith 1956, 6 7 - 8 1 . T h e theory is supported b y Neusner 1971, 1:137-41; 1972a, 224-44;
1972b, 5 7 - 7 0 ; 1973, 4 5 - 6 6 ; 1978, 1 4 - 1 9 . For dissenting voices, see M a n t e l 1977, 9 9 - 1 2 3 , 346-51; R i v k i n 1978,
4 9 - 6 3 ; Feldman 1984b, 560-62; M a s o n 1988, 4 5 5 - 6 9 ; 1991, 32-39, a n d passim; B a u m g a r t e n
1991,
109-26; a n d D . S. Williams 1993-94, 29-42.
igo
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
h e r lust for p o w e r , r u l e u n r e a s o n a b l y , e v e n t h o u g h h e r sons w e r e in t h e p r i m e o f life" (Ant. 12.417). E v e n w h e n , in his s u m m a r y o f h e r life, h e s e e m i n g l y d o e s p r a i s e her, h e d o e s so g r u d g i n g l y b y c o m p a r i n g h e r w i t h o t h e r w o m e n a n d c o n c l u d i n g t h a t " s h e w a s a w o m a n w h o s h o w e d n o n e o f t h e w e a k n e s s o f h e r s e x " (Ant. 13. 430). A n d y e t , in t h e last analysis, J o s e p h u s b e r a t e s h e r for a c t i n g in a f a s h i o n u n b e c o m i n g a w o m a n (Ant. 13. 431), c r i t i c i z i n g h e r for v a l u i n g t h e p r e s e n t m o r e t h a n t h e future, for m a k i n g e v e r y t h i n g s e c o n d a r y t o a b s o l u t e rule, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y for s h o w i n g n o c o n s i d e r a t i o n for t h e q u a l i t i e s m o s t c r u c i a l in a r u l e r — n a m e l y , d e c e n c y (KCLXOV) a n d j u s t i c e (SIKCLIOV).
It is she w h o is b l a m e d for t h e loss o f s o v e r e i g n
p o w e r b y t h e H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y " b e c a u s e o f h e r desire for t h i n g s u n b e c o m i n g a w o m a n " (cmdu/xia rwv
fxrj TrpoarjKovrojv yvvaiKi).
S h e is specifically c a s t i g a t e d
(Ant. 13. 432) for the m i s f o r t u n e s a n d d i s t u r b a n c e s t h a t afflicted t h e r o y a l f a m i l y e v e n after h e r d e a t h , since these a r e said b y J o s e p h u s t o h a v e a r i s e n f r o m p u b l i c m e a s u r e s t a k e n d u r i n g h e r lifetime. It is o n l y i n o n e last s e n t e n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s is a b l e t o a d m i t t h e fact t h a t despite h e r r e i g n i n g as she d i d , she h a d k e p t t h e n a t i o n at p e a c e (Ant. 13. 4 3 2 ) .
36
I n v i e w o f t h e t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n a n d p r a i s e t h a t J o s e p h u s lav ishes o n t h e E s s e n e s , it w o u l d s e e m t h a t e c h o i n g C y n i c a n d S t o i c diatribes (see G u i l l a u m o n t 1 9 7 1 , 3 9 5 - 4 0 4 ) , J o s e p h u s a g r e e d w i t h the E s s e n e s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t b r i n g i n g w i v e s i n t o a r e l i g i o u s c o m m u n i t y o p e n e d t h e w a y to dissension
(ordaecos)
(Ant. 18.21), a c o n d i t i o n so s h a r p l y c o n d e m n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s favorite T h u c y d i d e s (3.82-84) a n d , as n o t e d , b y J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f t h r o u g h o u t t h e War. C o n s e q u e n d y , t h e E s s e n e m a i n s t r e a m d i s d a i n e d m a r r i a g e , s e e k i n g to p r o t e c t t h e m s e l v e s a g a i n s t w o m e n ' s lechery, b e i n g p e r s u a d e d t h a t n o n e o f t h e sex k e e p s h e r p l i g h t e d troth t o o n e m a n (War 2 . 1 2 1 ) .
37
I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e in the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s h a s a n u m b e r o f sneers d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t w o m e n . T h u s h e r e p e a t s the c o m m o n classical t h e m e o f t h e evil w r o u g h t b y w o m a n i s h c o u n s e l w h e n h e says t h a t G - d p u n i s h e d A d a m for y i e l d i n g (TJTTOVOL, " b e i n g inferior") to w o m a n i s h (yvvaiKeias)
c o u n s e l (Ant. 1.49) (see
36. Similar snide remarks about w o m a n i s h w a y s m a y be seen in Josephus's remark (Ant. 15.69) that M a r i a m n e , Herod's wife, in w o m e n ' s fashion (yvvaiKcicos) did not take seriously
(igcipcovcvofjicvcw,
"ridiculed," "turned into jest") the statements o f Joseph, in whose charge H e r o d h a d left her, about Herod's affection a n d great love for her. A g a i n , Josephus seems to connect w o m a n i s h w a y s with ag gressiveness, for in speaking (Ant. 15.168) o f A l e x a n d r a , the mother o f Herod's wife M a r i a m n e , he says that she h a d an aggressive (iX6veiKov, "contentious") and w o m a n l y (yvvaiKctov) nature. Moreover, he connects w o m a n l y w a y s a n d cruelty, as w e see in his statement (Ant. 15.219) that M a r i a m n e c o m b i n e d within her something w o m a n l y (yVVCLIKCIOV)
a n d cruel (xaXcnov).
37. W e m a y here note that Philo similarly, in an even sharper attack on w o m e n ' s wiles (Hypothetka 11. 14-17), whether or not it expresses his o w n view, declares that the reason w h y the Essenes d o not m a r r y is that " a wife is a selfish creature, excessively j e a l o u s and an adept at beguiling the morals o f her husband and seducing h i m by her continued impostures." H e then attacks w o m e n for their fawning talk, for playing their parts like actresses on a stage, for ensnaring sight and hearing, and for a r r o g a n d y a n d audaciously compelling children to c o m m i t actions that are hostile to society, so that someone w h o is b o u n d by the lures o f his wife has, in actuality, passed from freedom to slavery.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
igi
F e l d m a n 1 9 6 8 , 345). A similar slight d i r e c t e d at w o m e n m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife d e t e r m i n e d u p o n v e n g e a n c e a g a i n s t J o s e p h for s p u r n i n g h e r a d v a n c e s , t h e i d e a o f a c c u s i n g J o s e p h o f t a k i n g t h e initiative s e e m e d t o h e r " a l i k e w i s e a n d w o m a n l y " (yvvaiKeiov)
(Ant. 2. 54).
A s n e e r a g a i n s t w o m e n is also t o b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t " t h e n o b l e r instincts o f M o s e s ' a r m y w e r e v i t i a t e d b y a r a b b l e [oxAos] o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , t o o f e e b l e t o r e s p o n d to o r a l a d m o n i t i o n " (Ant. 3.5). L i k e w i s e , i n his v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y o f S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s s h o w s his m i s o g y n y in S a m s o n ' s r e m a r k , p r o v e r b i a l , t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g " m o r e deceitful [SoXepwrepov]
apparendy
than a w o m a n w h o
b e t r a y s o u r s p e e c h t o y o u " (Ant. 5, 294). A g a i n , in his s u m m a r y o f t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s , h e a d d s t h e detail, n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e , t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f w o m e n is i n a d m i s s i b l e in J e w i s h l a w b e c a u s e o f their l e v i t y (Kov(f>6rr)Ta) a n d b e c a u s e o f t h e b o l d n e s s (Opdoos) o f their s e x (Ant. 4. 2 1 9 ) .
38
S u c h misogynistic remarks w o u l d doubdess have been appreciated by Jose p h u s ' s literate a u d i e n c e , since O d y s s e u s , in t h e m u c h r e v e r e d H o m e r ' s Odyssey ( 1 1 . 4 3 6 - 3 9 ) , c o m m e n t s w i t h similar i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t Z e u s f r o m t h e first v i s i t e d h a tred u p o n the house o f Atreus because o f the counsels o f w o m e n povXds).
(yvvaiKeias
P l a t o h a s a similar d e r o g a t o r y c o m m e n t a b o u t w o m e n , s a y i n g t h a t all
m e n w h o a r e c o w a r d l y a n d w h o s p e n d their lives in w r o n g d o i n g a r e r e b o r n as w o m e n (Timaeus 90E). A r i s t o d e , i n d e e d , g o e s so far as t o s a y t h a t t h e f e m a l e is a n i m p e r f e c t h u m a n b e i n g (De Generatione Animalium 7 7 5 A ) . It is this latter v i e w , in p a r ticular, t h a t is r e f l e c t e d in P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y M o s e s c o m m a n d e d t h e Is raelites t o t a k e a p e r f e c t m a l e s h e e p — n a m e l y , t h a t this w a s b e c a u s e t h e m a l e is m o r e p e r f e c t t h a n the f e m a l e , " w h e r e f o r e it is said b y t h e naturalists t h a t t h e fe m a l e is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a n i m p e r f e c t m a l e " (Quaestiones in Exodum 1.7 o n E x o d . i2: ).
3 9
5
38. W e m a y note that while the rabbis (Sifre 109b) also declare that w o m e n ' s evidence is not ac ceptable, n o such reason is given by them. Shabbat 33b says that w o m e n are light-minded, w h i c h refers to their inability to withstand torture, whereas Josephus, in his prejudice, cites their character defects to explain w h y they are invalidated from bearing witness. T h e equation o f womanishness and lightheadness is likewise to b e seen in Josephus's remark (Ant. 17.121) that Doris, the mother o f Herod's son Antipater, spoke to certain people with " w o m a n i s h frivolousness" (Kovo\oyia ywauceia)).
Similarly,
s S3
H e r o d the Tetrarch (Ant. 18.255) * *d to have been divinely punished for listening to a w o m a n ' s friv olous chatter (ywauKeicav
. . . Kov>o\oyia)v), namely, that o f his wife Herodias. D r a z i n 1940, 124-25,
conjectures that Josephus was here influenced by G r e e k and R o m a n attitudes toward w o m e n . I m a y here call attention to a passage, missed by D r a z i n , containing language remarkably similar to that o f the T a l m u d , in Gaius's Institutes (1.44): " T h e early lawyers held that w o m e n , even at full age, should be in tutela on a c c o u n t o f their instability of j u d g m e n t [propter animi laevitatem]." Josephus (Ant. 11.49-54) seems to contradict this view of women's weakness in the speech that Z e r u b b a b e l gives to K i n g D a r i u s proving that w o m e n are even m o r e powerful than wine and the king; but even here it is not so m u c h the strength as the wiliness, seductiveness, and impudence of w o m e n that are said to give them such in fluence. 39 W e g n e r 1 9 8 2 , 5 5 1 - 6 3 , notes, in particular, Philo's derogatory view of w o m e n as expressed in his exposition (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.148) of G e n . 25:5-6: " T h e sons of the w o m e n and those of inferior descent
IQ2
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
I n v i e w o f this g e n e r a l l y n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d w o m e n , J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r e m e l y positive p o r t r a y a l o f A b i g a i l is all t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e (Ant. 6 . 1 9 5 - 3 0 9 ) , e s p e c i a l l y since t h e r a b b i n i c attitude t o w a r d h e r is a m b i v a l e n t (Megillah 14a; J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d , Sanhedrin 2.20; Midrash Samuel 20). T h e e x p l a n a t i o n , as B e g g h a s s u g g e s t e d , is t h a t J o s e p h u s cites t h e n a r r a t i v e in o r d e r to c o n f i r m w h a t h e states is t h e m a i n les s o n t o b e l e a r n e d f r o m his history: t h a t t h o s e w h o c o n f o r m to the w i l l o f G - d p r o s per, w h e r e a s those, s u c h as N a b a l , w h o transgress G - d ' s l a w s suffer disaster (Ant. i-i4) ( B e g g 1 9 9 6 a , 34).
APPEAL TO PHILOSOPHIC
INTERESTS
T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s c o m p a r e s t h e religious g r o u p i n g s o f t h e J e w s to t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the P h a r i s e e s a r e a sect v e r y s i m i l a r to t h e S t o i c s c h o o l (Life 12) ( i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e S a d d u c e e s a r e c o m p a r a b l e to t h e E p i c u r e a n s ) a n d t h a t t h e E s s e n e s follow the P y t h a g o r e a n w a y o f life (Ant. 15.371), is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l interests t h a t h e e x p e c t e d his a u d i e n c e to h a v e , since s u c h c o m p a r i s o n s w o u l d h a r d l y a p p e a r to b e g e r m a n e t o t h e r e l i g i o u s d i m e n s i o n s o f these g r o u p s . F r o m t h e v e h e m e n c e w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s criticizes the E p i c u r e a n s for e x c l u d i n g p r o v i d e n c e f r o m h u m a n affairs (Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 7 - 8 1 ) , a c r i t i c i s m t h a t h e later r e p e a t s (Ag. Ap. 2.180), w e c a n see t h a t h e w a s w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e s o f this group. O n a n u m b e r o f occasions, Josephus appears to be answering the Epicure ans; the fact t h a t h e c h o s e to c o n c l u d e his a c c o u n t o f D a n i e l a n d , i n d e e d , o f b o o k 10 o f t h e Antiquities—that
is t h e first h a l f o f t h e entire w o r k — w i t h n o f e w e r t h a n
five p a r a g r a p h s (Ant. 10.277-81) d e m o n s t r a t i n g h o w m i s t a k e n t h e E p i c u r e a n s a r e in asserting t h a t t h e w o r l d r u n s b y its o w n m o v e m e n t (avroixdrcjs) (TJVLOXOV, " c h a r i o t e e r " ) o r a n o t h e r ' s c a r e (ap6vTioTov)
without a guide
(Ant. 10.278) is a n i n d i c a t i o n
o f h o w m u c h i m p o r t a n c e h e a t t a c h e d t o this lesson a b o u t the p o w e r o f p r o v i d e n c e in h u m a n a f f a i r s .
40
T h u s i f w e ask why, in J o s e p h u s , it is G - d r a t h e r t h a n A d a m
w h o gives n a m e s to t h e a n i m a l s (Ant. 1.35), t h e a n s w e r w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h a t the E p i c u r e a n s r i d i c u l e d t h e i d e a t h a t o n e m a n a s s i g n e d their n a m e s b y s p o n t a n e o u s d e c l a r a t i o n (see L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 0 4 1 - 5 5 . ) . It is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s , w h o h a d tried all t h e J e w i s h sects a n d
finally
o p t e d for t h e P h a r i s e e s , w h o m h e c o m p a r e s to the S t o i c s , s h o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d p a r t i c u l a r l y to S t o i c i s m — t h e favorite p h i l o s o p h y o f H e l l e n i s t i c intellectuals (see
[emphasis added] are certainly to b e called female and unvirile, for which reason they are litde ad mired as great ones." Likewise, Philo (De Posteritate Caini 48.166), commenting o n Exod. 32:2, sneers at w o m e n in his remark that the G o l d e n C a l f was, appropriately, made of women's earrings, since a man ufactured god is not for sight but for the ear to hear of, "and that too a woman's ear, not a man's, for to entertain such trash is the work of an effeminate and sinewless soul." 40. T h e attack o n the Epicureans in Against Apion 2.180 is similarly centered o n their denial o f G - d ' s providential care (irpovoiav) for mankind. S o also in Philo, De Conjusione Linguarum 23.114.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
T a r n a n d Griffith 1952, 325; M a r t i n 1981, 1 2 7 - 3 7 ) — narrative,
41
m
193
his r e c a s t i n g o f the b i b l i c a l
o r t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d J e w i s h t h e o l o g y in a f o r m r e m i n i s
cent o f Stoicism.
42
O n e r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t e d to the
v i e w s o f the S t o i c s is p e r h a p s that h e s h a r e d their attitude o f o b e d i e n c e to t h o s e in authority. A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s S t o i c t e r m i n o l o g y in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d h a d d e c r e e d for A d a m a n d E v e a life 43
o f h a p p i n e s s u n m o l e s t e d (anaO-i}) b y a n y troubles (Ant. 1.46). W e s h o u l d n o t e t h a t the t e r m a7ra0r)s, w h i c h is likewise f o u n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s i r o n i c h o p e t h a t h e w i l l l e a v e his s o n I s a a c u n s c a t h e d (airaOrjs) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) dies (Ant. 1.223),
a
s
w
e
^
a
s
m
e c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n aTrddeia ( f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n a l
disturbance), are c o m m o n Stoic terms denoting freedom from emotion. T h a t S t o i c i n f l u e n c e is at w o r k h e r e is s u g g e s t e d b y the fact that J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t in e i t h e r p a s s a g e e m p l o y the s y n o n y m o u s w o r d djSAajSrfc, w h i c h m e a n s
"unharmed"
a n d w h i c h h e uses o n six o c c a s i o n s in the first h a l f o f the Antiquities. T h e S t o i c s b e l i e v e d t h a t a d e c l i n e h a d o c c u r r e d f r o m the i d e a l o f the G o l d e n A g e , so t h a t " l u x u r y arose, d e a d l i e s t o f ills, a l u r i n g p e s t " ( P s e u d o - S e n e c a , Octavia 4 2 7 - 2 8 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s p i c t u r e o f the d e c l i n e f r o m this p r i m i t i v e a g e (Ant. 1.60-62) is w i t h i n this S t o i c t r a d i t i o n ( P s e u d o - S e n e c a , Octavia 4 2 7 - 2 8 ) . J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , m e n t i o n s A d a m ' s p r e d i c t i o n o f " a d e s t r u c t i o n o f the u n i v e r s e , in o n e c a s e b y a v i o l e n t fire a n d in a n o t h e r b y a m i g h t y d e l u g e o f w a t e r " (Ant. 1.70) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 6 8 , 3 5 1 - 5 2 ) . T h e d o c t r i n e o f the u l t i m a t e a b s o r p t i o n o f the u n i v e r s e at the e n d o f the annus magnus in a p r i m a l fire p l a y e d a p r o m i n e n t role in the w r i t i n g s o f the Stoics, so t h a t C l e a r c h u s speaks o f successive r e i n t e g r a t i o n s o f the u n i v e r s e f r o m fire (ap. S t o b a e u s , Eclogues 1, p . 171); a n d M a r c u s A u r e l i u s n o t e s t h a t in the c o n f l a g r a t i o n , all t h i n g s that exist will either pass into v a p o r o r else b e dis p e r s e d into their c o n s t i t u e n t a t o m s (Meditations 6.4). T h e S t o i c t e r m npovoia
a p p e a r s n o f e w e r t h a n s e v e n t y - f o u r t i m e s in the first
41. Cf. Flusser 1963, 3 1 8 - 1 9 , w h o asserts that Josephus used Stoic philosophic terms in transmit ting the teaching o f the three main Jewish sects. Flusser 1977, 6 1 - 6 7 , suggests that Josephus w a s infl u e n c e d b y G r e e k philosophic thought and adapted Jewish thought to it, that it is therefore difficult to reconstruct from his description the real opinion o f the Sadducees about providence and free will, a n d that w e c a n deduce merely that the Sadducees w e a k e n e d the impact o f G - d ' s providence a n d stressed the importance o f h u m a n responsibility m o r e than the other Jewish groups. O n the other hand, Pines 1977, 38-43, argues that Josephus's terminology about fate is not necessarily Stoic and that the terms he uses b e l o n g e d to the general philosophic lexicon. See, however, M a s o n 1991, 393-95, w h o forcefully challenges Pines' thesis that Josephus's source is the Platonism in Apuleius's treatise On Plato and His Doctrine. 42. O n Josephus's indebtedness to the Stoics, especially in phraseology, see Briine 1913, 210-14. 43. T h e Stoic S e n e c a (Epistles 90.40) remarks that in those days "the very soil was more productive w h e n untilled, and yielded more than e n o u g h for peoples w h o refrained from despoiling one another." Pseudo-Seneca (Octavia 404-5) asserts that in that age, the glad earth o f her o w n accord (ultro) laid bare her fruitful breast. See Feldman 1968, 344, 348, and N o d e t 1993, 5-40. T h e Stoics had a g l o w i n g pic ture o f a G o l d e n A g e during w h i c h m e n lived in h a r m o n y with nature and h a d n o blind love o f gold (Seneca, Phaedra 486, 527-28).
194
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
h a l f o f t h e Antiquities. T h u s , i n t h e p r i m i t i v e
Utopia,
all t h i n g s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o e n
j o y m e n t a r e said t o s p r i n g u p s p o n t a n e o u s l y t h r o u g h G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e
(irpovoiav)
(Ant. 1.46). L i k e w i s e , A b r a h a m ' s t e l e o l o g i c a l p r o o f o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G - d f r o m the irregularities o f t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s (Ant. 1.156) is i n t h e f o r m o f t h e p r o o f s a d v a n c e d b y t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y t h e S t o i c s , as w e c a n see f r o m s e v e r a l favorite S t o i c e x p r e s s i o n s (7rpovofjoou, evra^ta, ficant
rov KeXevovros).
It is signi
t h a t i n t h e v e r y n e x t s e n t e n c e after c i t i n g this proof, J o s e p h u s h a p p e n s t o
mention the C h a l d a e a n s , to w h o m Philo imputes certain conceptions o f G - d that a r e definitely S t o i c (De Migratione Abrahami 32.179); s u c h a j u x t a p o s i t i o n m a y w e l l b e m o r e t h a n s h e e r c h a n c e ( W o l f s o n 1947, 1 : 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 2:78). Similarly, i n his a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m ' s r e a d i n e s s t o sacrifice his s o n I s a a c , J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t t o p r e sent A b r a h a m as b e i n g m o t i v a t e d b y m e r e b l i n d faith w o u l d n o t h a v e m a d e a g o o d i m p r e s s i o n u p o n his c u l t u r e d G r e e k r e a d e r s , d e p i c t s h i m i n t h e guise o f a k i n d o f S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r , w h o r e a s o n s t h a t " a l l t h a t befell H i s [ G - d ' s ] f a v o r e d o n e s " w a s o r d a i n e d b y H i s p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoias)
(Ant. 1.225).
M o s e s is p r e s e n t e d as a S t o i c s a g e , r e m a r k a b l e f o r his " c o n t e m p t for toils" (TTOVOJV Kara(f)povrja€L)
(Ant. 2.229),
a
typically Stoic phrase. M o s e s ' emphasis o n
l a w (vopuos) is i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e S t o i c v i e w t h a t r e g a r d e d vopuos as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e c o s m o s a n d t h a t v i e w e d m a n as a KoopLOTroXirrjs
w h o m u s t o r d e r his life i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h u n i v e r s a l l a w ( H o l l a d a y 1977, 102). H e n c e , b y a l l e g o r i c a l l y i m p u t i n g cosmic significance to the tabernacle, the twelve loaves, the c a n d e l a b r u m , t h e tapestries, a n d t h e h i g h priest's g a r m e n t s (Ant. 3 . 1 8 1 - 8 7 ) , J o s e p h u s w a s a p p e a l ing to the Stoic v i e w that l a w must have a cosmic dimension. W e m a y call partic u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , i n his e x t e n d e d r e flections
a b o u t the career o f K i n g Saul, that the history o f S a u l will persuade
e v e r y o n e t h a t G - d is p r e s e n t i n a l l t h a t h a p p e n s i n life (Ant. 6.263). T h e r e is S t o i c c o l o r i n g i n J o s e p h u s ' s p e r o r a t i o n s u m m a r i z i n g J e w i s h l a w w h e n h e asks w h a t is m o r e b e n e f i c i a l t h a n t o b e c o n v i n c e d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e u n i v e r s e is u n d e r t h e eye a n d d i r e c t i o n o f G - d ? (Ag. Ap. 2.294). I n stressing t h e role o f fate o r destiny, w h i c h is so p r o m i n e n t i n G r e e k tragedy, J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y a p p e a l i n g t o his S t o i c a u d i e n c e , i n a s m u c h as t h e v i e w o f s u c h l e a d i n g S t o i c s as G l e a n t h e s (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 1.527), G h r y s i p p u s , P o s e i d o n i u s , a n d B o e t h u s ( D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.149) is t h a t all t h i n g s h a p p e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h fate (see G r e e n e 1944, 340). T h e r e is s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s uses a k e y S t o i c t e r m f o r fate, elpuappLevr),
n o fewer than twenty times.
4 4
I n particular, w e m a y call attention to
t h e p a s s a g e i n w h i c h h e states t h a t it w a s t h e d e c r e e o f fate
(elpLappLevr)s)—here
equivalent to the will o f G - d ( M a s o n 1991, 134)—that w a s responsible for the d e a t h s o f t h e h i g h priest A n a n u s a n d his g u a r d s (War 4.297). T h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f Trpovoia a n d elpuappievrj
m a y b e seen from the passage in w h i c h Josephus notes, in
44. See the excellent discussion by M a s o n 1991, 133-42.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
795
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his o w n l i b e r a t i o n f r o m b o n d a g e , t h a t V e s p a s i a n , w h o s e p o i n t o f v i e w h e , as his p r o t e g e , c l e a r l y s h a r e d , " w a s l e d t o t h i n k t h a t d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e [Trpovoias]
h a d assisted h i m t o g r a s p t h e e m p i r e a n d t h a t s o m e j u s t
[elpLappbevrj]
destiny
h a d p l a c e d t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e w o r l d w i t h i n his h a n d s "
(War
4.622) L i k e w i s e , it w a s d e s t i n e d , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r e d i c t i o n b y a n E g y p t i a n p r o p h e t (Ag. Ap. 1.236)—destiny, it w o u l d s e e m , m i g h t b e f o r e s e e n b y n o n - J e w s as w e l l — , t h a t t h e H y k s o s w o u l d b e c o m e m a s t e r s o f E g y p t for a p e r i o d o f t h i r t e e n y e a r s , as i n d e e d a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d (Ag. Ap. 1.247). W h e n t h e d e s t i n e d
(TrenpajpLfEvov)
p e r i o d h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d , w e hear, t h e e x i l e d E g y p t i a n k i n g d e f e a t e d t h e H y k sos a n d r e g a i n e d his c r o w n (Ag. Ap. 1.266). I n t h e War, TO X P * > is c l e a r l y e q u i v a l e n t to i n e x o r a b l e fate, w h i c h e v e n t r a n € C
V
s c e n d s d e a t h a n d m a y l e a d to a p r e m a t u r e d e a t h , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n J o s e €C
p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t destiny ( T O XP *>V)
d e r i d e d the h o p e s o f M a l i c h u s , A n t i p a t e r ' s
assassin, o f r a i s i n g a n a t i o n a l r e v o l t a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , o f d e p o s i n g H y r c a n u s , a n d o f m o u n t i n g t h e t h r o n e h i m s e l f (War 1.233). A g a i n , w e r e a d t h a t fate ( T O Xpecov) o u t s t r i p p e d H e r o d ' s z e a l (War 1.275). A similar u s a g e m a y b e s e e n i n J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t d u r i n g t h e siege o f J e r u s a l e m , m a n y J e w s w e n t forth t o t h e i r €(
V
d e a t h s e v e n b e f o r e fate ( T O X P * > )
w
a
s
u p o n t h e m (War 5.514). T h e r e v o l u t i o n a r €c
ies, w e a r e told, w e r e b l i n d e d b y fate (rod xp *>v), w h i c h w a s n o w i m m i n e n t € (
5.572). T h a t T O X P ^
V
(War
s
i e q u i v a l e n t to the i n e v i t a b l e m a y b e d i s c e r n e d f r o m t h e
s t a t e m e n t o f T i t u s to his t r o o p s t h a t i f m e n a r e d o o m e d t o a n i n e v i t a b l e e n d , it w o u l d b e i g n o b l e t o d e n y t o t h e p u b l i c service w h a t m u s t b e s u r r e n d e r e d t o fate €(
V
(rep XP *> ) (War 6.49). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s m a k e s clear, in c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e o r a c l e t h a t i n c i t e d t h e J e w s t o r e v o l t a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , t h a t "it is i m p o s s i b l e for €C
m e n to e s c a p e their fate [ T O XP *>V]
e v e n t h o u g h t h e y foresee it" (War 6 . 3 1 4 ) .
45
T h e i d e a o f fate is l i k e w i s e i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in s e v e r a l e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d ditions. T h u s , w e r e a d t h a t it w a s n e c e s s a r y (e'Sei) for S a m s o n to fall a v i c t i m to € (
c a l a m i t y (Ant. 5.312). I n particular, t h e t e r m T O X P ^
V
m
J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e
e q u a t e d w i t h t h a t w h i c h is i n e v i t a b l e , a n d , in particular, d e a t h , t h e m o s t irre v e r s i b l e o f events. T h u s , w h e n D a v i d is a b o u t to die, h e tells his s o n S o l o m o n t h a t €(
V
h e is n o w g o i n g t o his destiny ( T O XP *> ) (Ant. 7.383). W e a r e t o l d t h a t B a a s h a , t h e k i n g o f Israel, h a d n o further o p p o r t u n i t y t o m a r c h a g a i n s t A s a , t h e k i n g o f J u d a h , b e c a u s e h e w a s v e r y s o o n o v e r c o m e b y fate (TOV xP ^ ) e(
v
(Ant. 8.307). T h e c a p r i -
c i o u s n e s s o f fate m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t it w a s fate t h a t w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e fact t h a t t h e p r o p h e t Z e d e k i a h , w h o h a d foretold t h e future falsely to K i n g A h a b , s e e m e d m o r e c o n v i n c i n g t o h i m t h a n t h e true p r o p h e t M i c a i a h (Ant. 8.409) ( B e g g
m
45. O n the concept of TO xp*<*>v Josephus, see Attridge 1976a, 101-2, w h o concludes that it does not refer to a cosmic power apart from G - d but rather to a divine determinism or moral providence. Most recendy, Villalba i Varneda 1986, 60, has stressed the active character and personalizing treat ment o f T O XP *> > l notes that the verbs that accompany it are more in line with h u m a n conduct. €(
V
a n <
ig6
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
4 6
1 9 9 3 , 1 6 2 ; cf. F e l d m a n 1984, 4 3 1 - 3 4 ) . A f t e r A h a b takes off his r o y a l g a r m e n t s a n d J e h o s h a p h a t p u t s o n A h a b ' s g a r m e n t s in o r d e r to e s c a p e t h e fate f o r e t o l d b y M i c a i a h , fate (xpecov), w e a r e told, w a s n o t d e c e i v e d (Ant. 8.412). T h e m o r a l o f t h e tale, as J o s e p h u s p u t s it, is t h a t "it b e h o o v e s us to reflect o n t h e p o w e r o f fate €(
v
[xp *> ] ?
a
n
d see t h a t n o t e v e n w i t h f o r e k n o w l e d g e is it p o s s i b l e t o e s c a p e it" (Ant.
8.419). I n d e e d , this suggests, as B e g g h a s n o t e d , a conflict b e t w e e n t h e i m p e r s o n a l p o w e r o f fate a n d t h e p e r s o n a l G - d , in w h i c h s o m e t i m e s t h e latter's effort t o p r o t e c t p e o p l e f r o m h a r m f u l c o u r s e s is frustrated b y the w o r k i n g s o f fate (see B e g g 1 9 8 9 a , 244). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h e d e a t h o f J o s i a h b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t it w a s d e s t i n y (7T€TTpcopL€vr)s) t h a t is b l a m e d for t h e o v e r t h r o w o f t h e c i t y o f J e r u s a l e m b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , so t h a t it w a s v a i n for K i n g J e h o i a k i m o f J u d a h to h o p e for h e l p (Ant. 10.89). E l s e w h e r e , in his d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e d e a t h o f K i n g Z e d e k i a h , J o s e p h u s stresses, as h e d o e s in t h e c a s e o f t h e p r o p h e c i e s m a d e to A h a b , t h a t w h a t h a s b e e n f o r e t o l d b y G - d m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y c o m e t o pass, a n d at t h e a p p o i n t e d t i m e , a n d t h a t a n y a t t e m p t to e s c a p e f r o m o n e ' s fate is d o o m e d to failure (Ant. 1 0 . 1 4 2 ) .
47
neirpcopLevov, in t h e sense o f t h a t w h i c h h a s b e e n d e s t i n e d €<
)V
a
a n d m u s t b e , is c l e a r l y a s y n o n y m for T O XP ^ '>
s
w
e
c
a
n
s
e
e
m
J o s e p h u s ' s state
m e n t (Ant. 10.246) t h a t d e s p i t e the fact t h a t D a n i e l h a d p r e d i c t e d a n evil e n d for B e l s h a z z a r , t h e latter d i d n o t w i t h h o l d f r o m h i m the gifts t h a t h e h a d p r o m i s e d , o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t D a n i e l w a s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e for his d o o m , w h i c h w a s p a r t o f B e l s h a z z a r ' s p e c u l i a r a n d i n e x o r a b l e d e s t i n y (avdyKrjs,
a l t e r n a t e r e a d i n g 7T€7Tpa)pL€vrjs:)
(Ant. 10.142). Finally, w h e n K i n g A g r i p p a I sees a n o w l p e r c h e d o n a r o p e o v e r his h e a d , h e r e a l i z e s t h a t h e h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d to d e a t h , a n d t h a t h e m u s t a c c e p t his d e s t i n y (TT€7rpojpL€vrjv) (Ant. 1 9 . 3 4 6 ) .
48
€ C
O n e salient fact stands o u t : T O X P * >
V
n
a
s
n
o
r e g a r d for t h e m o r a l q u a l i t y o f
p e o p l e , since, as J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , it b r i n g s a b o u t t h e c o m m o n r u i n o f the i n n o c e n t a n d t h e guilty, t h o s e w h o a r e l o y a l a n d t h o s e w h o a r e r e b e l s (War 5.355). A n i m p o r t a n t k e y in this r e g a r d is t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e r o o t m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d XP^OJV
€
a n d the w o r d X P ^
t h u s stressing t h e irreversibility a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y v
o f w h a t m u s t b e ( V i l l a l b a i V a r n e d a 1 9 8 6 , 5 9 - 6 0 ) . F o r J o s e p h u s , T O xp^
is e q u i v
a l e n t to T O 0€LOV, so t h a t " t h e m u s t - b e " o r t h e i n e v i t a b l e is t h e d e i t y ( M o o r e 1 9 2 9 , 3 8 8 - 8 9 ) . S i n c e , as J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s in his p r o e m , his h i s t o r y is i n t e n d e d to t e a c h a m o r a l l e s s o n (Ant. 1.14), h e p a u s e s at t h e e n d o f his l o n g p e r i c o p e o n A h a b
46.
c
In associating the deaths of Josiah a n d A h a b , w e m a y recall that w h e n the T a l m u d (Mo ed Qa-
tan 28b) speaks o f the most extensive m o u r n i n g , the laments for Josiah a n d A h a b are regarded as the greatest. 47.
O n fate, see further the secondary literature cited in B e g g 1993a, 268, n. 1800.
48.
Blenkinsopp 1974,
€
V
239-62, appositely remarks that the extrabiblical idea o f T O XP °
J
m
a
t
s
i>
necessity, entering into the soul of a d o o m e d m a n through some psychological flaw is clearly paralleled in G r e e k tragedy a n d notes the similar cases of Saul (Ant. 6.335)
a n <
l H e r o d (Ant.
16.396-404). Inasmuch
as this idea is so closely associated with Sophocles, w e m a y suggest that, despite the theory o f T h a c k eray 1929,
115-17, the Sophoclean elements are not restricted to the books (Ant. 15-16) ascribed to the
" S o p h o c l e a n " assistant but are, indeed, often found in a n u m b e r o f other books as well.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
197
to p r e a c h ; a n d t h e s u b j e c t o f his s e r m o n is the p o w e r o f fate, w h i c h it is i m p o s s i b l e t o e s c a p e e v e n w i t h f o r e k n o w l e d g e , since, as h e says, "it secretly e n t e r s t h e souls o f m e n a n d flatters t h e m w i t h fair h o p e a n d t h e r e b y l e a d s t h e m o n t h e p o i n t w h e r e it c a n o v e r c o m e t h e m " (Ant. 8.419) J o s e p h u s e v e n g o e s so far as to i n t r o d u c e a r e f e r e n c e to t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l o f C y n i c s w h e n d e s c r i b i n g N a b a l as a h a r d m a n a n d o f b a d c h a r a c t e r , w h o l i v e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e p r a c t i c e s o f the C y n i c s (Ant. 6.296), w h e r e a s t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l r e a d s t h a t " h e w a s a C a l e b i t e " (1 S a m . 25:3). T h e S e p t u a g i n t , u n d e r s t a n d i n g this w o r d t o c o m e f r o m the H e b r e w w o r d for d o g , kelev, r e a d s KVVLKOS
("dog-like,"
"churlish"). T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h e d o e s criticize i d o l w o r s h i p , J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e f o u n d a s y m p a t h e t i c a u d i e n c e a m o n g at least s o m e intellectuals, if w e m a y j u d g e f r o m t h e first-century B.C.E. V a r r o , t h e m o s t l e a r n e d o f the R o m a n s , as Q u i n t i l i a n (10.1.95) w a s to p u t it in t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., a n d f r o m t h e e n c y c l o p e d i c h i s t o r i a n a n d g e o g r a p h e r S t r a b o , w h o l i v e d i n the latter p a r t o f the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d in t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f the first c e n t u r y C.E. I n d e e d , V a r r o (ap. A u g u s t i n e , De Civitate D—i 4.31) says t h a t t h e a n c i e n t R o m a n s w o r s h i p p e d g o d s w i t h o u t a n i m a g e , c o m p a r e s t h e m in this r e s p e c t to the r e l i g i o n o f t h e J e w s , a n d t h e n a d d s , m o s t significantly, t h a t if t h a t a n c i e n t u s a g e o f t h e R o m a n s h a d c o n t i n u e d , t h e R o m a n w o r s h i p o f t h e gods w o u l d have b e e n m o r e devout. S u c h views h a d a l o n g tradition in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l , e s p e c i a l l y S t o i c , t h o u g h t . I n particular, the S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r a n d s t a t e s m a n S e n e c a t h e Y o u n g e r , J o s e p h u s ' s e l d e r c o n t e m p o r a r y , ridicules t h e w o r ship o f i m a g e s : " T h e y c a l l t h e m deities, w h e n t h e y a r e s u c h t h a t i f t h e y s h o u l d g e t b r e a t h a n d s h o u l d s u d d e n l y m e e t t h e m , t h e y w o u l d b e h e l d t o b e m o n s t e r s " (ap. A u g u s t i n e , De Civitate D-i
6.10). W h e n , therefore, t h e y o u t h f u l J o s i a h u r g e d his
p e o p l e to g i v e u p their b e l i e f in idols a n d to w o r s h i p the G - d o f their fathers, h e w a s s a y i n g a l m o s t the s a m e t h i n g that V a r r o a n d S e n e c a w e r e to say, that o n e s h o u l d revert to the t h e o l o g y o f the ancients (Ant. 10.50) (see F e l d m a n 1993k, 125-26).
PSYCHOLOGIZING A n o t h e r t e n d e n c y p e r v a d i n g J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k is p s y c h o l o g i z i n g — t h a t is, a n a l y s i s o f t h e t r u e m o t i v e s o f p e o p l e , so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f E u r i p i d e s a n d o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l s c h o o l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f Isocrates. T h u s , J o s e p h u s calls a t t e n t i o n to t h e fear o f I
2
C a i n (Ant. 1.59), N o a h (Ant. 1.74, 9 6 - 1 0 3 ) , L o t (Ant. 1.176), J a c o b (Ant. 1.277, - 3 7 ? 2.18, 2.119), R a c h e l (Ant. 1.305), P o t i p h a r ' s wife (Ant. 2.50-54), P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.206, 255, 299), J o s e p h (Ant. 2.133, 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) , A m r a m (Ant. 2.210, 219), M o s e s (Ant. 2.322, 4.63), S a u l (Ant. 6.59, 205, 2 1 3 , 259), J o a b (Ant. 7.31, 7.36, 8.13), J e h o s h a p h a t 9.8, 9), J o s i a h (Ant. 10.59),
a n <
(Ant.
^ N e b u c h a d n e z z a r (Ant. 10.99) ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 40, n.
3). J o s e p h u s also f r e q u e n d y g i v e s t h e c o n s c i o u s , r a t i o n a l m o t i v e s for m e n ' s a c t i o n s ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . I n this, t o o , w e m a y see the i n f l u e n c e o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l s c h o o l s . The
m o r a l i z i n g a n d p s y c h o l o g i z i n g t o n e , a n d , in particular, t h e e m p h a s i s o n
t h e c o r r u p t i n g effect o f t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f p o w e r is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e
Antiquities
ig8
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 85). T h i s m o t i f is also strikingly p r e s e n t in D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r nassus, w h o praises the h i s t o r i a n w h o scatters p h i l o s o p h i c reflections t h r o u g h o u t his history (Ant. Rom. 6.78.4). D i o n y s i u s l a u d s T h e o p o m p u s , in particular, for his n u m e r o u s fine o b s e r v a t i o n s o n j u s t i c e , piety, a n d the o t h e r virtues. J o s e p h u s ' s d e scription o f the reckless ruler, w i t h his r e a d i n e s s to listen to all r u m o r s a n d to u n sifted a c c u s a t i o n s , his willful hates, his i r r a t i o n a l loves, his e n v y o f t h o s e w h o h a v e d o n e h i m s e r v i c e a n d w h o h a v e b e e n h o n o r e d for this (Ant. 6 . 2 6 6 - 6 7 ) , is r e m i n i s c e n t o f H e r o d as d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s o r o f D o m i t i a n as p o r t r a y e d in T a c i t u s ' s Agricola ( 3 9 - 4 3 ) .
49
O n the t h e m e t h a t p o w e r c o r r u p t s , o n e m a y n o t e J o s e p h u s ' s re
m a r k , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the m u r d e r o f A b n e r b y J o a b , o n the l e n g t h s o f reckless ness t o w h i c h m e n will g o for the sake o f g r e e d a n d p o w e r (Ant. 7.37) a n d his c o m m e n t a b o u t R e h o b o a m : " B u t often, I think, a c a u s e o f m e n ' s falling into evil w a y s a n d lawlessness lies in the g r e a t n e s s o f their affairs a n d in the i m p r o v e m e n t o f their p o s i t i o n " (Ant. 8.251). A n o t h e r p a r a l l e l m a y b e seen in J o s e p h u s ' s reflection c o n c e r n i n g U z z i a h , w h o , h e says, w a s l e d t o sin " b y his brilliant g o o d fortune a n d the g r e a t n e s s o f his p o w e r , w h i c h h e h a d n o t b e e n a b l e to d i r e c t r i g h d y " (Ant. 9 . 2 2 3 ) .
50
T h i s , in t u r n , l e a d s to J o s e p h u s ' s p s y c h o l o g i z i n g r e m a r k a b o u t U z z i a h ' s s h a m e at his m i s f o r t u n e a n d the g r i e f a n d d e s p o n d e n c e t h a t l e d to his d e a t h (Ant. 9.226-27) ( B e g g 1995I1, 2 0 - 2 1 ) . A n o t h e r q u a l i t y r u n n i n g as a l e i t m o t i f t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s is t h e p o w e r o f selflove. T h i s p o w e r as a n attribute o f h u m a n n a t u r e is spelled o u t in M o s e s ' frank e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t o the Israelites t h a t i f the m a t t e r h a d b e e n left t o h i m , h e w o u l d h a v e a d j u d g e d h i m s e l f w o r t h y o f the d i g n i t y o f the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d , "alike f r o m the self-love ((\avTov) a n d the h a t r e d t h a t p e o p l e b e a r to t h o s e o f s u r p a s s i n g m e r i t , so t h a t t h e y attribute v i c t o r y to their o w n p o w e r r a t h e r t h a n t o d i v i n e h e l p (Ant. 5.215). O n e o f the motifs r u n n i n g t h r o u g h all o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s is the p o w e r o f j e a l o u s y ( w h i c h h e often c o u p l e s w i t h hatred) a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s — a p o p u l a r i d e a in G r e e k t h o u g h t g e n e r a l l y (see M i l o k e n s k i 1964). U n d o u b t e d l y , o n e o f t h e m a i n rea sons w h y J o s e p h u s is so c o n c e r n e d w i t h this t h e m e is t h a t it h a d
contemporary
ramifications, since h e w a s c l e a r l y a w a r e t h a t e n v y h a d b e e n a r o u s e d a g a i n s t the J e w s b y their s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s (Ant. 14.265). T h e R o m a n s h a d a f f i r m e d a n d c o n s t a n d y r e a f f i r m e d these in d e c r e e after d e c r e e o f the S e n a t e a n d o f e m p e r o r s , res-
49. W e m a y note that there are a n u m b e r o f parallels between Tacitus's Agricola and Josephus's Against Apion. A l t h o u g h not e n c o m i a as such, both contain a n u m b e r o f elements found in this genre. See Balch 1974, w h o notes that Dionysius follows a similar pattern in his e n c o m i u m o f R o m e (Ant. Rom. 1.9-2.29). 50. Here, too, Attridge 1976a, 170-75, has cited significant parallels in G r e e k literature, notably in Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and especially Dionysius o f Halicarnassus.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
igg
o l u t i o n s o f cities, a n d rescripts o f p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n o r s ; a n d J o s e p h u s cites these p a r t i c u l a r l y in the f o u r t e e n t h b o o k o f his Antiquities. C o n s e q u e n d y , J o s e p h u s h e r e m a k e s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y d i r e c t a p p e a l to his r e a d e r s to r e a d his a c c o u n t w i t h o u t m a l i c e ( j S a a / c a v W ' e n v y " ) a n d to trust these d o c u m e n t s (Ant. 14.265). M o s t strikingly, in o n e o f his editorial c o m m e n t s , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n e n v y (>d6vos) a n d c a l u m n y , n o r a n y t h i n g t h a t m o r e easily disrupts friendship a n d the ties o f n a t u r e (Ant. 13.310). I n a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , h e expresses the bitter t r u t h t h a t fortune (rvxrj) is e n v i o u s o f feats o f v a l o r a n d e v e r t h w a r t s m a r v e l o u s a c h i e v e m e n t s , as, for e x a m p l e , in the c a s e o f t h e h e r o i c R o m a n soldier S a b i n u s , w h o , at the m o m e n t w h e n h e s e e m i n g l y h a d at t a i n e d his o b j e c t , s l i p p e d a n d s t u m b l e d o v e r a r o c k a n d fell h e a d l o n g (War 6.63). I n i n s t a n c e after instance, as for e x a m p l e in the e n v y d i r e c t e d t o w a r d J o h n H y r c a n u s , J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t the p o w e r o f e n v y in p r o v o k i n g sedition (ordoiv)
(War
1.67), p r e c i s e l y the c h a i n o f c a u s e a n d effect t h a t h e o b s e r v e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the u p r i s i n g o f K o r a h . It is J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t it is n o t o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are g o v e r n e d b y j e a l o u s y b u t n a t i o n s also. I n particular, h e notes t h a t it is e n v y t h a t h a s m o t i v a t e d s o m e n o n - J e w i s h s c h o l a r s to d e n i g r a t e the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 1.72, 2.285). H e suggests t h a t t h e failure o f s o m e G r e e k historians to m e n t i o n the J e w s w a s o w i n g , n o t t o i g n o r a n c e , b u t to e n v y o r s o m e o t h e r d i s i n g e n u o u s r e a s o n (Ag. Ap. 1.213). O n e o f the m o t i v e s o f these critics in their v i r u l e n t attacks o n p e o p l e o f the h i g h e s t c e l e b r i t y w a s e n v y (Ag. Ap. 1.222). O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t J e w s h a r b o r e d n e i t h e r h a t r e d n o r e n v y (^XOTV-TTiav)
o f the G r e e k s (Ag. Ap. 2.123). T h e fact t h a t h e
attributes t h e p r e s e n c e o f e n v y m o r e to g e o g r a p h i c a l j u x t a p o s i t i o n t h a n t o simi larity o f institutions is a significant i n d i c a t i o n t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s r e a d y t o c o n c e d e t h a t e n v y o f n e i g h b o r s w a s so i n g r a i n e d a m o n g p e o p l e t h a t e v e n the J e w s w o u l d h a v e s u c c u m b e d to it h a d t h e y b e e n g e o g r a p h i c a l l y c l o s e r t o the G r e e k s . I n t h e p r e f a c e to his s u m m a r y o f the J e w i s h constitution, w h i c h h e p r e s e n t s in r e p l y t o those, s u c h as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n a n d L y s i m a c h u s , w h o h a d e x p r e s s e d h o s tility t o the J e w s , J o s e p h u s b e g s his ( p r e s u m a b l y non-Jewish) r e a d e r s to r e a d his a c c o u n t w i t h o u t e n v y (>d6vov) (Ag. Ap. 2.147). A s his t r u m p c a r d , h e c o n t e n d s t h a t e i t h e r his a c c u s e r s m u s t c o n d e m n the m u l t i t u d e s w h o h a v e c o n v e r t e d t o J u d a i s m t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d o r t h e y m u s t give u p their g r u d g e (fiaoKalvovTas)
against the
J e w s (Ag Ap. 2.285). U n d o u b t e d l y , o n e r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s p l a c e s so m u c h stress o n this t h e m e o f j e a l o u s y is b e c a u s e h e felt t h a t it h a d p l a y e d a m a j o r role in the d e b a c l e o f the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s . H e notes, for e x a m p l e , t h a t t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y p a r t y o f the Z e a l o t s h a d b e e n m o t i v a t e d b y e n v y o f the n o b i l i t y (War 4.357). E v e n J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , J o s e p h u s ' s m o r t a l e n e m y , w a s s u b j e c t e d to it (War 4.393, 566). J o s e p h u s c l a i m s t h a t h e h i m s e l f h a d b e e n s u b j e c t e d to j e a l o u s y , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g the p e r i o d w h e n h e w a s g e n e r a l in G a l i l e e d u r i n g the e a r l y d a y s o f the u p r i s i n g a g a i n s t R o m e . A s h e h i m s e l f says, " I w a s n o w a b o u t thirty y e a r s o l d , at a t i m e o f life w h e n , e v e n if o n e restrains o n e ' s lawless passions, it is h a r d , e s p e c i a l l y in a p o s i t i o n o f
200
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
h i g h authority, to e s c a p e the c a l u m n i e s o f e n v y " (Life 80). I n particular, J o s e p h u s e x p r e s s e d fear t h a t t h e o u t b r e a k o f t h e civil w a r m i g h t b r i n g r u i n u p o n the c i t y o f T i b e r i a s , all b e c a u s e o f the m i s d e e d s o f a f e w e n v i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s (War 2.620). J e a l o u s y o f J o s e p h u s h a d r e a c h e d t h e p o i n t w h e r e his f e l l o w citizens h a d a c t u ally s e c u r e d a n o r d e r to h a v e h i m p u t to d e a t h (Life 204). J o s e p h u s also asserts t h a t h e w a s e n v i e d b y J o n a t h a n , w h o l e d a d e p u t a t i o n sent b y t h e h i g h priest A n a n u s to d e p o s e J o s e p h u s f r o m his c o m m a n d in G a l i l e e (Life 2 1 6 - 3 3 5 ) . A b o v e all, h e c l a i m s to h a v e b e e n e n v i e d b y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (War 2.614; Life 8 4 - 8 5 ) , so m u c h so t h a t w e m a y , in r e a d i n g his v e r s i o n o f t h e K o r a h e p i s o d e , d r a w a n e q u a t i o n , i n effect, b e t w e e n J o h n a n d K o r a h a n d b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d M o s e s . A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , it w a s t h e b e l i e f t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s success w o u l d i n v o l v e his o w n r u i n t h a t c a u s e d J o h n t o g i v e w a y t o i n o r d i n a t e e n v y (Life 122). J o s e p h u s c l a i m s to h a v e b e e n s u b j e c t e d to n u m e r o u s a c c u s a t i o n s f a b r i c a t e d b y p e o p l e w h o e n v i e d h i m his g o o d fortune (Life 4 2 3 , 425). T h e fact t h a t s u c h r e m a r k s a b o u t e n v y a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y fre q u e n t w i t h r e g a r d to his o w n c a r e e r w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t t a k e n f r o m N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s o r f r o m s o m e o t h e r s o u r c e b u t r a t h e r reflected J o s e p h u s ' s o w n t h i n k i n g ( M a s o n 1 9 9 1 , 226). T h i s c o n c e r n w i t h t h e effects o f e n v y is p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e , w h e r e t h e t h e m e is e i t h e r a b s e n t o r m u c h less e m p h a s i z e d . F r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t o f view, it all started at t h e C r e a t i o n , w h e n t h e s e r p e n t in t h e G a r d e n o f E d e n g r e w j e a l o u s (9ov€ptbs) o f t h e blessings t h a t it s u p p o s e d w e r e d e s t i n e d for A d a m a n d E v e i f t h e y o b e y e d G - d ' s b e h e s t s (Ant. 1.41). I n his relations w i t h I s a a c , K i n g A b i m e l e c h w a s p r e v e n t e d b y e n v y (
from
m a i n t a i n i n g to t h e e n d his initial feelings o f friendship a n d h o s p i t a l i t y
(Ant.
1.259-60). T h e E g y p t i a n s h a d m a n y r e a s o n s for their e n v y o f t h e Israelites, n o tably, their o r i g i n a l g r i e v a n c e at the d o m i n a t i o n o f t h e Israelites' a n c e s t o r s o v e r t h e m a n d t h e r e n e w e d p r o s p e r i t y o f t h e Israelites after t h e e x o d u s f r o m E g y p t (Ant. 2.201; Ag. Ap. 1.224). T h e sight o f t h e n u m e r o u s a d m i r e r s o f t h e Israelites s e r v e d to i n c r e a s e this e n v y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e E g y p t i a n s , so t h a t it w a s c o u p l e d w i t h h a t r e d (pnaelv). P h a r a o h h i m s e l f is r e p r e s e n t e d as e n v i o u s o f M o s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e latter's success as g e n e r a l i n t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t E t h i o p i a (Ant. 2.255). ( J o s e p h u s signific a n d y o m i t s t h e r e a s o n g i v e n in t h e B i b l e for P h a r a o h ' s a n g e r : M o s e s ' m u r d e r o f a n E g y p t i a n [ E x o d . 2:15].) I n c o n t r a s t , says J o s e p h u s , M o s e s u n g r u d g i n g l y t h r e w o p e n the J e w i s h fold to a n y w h o e l e c t e d t o share t h e J e w i s h w a y o f life (Ag Ap. 2.209). It w a s e n v y t h a t i n s t i g a t e d the E g y p t i a n s to assert t h a t M o s e s w a s a l e p e r (Ant. 3.268). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s g r e a d y e l a b o r a t e s t h e t h e m e o f K o r a h ' s e n v y o f M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) (see F e l d m a n 19931, 4 0 9 - 1 2 ) . A f t e r h e is a n o i n t e d as k i n g , S a u l , r e a l i z i n g t h e p o w e r o f envy, tells n o o n e , n o t e v e n his closest friends, r e f l e c t i n g t h a t p e o p l e a r e m o t i v a t e d b y m a l i c e a n d e n v y w h e n o t h e r s a r e h o n o r e d . E n v y (66vov) is a r o u s e d in S a u l , in t u r n , b y t h e w o m e n w h o sing t h a t S a u l h a s slain m a n y t h o u s a n d s b u t t h a t D a v i d h a s slain tens o f t h o u s a n d s (Ant. 6.193). I n his e x t e n d e d reflections o n t h e c h a n g e s in S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r c a u s e d b y his a c c e s s i o n t o p o w e r , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , as a t r u i s m o f h u m a n n a t u r e ,
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
201
t h a t t h o s e w h o h a v e a t t a i n e d p o w e r at first h o n o r t h o s e w h o h a v e t o i l e d in t h e i r s e r v i c e b u t t h e n b e g r u d g e t h e m t h e h o n o r s t h a t t h e y h a v e c o n f e r r e d (Ant. 6.267). I n t h e s a m e p a s s a g e , J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r t h a t e n v y is t h e v e r y antithesis o f t h e c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f j u s t i c e a n d piety, a n d t h a t u n d e r its i n f l u e n c e , m e n b r e a k o u t in r i o t o u s a c t s (Ant. 6.265). M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c a n b e little d o u b t t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s r e c a s t t h e figure o f J o a b so as t o p a r a l l e l t h a t o f his a r c h e n e m y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 d , 3 3 7 - 5 0 ) . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s uses m u c h t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e i n d e p i c t i n g J o a b ' s e n v y o f A b n e r as h e uses o f J o h n ' s e n v y o f h i m . W e find a s i m i l a r t h e m e o f j e a l o u s y stressed b y J o s e p h u s in his n a r r a t i v e o f D a n i e l . I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , w e r e a d t h a t D a n i e l ' s relatives, w h o h a d b e e n m a d e g o v e r n o r s o f t h e k i n g d o m b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , fell i n t o g r e a t d a n g e r in c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e e n v y (66vov) a n d j e a l o u s y (fiaoKavtas)
t h a t t h e y h a d a r o u s e d (Ant.
10.212). I n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e r e a d t h a t D a n i e l b e c a m e d i s t i n g u i s h e d a b o v e all t h e o t h e r p r e s i d e n t s a n d satraps a n d t h a t t h e k i n g p l a n n e d t o set h i m o v e r t h e w h o l e k i n g d o m ( D a n . 6:3). It is t h e n i m p l i e d t h a t it w a s e n v y t h a t l e d t h e p r e s i d e n t s a n d t h e satraps t o s e e k a g r o u n d for c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t D a n i e l ( D a n . 6:4). I n J o s e p h u s , it is e x p l i c i t l y stated t h a t D a n i e l fell p r e y t o e n v y (i^dovrjOrj),
whereupon
J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t t h a t m e n are j e a l o u s (fiaoKaivovoi,
"calum
niate") w h e n t h e y see o t h e r s h e l d in g r e a t e r h o n o r t h a n t h e m s e l v e s b y k i n g s (Ant. 10.250). J o s e p h u s t h e n a d d s t h a t t h o u g h t h o s e w h o w e r e resentful o f t h e e s t e e m t h a t K i n g D a r i u s h a d for h i m s o u g h t s o m e p r e t e x t for slander, D a n i e l d i d n o t let t h o s e w h o w e r e e n v i o u s (t^Xorvirovaiv)
o f h i m find a n y g r o u n d for c o m p l a i n t (Ant.
10.251). W e a r e t o l d t h a t it w a s e n v y (
t o G - d (Ant. 1 0 . 2 5 6 ) . J o s e p h u s t h e n a d d s t h a t t h e satraps w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y e n v i o u s o f D a n i e l b e c a u s e t h e y i m a g i n e d t h a t D a r i u s m i g h t treat h i m w i t h g r e a t e r favor t h a n they h a d e x p e c t e d , e v e n to the point o f p a r d o n i n g h i m , despite the fact t h a t h e h a d s h o w n c o n t e m p t for t h e k i n g ' s o r d e r s (Ant. 10.257). T h e n a t i o n o f t h e S a m a r i t a n s a r e similarly said t o h a v e b e e n m o t i v a t e d b y e n v y in inflicting m a n y injuries u p o n t h e J e w s (Ant. 11.114). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s stresses t h e e n v y t h a t t h e P h a r i s e e s felt for t h e i r e n e m i e s (see M a s o n 1991, 2 2 5 - 2 7 , 2 4 3 - 4 5 , 358-59)Envy, moreover, leads to sedition. Josephus m a k e s a particular point o f n o t i n g t h a t t h e p r o s p e r i t y o f J o h n H y r c a n u s a n d his sons p r o v o k e d s e d i t i o n
(ardaiv)
a m o n g his e n v i o u s c o u n t r y m e n (War 1.67). A n d it is t h e disastrous c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
51. W e find a similar case o f envy in Josephus's version o f the story o f the Tobiads. T h e r e w e are told (Ant. 12.190) that w h e n Hyrcanus the T o b i a d was still a y o u n g lad of only thirteen, he showed such natural courage a n d intelligence that he became an object of violent jealousy (ZrjXoTVTTrjdijvai) o n the part of his brothers because of his great superiority and enviable (dovrjOr}vai) qualities. Envy (66vco) is likewise the factor (War 1.72) to which Aristobulus attributes the calumnies concocted by knavish courtiers o f K i n g Aristobulus I.
202
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
s e d i t i o n t h a t r u n as a leitmotif, n o t o n l y t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e J e w ish w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s o f 6 6 - 7 4 ,
D
u
t
0
a^ ?
m
^
a c t
? t h r o u g h o u t J e w i s h history.
A s t r i k i n g i n s t a n c e o f t h e p o w e r o f e n v y is a f f o r d e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e m u r d e r b y K i n g A r i s t o b u l u s I o f his b r o t h e r A n t i g o n u s , t o w a r d w h o m h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n so a f f e c t i o n a t e . T h i s , s a y s J o s e p h u s i n a n e d i t o r i a l r e m a r k , affords " a s u r e p r o o f t h a t c a l u m n y s e v e r s all ties o f a f f e c t i o n a n d o f n a t u r e , a n d t h a t o f o u r better feelings n o n e
is s t r o n g e n o u g h t o h o l d o u t i n t e r m i n a b l y a g a i n s t e n v y
(>0ovo>)" (War 1.77). J o s e p h u s v o i c e s a s i m i l a r s e n t i m e n t in r e c o u n t i n g t h e s a m e i n c i d e n t in t h e Antiquities—namely,
t h a t A n t i g o n u s ' s d e a t h p r o v e s t h a t " t h e r e is n o t h
i n g m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n e n v y [fidovov]
a n d calumny, nor anything that m o r e eas
ily d i s r u p t s f r i e n d s h i p a n d t h e ties o f n a t u r e t h a n t h e s e i n f l u e n c e s " (Ant. 13.310). W e f i n d t h e s a m e t h e m e o f t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f e n v y in J o s e p h u s ' s e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t o n H y r c a n u s ' s e n v y o f t h e y o u n g H e r o d a n d t h e latter's b r o t h e r P h a s a e l , t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e i n p r o s p e r i t y t o e s c a p e e n v y (War 1.208).
52
T h a t Josephus w a s thinking o f c o n t e m p o r a r y parallels w h e n he m e n t i o n e d the t h e m e o f e n v y m a y b e s e e n i n his c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e S a m a r i t a n s (Ant. 11.114), w h o , e n v y i n g a n d h a t i n g t h e J e w s , i n f l i c t e d m a n y injuries u p o n t h e m . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s stresses t h e e n v y t h a t t h e P h a r i s e e s felt for t h e i r e n e m i e s .
5 3
Thus, accord
ing to J o s e p h u s , their hostility t o w a r d J o h n H y r c a n u s w a s m o t i v a t e d b y j e a l o u s y
52. T h e supreme example o f the disastrous effects o f envy m a y b e seen in Josephus's depiction o f the infamous H e r o d . T h u s , Josephus (Ant. 15.50) cites envy o f his beauty a n d popularity as high priest as the factor that led H e r o d to order the murder o f Aristobulus, the grandson o f Aristobulus II. It is envy (<J>66VCQ) o f the only m a n w h o might succeed h i m as king, Hyrcanus, that motivates H e r o d to get rid o f h i m (Ant. 15.164). Herod's love for his wife M a r i a m n e (War 1.440) intensified his jealousy (^rjXoTVTTcos) o f her, so that, m a d (eV/xavei?) with sheer jealousy (aKpdrov ^XOTUTT
cas), he ordered that
1
she a n d his brother-in-law Joseph b e put to death (War 1.443). I* the parallel account in the Antiquities (15.82), Josephus twice focuses upon Herod's jealousy (^Xorvniav,
^Xcp) as the overwhelming force
that motivated his relations with his wife M a r i a m n e . It is this feeling o f jealousy (^Xorvniav)
to w h i c h
Herod's sister a n d mother appeal w h e n they seek to arouse h i m against M a r i a m n e . H e r o d himself, however, although quite unconvincingly, denies that he is motivated by jealousy in restricting the h o m a g e to b e paid to his sons (War 1.463); rather, it is the knowledge that such flattering attentions fos ter recklessness in the young. Herod's son Antipater (War 1.632-34), in turn, three times citing the p o w e r o f envy, notes that H e r o d , by loading him with other favors, m a d e him the envy o f all. A g a i n , because he k n e w that his fa ther, Herod, was envious o f him, Antipater (Ant. 16.247-48) w o u l d deliberately shorten himself w h e n he walked with his father in order not to appear to b e taller a n d w o u l d deliberately a i m beside the mark w h e n he w e n t o n a hunting trip with H e r o d in order not to excel his father. W e find that the arrival o f Herod's grandson A g r i p p a I (War 2.181) to take possession o f his k i n g d o m aroused the envy ((/>06vco) a n d ambition o f his uncle, H e r o d the Tetrarch, and, in particular, o f Herod's wife Herodias, the sister o f A g r i p p a , whose envy is referred to twice (Ant. 18.240, 241) within two paragraphs. W e are then told (Ant. 18.255)
t n a t
G - d H i m s e l f visited the punishment o f exile upon her a n d h e r husband for h e r envy
(66vov). 53. S e e the discussion in M a s o n 1991, 225-27, 243-45, 358-59. Because this theme is found throughout Josephus's works, M a s o n convincingly concludes that Josephus's source for these passages critical o f the envy harbored b y the Pharisees is not Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s but Josephus himself.
STYLISTIC A N DO T H E R CHANGES
(66vov) (Ant
203
13.288). I n d e e d , o n his d e a t h b e d , A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a d v i s e s his
wife, S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , to m a k e p e a c e w i t h the P h a r i s e e s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y h a d t h e full c o n f i d e n c e o f t h e m a s s e s , e v e n w h e n t h e y s p o k e h a r s h l y a b o u t s o m e o n e o u t o f e n v y ()6OVOVVT€S) (Ant 13.402). J o s e p h u s also cites the g r e e d (irXeove^ia)
and
e n v y (<j)d6vco) t h a t t h e A r a b s h a r b o r t o w a r d t h e J e w s (Ant 15.130). D a u b e has suggestively c o m m e n t e d o n Josephus's
self-identification w i t h a
n u m b e r o f b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s ( D a u b e 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 ) . T h e m o s t striking similarity is w i t h J o s e p h , like J o s e p h u s himself, a c h i l d p r o d i g y (Ant 2.9, Life 8), w h o s h o w e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y insight in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s (Ant 2 . 6 3 - 9 0 ) , w h o w a s cast o u t b y j e a l o u s b r o t h e r s (or fellow J e w s , in the c a s e o f J o s e p h u s ) to a f o r e i g n l a n d ( E g y p t a n d R o m e r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , a n d w h o w a s d e e p l y i n v o l v e d in politics. I n d e e d , i n c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e j e a l o u s y t h a t his b r o t h e r s felt for J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l i z e s , as if e x p r e s s i n g a n o b v i o u s truth: " S o j e a l o u s [^TIXOTV-TTOVVTCOV] cesses e v e n o f t h e i r n e a r e s t r e l a t i v e s " (Ant 2 . 1 0 ) .
54
are m e n o f t h e s u c
T h e fact t h a t the m o t i v e o f t h e
b r o t h e r s in p r o p o s i n g t o m u r d e r J o s e p h is e n v y (06vov), says R e u b e n in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s p e e c h , is w h a t r e n d e r s the d e e d far w o r s e (Ant 2.27). It is G - d , h o w e v e r , w h o c o u n t e r a c t s t h e j e a l o u s y (66vw) o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s (Ant 2.13). A n o t h e r m o t i f c o n s t a n d y stressed b y J o s e p h u s is t h a t o f a v a r i c e T h e n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n s o f irXeove^ia for the r e a d e r are p a r t i c u l a r l y b y its a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h s u c h h a t e d
figures
as A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s ,
(irXeove^ia). enhanced Antiochus
S i d e t e s , H e r o d , a n d C l e o p a t r a . I n the c a s e o f A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s , it w a s his g r e e d (irXeove^Las) that, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , l e d h i m t o d e s p o i l t h e T e m p l e (Ant 12.249). A s for A n t i o c h u s S i d e t e s , it w a s his c o v e t o u s n e s s (irXeove^ias) a n d d i s h o n esty t h a t l e d h i m to f o r g e t t h e s e r v i c e s t h a t S i m o n h a d r e n d e r e d h i m a n d to p l u n d e r J u d a e a (Ant 13.225). L i k e w i s e , it w a s H e r o d ' s g r e e d (irXeove^ia) t h a t l e d h i m t o p l u n d e r his c o u n t r y m e n (Ant 15.6). It is this q u a l i t y o f irXeove^ia t h a t is p a r t i c u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the i n f a m o u s C l e o p a t r a , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w a s p r o n e to c o v e t o u s n e s s (TrXeovegias) b y n a t u r e (Ant 15.89). I n h e r a m b i t i o n to possess J u d a e a a n d A r a b i a , she is s a i d to h a v e c o n t r i v e d t h e r u i n o f their r e s p e c t i v e kings, H e r o d a n d M a l c h u s (War 1.360). A n t o n y w a s u n a b l e fully to satisfy h e r g r e e d b y g i v i n g h e r C o e l e - S y r i a i n s t e a d ,
54. W e find the same theme of fraternal jealousy introduced by Josephus in his account (Ant. 20.21) of the jealousy, and consequent hatred, that Izates' half-brothers bore him. In fact, when Q u e e n H e lena called the high nobles and satraps together upon the death of K i n g M o n o b a z u s to announce that M o n o b a z u s h a d n a m e d Izates to succeed him, they declared (Ant. 20.29) that they wished to put Izates' brothers and kinsmen to death so that all fear arising from the hatred and envy that they bore Izates would be removed. W e see a similar theme of hatred in the extrabiblical account of M a n o a h ' s jealousy (Ant. 5.279) w h e n he hears his wife's account of the comeliness and stature o f the angel w h o h a d visited her to announce the forthcoming birth o f a son to her. In an unscriptural detail (Ant. 5.277), M a n o a h is described b y Josephus as madly enamored o f his wife and "therefore" (S«x TOVTO) inordinately (aKparajs, "immoderately," "uncontrollably," "unrestrainedly") jealous (ITJXOTVTTOS). Hence, w e find that in his jealousy (CrjAoTwrriav), he is driven to distraction by his wife's glowing description of the angel and conceives the suspicions that such passion arouses.
204
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s (Ant. 15.79). T h e c o n t e m p t t h a t the R o m a n s felt for C l e o p a t r a is p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t in V i r g i l ' s Aeneid (8.688), w h e r e a single w o r d , nefas ( " u n s p e a k a b l e a b o m i n a t i o n " ) , is sufficient to i n d i c a t e V i r g i l ' s h o r r o r at t h e d i s h o n o r a b l e al liance between her and A n t o n y .
5 5
T h e fact t h a t b e c a u s e o f this c o v e t o u s a m b i t i o n
(irXeove^ia) (Ant. 15.89), t h e r e w a s n o l a w l e s s d e e d (irapavoyLias)
t h a t she d i d n o t
c o m m i t — t h a t " t h e r e w a s n o s e c u l a r p l a c e t h a t d i d n o t suffer e v e r y k i n d o f f o r b i d d e n t r e a t m e n t so l o n g as it w a s l i k e l y t o satisfy to t h e full t h e g r e e d [-rrXeovet; ta] o f this w i c k e d [dSLKovorjs, "unjust"] w o m a n (Ant. 1 5 . 9 0 ) " — w o u l d h a v e left a p a r t i c u l a r i m p r e s s i o n u p o n t h e R o m a n s , for w h o m l a w w a s so c e n t r a l . T h u s , t h e fact t h a t 7rAeovef ta w a s e s p e c i a l l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f C l e o p a t r a w o u l d h a v e a r o u s e d p a r t i c u l a r d i s d a i n for J o a b , w h o is s i m i l a r l y d e s c r i b e d (Ant. 7 . 3 1 , 386) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 d , 348-50). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e s 7rAeove£ta t o the p r o c u r a t o r G e s s i u s F l o r u s x
2.279, 33 )j it
w
a
s
(War
this, h e says, t h a t b r o u g h t d e s o l a t i o n u p o n all t h e cities o f J u d a e a
a n d c a u s e d m a n y to d e s e r t t h e i r a n c e s t r a l d w e l l i n g p l a c e s a n d s e e k refuge else w h e r e . S p e a k i n g t h r o u g h A g r i p p a II, J o s e p h u s m o r e o v e r r e g a r d s the s a m e q u a l i t y o f TrXeovet; ta as o n e o f t h e m o t i v e s t h a t p r o v o k e d the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s t o m a k e w a r o n R o m e — n a m e l y , t h e p r o s p e c t o f e n r i c h i n g t h e m s e l v e s at t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e w e a k in t h e e v e n t o f a g e n e r a l c o n v u l s i o n (War 2.346). T h e o p p o s i t e o f irXeove^ia is j u s t i c e , as w e c a n see f r o m T h u c y d i d e s ' r e m a r k , in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e civil strife at C o r c y r a (3.82), t h a t the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w e n t to e v e n g r e a t e r l e n g t h s , w i t h n o r e s p e c t for w h a t j u s t i c e o r t h e g o o d o f t h e state d e m a n d e d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h o s e w h o c a m e to M o s e s for j u d g m e n t o f t h e i r disputes b u t lost t h e i r c a s e s w e r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t it w a s j u s t i c e a n d n o t c u p i d i t y (irXeove^iav) t h a t h a d d e t e r m i n e d their fate (Ant. 3.67). W e r e a d t h a t d e s p i t e t h e fact t h a t M o s e s s u c c e e d e d in m a k i n g t h e entire J e w i s h n a t i o n d e p e n d e n t u p o n himself, a n d a l t h o u g h h e s e c u r e d their o b e d i e n c e in e v e r y t h i n g , h e d i d n o t t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f this for a n y p e r s o n a l a g g r a n d i z e m e n t (7rAeove£tav) (Ag. Ap. 2.158). M o s e s ' a p p o i n t m e n t o f t h e priests to their h i g h office w a s o w i n g , says J o s e p h u s i n his a p o l o g y Against Apion (2.186), n o t to a n y s u p e r i o r i t y o f w e a l t h o r c u p i d i t y (irXeove^iais) o n t h e i r p a r t b u t r a t h e r to t h e i r p r e e m i n e n t gifts o f e l o q u e n c e a n d d i s c r e t i o n . T h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n c u p i d i t y a n d j u s tice is to b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f S a m u e l ' s a d d r e s s to the Israelites, in w h i c h h e stresses t h a t h e h a s d o n e n o t h i n g sinister a n d unjust t h r o u g h l o v e o f g a i n o r c u p i d i t y (77Aeovestas) (Ant. 6.86). Finally, in p r a i s i n g t h e J e w i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t in g o i n g t o w a r , the a i m o f t h e J e w s w a s n o t selfa g g r a n d i z e m e n t b u t r a t h e r t h e desire t o p r e s e r v e their l a w s , a p o i n t t h a t s u r e l y r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e l e g a l l y m i n d e d R o m a n s (Ag. Ap. 2.272, 292).
55. W e m a y discern similar disdain for C l e o p a t r a in H o r a c e (Odes 1.37) a n d Propertius (3.11.29 ff.). See Feldman 1987-88, 229.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
205
DETHEOLOGIZING A m a j o r g o a l o f J o s e p h u s ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the B i b l e — n a m e l y , t o p r e s e n t a c o n s i s tent, p r o f o u n d l y religious, a n d J e w i s h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i s t o r y — h a s b e e n stressed b y A t t r i d g e (1976, 7 1 - 1 0 7 ; 1984, 2 1 8 - 1 9 ) . T h i s g o a l w o u l d s e e m to b e in line w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s o w n s t a t e m e n t in his p r e f a c e t h a t the m a i n lesson to b e d e r i v e d f r o m a p e r u s a l o f his h i s t o r y is t h a t G - d r e w a r d s those w h o o b e y H i s l a w s a n d p u n i s h e s t h o s e w h o d o n o t (Ant. 1.14); b u t this is a c o m m o n p l a c e in p r e f a c e s , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n L i v y ' s p r e f a c e t o his h i s t o r y o f R o m e . I n d e e d , despite s u c h m o r a l i z i n g , J o s e p h u s , i n p o i n t o f fact, prefers t o a p p r o a c h the B i b l e as h i s t o r y r a t h e r t h a n as t h e o l o g y . T h i s is c l e a r f r o m a n u m b e r o f r e f e r e n c e s in t h e Antiquities t h a t h e i n t e n d s to discuss elsewhere s u c h t h e o l o g i c a l m a t t e r s as t h e r e a s o n s for t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s g e n e r a l l y (Ant. 1.25, 20.268), t h e r e a s o n s for the p r a c t i c e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.192), t h e m a j o r p o r t i o n o f t h e l a w s (Ant. 3.94), the r e a s o n for t h e s h e w b r e a d (Ant. 3.143), t h e l a w s c o n c e r n i n g m u t u a l relations (Ant. 4.198), a n d t h e J e w i s h b e l i e f c o n c e r n i n g G - d a n d H i s e s s e n c e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , it is n o t t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h s u c h m a t t e r s : t h e p r o j e c t e d w o r k On Customs and Causes h a d a p p a r e n d y t a k e n a v e r y definite s h a p e in J o s e p h u s ' s m i n d , since h e e v e n i n d i c a t e s t h a t it w i l l consist o f f o u r b o o k s (Ant. 20.268). R a t h e r , it is t h a t J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d his his t o r y as a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e for s u c h discussions, at least at a n y l e n g t h . T o b e sure, it is ironic t h a t in t h e War, w h i c h offers, e s p e c i a l l y as s e e n in its s p e e c h e s , a c l e a r t h e o l o g i c a l lesson, J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g in his p r e f a c e as to w h a t lesson t h e r e a d e r is to d e r i v e , w h e r e a s in the Antiquities, w h e r e the t h e o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t is d e e m p h a s i z e d , J o s e p h u s p r o c l a i m s his t h e o l o g i z i n g a n d m o r a l i z i n g p u r p o s e in his p r e f a c e . T h e e x p l a n a t i o n , it w o u l d s e e m , is t h a t J o s e p h u s is p r e s e n t i n g a n a p o l o g e t i c for t h e B i b l e , a n d c o n s e q u e n d y for G - d ' s d e e d s , in t h e
Antiquities,
b u t t h a t h e d o e s so n o t as a t h e o l o g i a n b u t as a historian, n o t i n g the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e a c t i o n s o f his m o s t i m p o r t a n t h u m a n c h a r a c t e r s .
56
T h u s w e see t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s qualities as a g e n e r a l , t h a t h e p l a c e s less e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r a i s e o f Palestine to A b r a h a m a n d , in fact, o m i t s t h e d i v i n e p r o m i s e o f t h e l a n d in t h e p a s s a g e s p a r a l l e l i n g G e n . 1 2 . 7 , 1 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 , 1 5 : 1 8 , I
I
lA
a n d 1 7 : 1 9 - 2 1 (Ant. 1.157, - 7 ° ? 1-184, 93)-
E v e n in s p e a k i n g o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , h e
o m i t s its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G - d a n d A b r a h a m as stated in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 1 7 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) a n d i n s t e a d gives a p u r e l y p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n for this c o m m a n d m e n t , n a m e l y , t o p r e v e n t assimilation (Ant. 1.192). J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s a d d r e s s t o I s a a c a n d o m i t s a n y a p p e a l to G - d (Ant. 1.228-31), f r a u g h t as this
56. Attridge 1976a, esp. 71-107, presents Josephus as a Jewish theological thinker and suggests that it was Josephus's personal experience in the Jewish revolt and in the life o f the D i a s p o r a that w a s chiefly responsible for his particular brand o f covenant theology. For Attridge, just as Philo is the first to effect a synthesis between G r e e k philosophy and Scripture, so Josephus is the pioneer in using Jew ish materials to present a profoundly religious and Jewish interpretation o f history.
206
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
w o u l d b e w i t h the p r o b l e m o f t h e o d i c y .
57
Finally, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t
difference
c
b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d the o t h e r J e w i s h s o u r c e s w i t h r e g a r d t o the A q e d a h is t h a t J o s e p h o m i t s the c o n c e p t t h a t G - d tested b o t h A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c , a m o t i v e c r u cial to the q u e s t i o n o f theodicy. J o s e p h u s also o m i t s J a c o b ' s a n g r y e x c h a n g e w i t h R a c h e l , in w h i c h , in the b i b lical v e r s i o n , h e says, " A m I in G - d ' s stead, W h o h a t h w i t h h e l d f r o m t h e e the fruit o f the w o m b ? " ( G e n . 3 0 : 1 - 2 v s . Ant. 1.305). J o s e p h u s o m i t s the a s s o c i a t i o n o f G - d w i t h h e r l a c k o f f e c u n d i t y a n d i n s t e a d restricts h i m s e l f t o t h e h u m a n
dimension,
p s y c h o l o g i z i n g t h a t R a c h e l fears t h a t h e r sister's f e c u n d i t y will lessen h e r o w n share o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s affections. W h e n R a c h e l gives b i r t h to J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t r e p e a t the r e f e r e n c e t o G - d f o u n d in b o t h the H e b r e w a n d the S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n s t h a t " G - d h a t h t a k e n a w a y m y r e p r o a c h " ( G e n . 30:23 v s . Ant. 1.308). T h e r e is likewise a d e e m p h a s i s o f the role o f G - d in the story o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s wife. W h e r e a s the B i b l e , in r e s p o n s e t o the latter's invitation to J o s e p h to h a v e relations w i t h her, h a s J o s e p h call out, " H o w , t h e n , c a n I d o this g r e a t w i c k e d n e s s a n d sin a g a i n s t G - d " ( G e n . 39:9), J o s e p h u s ' s J o s e p h , u n l i k e P h i l o ' s J o s e p h in De Josepho (9.48), o f w h i c h J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a w a r e ,
5 8
says
n o t h i n g a b o u t G - d a n d o n l y later m e n t i o n s G - d w h e n h e a p p e a l s d r a m a t i c a l l y to h e r c o n s c i e n c e (Ant. 2.51—52). T o b e sure, in his a c c o u n t o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t d e e m p h a s i z e the role o f G - d . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e c o m m e n t s t h a t the m i r a c u l o u s w a y in w h i c h M o s e s w a s s a v e d after h e h a d b e e n p l a c e d in the ark after his b i r t h s h o w s p l a i n l y t h a t h u m a n i n t e l l i g e n c e is o f n o w o r t h , a n d t h a t G - d a c c o m p l i s h e s w h a t e v e r H e i n t e n d s to d o (Ant. 2.222-23). A t the b u r n i n g b u s h , it is G - d w h o e x h o r t s M o s e s to h a v e c o n f i d e n c e (Ant. 2.272), a n d n o t , as in A r t a p a n u s , M o s e s w h o takes c o u r a g e o n his o w n initiative (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Eng.2j.22).
W h e n M o s e s r e t u r n s to
E g y p t f r o m M i d i a n , the H e b r e w s , w e are told, w e r e h o p e f u l t h a t all w o u l d b e w e l l , " s i n c e G - d w a s t a k i n g f o r e t h o u g h t {irpovoovpiivov]
for their safety" (Ant. 2.280).
J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t o n e o f the r e a s o n s w h y h e h a s c h o s e n t o m e n t i o n all o f the p l a g u e s t h a t afflicted the E g y p t i a n s is t h a t o n e s h o u l d l e a r n t h e r e b y the lesson t h a t t h o s e w h o p r o v o k e G - d ' s w r a t h are p u n i s h e d (Ant. 2.293). A t the S e a o f R e e d s , w h e r e all h o p e s e e m s lost, M o s e s e n c o u r a g e s the Israelites b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t G - d h e l p s p e o p l e p r e c i s e l y at the t i m e w h e n H e sees t h a t t h e y h a v e lost all h o p e (Ant. 2.332). H e e x p l a i n s the sweetness o f the w a t e r s o f M a r (Ant. 3 . 5 - 9 ) , the m i r a c u l o u s gift o f quails a n d m a n n a (Ant. 3.22-32), a n d the m i r a c l e o f the w a t e r f r o m the r o c k (Ant. 3.33-38) as i n d i c a t i o n s o f G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e . T h i s e m p h a s i s o n G - d is the e x -
57. Note, in contrast, the rabbinic emphasis (Jerusalem Taanit 650!; Genesis Rabbah 56.15) on A b r a ham's address to G - d , in w h i c h he contends that although he might have argued against the divine de cree, he did not d o so. 58. T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:187, notes words a n d phrases in Josephus that seem to have been taken from Philo.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
207
c e p t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s history, h o w e v e r , a n d m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y the fact t h a t since the G r e e k s b e l i e v e d t h a t g r e a t l e a d e r s , s u c h as L y c u r g u s , h a d t o b e d i v i n e l y di r e c t e d , so J o s e p h u s , for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s , i n a s m u c h as h e k n e w t h a t M o s e s w o u l d b e c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r l a w g i v e r s a n d f o r m u l a t o r s o f constitutions, a c t u a l or ideal,
5 9
similarly e m p h a s i z e d t h a t M o s e s h a d b e e n d i r e c t e d b y G - d ' s p r o v i
d e n c e (Ant. 2.329, 3 3 1 , 335). T h a t , i n d e e d , J o s e p h u s is actually, nevertheless, d e e m p h a s i z i n g the role o f G - d m a y b e seen f r o m the fact t h a t w h e r e a s the D e a d S e a T e m p l e S c r o l l , for e x a m p l e , e x c l u d e s M o s e s entirely in its s t a t e m e n t o f the l a w s a n d i n s t e a d a s c r i b e s t h e m d i r e c d y to G - d , J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s M o s e s b y n a m e c o n s t a n d y as the a u t h o r o f these l a w s , identifies the v i r t u e o f his c o n s t i t u t i o n w i t h M o s e s ' o w n v i r t u e (Ant. 1.20), a n d n o w h e r e q u o t e s G - d d i r e c d y in his c i t a t i o n o f l e g a l m a t e r i a l s (Altshuler 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 , 11). I f in the D e b o r a h p e r i c o p e , J o s e p h u s stresses the role o f G - d , it is b e c a u s e h e seeks in his m i s o g y n y to a v o i d a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f the c h a r a c t e r o f D e b o r a h a n d , i n d e e d , r e d u c e s h e r to a m i n o r figure, far f r o m the c e n t r a l p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t she is, for e x a m p l e , in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities (see B r o w n 1992, 3 9 - 9 2 ) . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e (Judg. 4:6), as w e l l as i n the r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Megillah 14b) a n d in P s e u d o - P h i l o (31.1), it is D e b o r a h w h o s u m m o n s B a r a k a n d w h o r e m i n d s h i m t h a t G - d c o m m a n d s h i m t o g a t h e r his t r o o p s for b a t d e , in J o s e p h u s , w h i l e it is t r u e t h a t D e b o r a h calls B a r a k (Ant. 5.202), she also a d d s t h a t it is G - d w h o di r e c d y p r o m i s e s s a l v a t i o n t o the Israelites a n d w h o c h o o s e s B a r a k as their g e n e r a l (Ant. 5.201). L i k e w i s e , D e b o r a h is i n d i g n a n t w i t h B a r a k b e c a u s e h e h a s s o u g h t to s u r r e n d e r to a w o m a n a role t h a t G - d h a s b e s t o w e d u p o n h i m (Ant. 5.203). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s G i d e o n ' s a n d S a m s o n ' s s t a n d i n g as h e r o e s , h o w e v e r , b y o m i t t i n g m i r a c u l o u s details a n d b y d i m i n i s h i n g the role p l a y e d b y G - d in their lives a n d exploits. T h u s , h e o m i t s the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the spirit o f the L - r d c l o t h e d G i d e o n (Judg. 6:34). M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e skeptical r e a d e r s m i g h t w e l l w o n d e r at the s c e n e in w h i c h G - d addresses G i d e o n d i r e c d y (Judg. 7:4), J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t s u c h s c e n e s in d r e a m s w e r e a c c e p t e d as true b y s u c h r e s p e c t e d w r i t e r s as P l a t o (Re public 9 . 5 7 1 D - 7 2 A ) , h a s G - d a p p e a r t o G i d e o n in his sleep (Ant. 5.215) (see Feld J
m a n i993J> 9)L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the b i b l i c a l r e m a r k t h a t as the b o y S a m s o n grew, t h e spirit o f the L - r d b e g a n t o stir h i m in M a h a n e h - d a n (Judg. 13:25), as w e l l as t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t in his e n c o u n t e r w i t h the l i o n , the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e o v e r h i m (Judg. 14:6); for J o s e p h u s , it is w h o l l y a c o n t e s t o f m a n a g a i n s t the k i n g o f the beasts. I n his r e c o u n t i n g o f S a m s o n ' s e x c u r s i o n to A s h k e l o n t o o b t a i n t h e g a r m e n t s t h a t h e h a d p r o m i s e d t o t h o s e w h o successfully a n s w e r e d his riddle (Judg. 14:19), J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the fact t h a t the spirit o f G - d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n S a m s o n , t h u s e n a b l i n g h i m t o p e r f o r m this e x p l o i t (Ant. 5.294). J o s e p h u s
59. Cf., e.g., Strabo (16.2.38-39.762), w h o makes Moses parallel to the revered C r e t a n king and lawgiver M i n o s a n d to the similarly revered Spartan king and lawgiver Lycurgus as a lawgiver w h o claimed divine sanction for the laws.
208
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
o m i t s the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n S a m s o n at L e h i (Judg. 15:14 v s . Ant. 5.300). I n J o s e p h u s , it is S a m s o n h i m s e l f w h o bursts the b o n d s w i t h his o w n m i g h t ; t h e y d o n o t d r o p passively, as in the B i b l e , b e c a u s e o f G - d ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n o r b e c a u s e the r o p e s m i r a c u l o u s l y b e c o m e as flax t h a t w a s b u r n t b y fire. It h a s a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s inserts a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , it is t o necessity r a t h e r t h a n t o G - d t h a t h e ascribes e v e n t s s u c h as S a m s o n ' s c a l a m i t y (Ant. 5.312 a n d e l s e w h e r e ) . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the r e m a r k t h a t the L - r d h a d d e p a r t e d f r o m S a m s o n after his h a i r h a d b e e n c u t (Judg. 16:20 v s . Ant. 5.313). Finally, h e o m i t s S a m s o n ' s p r a y e r to G - d (Judg. 16:28) p r i o r to his g r e a t e s t a c h i e v e m e n t , b r i n g i n g the t e m p l e d o w n u p o n the t h o u s a n d s o f Philistines. P e r h a p s the m o s t striking e x a m p l e o f the d i m i n u t i o n b y J o s e p h u s o f the role o f G - d is in the R u t h p e r i c o p e . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the fact t h a t at t h e e n d o f the n a r rative, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t h e w a s c o n s t r a i n e d to relate it in o r d e r to d e m o n strate the p o w e r o f G - d a n d the ease w i t h w h i c h H e c a n raise o r d i n a r y p e o p l e to illustrious r a n k
(Ant.
5.337), J o s e p h u s
n o w h e r e , in the
entire
episode
(Ant.
5 . 3 1 8 - 3 6 ) , until the v e r y e n d , m e n t i o n s G - d , a l t h o u g h the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t refers t o H i m s e v e n t e e n times. If, t h e n , h e d o e s m e n t i o n G - d at the e n d o f the p e r i c o p e , it is p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e feels t h a t h e o u g h t to c o n n e c t R u t h ' s d e s c e n d a n t D a v i d , w h o m h e h a s j u s t m e n t i o n e d (Ant. 5.336), w i t h the d i v i n e will (see F e l d m a n 1991c, 47-49)A g a i n , J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s E l i j a h as a c t i n g o n his o w n initiative r a t h e r
than
u n d e r s u p e r n a t u r a l d i r e c t i o n (2 K i n g s 1.15 v s . Ant. 9.26) ( B e g g 1 9 9 5 a , 3 5 - 3 6 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e q u o t e s the p r o p h e t E l i j a h as d e c l a r i n g t h a t G - d will b r i n g a g r e a t p l a g u e o n the p e o p l e o f J u d a h b e c a u s e o f K i n g J e h o r a m ' s w i c k e d w a y s (2 C h r o n . 21:14), J o s e p h u s speaks o n l y o f G - d ' s p u n i s h m e n t o f J e h o r a m h i m self ( A i t 9.99) (see B e g g i993~94> 333)T h e role o f G - d is also c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e d i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B o o k o f J o n a h , w h e r e H i s role in the b i b l i c a l t e x t is p a r a m o u n t . T h u s , w h e r e a s the b i b lical n a r r a t i v e states v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t it w a s G - d w h o h u r l e d a g r e a t w i n d u p o n the sea ( J o n a h 1:4), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e role o f G - d a n d says o n l y t h a t a v e r y severe s t o r m c a m e u p (Ant. 9.209). W h e n the s t o r m h a s o v e r w h e l m e d the ship c a r r y i n g J o n a h , a n d the sailors c r y t o their r e s p e c t i v e deities, the c a p t a i n u r g e s J o n a h to call u p o n his G - d ( J o n a h 1:6), b u t in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n t h e r e is n o s u c h e n c o u n t e r , a n d G - d is o m i t t e d f r o m the p i c t u r e (Ant. 9.209). L i k e w i s e totally o m i t t e d is the t h e o l o g i c a l lesson o f the qiqayon—namely,
t h a t if J o n a h t o o k p i t y o n the qiqayon, a
m e r e p l a n t , for w h i c h h e d i d n o t labor, a n d t h a t g r e w a n d p e r i s h e d o v e r n i g h t , surely G - d s h o u l d t a k e p i t y u p o n H i s g r e a t city o f N i n e v e h , a n d J o n a h s h o u l d n o t o b j e c t to G - d ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h a t city's r e p e n t a n c e ( J o n a h 4 : 6 - 1 1 ) . M o s t signifi cantly, J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m o f h o w a n d w h y G - d r e p e n t e d f r o m p u n i s h i n g N i n e v e h ( J o n a h 3:10) b y o m i t t i n g this p o i n t altogether, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e m e n t i o n o f G - d ' s r e p e n t a n c e m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d as a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t J o n a h ' s initial p r o p h e c y a b o u t N i n e v e h h a d t u r n e d o u t t o b e false (see Feld m a n i992d, 8-14).
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
209
L i k e w i s e , in o r d e r t o e m p h a s i z e m o r e g r e a d y the a c h i e v e m e n t s o f N e h e m i a h , J o s e p h u s o m i t s his p r a y e r to G - d ( N e h . 4:9 v s . Ant. n . 177), as w e l l as his s t a t e m e n t to his w o r k e r s t h a t G - d will fight for t h e m ( N e h . 4:20). Instead, h e m e n t i o n s o n l y N e h e m i a h ' s o r g a n i z i n g a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d his o r d e r s to his m e n (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 194). I n the c a s e o f the B o o k o f Esther, the reverse is the case, for in the H e b r e w f o r m o f the b i b l i c a l b o o k , t h e r e is n o t a single m e n t i o n o f G - d ; a n d the S e p t u a g i n t a n d J o s e p h u s , for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, a t t e m p t t o r e m e d y this l a c k in several p l a c e s . T h u s , w h e n t h e r e is a n o b v i o u s suppression o f G - d ' s n a m e in the p a s s a g e w h e r e M o r d e c a i tells E s t h e r t h a t i f she d o e s n o t s p e a k t o the k i n g , d e l i v e r a n c e will c o m e to the J e w s " f r o m a n o t h e r p l a c e " (Esther 4:14), the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 11.227) specify t h a t this relief will c o m e f r o m G - d . Y e t , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n ; for w h e r e the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n ( D 8) d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d c h a n g e d the spirit o f A h a s u e r u s into m i l d n e s s , J o s e p h u s qualifies this s t a t e m e n t b y the p h r a s e " I b e l i e v e " (offxai) (Ant. 11.237). W h e r e the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n ( D 13) r e p o r t s t h a t E s t h e r e x p l a i n s t h a t she h a d fainted w h e n she h a d s e e n A h a s u e r u s as a n a n g e l o f G - d , J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to d i m i n i s h the s u p e r n a t u r a l , says t h a t she fainted w h e n she s a w h i m " l o o k i n g so g r e a t a n d h a n d s o m e a n d t e r r i b l e "
(Ant.
11.240) (see F e l d m a n 1970b, 1 6 8 - 7 0 ) . O n e o f the stock c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s is credulity, as w e c a n see f r o m H o r a c e , w h o h a s a p r o v e r b , " C r e d a t I u d a e u s A p e l l a , " r e f e r r i n g to the fact t h a t o n l y the c r e d u l o u s J e w A p e l l a w o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t f r a n k i n c e n s e c a n m e l t w i t h o u t fire (Satires 1.5.97-103). T o the G r e e k s , as w e c a n see f r o m H e r o d o t u s ' s criticism (1.60) o f the e a s e w i t h w h i c h the A t h e n i a n s a l l o w e d t h e m s e l v e s t o b e d e c e i v e d b y Peisistratus's ruse in r e t u r n i n g t o p o w e r , s u c h c r e d u l i t y w a s h a r d l y a d m i r a b l e . I n d e e d , it w a s a s t a n d a r d t e n e t o f the E p i c u r e a n s that the g o d s d o n o t i n t e r v e n e in h u m a n affairs, a n d t h u s d o n o t p e r f o r m m i r a c l e s . I n d e a l i n g w i t h m i r a c l e s , J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y in a d i l e m m a . O n the o n e h a n d , as a b e l i e v i n g Jew, h e c o u l d h a r d l y d e n y the c e n t r a l i t y o f s u c h m i r a c l e s as the p l a g u e s in E g y p t , the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s , a n d the r e v e l a t i o n at S i n a i . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h e h a r d l y w i s h e d t o e x p o s e h i m s e l f t o ridicule for b e i n g so c r e d u lous a n d insisted t h a t M o s e s w r o t e n o t h i n g t h a t w a s u n r e a s o n a b l e , a n d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g in S c r i p t u r e w a s in k e e p i n g w i t h the n a t u r e o f the u n i v e r s e (Ant. 1.24). M i r a c l e s a c t u a l l y p r e s e n t e d less o f a p r o b l e m for J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , t h a n o n e m i g h t h a v e t h o u g h t , i n a s m u c h as the S t o i c s , the d o m i n a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l in R o m e in J o s e p h u s ' s day, d i d a l l o w for d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n in the w o r l d (see D i o n y sius o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , Ant. Rom. 2 . 6 8 . 1 - 2 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n d y (e.g., Ant. 1.108, 3.81, 3.322, 4 . 1 5 8 , 1 0 . 2 8 1 , 1 7 . 3 5 4 ; cf. 3.268, 8 . 2 6 2 , 1 9 . 1 0 8 , a n d War
5.257)
e m p l o y s the t i m e - h o n o r e d f o r m u l a , f o u n d n o t m e r e l y in D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s sus, L u c i a n , a n d Pliny, b u t also earlier in H e r o d o t u s a n d T h u c y d i d e s ,
6 0
allowing
60. Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.48.1,1.48.4, 2.40.3, 2.74.5, 3-36-5; L u c i a n , Quomodo His
toria Conscribenda Sit 10; Pliny, Natural History 9.18; Herodotus, 2.123, 5.45; T h u c y d i d e s , 6.2.1.
2io
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
t h e r e a d e r t o m a k e u p his o w n m i n d . T h i s f o r m u l a , as D e l l i n g ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 8 , 2 9 1 - 3 0 9 ) a n d M a c R a e (1965, 1 3 6 - 4 2 ) h a v e r e m a r k e d , is m o r e a n e x p r e s s i o n o f c o u r t e s y t o his p a g a n r e a d e r s t h a n a c o n f e s s i o n o f his d o u b t a b o u t t h e v e r a c i t y o f these a c counts. O n the w h o l e , J o s e p h u s t e n d s t o d o w n g r a d e m i r a c l e s , as w e see e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e c o m p a r e , for e x a m p l e , his d e p i c t i o n o f A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s as t a l e n t e d g e n e r a l s w i t h t h e r a b b i n i c p o r t r a i t s o f these l e a d e r s as p r e v a i l i n g b e c a u s e o f G - d ' s m i r a c u l o u s assistance. T h u s t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e a n g e l w i l l r e t u r n a n d t h a t S a r a h will b e a r a s o n " a c c o r d i n g t o this s e a s o n o f life," t h a t is, a y e a r f r o m t h e n ( G e n . 18:10), is t o n e d d o w n in J o s e p h u s , w h o states m e r e l y t h a t o n e o f t h e a n g e l s w i l l r e t u r n s o m e d a y i n t h e future (Ant. 1.197). T h e n , w h e n t h e b i r t h t a k e s p l a c e , J o s e p h u s says s i m p l y t h a t it o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r (Ant. 1.214). A g a i n , t h e s c e n e o f t h e r a m b e i n g c a u g h t in t h e t h i c k e t b y its h o r n s m a y h a v e s e e m e d g r o t e s q u e a n d t o o m u c h o f a m i r a c l e for a r a t i o n a l i z i n g G r e e k i n t e l l e c t u a l ( G e n . 22:13). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s it a n d says m e r e l y t h a t G - d b r o u g h t t h e r a m f r o m o b s c u r i t y i n t o view, i m p l y i n g t h a t it h a d a l w a y s b e e n there. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t state e x p l i c i d y as d o e s t h e B i b l e , t h a t A b r a h a m offered t h e r a m in p l a c e o f his s o n ( G e n . 22:13), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w i s h e d t o a v o i d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t it w a s a substitute for t h e sins o f m a n . W e c a n see t h e d e l i c a c y w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s a p p r o a c h e s t h e s u b j e c t o f m i r a cles in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t o f t h e b u r n i n g b u s h . T h e B i b l e states t h a t a n a n g e l o f t h e L - r d a p p e a r e d to M o s e s in a f l a m e o f fire o u t o f t h e m i d s t o f a t h o r n b u s h ( E x o d . 3:2). J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e s t h a t his skeptical, l a r g e l y p a g a n , a u d i e n c e w o u l d h a v e difficulty a c c e p t i n g t h e i d e a t h a t a n a n g e l a p p e a r e d t h u s a n d m i g h t e v e n r i d i c u l e t h e i n c i d e n t . H e therefore a t t e m p t s to i n t r o d u c e t h e i n c i d e n t b y a d m i t t i n g t h a t it w a s a n a m a z i n g p r o d i g y (Ant. 2.265). H e t h e n c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e role o f t h e a n g e l a n d d e s c r i b e s in m o r e e x a c t detail t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e b l a z i n g b u s h . A s for t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e c r o s s i n g o f t h e S e a o f R e e d s , J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h e p a r a l l e l to this m a r v e l o u s e v e n t in t h e p a r t i n g o f t h e P a m p h y l i a n S e a b e f o r e t h e t r o o p s o f A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t (Ant. 2.347-48). W e m a y d i s c e r n t h e d e e m p h a s i s o n m i r a c l e s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G i d e o n in t h e o m i s s i o n o f G i d e o n ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e a n g e l to p r o d u c e m i r a c l e s c o m p a r a b l e to t h o s e t h a t t h e Israelites' a n c e s t o r s h a d e x p e r i e n c e d (Judg. 6:13 v s . Ant. 5.214), as w e l l as t h e o m i s s i o n o f a r e q u e s t for signs t o p r o v e t h a t it is r e a l l y G - d w h o h a s s p o k e n t o G i d e o n (Judg. 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e o m i t s t h e d o u b l e m i r a c l e o f t h e fleece o f w o o l o n t h e t h r e s h i n g floor t h a t d e v e l o p s d e w u p o n it w h i l e all t h e g r o u n d a r o u n d it is dry, as w e l l as v i c e v e r s a (Judg. 6 : 3 6 - 4 0 v s . Ant. 5.215). J o s e p h u s , m u c h as h e m i g h t h a v e l i k e d t o e x a g g e r a t e S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t s in o r d e r to b u i l d u p his stature as a h e r o , is careful t o o m i t m i r a c u l o u s a n d m a g i c a l e l e ments. W h e r e a s the Bible declares that S a m s o n broke the bowstrings b i n d i n g h i m , "as a string o f t o w s n a p s w h e n it t o u c h e s t h e fire" (Judg. 16:9), J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o m i t s t h e m i r a c u l o u s e l e m e n t , a n d w e a r e left w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e burst t h e shoots a s u n d e r (Ant. 5.310). T h e B i b l e r e m a r k s t h a t S a m s o n s n a p p e d t h e r o p e s o f f
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
211
his a r m s as i f t h e y w e r e a t h r e a d (Judg. 16:12), b u t J o s e p h u s states m e r e l y t h a t D e l i l a h ' s p l o y m e t w i t h n o success (Ant. 5.311). T h a t , in the p o p u l a r m i n d , Elijah's d o m i n a n t a s s o c i a t i o n w a s w i t h m i r a c l e s m a y b e s e e n in t h e G o s p e l s , w h e r e , i m m e d i a t e l y after J e s u s a n d his followers p e r f o r m m i r a c l e s , n o t a b l y in c a s t i n g o u t devils a n d h e a l i n g the sick, h e is identified as E l i j a h ( M a r k 6:15). N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n t h e m i r a c l e o f the f e e d i n g o f Elijah b y the ravens. A skeptical p a g a n might well be astonished to read the bib lical s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d c o m m a n d e d t h e r a v e n s to f e e d E l i j a h (1 K i n g s 17:2-4) a n d w o n d e r w h e t h e r G - d gives c o m m a n d s to birds; h e n c e , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e a r e told, w h a t is m u c h easier to b e l i e v e , m e r e l y t h a t the r a v e n s b r o u g h t f o o d t o h i m e v e r y day, p r e s u m a b l y o f their o w n a c c o r d (Ant. 8.319). E v e n the e x t e n t o f t h e m i r a c l e is t o n e d d o w n : the B i b l e is v e r y specific in stating e x a c t l y w h a t t h e r a v e n s b r o u g h t E l i j a h — n a m e l y , b r e a d a n d m e a t — a n d h o w often t h e y c a m e — n a m e l y , in t h e m o r n i n g a n d in t h e e v e n i n g — w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , w h o is g e n e r a l l y m o r e specific t h a n t h e B i b l e , is a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y m o r e v a g u e in stating t h a t the r a v e n s b r o u g h t h i m f o o d e v e r y day, w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g w h a t t h e y b r o u g h t a n d e x a c d y w h e n they came. J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s the s e e m i n g l y i m p o s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e fire o f G - d l i c k e d u p t h e w a t e r in t h e t r e n c h in the c o n t e s t o n M o u n t C a r m e l b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t w h e n t h e fire c o n s u m e d t h e altar, the w a t e r w e n t u p as s t e a m (1 K i n g s 18:38 vs. Ant. 8.342). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a t t e m p t to e l i m i n a t e o r p l a y d o w n t h e m i r a c u l o u s fire f r o m h e a v e n ( B e g g 1993, 188); b u t i f h e d o e s n o t d o so, it is b e c a u s e his r e a d e r s w e r e r e a d y t o a c c e p t s u c h p r o d i g i e s , as w e c a n see f r o m t h e p a g e s o f Livy, Plutarch, a n d Suetonius. Likewise, Josephus makes m o r e credible the a c c o u n t o f t h e r a i n t h a t m i r a c u l o u s l y d e s c e n d e d u p o n the l a n d after the c o n t e s t b e t w e e n E l i c
j a h a n d the priests o f B a a l . I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , E l i j a h tells A h a b t o g o u p t o e a t a n d drink, since the s o u n d o f t h e r u s h i n g o f r a i n is a l r e a d y p r e s e n t , e v e n t h o u g h a c t u a l l y t h e r e is n o sign o f r a i n at all (1 K i n g s 18:41). J o s e p h u s is m o r e c a u t i o u s a n d d e c l a r e s , n o t t h a t the r a i n is a l r e a d y p r e s e n t , b u t r a t h e r t h a t the r a i n w o u l d c o m e in a litde w h i l e (jier* oXiyov) (Ant. 8.343). W h e n E l i j a h sends his s e r v a n t t o see w h e t h e r the r a i n is c o m i n g , the latter is t o l d m e r e l y t o l o o k t o w a r d the sea (1 K i n g s 18:43). T h e J o s e p h a n E l i j a h is m o r e d e t a i l e d a n d m o r e scientific; h e tells his ser v a n t p r e c i s e l y w h a t t o l o o k for: t o d i s c e r n w h e t h e r a c l o u d is rising in a n y d i r e c t i o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e sky h a d b e e n c l e a r until t h e n (Ant. 8.344). W h e n E l i j a h flees f r o m J e z e b e l , a n a n g e l , a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , visits h i m a n d supplies h i m w i t h f o o d for forty d a y s a n d n i g h t s (1 K i n g s 19:8); J o s e p h u s , o m i t t i n g t h e m i r a c u l o u s el e m e n t (Ant. 8.349),
s
a
v
s
nothing about an angel, but rather that Elijah found food
a n d w a t e r after s o m e o n e h a d a w a k e n e d h i m (Ant. 8.349); a n d h e d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e h o w l o n g h e w a s s u s t a i n e d b y this f o o d . M o r e o v e r , h e h a s totally o m i t t e d t h e s p e c t a c u l a r m i r a c l e o f E l i j a h striking t h e J o r d a n R i v e r w i t h his m a n d e a n d p a r t i n g the w a t e r so t h a t h e a n d E l i s h a c a n cross it (2 K i n g s 2:8 v s . Ant. 9.28). I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h his r a t i o n a l i z i n g tendency, J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g either a b o u t the s p e c t a c u l a r m i r a c l e o f E l i j a h g o i n g u p in a w h i r l w i n d in a c h a r i o t o f fire into h e a v e n (2 K i n g s
212
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
1:11—12); instead, in a p a s s a g e , h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the s c e n e at the e n d o f S o p h o cles' Oedipus at Colonus ( 1 6 5 5 - 6 0 ) , w e are t o l d m e r e l y t h a t h e d i s a p p e a r e d
from
a m o n g m e n , a n d t h a t t o this d a y n o o n e k n o w s his e n d (Ant. 9.28) (see F e l d m a n i994a 74-8i). 3
J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s the m i r a c l e p e r f o r m e d b y E l i s h a in c u r i n g the w a t e r s o f J e r i c h o (2 K i n g s 2 : 1 9 - 2 3 v s . War 4 . 4 6 2 - 6 4 ) in n a t u r a l t e r m s . H e totally o m i t s this m i r a c l e f r o m the Antiquities,
w h e r e his r e a d e r s h i p a p p a r e n d y c o n s i s t e d p r i m a r i l y o f
non-Jews, a n d inserted it in t h e War, w h e r e his r e a d e r s h i p , at least originally, since the w o r k w a s c o m p o s e d in A r a m a i c (War 1.3), consisted o f J e w s .
6 1
S u r e l y the m o s t
a m a z i n g m i r a c l e p e r f o r m e d b y E l i s h a is the r e v i v a l o f the d e a d c h i l d o f the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n (2 K i n g s 4:34), b u t J o s e p h u s o m i t s the entire i n c i d e n t (see Feld m a n 1994b, 20-24). A l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t o m i t the c o m p a r a b l e m i r a c l e o f Elijah's r e v i v a l o f the w i d o w ' s s o n (Ant. 8.325-27), as n o t e d , h e t o n e s d o w n several o t h e r miracles attributed to Elijah. J o s e p h u s ' s i n c l u s i o n o f the m i r a c l e o f J o n a h ' s r e m a i n i n g alive for t h r e e d a y s in the b e l l y o f the b i g fish ( J o n a h 1:17) w o u l d s e e m to b e a n e x c e p t i o n to this ten d e n c y o f J o s e p h u s ' s to d o w n g r a d e m i r a c l e s ; b u t e v e n h e r e a careful r e a d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s text s h o w s t h a t h e presents it as a H e r o d o t u s - l i k e story (Xoyos,
Ant.
9.213), w h i c h h e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e n d o r s e . M o r e o v e r , h e o m i t s the s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d s p o k e to the fish t h a t h a d s w a l l o w e d J o n a h ( J o n a h 2:10) (see F e l d m a n i952d, 14-16). J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t a n g e l s w o u l d p r e s e n t a p r o b l e m to his J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , w h o , if t h e y w e r e purists in t h e o l o g y , w o u l d w o n d e r a b o u t spiritual b e ings w h o w e r e i n t e r m e d i a r i e s b e t w e e n G—d a n d h u m a n s . T o P h i l o , for e x a m p l e , a n g e l s s e e m e d t o limit G - d ' s u n i q u e n e s s a n d o m n i p o t e n c e (see W o l f s o n 1947, 1:375-76). H i s n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e m i g h t w e l l ask w h a t difference t h e r e w a s b e t w e e n these a n g e l s a n d the v a r i o u s g o d s a n d d e m i g o d s in the p a g a n p a n t h e o n . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is a n a n g e l w h o smites the S o d o m i t e s w i t h b l i n d n e s s ( G e n . 19:10), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 1.202). It is significant t h a t in t h e B i b l e , it is a n a n g e l w h o a p p e a r s to A b r a h a m telling h i m n o t t o slay his s o n ( G e n . 22:11), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.233),
a
s
m
Philo
(DeAbra-
hamo 32.176), it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o addresses h i m . A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e speaks o f a n g e l s a s c e n d i n g a n d d e s c e n d i n g in J a c o b ' s d r e a m ( G e n . 28:12), J o s e phus rationalizes, declaring that J a c o b thought that he saw a ladder reaching from e a r t h t o h e a v e n (Ant. 1.279);
a
n
d i n s t e a d o f a n g e l s , J o s e p h u s h a s p h a n t o m s (oifjeis,
" a p p e a r a n c e s , " " v i s i o n s , " " a p p a r i t i o n s " ) . T h e s e p h a n t o m s a r e c o m p a r e d to m o r tals b u t are said to b e m o r e a u g u s t (aepuvorepov) in nature. L i k e w i s e , w h e n J a c o b , o n his r e t u r n to C a n a a n after his r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h L a b a n , m e e t s a n g e l s ( G e n . 32:2), J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e h a d visions ( ^ a v r a a / x a r a , " s p e c t e r s , "
"apparitions,"
61. Apparendy, those w h o helped Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.50) with the translation into G r e e k did not tamper with the content o f the actual text.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
213
" p h a n t o m s " ) t h a t i n s p i r e d h i m w i t h g o o d h o p e s (Ant. 1.325). J o s e p h u s also e l i m i n a t e s t h e r e f e r e n c e to a n g e l s in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f E p h r a i m a n d M e n a s s e h ( G e n . 4 8 : 1 6 v s . Ant. 2.195). A similar substitution o f G - d for a n a n g e l in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r rative m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G - d ' s r e b u k e t o t h e Israelites u p o n t h e i r e n t e r i n g C a n a a n . I n t h e b i b l i c a l text, it is a n a n g e l w h o criticizes t h e Is raelites for n o t d r i v i n g o u t t h e C a n a a n i t e s (Judg. 2:1), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r sion, it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 5.133). P r e s u m a b l y , to h a v e a s s i g n e d t h e role t o a n a n g e l w o u l d h a v e r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s for t h e p a g a n reader, w h o w o u l d n o t b e so s k e p t i c a l i f t h a t role w e r e a s s i g n e d to a deity. T h e H e b r e w t e x t d e c l a r e s t h a t a n a n g e l a p p e a r e d to G i d e o n , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s says t h a t a s p e c t e r (
62
Again, whereas, ac
c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , D a n i e l ' s r e s c u e f r o m the l i o n s ' d e n is effected b y a n a n g e l sent b y G - d , w h o shuts t h e l i o n s ' m o u t h s ( D a n . 6:23), J o s e p h u s a v o i d s m e n t i o n o f the a n g e l a n d says m e r e l y t h a t D a n i e l t o l d the k i n g t h a t h e h a d n o t b e e n h a r m e d , w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g h o w h e h a d m a n a g e d t o e s c a p e i n j u r y (Ant. 10.259). Similarly, w h e r e a s t h e A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n ( D 13) r e p o r t s t h a t Esther, e x p l a i n i n g w h y she h a d f a i n t e d , s a i d t h a t she h a d s e e n A h a s u e r u s as a n a n g e l o f G - d , in J o s e p h u s , she says t h a t she f a i n t e d as s o o n as she s a w h i m " l o o k i n g so g r e a t a n d h a n d s o m e a n d t e r r i b l e " (Ant 1 1 . 2 4 0 ) .
63
In Josephus's a c c o u n t o f the miracle b y w h i c h Daniel's three
companions
e m e r g e d u n s c a t h e d after h a v i n g b e e n c a s t i n t o t h e fiery f u r n a c e (Ant. 10.214), w e m a y r e a d i l y see c h a n g e s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s i n t r o d u c e d for the sake o f his a u d i e n c e . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r o r d e r e d t h a t t h e f u r n a c e b e h e a t e d s e v e n t i m e s m o r e t h a n u s u a l ( D a n . 3:19), J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t this k i n d o f e x a g g e r a t i o n w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e v i e w e d as i n c r e d i b l e , s i m p l y o m i t s it. L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e is g e n e r a l l y a w a r e o f a p o c r y p h a l b o o k s , totally o m i t s t h e " P r a y e r o f t h e T h r e e Y o u t h s , " w h i c h p u t s t h e s p o d i g h t so b r i g h d y u p o n t h e m i r a cle. I n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e i r r e s c u e , J o s e p h u s says t h a t t h e y w e r e s a v e d b y d i v i n e
62. In the War, which, unlike the Antiquities, is addressed primarily to Jews (War 1.3), w h e n Josephus speaks to his fellow Jews urging t h e m to surrender to the R o m a n s (War 5.388), he adheres closely to the biblical a c c o u n t and unhesitatingly mentions the role o f the angel in destroying the Assyrian army. 63. Cf. M . Smith 1987, 240, w h o notes ambiguities and confusion in Josephus's references to an gels.
214
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoia), e m p l o y i n g a t e r m t h a t w a s a favorite o f t h e S t o i c s , w h o u n d o u b t e d l y c o n s t i t u t e d a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f his p a g a n a u d i e n c e . Finally, J o s e p h u s ra tionalizes the m i r a c l e , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t G - d h a d m a d e their b o d i e s t o o s t r o n g to b e c o n s u m e d b y the fire, p r e s u m a b l y t h r o u g h their v e g e t a r i a n d i e t (Ant. 10.215). I n contrast, w e m a y n o t e , P s e u d o - P h i l o , J o s e p h u s ' s a p p a r e n t c o n t e m p o r a r y , in his Biblical Antiquities, in d e s c r i b i n g the similar s c e n e (6.17) w h e r e A b r a h a m is cast i n t o a f u r n a c e , a c t u a l l y e x a g g e r a t e s the m i r a c l e b y d e s c r i b i n g a g r e a t e a r t h q u a k e
and
fire t h a t g u s h e d forth f r o m the f u r n a c e , c o n s u m i n g all those w h o s t o o d r o u n d a b o u t , so t h a t n o f e w e r t h a n 83,500 w e r e b u r n t to d e a t h . I f w e ask w h y J o s e p h u s d i d i n c l u d e the story o f B a l a a m ' s s p e a k i n g ass, w e m a y g u e s s t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e his a u d i e n c e w a s familiar w i t h the a c c o u n t o f A c h i l l e s ' h o r s e , X a n t h o s , w h i c h likewise speaks after b e i n g unfairly a c c u s e d b y its m a s t e r ( H o m e r , Iliad 1 9 . 4 0 8 - 1 7 ) . A n d , i n a n y case, at the e n d o f the w h o l e e p i s o d e o f B a l a a m , w e h a v e J o s e p h u s ' s familiar d i s c l a i m e r : " O n this n a r r a t i v e r e a d e r s are free to t h i n k w h a t t h e y p l e a s e " (Ant. 4.158).
THE DELIBERATENESS AND C O N S I S T E N C Y OF J O S E P H U S ' S W O R K S o m e m a y q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r e v e r y v a r i a t i o n f r o m the b i b l i c a l t e x t b y J o s e p h u s , n o m a t t e r h o w trivial, is p u r p o s e f u l . S e v e r a l scholars, n o t a b l y S.J. D . C o h e n , I l a n , a n d P r i c e , h a v e stressed the sloppiness, i n c o n s i s t e n c y ,
64
a n d c a p r i c i o u s n e s s o f the
J o s e p h a n e n t e r p r i s e (S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 3 8 - 3 9 ; I l a n 1986, 3 5 7 - 6 0 ; I l a n a n d P r i c e 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 8 9 - 2 0 4 ) . C o h e n calls a t t e n t i o n to J o s e p h u s ' s c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d f a c t u a l d i s c r e p a n c i e s ; a n d his e r r o r s i n n a m e s , p l a c e s , dates, a n d cross-references (S.J. D . C o h e n 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 37, 1 1 0 - 1 3 ) . I n particular, h e p o i n t s o u t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n the War a n d the Antiquities (such as in the attitude t o w a r d t h e Pharisees) a n d b e t w e e n the War a n d the Life w h e r e t h e y c o v e r the s a m e m a t e r i a l (S.J. D . C o h e n , 1979, 4 9 , 5 1 , 57). I l a n a n d P r i c e ( 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 ) h a v e n o t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s t r a n s p o s e d the n a m e s o f s o m e l e a d e r s , transliterated n a m e s differently, n e g l e c t e d to c o o r d i n a t e a p e r s o n ' s first a p p e a r a n c e in the t e x t w i t h the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f his full p e r s o n a l details, a n d c o n f u s e d different p e o p l e b e c a u s e o f the similarity o f their n a m e s (Ilan a n d P r i c e 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 8 9 - 2 0 4 ) . H e n c e , the o b j e c t i o n m a y w e l l b e raised
64. D . R . Schwartz 1981-82, 244, cites as an example o f Josephus's inconsistency the fact that he places in immediate juxtaposition a denunciation o f Aristobulus I (Ant. 13.301-17), presumably by N i c o laus o f D a m a s c u s , a n d praise o f him (Ant. 13.318-19), in a quotation taken from Strabo. But the con tradiction m a y be explained by the fact that Josephus, in the earlier account, stresses that Aristobulus had n o intention o f murdering his brother Antigonus but was deceived by his wife and by those w h o were plotting with her. Moreover, Josephus emphasizes (Ant. 13.316) h o w remorseful he was. H e n c e , the contradiction is hardly blatant. S c h w a r t z likewise cites as an example o f Josephus's inconsistency the condemnation o f the procurator Albinus (War 2.272-76) and the praise o f h i m (Ant. 20.204); but Jose phus's attitude is not necessarily inconsistent, inasmuch as the passage in the Antiquities indicates that Albinus at the beginning o f his term o f office m a d e every effort to secure peace but later s u c c u m b e d to the lure o f money.
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
215
t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s o u g h t n o t to b e s o u g h t w h e r e t h e y c a n h a r d l y b e f o u n d . I n the c a s e o f s p e l l i n g o f n a m e s , h o w e v e r , e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e t h e y are u n u s u a l o r o f f o r e i g n o r i g i n , the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s m a y b e attributable to those w h o c o p i e d the m a n u scripts r a t h e r t h a n to J o s e p h u s himself. M o r e o v e r , w e m a y e x p l a i n m o s t o f the in c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n the War a n d the Antiquities o r b e t w e e n the War a n d the Life as o w i n g to the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d different sources a v a i l a b l e to h i m , o r t h a t h e w a s c o r r e c t i n g h i m s e l f after a p e r i o d o f t i m e , since m a n y y e a r s h a d e l a p s e d since h e h a d w r i t t e n the earlier w o r k . A s t o the a l l e g e d inconsistencies b e t w e e n the War a n d the Antiquities in the attitude t o w a r d the P h a r i s e e s , M a s o n h a s c o n v i n c i n g l y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s displays a m a r k e d a n d consistent a n t i p a t h y t o w a r d t h e m a n d is consistent in his v o c a b u l a r y w h e n discussing t h e m ( M a s o n 1 9 9 1 , 372—75). W h e r e J o s e p h u s errs in d e s c r i b i n g events, this m a y b e b e c a u s e o f conflict i n g o r a l s o u r c e s t h a t h e h a d for t h e m o r b e c a u s e h e w a s d e p e n d i n g o n his m e m ory. W e m a y also a s c r i b e s o m e inconsistencies (for e x a m p l e , the differing a c c o u n t s (War 2 . 5 6 9 - 8 4 ; Life 29) o f his m i s s i o n as g e n e r a l in G a l i l e e ) to t e n d e n t i o u s n e s s o n the p a r t o f J o s e p h u s w h e r e h e h i m s e l f p a r t i c i p a t e d in s o m e o f the events. I n d e e d , t o his credit, J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a d m i t s t h a t his a c c o u n t o f the War m a y n e e d c o r r e c t i o n a n d s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n , since h e q u o t e s f r o m a letter sent to h i m b y K i n g A g r i p p a II in w h i c h the latter says t h a t w h e n h e m e e t s J o s e p h u s , h e w i l l i n f o r m h i m o f m u c h t h a t is n o t g e n e r a l l y k n o w n (Life 3 6 6 ) — a c l e a r a d m i s s i o n o n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r t t h a t t h e r e w e r e errors, w h e t h e r o f c o m m i s s i o n o r o f o m i s s i o n , i n his a c c o u n t in t h e War. T h e situation m a y w e l l b e different, h o w e v e r , w h e r e J o s e p h u s h a d a single s o u r c e , the B i b l e a n d the t r a d i t i o n a t t a c h e d to it, as in m o s t o f the first h a l f o f the Antiquities. S i n c e t h a t s o u r c e h a d b e e n familiar to h i m since his y o u t h , as it h a d t o m a n y in his a u d i e n c e , a n d there w a s a g r e a t m e a s u r e o f sanctity c o n n e c t e d w i t h it, it is u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o m i s r e p r e s e n t it. M o r e over, in v i e w o f the fact t h a t h e w a s a p o l e m i c i s t , n o t a b l y in the essay Against
Apion,
c r i t i c i z i n g his p r e d e c e s s o r s (e.g., War 1 . 1 - 3 ; Ant. 1.1—4; Ag Ap. 1.3) a n d a n s w e r i n g the c h a r g e s o f o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s h a d to b e e x t r e m e y careful lest h e h i m s e l f b e a c c u s e d o f falling short o f the s t a n d a r d s b y w h i c h h e w a s j u d g i n g his rivals. W h a t , h o w e v e r , are w e to m a k e o f the fact t h a t in the War, J o s e p h u s o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s c o n t r a d i c t s the B i b l e ?
6 5
I n his s p e e c h t o t h e rebels u r g i n g t h e m to
surrender, J o s e p h u s cites s e v e r a l instances f r o m the B i b l e to substantiate his c l a i m t h a t f i g h t i n g n e v e r benefits the J e w s (War 5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 ) . S e t h S c h w a r t z suggests t h a t h e d i d so in r e s p o n s e t o c h a r g e s t h a t h e w a s u n c o n c e r n e d w i t h J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 28). B u t i f so, w e m a y r e s p o n d , w h y d i d h e m o d i f y t h a t b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n ? T h u s , in his a c c o u n t in the War (5.379-81) o f S a r a i b e i n g h e l d c a p t i v e b y P h a r a o h ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ; Ant. 1 . 1 6 1 - 6 5 ) , J o s e p h u s h a s shifted the s c e n e f r o m E g y p t t o Palestine, A b r a h a m h a s w i t h h i m a h u g e army, c o m m a n d e d b y 318 officers
65. See S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 24-35, f °
r a
^
s t
o f the passages from the Bible to w h i c h Josephus alludes
in the War and for a critical discussion o f the biblical accounts and o f Josephus's version in the War.
216
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
( w h e r e a s h e a n d S a r a i are a l o n e in G e n e s i s a n d in the Antiquities), a n d P h a r a o h is afflicted b y visions r a t h e r t h a n a p l a g u e . B e c a u s e o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s s u c h as these, S c h w a r t z c o n c l u d e s t h a t in the War, J o s e p h u s w a s w o r k i n g , for the m o s t p a r t , f r o m m e m o r y r a t h e r t h a n f r o m a text, t h a t w h a t h e r e m e m b e r e d m a y often h a v e b e e n p o p u l a r o r priestly storytelling, a n d that, in fact, there is little e v i d e n c e t h a t h e k n e w the b i b l i c a l text at all (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 25). B u t the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t to n o t e h e r e is t h a t this a c c o u n t is b r o u g h t in b y J o s e p h u s in the s p e e c h t h a t h e delivers to his fellow J e w s u r g i n g t h e m to s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s . I n d e e d , it is this s p e e c h t h a t is the m a j o r s o u r c e o f the scriptural m a t e r i a l in the War. T h e b i b l i c a l refer e n c e s are, so to speak, p a r t o f a s e r m o n , v e r y m u c h like the r a b b i n i c s e r m o n s t h a t are i n c o r p o r a t e d in the m i d r a s h i m ; a n d h e n c e J o s e p h u s felt t h a t h e c o u l d t a k e c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r liberties w i t h the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , for e x a m p l e , h e gives A b r a h a m a h u g e a r m y i n o r d e r to establish his p o i n t that, as h e puts it, s u c h a n a r m y is "as n o t h i n g , i f u n a i d e d b y G - d " (War 5.380), w h e r e a s the rebels in J e r u s a l e m d i d n o t h a v e G - d o n their side. T h e liberties t h a t J o s e p h u s takes in the o t h e r p a s s a g e s in the War r e f e r r i n g t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e m a y b e e x p l a i n e d as m e r e l y illustrative o r digressive r a t h e r t h a n p a r t o f a s y s t e m a t i c p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e s u c h as w e find in the Antiquities. W e m a y h e r e t a k e n o t e o f the t w o a t t e m p t s to c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n i n the Antiquities w i t h his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y in extenso. I n the first o f these, F r a n x m a n , after c o m p a r i n g J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e (Ant. 1.27-2.200) w i t h the b i b lical B o o k o f G e n e s i s , significantly c o n c l u d e s : " O n the surface, his v e r s i o n o f G e n esis h a s s o m e o f the u n g o v e r n e d , c r e a t i v e a n d s l i g h d y erratic a u r a a b o u t it w h i c h o n e f r e q u e n t l y p e r c e i v e s in the g e n e r a l style a n d a p p r o a c h o f a P s e u d e p i g r a p h . T h i s , h o w e v e r , is b u t a n impression [ e m p h a s i s a d d e d ] d e r i v i n g f r o m less a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h o u r a u t h o r t h a n this i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a s a l l o w e d us t o c o n t i n u e to h a v e . B e n e a t h the surface o f J o s e p h u s ' style w e h a v e f o u n d a m o r e careful a u t h o r . . . w h o s e alterations m a y r e p r e s e n t e x e g e t i c a l traditions m u c h b e t t e r t h o u g h t o u t t h a n h a s b e e n h e r e t o f o r e s u p p o s e d " ( F r a n x m a n 1979, 289) I n the s e c o n d o f these, B e g g , after c o m p a r i n g J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e
(Ant.
8.212-420) w i t h his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e s (1 K i n g s 1 2 - 2 2 a n d 2 C h r o n . 1 0 - 1 8 ) , q u o t e s a n d s u b s c r i b e s to F r a n x m a n ' s j u d g m e n t : " I c o n c l u d e m y s t u d y o f J o s e p h u s ' r e w r i t i n g o f S c r i p t u r e in Ant. 8 . 2 1 2 - 4 2 0 w i t h a l a r g e m e a s u r e o f r e s p e c t for the c a r e a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e h e b r o u g h t to his task. I n this s e q u e n c e at least, h e c o n t r i v e s , success fully, in m y view, to m a k e his p e o p l e ' s h i s t o r y accessible to a G e n t i l e - H e l l e n i s t i c a u d i e n c e w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e r e m a i n i n g b a s i c a l l y faithful to the c o n t e n t a n d u n d e r l y i n g t h e o l o g i c a l thrusts o f the b i b l i c a l r e c o r d " ( B e g g 1993, 286). E v e n for so relatively m i n o r a p e r s o n a l i t y as K i n g J e h o a h a z o f Israel, J o s e p h u s s h o w s sensitiv ity t o the p r o b l e m s p o s e d b y his s o u r c e a n d a t t e m p t s to i m p a r t a p e r s o n a l s t a m p t o his r e w r i t i n g o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( B e g g i 9 9 5 d , 236). A d d i t i o n a l l y , H o l l a d a y , after s u r v e y i n g J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f M o s e s , A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , stresses the strikingly u n i f o r m m o l d into w h i c h J o s e p h u s recasts e a c h o f these figures, n o t i n g t h a t m a n y o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
217
J o s e p h u s attributes to e a c h o f t h e m a r e c o m m o n to the s t e r e o t y p e o f t h e S t o i c w i s e m a n a n d , t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r d e g r e e , a r e i n d e b t e d to p o p u l a r s e m i p h i l o s o p h i c a l ethics ( H o l l a d a y 1977, 6 7 - 7 8 ) . D o w n i n g , in e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f J o s h u a a n d J u d g e s , n o t e s h o w c o n s i s t e n t l y J o s e p h u s h a s o m i t t e d d i s c r e p a n c i e s , repetitions, i n t e r r u p t i o n s in the narrative, miracles a n d m a g i c , inappropriate theology, a n d the apologetically awk ward, while adding harmony
and
continuity,
emphasizing providence
and
p r o p h e c y , p i e t y a n d m o r a l u p l i f t — a l l this t o l d w i t h interest a n d c l a r i t y ( D o w n i n g 1980, 4 9 - 6 5 ) . Similarly, A t t r i d g e h a s stressed the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y a n d
the
"carefully chosen m e d i u m " through w h i c h Josephus has conceptualized the m e s s a g e o f S c r i p t u r e ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 182). H i s t e r m i n o l o g y , h e c o n c l u d e s "is n o t s i m p l y w i n d o w d r e s s i n g d e s i g n e d to a d d a superficial H e l l e n i s t i c c o l o r a t i o n " ( A t t r i d g e 1976, 289). H e h a s n o t e d a c o n t i n u i t y a n d a g r o w i n g c o n s i s t e n c y in J o s e p h u s ' s b a s i c t h e o l o g i c a l o u d o o k ( A t t r i d g e 1976, 1 4 5 - 7 9 ) . T h e p e r s o n a l factors t h a t a r e so a p p a r e n t in his r e w r i t i n g o f the S c r i p t u r e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Antiquities is a v e r y in dividual production, consistently s h o w i n g Josephus's approach. I n a n i m p o r t a n t e v a l u a t i o n o f r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h i p o n J o s e p h u s , B i l d e contrasts t h e classic c o n c e p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s d u r i n g the latter h a l f o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h a n d e a r lier p a r t o f t h e t w e n t i e t h century, w h i c h l o o k e d u p o n J o s e p h u s , n o t as a n i n d e p e n d e n t h i s t o r i a n , b u t as a u n i m a g i n a t i v e a n d inconsistent p l a g i a r i z e r o f t h e w o r k s o f o t h e r s , w i t h t h e m o d e r n c o n c e p t i o n , w h i c h focuses o n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d sees c o n s i s t e n c y i n his literary, t h e o l o g i c a l , a n d p o l i t i c a l m o t i v a t i o n a n d u n i f o r m i t y in his l a n g u a g e a n d style (Bilde 1988, 1 2 6 - 5 0 ) .
SUMMARY S i n c e , i n J o s e p h u s ' s view, M o s e s h a d left t h e S c r i p t u r e s in disarray, J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n his f u n c t i o n in w r i t i n g t h e Antiquities as similar t o t h a t o f a n a r m y c o m m a n d e r d r a w i n g u p his t r o o p s in a n o r d e r l y a n d r h e t o r i c a l l y p l e a s i n g f a s h i o n . H e a s s i d u o u s l y a v o i d s r e p r o d u c i n g the S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n v e r b a t i m . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a v o i d m e n t i o n i n g difficult o r e m b a r r a s s i n g p a s s a g e s (such as t h e l o n g e v i t y o f the p a t r i a r c h s a n d D a v i d ' s sin w i t h B a t h s h e b a ) i n t h e B i b l e b u t r a t h e r tries to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e m o r o t h e r w i s e to e x p l a i n t h e m . H e is w e l l a w a r e o f t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s a n d carefully a v o i d s v i e w s t h a t m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d as h e r e t i c a l , s u c h as t h a t t h e S c r i p t u r e s w e r e w r i t t e n o r e d i t e d m u c h later t h a n their t r a d i t i o n a l d a t e . H e u s u a l l y clarifies a m b i g u o u s o r o b s c u r e s t a t e m e n t s , e x c e p t w h e n s u c h a clarification, as in t h e c a s e o f t h e p a s s a g e in D a n i e l t h a t m i g h t b e t a k e n to p r e d i c t t h e o v e r t h r o w o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , m i g h t h a v e o f f e n d e d his R o m a n p a t r o n s . H e e x p l a i n s c h r o n o l o g i c a l difficulties ( o c c a s i o n a l l y e v e n c o r r e c t i n g t h e B i b l e , as for t h e P e r s i a n p e r i o d ) a n d g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s . H e tries t o p r o v i d e b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n for events a n d t o i n c r e a s e their plausibility, for e x a m p l e , in e x p l a i n i n g h o w M o r d e c a i k n e w o f t h e p l o t to as sassinate A h a s u e r u s . H e a v o i d s u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d t h e g r o t e s q u e , n o t a b l y i n
218
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
his v e r s i o n o f the S a m s o n e p i s o d e . H e o c c a s i o n a l l y resorts to a l l e g o r y p a r t i c u l a r l y in e x p l a i n i n g the significance o f the a c c o u t r e m e n t s o f the T e m p l e a n d the g a r m e n t s o f the h i g h priest. J o s e p h u s s h o w s c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k literature, in m a t t e r s b o t h o f style a n d o f c o n t e n t , chiefly H o m e r , H e s i o d , A e s c h y l u s , S o p h o c l e s , E u r i p i d e s , H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s , P l a t o , a n d A r i s t o d e . H e is a w a r e t h a t H o m e r w a s a n o r a l p o e t a n d s h o w s a fondness for c e r t a i n H o m e r i c expressions, p a r t i c u l a r l y in his a c c o u n t o f the b i n d i n g o f I s a a c , w h e r e his c h o i c e o f l a n g u a g e suggests a n a t t e m p t to e q u a t e A b r a h a m a n d P r i a m . H e cites H e s i o d to e x p l a i n the e x t r a o r d i n a r y life spans o f the earliest p a t r i a r c h s . H e is e s p e c i a l l y i n d e b t e d to S o p h o c l e s for his a c c o u n t o f the p a s s i n g o f M o s e s a n d o f S o l o m o n ' s c l e v e r n e s s in j u d g i n g the c a s e o f the t w o m o t h e r s a n d in i m p r e s s i n g the Q u e e n o f S h e b a . T h e r e are several striking parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s r e a d i n e s s t o sacrifice I s a a c a n d the a c c o u n t o f the sacrifice o f I p h i g e n i a in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s t e n d s t o restate the J e w i s h c o n c e p t o f d i v i n e g o v e r n a n c e in t e r m s o f fate as d e l i n e a t e d in H e r o d o t u s a n d t h e G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f T h u c y dides u p o n J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o f o u n d , e s p e c i a l l y in his a t t e m p t to m o l d J e w i s h h e r o e s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , in t h e p a t t e r n o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Pericles, a n d in his a t t a c k o n the fickleness o f the masses, the selfishness o f d e m a g o g u e s , a n d the c a t a s t r o p h i c effects o f civil strife. L i k e w i s e , Plato's d e s c r i p t i o n o f the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g h a s i n f l u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s ; a n d the l a w s o f Plato's i d e a l state are v i e w e d as p a r a l l e l w i t h those g i v e n at S i n a i . J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d a n u m b e r o f d r a m a t i c motifs s u c h as are p r o m i n e n t in the w o r k s o f the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s , n o t a b l y the c o n c e p t o f vfipis a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s . H e i n c r e a s e s suspense, p a r t i c u l a r l y in his a c c o u n t s o f J o s e p h a n d o f Esther. H e a d d s to the d r a m a t i c e x c i t e m e n t , a b o v e all in his a c c o u n t s o f A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s c
as g e n e r a l s , the A q e d a h , the s e l e c t i o n o f S a u l as k i n g , D a v i d ' s c h a l l e n g e to G o liath, D a v i d ' s r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h A b s a l o m , the c a s t i n g o f D a n i e l into the l i o n s ' d e n , a n d H a m a n ' s l e a d i n g M o r d e c a i t h r o u g h the streets o f S u s a . H e is e s p e c i a l l y i n d e b t e d t o the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s for his h e i g h t e n i n g o f the i r o n y i m p l i c i t in s u c h c
events as the A q e d a h , the story o f D a n i e l , a n d the E s t h e r n a r r a t i v e . J o s e p h u s is f o n d o f i n t r o d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs s u c h as a r e f o u n d in H o m e r ' s Odyssey, the G r e e k t r a g e d i e s , H e r o d o t u s , X e n o p h o n , a n d the G r e e k novels. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t in his v e r s i o n o f P h a r a o h ' s a n d A b i m e l e c h ' s a t t e m p t e d s e d u c tions o f S a r a h , E l i e z e r ' s m i s s i o n in finding a wife for I s a a c , the story o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s wife, M o s e s ' m a r r i a g e to the E t h i o p i a n princess, the s e d u c t i o n o f the Is raelite y o u t h s b y the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , S a m s o n ' s love affairs, D a v i d ' s love for M i c h a l a n d his affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a , a n d A h a s u e r u s ' s r o m a n c e w i t h Esther. I n his attitude t o w a r d w o m e n , J o s e p h u s is in line w i t h the p r e j u d i c e s o f classi c a l a u t h o r s . T h i s m a y b e seen, for e x a m p l e , in his t r e a t m e n t o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife a n d o f D e l i l a h , for b o t h o f w h o m J o s e p h u s s h o w s c o n t e m p t , v i e w i n g t h e m as p a r t i c u larly deceitful. J o s e p h u s shares the v i e w s o f the S t o i c s o n the role o f p r o v i d e n c e in r u l i n g
STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES
219
h u m a n affairs a n d is s h a r p l y critical o f the E p i c u r e a n s , as w e see e s p e c i a l l y in his a c c o u n t o f D a n i e l . H e a g r e e s w i t h the Stoics in e m p h a s i z i n g the q u a l i t y o f free d o m f r o m e m o t i o n in the s c e n e o f A b r a h a m ' s readiness to sacrifice I s a a c , a n d I s a a c ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h a t role. M o s e s is p r e s e n t e d as a S t o i c s a g e in his c o n t e m p t for toils a n d in his v i e w t h a t l a w m u s t h a v e a c o s m i c d i m e n s i o n . J o s e p h u s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f A h a b a n d Z e d e k i a h , shares the S t o i c v i e w o f the o v e r w h e l m i n g p o w e r o f fate. J o s e p h u s , like D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , Livy, T a c i t u s , a n d o t h e r historians, scatters p s y c h o l o g i z i n g a n d p h i l o s o p h i z i n g r e m a r k s t h r o u g h o u t his history. I n p a r ticular, n o t a b l y in his c o m m e n t s o n S a u l , R e h o b o a m , a n d U z z i a h , h e m o r a l i z e s o n the c o r r u p t i n g effects o f the a c q u i s i t i o n o f p o w e r . H e r e m a r k s o n the p o w e r o f selflove. I n his n u m e r o u s c o m m e n t s o n the p o w e r o f j e a l o u s y a n d o n the role t h a t it p l a y e d in l e a d i n g the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s to the d e b a c l e in the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s insists, a p o l o g e t i c a l l y , t h a t the J e w s , as a n a t i o n , are n o t c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y this trait. M o r e o v e r , h e a p p e a l s to his r e a d e r s t o p e r u s e his w o r k w i t h o u t envy. H e e m p h a s i z e s the e n v y t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d K i n g A b i m e l e c h , J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s , a n d the p h a r a o h at the t i m e o f M o s e s , as w e l l as t h a t w h i c h K o r a h felt for M o s e s , a n d his rivals for D a n i e l , in c o n t r a s t to M o s e s ' c o m p l e t e l a c k o f envy. H e likewise u n derlines the e n v y t h a t S a u l felt for D a v i d . I n c o n t r a s t t o the g r e e d that, in J o s e p h u s ' s view, c h a r a c t e r i z e d C l e o p a t r a , the R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s , a n d the J e w i s h r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , h e h i g h l i g h t s the e x a m p l e o f M o s e s , w h o w a s c o m p l e t e l y free o f it. I n the p r e f a c e to the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s tells the r e a d e r that the m a i n lesson to b e l e a r n e d f r o m his h i s t o r y is t h a t G - d r e w a r d s those w h o o b e y H i m a n d p u n i s h e s those w h o d o n o t . A n d yet, o n the w h o l e , J o s e p h u s d o w n g r a d e s the role o f G - d in his w o r k a n d p l a c e s the e m p h a s i s o n the virtues a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s o f s u c h b i b l i c a l h e r o e s as A b r a h a m , since h e prefers to a p p r o a c h the B i b l e as h i s t o r y r a t h e r t h a n as t h e o l o g y . If, in the c a s e o f M o s e s , w e find t h a t the role o f G - d is n o t d i m i n i s h e d , this m a y b e b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s is i n f l u e n c e d b y a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s — t h a t is, his re a l i z a t i o n t h a t M o s e s w o u l d b e c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s , s u c h as L y c u r g u s o f S p a r t a , a n d t h a t the f o u n d e r o r l a w g i v e r o f a n a t i o n w a s e x p e c t e d to b e d i v i n e l y d i r e c t e d . M o r e o v e r , e v e n in this case, it is M o s e s r a t h e r t h a n G - d w h o is said to b e the a u t h o r o f the l a w s . If, in the c a s e o f D e b o r a h , J o s e p h u s stresses the role o f G - d , this is b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s , in his m i s o g y n y , s o u g h t t o d o w n g r a d e D e b o r a h ' s o w n role. G - d ' s role, h o w e v e r , is c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t s o f S a m s o n a n d o f J o n a h . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e the n a m e o f G - d is n o t m e n t i o n e d at all in the B o o k o f Esther, J o s e p h u s s o u g h t , for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, to r e m e d y this b y c i t i n g H i s n a m e in several p l a c e s . I n a s m u c h as the J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d b y their d e t r a c t o r s o f u n d u e c r e d u l i t y in a c c e p t i n g the d e c r e e s o f G - d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s to s h o w c o u r t e s y to his r e a d e r s b y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t it is u p t o t h e m to d e c i d e h o w to u n d e r s t a n d the b i b l i c a l m i r a c l e s . B u t u l t i m a t e l y m i r a c l e s w e r e n o t t o o g r e a t a p r o b l e m for J o s e p h u s , b e c a u s e the S t o i c s d i d a l l o w for d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n in t h e w o r l d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s tends to t o n e d o w n the m i r a c l e s
220
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
performed b y M o s e s , S a m s o n , Elijah, Elisha, a n d J o n a h , rationalizing t h e m or p o i n t i n g o u t c o n t e m p o r a r y parallels. B e c a u s e a n g e l s s e e m e d t o b e like d e m i g o d s a n d h e n c e r a i s e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m , J o s e p h u s , in his v e r s i o n o f their a p p e a r a n c e s t o J a c o b , G i d e o n , S a m s o n , a n d D a n i e l , t e n d s e i t h e r to r a t i o nalize or to have G - d H i m s e l f take their place. T h e p i c t u r e t h a t e m e r g e s is o n e o f a w r i t e r w h o is g e n e r a l l y careful a n d c o n s i s t e n t a n d w h o h a d l e a r n e d m u c h f r o m t h e classical G r e e k a u t h o r s w h o h a d p r e ceded him.
PART T W O
Josephus's Biblical Portraits
C H A P T E R
SIX
Abraham
I n his t h o r o u g h study o f Philo's c o n c e p t i o n of A b r a h a m , S a m u e l S a n d m e l e n d e a v ors to ascertain Philo's p l a c e in the history of biblical exegesis b y c o m p a r i n g his v i e w s of this p a t r i a r c h w i t h those o f the A p o c r y p h a , P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , J o s e p h u s , o t h e r G r a e c o - J e w i s h writers, a n d r a b b i n i c literature. H i s e x a m i n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s p o r trayal o f A b r a h a m ends w i t h the following statement: "It is difficult, in a positive way, to state the significance of A b r a h a m to J o s e p h u s . T h e truth is that J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e x h i b i t a n y striking, unified, c o h e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f the patriarch. H e gives little m o r e t h a n a p e d e s t r i a n recapitulation o f Scripture, o m i t t i n g s o m e m i n o r details, n a t u r a l i z i n g others, a n d s u p p l y i n g s o m e traditional e m b e l l i s h m e n t s ; b u t his A b r a h a m is w r i t t e n w i t h o u t b e t r a y i n g a n y m e d i t a t i o n , insight, o r assessment" ( S a n d m e l 1956,
75). It is p r o p o s e d h e r e to r e e x a m i n e Josephus's retelling o f the A b r a h a m story
a n d to c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r his c o n c e p t i o n o f the p a t r i a r c h is, i n d e e d , l a c k i n g in u n i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e , as c l a i m e d b y S a n d m e l . It will b e seen that in J o s e p h u s , A b r a h a m , like Isaac, J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a m s o n , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d D a n i e l , e m e r g e s as a typical n a t i o n a l h e r o s u c h as w a s p o p u l a r in Hellenistic times, w i t h e m p h a s i s o n his qualities as a philosopher, scientist, a n d g e n e r a l . The
fact t h a t J o s e p h u s cites B e r o s s u s , H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a , a n d N i c o l a u s o f
D a m a s c u s as a u t h o r i t i e s for i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t A b r a h a m a n d , in particular, t h a t h e takes p a i n s to n o t e t h a t H e c a t a e u s c o m p o s e d a n entire b o o k a b o u t h i m
(Ant
1.158-60) s h o w s , pace S a n d m e l , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the figure o f A b r a h a m to J o s e p h u s . T h e n o n - J e w i s h i d e n t i t y o f all t h r e e w r i t e r s is a c l u e to the a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e o f his portrait. T o b e sure, H e c a t a e u s ' s w o r k o n A b r a h a m w a s p r o b a b l y a f o r g e r y ( H o l l a d a y 1983, 1:279, 2 8 3 - 8 7 ) ; b u t the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s cites it so p r o m i n e n t l y to c o n f i r m his s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t A b r a h a m i n d i c a t e s t h e significance t h a t h e a t t a c h e d to the figure o f the p a t r i a r c h . T h e v i e w s o f B e r o s s u s are p a r t i c u l a r l y c o m p l i m e n t a r y , in t h a t h e s p e a k s o f A b r a h a m as j u s t (SIKCLIOS),
223
g r e a t (jjueyas), a n d
224
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
v e r s e d in celestial l o r e (rd ovpdvia
epLireipos ) (ap. Ant. 1.158). T h e s t a t e m e n t o f
N i c o l a u s s h o w s u n u s u a l a d m i r a t i o n for h i m , i n a s m u c h as h e speaks o f A b r a h a m as still c e l e b r a t e d (8o£a£ercu) in the r e g i o n o f D a m a s c u s a n d o f a v i l l a g e c a l l e d 1
" A b r a m ' s a b o d e " after h i m . It is c l e a r t h r o u g h o u t the Antiquities, as a l r e a d y n o t e d , that J o s e p h u s w a s a d d r e s s i n g a n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , at least in l a r g e p a r t . H e n c e , in his p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h u s stresses those qualities, n o t a b l y the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m (including, e s p e c i a l l y the ability to p e r s u a d e ) , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e (with e m p h a s i s o n the qualities o f honesty, hospitality, a n d gratefulness), t o g e t h e r w i t h the spiritual q u a l i t y o f p i e t y — t h a t w o u l d p a r t i c u l a r l y h a v e a p p e a l e d to that a u d i e n c e . S a n d m e l r e m a r k s that J o s e p h u s says n o t o n e w o r d a b o u t A b r a h a m as a n e x e m p l a r o f a n y k i n d ( S a n d m e l 1956, 76). B u t the fact is that in a p a s s a g e p a r a l l e l i n g Gen.
15:1, J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t G - d c o m m e n d e d A b r a h a m ' s v i r t u e (dperrjv,
the
h i g h e s t g o a l o f G r e e k c h a r a c t e r ) , a n d p r o m i s e d that h e w o u l d b e r e w a r d e d for his g o o d d e e d s (evirpayiais)
(Ant. 1.183).
It is n o t e w o r t h y also t h a t w h e r e a s , in its final s u m m a r y o f A b r a h a m ' s career, the B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t h e d i e d " i n a g o o d o l d a g e " ( G e n . 25:8), J o s e p h u s , in his c o n c l u d i n g a p p r a i s a l , r e m a r k s t h a t A b r a h a m w a s s u p r e m e (a/cpos, " h i g h e s t " ) in e v e r y v i r t u e (dperrjvf
a n d t h a t h e w a s c o n s e q u e n t l y w o r t h i l y h o n o r e d b y G - d (Ant.
1.256). W h e n G - d a p p e a r s to J a c o b in a d r e a m , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , H e says m e r e l y t h a t H e is " t h e G - d o f A b r a h a m t h y father a n d the G - d o f I s a a c " ( G e n . 28:13), J o s e p h u s e m b e l l i s h e s this b y h o l d i n g u p A b r a h a m as a n e x e m p l a r t o his g r a n d s o n w h o h a d w o n r e n o w n (8of av) for his g r e a t v i r t u e
3
(dpeTrjs).
S a n d m e l asserts t h a t "Josephus m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f A b r a h a m as a s o u r c e o f m e r i t to his d e s c e n d a n t s " ( S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 76); b u t in a n a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l a d dress g i v e n b y N e h e m i a h t o the J e w s w h o c a m e to J e r u s a l e m ( N e h . 2:17), J o s e p h u s h a s N e h e m i a h d e c l a r e t h a t " G - d c h e r i s h e s the m e m o r y o f o u r fathers A b r a h a m , I s a a c , a n d J a c o b , a n d b e c a u s e o f their r i g h t e o u s n e s s [SLKcuoovvrjs] d o e s n o t give u p H i s p r o v i d e n t i a l c a r e \rrp6voiav\
for u s " (Ant. 11.169).
T h e c h a r a c t e r o f A b r a h a m is likewise built u p t h r o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s a g g r a n d i z e -
1. Pompeius Trogus, w h o lived at the end o f the first century B.C.E., likewise connects A b r a h a m with Damascus and speaks of him as having been a king there (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 36, Epitoma 2.3). 2. A similar picture emerges from the pseudepigraphic Testament of Abraham, where, in the longer recension (ch. 4), the angel Michael complains to G - d that he is unable to announce to that just m a n that he is to die, for there has not been seen upon the earth "his like, pitiful, hospitable, just, true, G - d fearing, abstaining from every evil deed." 3. T h a t A b r a h a m succeeded, w e m a y note, in leaving an impression on some non-Jews is to be seen in the tradition, whether true or not, that the R o m a n emperor Alexander Severus (Historia Augusta, Life of Alexander Severus 29), w h o kept in his lararium the busts of only the better emperors, added to them the images of other more saindy (sanctiores) souls, a m o n g them those of A b r a h a m , Jesus, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana.
ABRAHAM
225
merits o f his a d o p t e d son L o t , his n a t u r a l s o n I s a a c , his d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h , a n d his wife S a r a h . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y that L o t d w e l t in S o d o m a n d w a s t a k e n p r i s o n e r b y the A s s y r i a n s , w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t h e d i d n o t p a r ticipate in the f i g h t i n g ( G e n . 1 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that his c a p t u r e t o o k p l a c e w h e n L o t l o y a l l y c a m e , as A b r a h a m w a s to c o m e after h i m , to a i d the S o d o m i t e s as a f i g h t i n g ally (Ant. 1.175). L o t is d e p i c t e d as h a v i n g l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m to b e h o s p i t a b l e (rrepl
rovs
£evovs
i\dvdpa)7ros) a n d m o s t k i n d l y
(xprjoTOTrjTos) (Ant. 1.200); a n d this a d d s to the status o f his teacher, A b r a h a m , w h o is further a g g r a n d i z e d b y L o t ' s c h a m p i o n i n g o f m o d e r a t i o n (ococfypovetv) in his a d v i c e to the S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.201). L o t ' s stature is d i m i n i s h e d in the B i b l e b y his h e s itating to l e a v e S o d o m e v e n after G - d ' s w a r n i n g ( G e n . 19:16), b u t J o s e p h u s o m i t s this detail, as h e d o e s L o t ' s a r g u m e n t s w i t h the a n g e l s a b o u t his p l a c e o f refuge ( G e n . 1 9 : 1 7 - 2 2 v s . Ant. 1.204), since s u c h statements w o u l d a p p e a r t o i n d i c a t e a l a c k o f faith. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s totally o m i t s the tale o f L o t ' s d r u n k e n n e s s ( G e n . 19:32-33), w h i c h h e o b v i o u s l y r e g a r d e d as u n s e e m l y a n d as reflecting o n his a d o p tive father, A b r a h a m . A b r a h a m benefits likewise f r o m the a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f his wife S a r a h (Bailey 1987, 1 5 7 - 6 1 ; A m a r u 1988, 1 4 5 - 4 8 ) . J o s e p h u s , b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t S a r a h a c t e d o n G - d ' s c o m m a n d in g i v i n g H a g a r to A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.187), is, in effect, p r e s e n t i n g h e r as a p r o p h e t e s s (so also in r a b b i n i c literature [Megillah 14a]) a n d is t h u s g i v i n g t o S a r a h ' s d e e d a g r e a t e r w e i g h t (see R a p p a p o r t 1930, 103, n. 90). B u t J o s e p h u s is careful n o t t o r e m o v e the spotlight u n d u l y f r o m A b r a h a m ; a n d so, w h e r e a s in G e n . 18:16, G - d t w i c e states t h a t H e will bless S a r a h , so t h a t "she shall b e a m o t h e r o f n a t i o n s ; k i n g s o f p e o p l e shall b e o f her," J o s e p h u s c e n t e r s the b l e s s i n g o n A b r a h a m , s a y i n g t h a t h e w i l l h a v e a son b y S a r a h , a n d t h a t g r e a t n a t i o n s a n d k i n g s will s p r i n g f r o m h i m (Ant. 1.191). W i t h h e r chaste beauty, h e r p u b l i c silence, h e r submissiveness, a n d h e r m a t e r n a l c o n c e r n , S a r a h thus e m e r g e s as the H e l lenistic i d e a l o f the t r a d i t i o n a l wife ( A m a r u 1988, 148). It is i m p o r t a n t for J o s e p h u s to assure his r e a d e r s t h a t S a r a h w a s n o t v i o l a t e d b y A b i m e l e c h . W h i l e it is true t h a t the B i b l e ( G e n . 20:4) states t h a t A b i m e l e c h h a d n o t c o m e n e a r her, this is a p a r e n t h e t i c a l r e m a r k b y the narrator, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s t h e r e is m u c h m o r e e m p h a s i s , as w e l l as m o r e p e r s o n a l interest in the matter, b e c a u s e it is A b i m e l e c h h i m s e l f w h o directly assures A b r a h a m a n d offers G - d a n d S a r a h ' s c o n s c i e n c e as witnesses t h a t h e h a s n o t v i o l a t e d h e r (Ant. 1.209). J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.212) j u d i c i o u s l y o m i t s the o b s c u r e a n d p o s s i b l y c o m p r o m i s i n g r e f e r e n c e in the B i b l e to the gift that A b i m e l e c h gives to A b r a h a m , w h i c h is to serve as " a c o v e r i n g o f the e y e s " for all w h o are w i t h S a r a h ( G e n . 20:16). T h e final p r o o f o f S a r a h ' s i m p o r t a n c e c o m e s w h e n she dies a n d is b u r i e d at p u b l i c e x p e n s e (SrjpLooia) (Ant. 1.237). A s S c h a l i t ( 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , 3:40, n. 267) h a s n o t e d , o n l y select i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e d s u c h a b u r i a l , as w e c a n see in the c a s e o f t h o s e w h o d i e d f i g h t i n g for their c o u n t r y ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.34) o r o f a g r e a t p a t r i o t s u c h as T i m o l e o n (cf. N e p o s , Timoleon 5).
226
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS T h e y o u n g I s h m a e l , for w h o m S a r a h , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.215), felt
affection, reflects A b r a h a m ' s c o n c e r n w i t h e d u c a t i n g his h e i r p r o p e r l y L i k e a n A s canius raised b y an A e n e a s , Ishmael, adds Josephus, w a s b e i n g trained as h e i r
(SiaSoxr))
to the rulership
(irpe^ero)
(rjyepiovias).
I s a a c ' s v i r t u e s a r e g r e a d y a m p l i f i e d , for h e is d e p i c t e d , in t e r m s t h a t a G r e e k o r R o m a n r e a d e r w o u l d w e l l u n d e r s t a n d , as p r a c t i c i n g e v e r y v i r t u e a n d as s h o w i n g d e v o t e d p i e t y t o w a r d his p a r e n t s a n d t o w a r d G - d ( G e n . 20:16). T h i s a d d s luster to 4
J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f his father. I n a g l o r i o u s s c e n e , w h o l l y i n v e n t e d b y J o s e p h u s , I s a a c , w h e n t o l d o f his father's i n t e n t i o n t o sacrifice h i m , m a t c h e s t h e s u p r e m e faith o f his f a t h e r b y r e c e i v i n g his w o r d s b r a v e l y (yevvaiov) a n d j o y f u l l y (Ant. 1.232). W e r e this t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f his f a t h e r a l o n e , h e w o u l d n o t hesitate t o o b e y ; n o w t h a t h e realizes t h a t it is the w i l l o f G - d , h e r u s h e s (wppLrjoev) to t h e altar a n d to his 5
d e a t h . A s a r e w a r d , in a n a d d i t i o n t o G e n . 22:12, G - d p r o m i s e s A b r a h a m , in w o r d s r e m i n i s c e n t o f the g o a l o f m a n in A r i s t o d e ' s Ethics (1.7.1098A19), t h a t his s o n w i l l live h a p p i l y (evSaipLovtos) to a n e x t r e m e o l d a g e a n d will b e q u e a t h t o a v i r t u o u s offspring a g r e a t d o m i n i o n (pLeydXrjv -qyepioviav) t h a t will i n c r e a s e in w e a l t h (Ant. 1.234). Josephus speaks proudly o f A b r a h a m ' s grandsons b y Ishmael, w h o conferred their n a m e s o n t h e A r a b i a n n a t i o n " i n h o n o r b o t h o f their o w n p r o w e s s
[dperrjv,
" e x c e l l e n c e , " " v i r t u e " ] a n d o f t h e f a m e [a£uo/xa " h o n o r , " " r e p u t a t i o n , " " r a n k " ] o f A b r a h a m " (Ant. 1.221). T h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f dperrj w i t h A b r a h a m is so c l o s e in this p a s s a g e t h a t T h a c k e r a y r e m a r k s t h a t " o n e c a n n o t resist t h e s u s p i c i o n o f a p r e p o s terous c o n n e x i o n o f the n a m e A r a b w i t h t h e first t w o letters o f dper-q a n d o f ZlftpapLos" ( T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 , 4:109). T h e qualities o f A b r a h a m a r e l i k e w i s e reflected t h r o u g h his s e r v a n t Eliezer, p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e e p i s o d e w i t h R e b e k a h . E l i e z e r s h o w s e x t r a o r d i n a r y g r a c i o u s ness in c o m m e n d i n g her, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , for h e r n o b i l i t y a n d g o o d ness o f h e a r t in m i n i s t e r i n g t o his n e e d s at t h e c o s t o f h e r o w n toil (Ant. 1.247).
ABRAHAM'S ANTIQUITY I n v i e w o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t the a n c i e n t s a s s i g n e d to t h e a n t i q u i t y o f a p e o p l e , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s t o n o t e t h a t N a b r o (or H e b r o n ) , w h e r e A b r a h a m d w e l t , w a s built s e v e n y e a r s b e f o r e the f a m o u s c i t y o f T a n i s in E g y p t (Ant. 1.170). E l s e w h e r e J o s e p h u s states t h a t H e b r o n is 2,300 y e a r s o l d , m o r e a n c i e n t t h a n a n y o t h e r t o w n in Palestine a n d e v e n o l d e r t h a n M e m p h i s i n E g y p t , w h o s e
4. A somewhat similar description of Isaac is found in Philo, DeAbrahamo 32.168, cited in R a p p a port 1930, 107, n. 104. But cf. Sandmel 1956, 72, n. 322, w h o perceives differences that preclude a nec essary dependency of Josephus on Philo here. 5. 4 M a c e . 16:20 likewise speaks in praise o f Isaac for not flinching w h e n he saw his father's hand descending upon him with a sword; but Josephus is unique in noting the j o y with which Isaac rushed to his death.
ABRAHAM
227
f o u n d a t i o n s g o b a c k t o t h e earliest p e r i o d o f E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y (War 4.530). N o w it is t r u e t h a t t h e B i b l e itself later n o t e s t h a t H e b r o n w a s built s e v e n y e a r s b e f o r e Z o a n ( a n o t h e r n a m e for T a n i s ) in E g y p t ( N u m . 13:22); b u t t h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t is t h a t this c o m p a r i s o n is m a d e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e life o f A b r a h a m , w h o thus b e c a m e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t antiquity. T h e a n t i q u i t y o f A b r a h a m is l i k e w i s e e m p h a s i z e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m w a s l i v i n g n e a r the o a k c a l l e d O g y g e s (Ant. 1.186), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e 6
s p e a k s o f t h e o a k s (terebinths) o f M a m r e ( G e n . I 3 : i 8 ) . T h e " a u t o c h t h o n " O g y g e s ( O g y g u s ) w a s a p r i m e v a l m y t h i c a l k i n g o f A t h e n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e story o f t h e F l o o d a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t r a d i t i o n , w a s t h e earliest n a m e c i t e d in A t h e n i a n h i s t o r y ( A d l e r 1 9 8 9 , 1 6 , n . 9). H i s d a t e is so e a r l y that, a c c o r d i n g to V a r r o , it m a r k s t h e e n d o f the "indeterminate"
p e r i o d that e x t e n d e d from the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the
h u m a n r a c e to t h e first f l o o d , w h i c h , in t u r n , m a r k s the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e " m y t h i c " p e r i o d (ap. C e n s o r i n u s , DeDieNatali
21.1-2). A c c o r d i n g to one version, cited b y the
t h i r d - c e n t u r y C h r i s t i a n h i s t o r i a n S e x t u s Julius A f r i c a n u s (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 10.10.23), it w a s n o t until n i n e t y - f o u r y e a r s h a d e l a p s e d after t h e f l o o d o f O g y g u s t h a t w e find t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f P r o m e t h e u s , w h o is said in the l e g e n d t o h a v e f o r m e d m a n . T h a t J o s e p h u s a s s o c i a t e d this o a k , O g y g e s , w i t h r e m o t e a n t i q u i t y m a y b e d e d u c e d f r o m his s t a t e m e n t e l s e w h e r e t h a t six stadia ( a b o u t three-fourths o f a mile) f r o m t h e c i t y o f H e b r o n , there is s h o w n a h u g e t e r e b i n t h tree, w h i c h is said t o h a v e s t o o d t h e r e e v e r since t h e c r e a t i o n o f the w o r l d (War
7
4..^^).
GENEALOGY A s to t h e g e n e a l o g i c a l status o f A b r a h a m , P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s h a d a l r e a d y said t h a t h e e x c e l l e d all m e n in n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h (evyeveia)
(ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.17.3).
J o s e p h u s a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e in r e p o r t i n g t h a t A b r a h a m w a s t h e t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after N o a h (Ant. 1.148). A g a i n , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , E l i e z e r b e g i n s his n a r r a t i v e to L a b a n a n d to R e b e k a h ' s m o t h e r b y stating t h a t h e is A b r a h a m ' s ser v a n t ( G e n . 24:34), J o s e p h u s ' s E l i e z e r starts b y g i v i n g A b r a h a m ' s g e n e a l o g y a n d b y p o i n t i n g o u t his k i n s h i p to his hosts (Ant. 1.252). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f g e n e a l o g y is further illustrated b y J o s e p h u s ' s i n s e r t e d state m e n t t h a t a l t h o u g h , i n v i e w o f his p r o m i n e n c e , A b r a h a m m i g h t h a v e s e l e c t e d t h e 8
w e a l t h i e s t o f w o m e n for his s o n I s a a c (Ant. 1.253), h e d i d n o t d e e m it fitting to
6. Elsewhere, to be sure, Josephus follows the Septuagint in referring to the oak o f M a m b r e (Ant. ..196). 7. W a c h o l d e r 1963, 99, is incorrect in citing Josephus, Ant. 1.241, in support o f his v i e w that Pseudo-Eupolemus, in attempting to glorify A b r a h a m by asserting that he was descended from giants, w a s reflecting a popular v i e w a m o n g Hellenistic-Jewish writers. In Ant. 1.241, Josephus is speaking about A b r a h a m ' s descendants w h o j o i n e d Heracles, one o f w h o m married him, and not about giants in his ancestry. 8. Josephus similarly adds to the Bible, in his s u m m a r y o f the laws relating to marriage, that in tak ing a wife one should not be influenced by the size o f the d o w r y (Ag. Ap. 2.200).
228
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
m a k e s u c h a m a t c h , b u t , instead, w i t h m u c h z e a l s o u g h t a w o m a n o f t h e p r o p e r f a m i l y (yevos) w h o w a s r e l a t e d to h i m (Ant. 1.255).
ABRAHAM'S WEALTH A b r a h a m is d e p i c t e d as a w e a l t h y m a n , as i n d e e d s u c h a g r e a t m a n s h o u l d b e b y H e l l e n i s t i c s t a n d a r d s , w h o , u n l i k e the S o d o m i t e s , d o e s n o t fall p r e y to sin b u t , o n t h e contrary, illustrates t h e c o r r e c t use o f riches. H i s w e a l t h is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e u n u s u a l q u a l i t y o f t h e gifts t h a t h e sends to R e b e k a h ' s f a m i l y (Ant. 1.243). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e m e n t i o n s s i m p l y t h a t E l i e z e r t o o k w i t h h i m t e n c a m e l s a n d "all g o o d t h i n g s o f his m a s t e r in his h a n d " ( G e n . 24:10), J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t t h e gifts t h a t h e t o o k w e r e w h o l l y u n o b t a i n a b l e in t h o s e p a r t s a n d o f i n e s t i m a b l e v a l u e (iKTifjLTjiJLeva, " h o n o r e d h i g h l y " ) . W e later l e a r n t h a t E l i e z e r h a s b r o u g h t w i t h h i m w o m e n ' s a p p a r e l o f g r e a t p r i c e (Ant. 1.250).
ABRAHAM'S WISDOM E v e n t h e e x t r e m e l y influential r h e t o r i c i a n A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , w h o calls t h e J e w s t h e m o s t witless (d^veardrovs,
" m o s t u n t a l e n t e d " ) o f b a r b a r i a n s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag.
Ap. 2.148), refers to A b r a h a m as w i s e (oo<j>6v) (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.19.2). I n d e e d , at t h e v e r y start o f his a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s h i m as skilled in l o g i c a n d p e r s u a s i o n (Ant. 1.154), a k i n d o f J e w i s h Pericles (cf. T h u c y d i d e s 2.65). A b r a h a m is a m a n gifted in i n t e l l i g e n c e (heivos a>v ovvievai), derstanding
9
t h a t is, c l e v e r in u n
o n all m a t t e r s , p e r s u a s i v e (iriQavos) t o his h e a r e r s (rois aKpocjopuevois,
a w o r d u s e d e s p e c i a l l y o f students w h o listen to lectures in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools) (see L S J 1940, 5 6 , s.v. aKpodopbat) a n d n o t m i s t a k e n in his i n f e r e n c e s (irepi re a>v eLKaoeiev ov StapLaprdvcov) (Ant. 1.154-55). It is b e c a u s e o f these gifts t h a t A b r a h a m is said b y J o s e p h u s t o h a v e a r r i v e d at m o r e lofty c o n c e p t i o n s ((frpovetv 10
pbei^ov)
o f v i r t u e t h a n o t h e r m e n a n d to h a v e a b a n d o n e d t h e f a l s e h o o d o f c u r r e n t
t h e o l o g i c a l ideas. The
c h i e f g o a l o f t h e s t u d y o f p h i l o s o p h y in a n t i q u i t y w a s n o t h i n g less t h a n
c o n v e r s i o n (so M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 206, a n d N o c k 1933, 1 6 4 - 8 6 ) . I n his d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w A b r a h a m i n s t r u c t e d the E g y p t i a n s , J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s intellectual gifts a n d skill in p e r s u a s i o n (Ant. 1.167). T h u s h e is said to h a v e g a i n e d t h e E g y p tians' a d m i r a t i o n as a m a n o f t h e h i g h e s t s a g a c i t y (avvercoraros),
gifted (Setvos) n o t
o n l y w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e (vorjocu), as p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d (Ant. 1.154), b u t w i t h the p o w e r to c o n v i n c e a n y o n e o n w h a t e v e r subject h e c h o s e t o t e a c h . A b r a h a m ' s sons,
9. Note the similar phrase, pov€iv . . . Sewov, applied b y Teiresias to Oedipus (Sophocles, Oedi pus the King 316). 10. Note the same words (pov€iTU) /u,ef£ov) applied b y C r e o n to his son H a e m o n (Sophocles, Antigone 768).
ABRAHAM
229
i n a p h r a s e i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t u s e d o f A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.154), are likewise, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t e r m e d gifted in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (heivol
ovvievcu) (Ant. 1.238).
T h e first a n d m o s t p r o m i n e n t e x a m p l e o f A b r a h a m ' s p o w e r o f l o g i c a l d e d u c t i o n c i t e d b y J o s e p h u s is his p r o o f o f m o n o t h e i s m (Ant. 1.156).
11
W h e n c e did Jose
p h u s d e r i v e his v e r s i o n o f this p r o o f o f G - d ' s e x i s t e n c e ? A t h o r o u g h c h e c k o f a n c i e n t p r o o f s o f the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d i n d i c a t e s t h a t J o s e p h u s is the o n l y figure in the h i s t o r y o f a n c i e n t p h i l o s o p h y w h o c h a n g e d the P l a t o n i c (Laws 12.966E) a n d S t o i c a r g u m e n t for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d as b a s e d u p o n the r e g u l a r i t y o f celestial p h e n o m e n a into a n a r g u m e n t b a s e d u p o n c e r t a i n irregularities o b s e r v e d in these p h e n o m e n a . T h e s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t a r i e s a n d b o o k s a b o u t J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , all o m i t m e n t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l i t y o f this a r g u m e n t o n the p a r t o f J o s e p h u s . T o b e sure, the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the w i s e m a n is h a r d l y o r i g i n a l w i t h J o s e p h u s , since w e r e a d in P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s t h a t A b r a h a m s u r p a s s e d all o t h e r m e n in w i s d o m (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.17.3); b u t the details a p p e a r t o b e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n . J o s e p h u s p l a c e s a d d i t i o n a l stress o n his p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the a s t r o n o m e r a n d l o g i c i a n b y stating n o t merely, as d o e s the B i b l e ( G e n . 12:1), t h a t h e left C h a l d a e a b e c a u s e G - d h a d b i d d e n h i m t o g o to C a n a a n (Ant. 1.154), b u t also t h a t h e d e p a r t e d b e c a u s e o f o p p o s i t i o n (oTaoLaodvTcov) to the inferences t h a t h e d r e w f r o m 12
his scientific a n d p h i l o s o p h i c o p i n i o n s . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f later r e m a r k s t h a t A b r a h a m h a d b e e n d r i v e n o u t o f M e s o p o t a m i a b y his kinsfolk (avyyevwv) (Ant. 1.281); b u t J o s e p h u s p u t s the stress o n the o b j e c t i o n o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s t o the scientific a n d p h i l o s o p h i c b a c k g r o u n d o f t h a t faith r a t h e r t h a n o n a m e r e test o f the faith it self.
13
O n e o f the r e c u r r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p r e - S o c r a t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s , as t h e y
11. A s G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:210, n. 16, a n d 217-18, n. 49, has remarked, the Apocalypse of Abraham (ch. 7), Jubilees (12:17), and the rabbinic sources (Genesis Rabbah 39) stress the fact that A b r a h a m arrived at the idea o f monotheism through his o w n reasoning about the heavenly bodies a n d their directing Creator. See the citations in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 15, no. 65, and in Beer 1859, 102, n. 30. T h e M i d r a s h (Numbers Rabbah 14.2) mentions three m e n w h o acquired knowledge o f G - d "by t h e m s e l v e s " — A b r a h a m , Job, a n d H e z e k i a h . T h e fourth, according to this tradition, will be the messiah. In the rabbinic sources, A b r a h a m arrives at his p r o o f by observing h o w the elements subdue one another (water sub dues fire and, in turn, is subdued by earth, w h i c h is dried u p by the sun, w h i c h is obscured by clouds, etc., so that finally only G - d , w h o m a d e all these elements and heavenly bodies, is worthy o f worship). 12. B o t h reasons are found in Judith 5:7-8, as noted in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 15, no. 67. Josephus, as R a p p a p o r t 1930, 16, no. 67, remarks, perceived a contradiction between these two motives for A b r a ham's migration to C a n a a n , for he says (Ant. 1.157): "It was, in fact, o w i n g to these opinions that the C h a l d a e a n s and the other peoples o f M e s o p o t a m i a rose against him; and he, thinking fit to emigrate, at the will and with the aid o f G - d , setded in the land o f C a n a a n . " T h e rabbis (see citations in R a p paport 1930, 102, n. 81), as well as Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 6.3-18), to be sure, have m a n y accounts o f persecutions, including his being cast into a fiery furnace, suffered by A b r a h a m in C h a l d a e a because o f his faith. 13. O n e should accordingly modify R a p p a p o r t ' s statement (1930,100, n. 83), that Josephus wished to make both N o a h and A b r a h a m martyrs o f their faith, and that in this he agreed with the rabbinic aggada.
230
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
w e r e v i e w e d i n H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s , is t h a t t h e y v i s i t e d E g y p t t o b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h E g y p t i a n science a n d other esoteric lore a n d to e n g a g e in discussions w i t h Egyptian wise m e n .
1 4
A b r a h a m ' s j o u r n e y t o E g y p t in J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s t h e e n
trance o f the h e a d o f a school o f Hellenistic philosophy to dispute w i t h the h e a d o f a r i v a l s c h o o l ( S c h a l i t 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , i : l x x ) . I n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , t h e sole r e a s o n for A b r a h a m ' s j o u r n e y t o E g y p t is t o e s c a p e t h e f a m i n e i n C a n a a n ( G e n . 12:10); J o s e p h u s , i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f a s h i o n , g i v e s this r e a s o n b u t a l s o a d d s t h a t h e s o u g h t t o b e c o m e a s t u d e n t (dKpodrrjs—like
aKpocDpuevois, Ant. 1.154, as n o t e d a b o v e , u s e d o f
b e c o m i n g a d i s c i p l e in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s ) o f E g y p t i a n p r i e s t s in m a t t e r s o f t h e o l o g y (Ant. 1 . 1 6 1 ) .
15
T h e J e w s in Hellenistic times w e r e sometimes a c c u s e d o f
b e i n g p r o v i n c i a l a n d n a r r o w - m i n d e d — a b o v e all, b y s u c h l e a d i n g S t o i c s as P o s i d o n i u s a n d A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.79, 1 4 5 - 5 0 ) . T h e s e S t o i c s m u s t h a v e s e e n t h e J e w s as d a n g e r o u s a n d o f t e n successful r i v a l s t o t h e i r m i s s i o n ary propaganda.
1 6
It is i n t h e spirit o f H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s o p h i c d i s p u t a t i o n s
A b r a h a m is s a i d t o b e r e a d y t o a d o p t (KaraKoXovd-qaei)
that
(cf. P h i l o d e m u s , Volumina
rhetorica 2 . 1 4 6 [ S u d h a u s ] ) t h e E g y p t i a n p r i e s t s ' d o c t r i n e s i f h e finds t h e m s u p e r i o r t o his o w n (Ant. 1 . 1 6 1 ) ,
17
or, if h e s h o u l d w i n t h e d e b a t e , t o c o n v e r t (pLeTaKoopurjoeiv,
" r e a r r a n g e , " " m o d i f y " ) t h e m t o his beliefs. A b r a h a m is p o r t r a y e d as n o t c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o a r r i v e at t h e c o r r e c t c o n c e p t i o n o f G - d ; h e is m u c h m o r e a m b i t i o u s in his d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o r e f o r m a n d c h a n g e t h e i d e a s u n i v e r s a l l y c u r r e n t c o n c e r n i n g G - d (Ant. 1.155). W e see, for e x a m p l e , in t h e case o f the c o n t a c t o f Josephus's older c o n t e m p o r a r y A p o l l o n i u s o f T y a n a w i t h the
14. In the Bible, reference is m a d e to the w i s d o m o f Egypt, which is surpassed only by Solomon's w i s d o m (1 K i n g s 5:10); a n d the rabbis e x p a n d o n this by recounting the incident o f the p h a r a o h N e c h o ' s unsuccessful attempt to outwit S o l o m o n (Numbers Rabbah 19.3). But there is nothing in rabbinic lore o f a j o u r n e y to E g y p t to imbibe E g y p t i a n w i s d o m . Burnet 1945, 15 ff., together with most histori ans o f G r e e k philosophy, discounts the idea that the Greeks borrowed their philosophy from the E g y p tians, contending that Herodotus w o u l d n o t have omitted it if he h a d k n o w n it, since it w o u l d have confirmed his o w n v i e w that G r e e k religion a n d culture w e n t back to Egyptian origins. Plato, w h o w a s a w e d by the antiquity o f the Egyptians (Republic 4,435E; Timaeus 22 A), implies that they h a d n o gift for philosophy, " w h i c h is ascribed chiefly to o u r o w n part o f the world," a n d that, in contrast with the Greeks, they were especially noted for their love o f m o n e y (Republic 4,435E). 15. In this, Josephus makes A b r a h a m parallel to Pythagoras, w h o , according to Aristoxenus (fr. 13, Wehrli), traveled to E g y p t and, according to Isocrates (Busiris 28), b e c a m e a disciple o f the priests there, studying their sacrifices a n d cult practices a n d later introducing their philosophy to the Greeks. T o b e sure, Isocrates later (12.33),
m
effect, admits that this tale was invented; but that it was accepted as true
is indicated b y a certain A n t i p h o n (ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 8.3), w h o tells h o w Pythagoras learned the se crets, especially the mathematical secrets, o f the E g y p t i a n priests. Indeed, according to Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica 11, Pythagoras spent twenty-two years in Egypt. See v o n Fritz 1 9 6 3 , 1 8 0 - 8 6 ; Philip 1966, 189-91. 16. Cf. H o r a c e , Satires 1.4.142-43; Juvenal 14.96-106; a n d Tacitus, Histories 5.5.1. S e e Feldman 1993a, 288-341. 17. T h i s episode has n o parallel in a n y other account o f A b r a h a m , according to Schalit 1944-63, 1:31. Apparendy, says Schorr 1940, a d l o c , Josephus is expounding G e n . 12:13; but that passage has n o connection with Josephus's account.
ABRAHAM
231
M a g i , the I n d i a n s , a n d the E g y p t i a n s (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius
1.26,
3.16 ff., a n d 6.10 ff.) t h a t the H e l l e n i s t i c w i s e m a n visits foreigners, b o t h to l e a r n f r o m t h e m a n d t o t e a c h t h e m . J o s e p h u s similarly tells o f a l e a r n e d J e w w h o c a m e t o visit A r i s t o d e in A s i a M i n o r to c o n v e r s e w i t h h i m a n d to test his l e a r n i n g , b u t w h o , in the e n d , i m p a r t e d to A r i s t o d e s o m e t h i n g o f his o w n (Ag. Ap. 1.176-82). I n d e e d , o n e is r e m i n d e d o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e x p e r i e n c e in t r y i n g o u t the t h r e e s e c t s — P h a r i s e e s , S a d d u c e e s , a n d E s s e n e s — f o u n d a m o n g the J e w s to see w h i c h o n e p l e a s e d h i m the m o s t (fife
io-ii).
1 8
T h e r a b b i s , like J o s e p h u s , s p e a k o f A b r a h a m as a m i s s i o n a r y (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:220, n . 61); b u t w i t h t h e m t h e r e is n o p h i l o s o p h i c a l setting in t h e H e l lenistic style o f r e a l d e b a t e , i n c l u d i n g a w i l l i n g n e s s to b e c o n v e r t e d i f d e f e a t e d in a r g u m e n t . I n s t e a d , the p i c t u r e is o f a d o g m a t i c m i s s i o n a r y p r o c e e d i n g systemati c a l l y t o m a k e c o n v e r t s . A g a i n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , after P h a r a o h d i s c o v e r s the i d e n t i t y o f A b r a h a m , h e ( A b r a h a m ) c o n s o r t s (or, a c c o r d i n g to a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g , is g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n to consort) w i t h the m o s t l e a r n e d (TOLS Xoyicordrois
"possessed o f
r e a s o n , " "intellectual") o f t h e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 1.165). A s a result, his e x c e l l e n c e (aperrjv) a n d r e p u t a t i o n (86gav), like those o f S o l o n , w h o similarly is said to h a v e visited E g y p t (Plato, Timaeus 21E), b e c o m e m o r e m a n i f e s t (eTn^avearepav).
The
c o n c l u s i o n o f the e p i s o d e o f A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h in E g y p t is n o t , as in the B i b l e — w i t h its stress o n the n a r r a t i v e a s p e c t — t h e i r h a s t y dismissal b y P h a r a o h or, as i n the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20)—in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e S a r a h - A b i m e l e c h e p i s o d e , a n d stressing G - d ' s r o l e — , A b r a h a m ' s p r a y e r t o G - d t o lift the p l a g u e . O n the contrary, in J o s e p h u s , the p e r i c o p e ends, as A b r a h a m ' s E g y p t i a n e x c u r s i o n h a d b e g u n , w i t h e m p h a s i s o n A b r a h a m the scientist
and
p h i l o s o p h e r c o n v e r s i n g w i t h the E g y p t i a n s . A t t h e e n d o f his visit to E g y p t , w e are s h o w n A b r a h a m , in the f a s h i o n o f a H e l lenistic p h i l o s o p h e r , r e m i n i s c e n t o f the n e o - A c a d e m i c C o t t a i n C i c e r o ' s Deorum, e x p o s i n g
1 9
(hiairrvaacDv—literally,
DeNatura
"opening and spreading out," "unfold
i n g " ) the a r g u m e n t s t h a t the E g y p t i a n s p r e s e n t in s u p p o r t o f their v i e w a n d d e m o n s t r a t i n g (dire^aive)
t h a t these a r g u m e n t s are w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n
" e m p t y , " " i d l e , " "ineffectual") a n d d e v o i d o f t r u t h (purjSiv exovras 1.166).
20
(K€VOVS,
dXrjdes)
(Ant.
U n l i k e the Genesis Apocryphon, w h i c h (col. 19, lines 2 6 - 2 7 ) speaks b o t h o f
18. T h e only comparable passage in the T a l m u d is one telling o f Joshua ben Hananiah's contest with the A t h e n i a n sages (Bekorot 8b), in w h i c h both parties agreed that the one w h o was defeated should be left entirely at the m e r c y o f the victor; but there the contest is apparendy not for the sake o f conver sion but for the sake o f physically annihilating the opponent. 19. R e a d i n g
SICLITTVOOCDV
(Thackeray's emendation, 1926-34, 2:158, s.v.). T h e manuscript reading
SianTvcDv w o u l d m e a n "spitting u p o n , " and seems altogether out o f character with the picture o f A b r a h a m being presented by Josephus. 20. T h e r e m a y be a parallel to this aspect o f A b r a h a m in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, line 24), which speaks o f three Egyptian nobles and o f goodness, wisdom, a n d truth (although it is not clear whether these are A b r a h a m ' s or their qualities). A b r a h a m proclaims his words before them, perhaps, w e m a y conjecture, pointing out their errors. But the Apocryphon lacks the Hellenistic flavor o f Josephus,
232
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A b r a h a m ' s i n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d a lavish b a n q u e t g i v e n for h i m b y t h e E g y p t i a n n o b l e s , J o s e p h u s focuses a t t e n t i o n solely o n A b r a h a m t h e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d teacher. T h e p i c t u r e g i v e n b y J o s e p h u s o f A b r a h a m in his c o n v e r s a t i o n s (ovvovoicus,
"so
cial i n t e r c o u r s e , " " c o m m u n i o n " ) w i t h the E g y p t i a n s is that o f a n e x t r e m e l y intelli g e n t (avvercoraros),
w e l l - e d u c a t e d Hellenistic g e n d e m a n , p a r t i c u l a r l y gifted (Sewos)
in the v e r y areas m o s t c u l t i v a t e d b y t h e Hellenistic G r e e k s — l o g i c , philosophy, rhetoric, a n d s c i e n c e (Ant. 1.167; a similar p o r t r a y a l is to b e f o u n d in Ant. 1.154). I n his ability to c o n v i n c e his h e a r e r s o n a n y subject that h e u n d e r t o o k to t e a c h , A b r a h a m passes the u l t i m a t e test o f the Hellenistic a n d R o m a n student o f r h e t o r i c .
21
B o t h P l a t o a n d I s o c r a t e s in t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C.E. h a d e m p h a s i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m a t h e m a t i c s n o t o n l y for its p r a c t i c a l v a l u e b u t also for s h a r p e n i n g t h e m i n d ( M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 7 3 , 83). I n line w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n s c i e n c e a n d m a t h e m a t ics (cf. M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 1 7 6 - 8 5 ) , J o s e p h u s presents A b r a h a m as t h e o n e w h o t a u g h t t h e E g y p t i a n s t h e v e r y s c i e n c e s for w h i c h t h e y later b e c a m e so f a m o u s . T h e B i b l e p o r t r a y s A b r a h a m as b e i n g t o l d b y G - d to l o o k at t h e h e a v e n s a n d to c o u n t t h e stars, since his offspring w i l l b e as n u m e r o u s as t h e y ( G e n . 15:5). T h i s picture, together with the general v i e w that the C h a l d a e a n s , a m o n g w h o m A b r a h a m w a s b o r n , w e r e t h e o r i g i n a t o r s o f t h e s c i e n c e o f a s t r o n o m y a n d a s t r o l o g y (Ant. 1.168), g a v e rise t o t h e figure o f A b r a h a m as the a s t r o n o m e r p a r e x c e l l e n c e . J o s e p h u s , in o n e o f t h e relatively f e w p l a c e s w h e r e h e cites a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s o u r c e for the e a r l y b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e , n o t e s t h a t t h e B a b y l o n i a n h i s t o r i a n B e r o s s u s refers to Abraham
2 2
as v e r s e d in celestial lore (rd ovpdvia
ZpLireipos) (Ant. 1.158). T h e e a r l y
G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s , n o t a b l y T h a l e s , w e m a y r e c a l l , a r e d e p i c t e d as w e l l v e r s e d in science, e s p e c i a l l y a s t r o n o m y ; a n d A b r a h a m c o n f o r m s to this m o d e l . T o b e sure, this a s p e c t o f A b r a h a m is n o t o r i g i n a l w i t h J o s e p h u s , for w e find it in P s e u d o E u p o l e m u s , w h o d e c l a r e s t h a t A b r a h a m d i s c o v e r e d a s t r o l o g y a n d G h a l d a e a n sci e n c e (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9 . 1 7 . 3 ) ,
23
a n d t h a t A b r a h a m t a u g h t t h e P h o e n i c i a n s (ap.
for there is n o picture o f A b r a h a m conferring with each philosophic sect o f the Egyptians and o f c o m ing to convince or be convinced. 21. It is true that the rabbinic midrashim also k n o w o f disputations carried on b y A b r a h a m , but these are, characteristically, not with other philosophers but with his father T e r a h and with N i m r o d (Genesis Rabbah 38.13). A g a i n , A b r a h a m ' s powers o f persuasion are likewise celebrated by the rabbis, al though likewise it is in disputations not with other philosophers but with visitors to his tent w h o m A b r a h a m seeks to convert to monotheism (Genesis Rabbah 39.14). 22. Josephus himself states that Berossus did not refer to A b r a h a m by n a m e (Ant. 1.158); and, as W a c h o l d e r 1963,102, comments, there is n o reason to believe that the passage quoted by Josephus nec essarily alluded to A b r a h a m . I:
23. Freudenthal 1874-75, 94> followed b y W a c h o l d e r 1963, 102, asserts that Pseudo-Eupolemus's description o f A b r a h a m is so close a paraphrase o f Berossus's statement as quoted by Josephus that there can be n o doubt that Pseudo-Eupolemus b o r r o w e d it from him. B u t the very element in c o m m o n is the assertion that A b r a h a m was versed in astronomy; and Pseudo-Eupolemus might well have indep e n d e n d y arrived at such a v i e w from the association o f A b r a h a m with the C h a l d a e a n s . Moreover, there is every reason to believe that Pseudo-Eupolemus antedates Josephus, since his fragments are
ABRAHAM
233
E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9 . 1 7 4 ) a b o u t the m o v e m e n t s o f the sun, m o o n , a n d o t h e r h e a v enly b o d i e s .
2 4
S o g r e a t w a s this f a m e o f A b r a h a m as a s t r o n o m e r a n d a s t r o l o g e r
t h a t in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E., V e t t i u s V a l e n s , in his a s t r o l o g i c a l w o r k , refers t o h i m as " m o s t w o n d e r f u l " (davfjuaoicoTaTos) a n d n o t e s t h a t A b r a h a m w r o t e b o o k s a b o u t v a r i o u s t h i n g s t h a t h e d i s c o v e r e d a n d tested, e s p e c i a l l y o n a s t r o l o g i c a l n a tivities i n c l i n e d to t r a v e l i n g (Anthologiae 2.28). A similar tribute to A b r a h a m as a n a s t r o l o g e r is t o b e f o u n d in the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y F i r m i c u s M a t e r n u s , w h o c o u p l e s Abraham
with
the
much-revered
Orpheus
as
an
astrologer
(Mathesis
4,
P r o o e m i u m 5) a n d e v e n calls h i m " d i v i n e " (divinus) (Mathesis 4.17.2). It is J o s e p h u s ' s a d o p t i o n o f this p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m as a scientist w i t h a n in ternationalist s c h o l a r l y o u d o o k t h a t is o f i m p o r t a n c e , for it s h o w s t h a t h e , like P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s , s o u g h t t o a p p e a l to his G r e e k r e a d e r s b y c o n f o r m i n g to the scientific spirit o f the H e l l e n i s t i c A g e ( W a c h o l d e r 1 9 6 3 , 1 0 2 - 3 ) . P h i l o , it is interest i n g to n o t e , g r a n t s A b r a h a m ' s k n o w l e d g e o f a s t r o n o m y ; b u t in a n effort t o m a k e o f h i m a p u r e r p h i l o s o p h e r , h e asserts t h a t in l e a v i n g C h a l d a e a , h e d e p a r t e d f r o m his a b s o r p t i o n w i t h the visible w o r l d a n d e n t e r e d the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the invisible a n d the intelligible w o r l d (DeAbrahamo
1 5 . 6 8 - 7 1 ) ^ . S a n d m e l 1956, 144).
25
T h e im
p o r t a n c e o f a s t r o n o m y to J o s e p h u s is o b v i o u s , for e v e n in his discussion o f the e a r l y p a t r i a r c h s , s u c h as N o a h , h e a d d s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e p e r m i t t e d t o live l o n g lives n o t o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e b e l o v e d b y G - d a n d b e c a u s e o f their diet a n d their merits, b u t also to g i v e t h e m a n o p p o r t u n i t y to p r o g r e s s in their k n o w l e d g e o f a s t r o n o m y a n d g e o m e t r y , "for t h e y c o u l d h a v e p r e d i c t e d n o t h i n g w i t h c e r t a i n t y h a d t h e y n o t l i v e d for 600 y e a r s , t h a t b e i n g the c o m p l e t e p e r i o d o f t h e g r e a t y e a r " (Ant. 1.105-7). A b r a h a m g r a c i o u s l y g i v e s (xapi^erai,
Ant. 1.167) the E g y p t i a n s his k n o w l e d g e o f
a r i t h m e t i c a n d t r a n s m i t s his a s t r o n o m i c a l lore to t h e m . T h i s w a s a s c i e n c e o f w h i c h the E g y p t i a n s h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n i g n o r a n t , a n d t h a t w a s to b e c o m e t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o f the four b r a n c h e s o f m a t h e m a t i c s in H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s ( M a r r o u , 1956,
1 8 2 ) — t h e o n e t h a t a r o u s e d the m o s t curiosity b e c a u s e o f the p r a c t i c a l i m
p o r t a n c e o f astrology. It w a s A b r a h a m ' s unselfishness in s h a r i n g his scientific k n o w l e d g e w i t h the E g y p t i a n s that, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for G r e e k k n o w l e d g e o f t h o s e fields, since the G r e e k s , in t u r n , b o r r o w e d it f r o m the Egyptians. Artapanus, l o n g before Josephus, h a d declared that A b r a h a m
had
quoted b y Eusebius as c o m i n g from A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o flourished in the middle of the first cen tury B.C.E. H o l l a d a y 1983, 1:159-60, cites further evidence suggesting a date for Pseudo-Eupolemus in the first half o f the second century B.C.E. 24. A s W a c h o l d e r 1963, 102, comments, while A b r a h a m ' s piety is not neglected b y PseudoEupolemus, the emphasis is on his scientific contributions. T h e same, w e might add, might well be said about Josephus's portrayal of A b r a h a m . 25. W h i l e some of the rabbinic sources acknowledge A b r a h a m ' s greatness as an astrologer, most o f them state that G - d counseled A b r a h a m to give up his interest in astrology. See rabbinic passages cited by W a c h o l d e r 1963, 103, n. 130, w h o concludes that the belief concerning A b r a h a m ' s mastery o f as trology w a s a major motif of Jewish folklore.
234
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t a u g h t P h a r a o h a s t r o l o g y (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 8 . 1 ) ;
26
i n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , it is
n o t P h a r a o h b u t t h e E g y p t i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d scientists w h o m A b r a h a m structs.
Far from
h o a r d i n g his k n o w l e d g e , A b r a h a m , w i t h his
s c h o l a r l y o u d o o k , s h a r e s it c h e e r f u l l y a n d f r e e l y w i t h his f e l l o w p h i l o s o p h e r s scientists.
and
27
ABRAHAM'S Josephus
in
internationalist
COURAGE
q u o t e s t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . E . N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s
2 8
as s t a t i n g t h a t
A b r a h a m w a s a n i n v a d e r (eTrrjXvs) w h o h a d c o m e f r o m C h a l d a e a w i t h a n
army
a n d w h o h a d r e i g n e d in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159). T h e r e , a c c o r d i n g t o N i c o l a u s , his f a m e w a s still c e l e b r a t e d in N i c o l a u s ' s o w n d a y a n d t h e r e a v i l l a g e w a s p o i n t e d o u t n a m e d " A b r a m ' s a b o d e " after h i m (Ant. 1.160). A n o t h e r non-Jew, t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y A u g u s t a n h i s t o r i a n P o m p e i u s T r o g u s , m e n t i o n s a n A b r a h a m e s as k i n g o f D a m a s c u s (ap. J u s t i n , Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitoma 2.3). P h i l o , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n t e r p r e t s t h e p a s s a g e i n w h i c h A b r a h a m is r e f e r r e d t o as a p r i n c e a l l e g o r i c a l l y
26. Freudenthal 1874-75,
I : i
^ 9 , notes that the form o f the n a m e Pharaothes, w h i c h Joseph prefers
to Pharao, comes closest to Artapanus's spelling, as found in the best manuscripts, J a n d B . PseudoEupolemus likewise speaks o f A b r a h a m , as well as E n o c h , as the inventor o f astrology a n d other such things (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.8). A similar picture to that o f A b r a h a m as inventor o f sciences is also found with regard to Moses. T h u s Eupolemus says that M o s e s was the first wise m a n a n d that he in vented the alphabet (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.26.1). 27. T h e ninth-century Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica 377.20-22 (ed. A . A . Mosshammer), says that A b r a h a m instructed the Egyptians in calendar-reckoning, w h e n c e the Greeks later derived this art. See A d l e r 1989, 91, n. 66. T h e rabbis also depict A b r a h a m as knowledgeable in astronomy (for ci tations, see R a p p a p o r t 1 9 3 0 , 1 6 - 1 7 , no. 69); but it is not until a late Midrash, Sefer Tuhasin (cited by R a p paport 1930, 102, n. 85) that A b r a h a m is mentioned as teaching mathematical sciences in E g y p t o f w h i c h there h a d previously b e e n n o knowledge. T h e r e is, moreover, a rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 91a; see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:265, n. 313) that A b r a h a m bequeathed to the sons o f his concubines the se crets o f the unhallowed arts, that is, knowledge o f sorcery a n d black magic; but there the picture is not o f A b r a h a m the philosopher in converse with fellow philosophers a n d scientists, but o f A b r a h a m the magician. M o s t o f the rabbis, moreover, look askance at A b r a h a m ' s proficiency in astronomy (or as trology), a n d note that it was astrology that misled h i m into believing that he w o u l d not beget children (see passages cited b y G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:227, n. 108; for Shabbat 150a read 156a). 28. Wacholder's theory (1962), that Nicolaus was Josephus's source, not only for his account o f H e r o d but also for the books o f the Antiquities that parallel the Bible, rests chiefly o n the four citations from Nicolaus (Ant. 1.94-95, 1.108, 1.159-60, 7.101-3) in these early books. B u t it seems highly ques tionable to erect such a theory o n the basis of so few a n d such short fragments. Moreover, o n e m a y well w o n d e r h o w a non-Jew could have b e e n acquainted with the numerous traditions that Josephus has in corporated into his history. Finally, it w o u l d seem remarkable that the Byzantine excerpters, w h o were usually interested in Jewish matters a n d w h o are o u r chief source for the fragments o f Nicolaus, should have neglected to include a single fragment dealing with the biblical period. S u c h a fragment as the o n e about A b r a h a m reigning in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159) might have been included by Nicolaus as a passing reference in his account o f the kings o f D a m a s c u s , his native city, in w h i c h he took such pride.
ABRAHAM
235
( G e n . 23:6), a n d c o m m e n t s t h a t h e w a s so d e s i g n a t e d b e c a u s e h e p o s s e s s e d a k i n g l y soul (De Virtutibus 3 9 . 2 1 6 ) .
29
J o s e p h u s d o e s m u c h t o b u i l d u p the m i l i t a r y prestige o f A b r a h a m . T h u s w e r e a d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , t h a t the m i l i t a r y f o r m a t i o n a d o p t e d b y the A s syrians a g a i n s t the five k i n g s o f S o d o m w a s to d i v i d e their a r m y into four c o n t i n g e n t s , w i t h o n e g e n e r a l in c o m m a n d o f e a c h (Ant. 1.172). W e l e a r n , in a n o t h e r e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail, t h a t the b a t d e b e t w e e n the A s s y r i a n s a n d the S o d o m i t e s w a s a s t u b b o r n (Kaprep&s) c o n t e s t (Ant. 1.175). A l l o f this l e a d s u p to the p r o w e s s in battle s h o w n b y A b r a h a m . I n a series o f a d d i t i o n s t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t A b r a h a m d e t e r m i n e d to h e l p the S o d o m i t e s w i t h o u t delay, t h a t h e set o u t in haste a n d fell u p o n the A s s y r i a n s
3 0
o n the fifth n i g h t in a n a t t a c k in w h i c h h e
c a u g h t the e n e m y b y surprise b e f o r e t h e y h a d t i m e to a r m (Ant. 1.177). T h e n w e are g i v e n t h e v i v i d details o f his s l a u g h t e r o f the e n e m y : s o m e h e slew w h i l e t h e y w e r e still a s l e e p ; others, w h o w e r e n o t y e t a s l e e p b u t w h o w e r e i n c a p a c i t a t e d b y d r u n k enness, h e p u t to f l i g h t .
31
T h e B i b l e d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the t i m e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s
o f the a t t a c k ( G e n . 14:14) a n d says m e r e l y t h a t h e c o n t i n u e d his p u r s u i t o f the e n e m y after n i g h t h a d fallen, w i t h d i v i d e d forces ( G e n . 1 4 : 1 5 ) .
32
P h i l o says t h a t A b r a h a m a t t a c k e d the A s s y r i a n s at n i g h t a n d , in a detail m u c h like t h a t o f J o s e p h u s , a d d s t h a t this w a s after the e n e m y h a d e a t e n a n d w e r e p r e p a r i n g t o g o to s l e e p — p r e s u m a b l y the best t i m e to a t t a c k a n e n e m y (De Abrahamo 40.233). S o m e w e r e slain in their b e d s , w h i l e o t h e r s w h o a t t e m p t e d to resist w e r e similarly killed. T o b e sure, P h i l o d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the d r u n k e n n e s s o f the A s s y r i a n s o r o f t h o s e w h o fled (see S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 64, n. 253). H e insists t h a t A b r a h a m trusted, n o t in his s m a l l force, b u t in G - d , w h e r e a s for J o s e p h u s , it is a p e r s o n a l t r i u m p h o f g e n e r a l s h i p b y A b r a h a m himself. T h e r a b b i s d i v e r g e utterly f r o m this p i c t u r e , for t h e y s p e a k o f a n a n g e l n a m e d N i g h t a t t a c k i n g the e n e m y , t h u s d e t r a c t i n g f r o m the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the g e n e r a l (Sanhedrin 96a). T h e y stress the m i r a c u l o u s side o f this w h o l e e p i s o d e , b y n o t ing that A b r a h a m himself w a s actually a g i a n t ,
3 3
t h a t the v i c t o r i o u s b a t d e w i t h the
29. T h e rabbis, to be sure, speak o f coins struck by A b r a h a m (Baba Qamma 97b; Genesis Rabbah 12.11; see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:216, n. 46), but their emphasis is hardly on A b r a h a m the king; and, as G i n z b e r g (ibid.) remarks, they note that scholars are called kings and stress A b r a h a m ' s knowledge o f the T o r a h even before its revelation. 30. Genesis Apocryphon, col. 22, adds that A b r a h a m surrounded the Assyrians on all four sides. 31. In his description o f David's surprise attack on the Amalekites and o f his massacre o f them, Josephus similarly adds that he fell u p o n some w h o , under the influence o f strong drink, were plunged in sleep (Ant 6.363). 32. Pseudo-Eupolemus, as W a c h o l d e r 1963, 105, has noted, adds to the biblical c o m m e n t by re porting that A b r a h a m captured the wives and children o f the A r m e n i a n s (rather than the Assyrians) (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.4). H e further aggrandizes the picture o f A b r a h a m the general by implying that he invaded A r m e n i a . 33. Midrash Tanhuma B 1 (pp. 73-74, ed. Buber) and parallels cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:225, n. 97-
236
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
k i n g s t o o k p l a c e o n the
fifteenth
o f N i s a n (the n i g h t r e s e r v e d for s u c h miracles)
(Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 17), t h a t all t h e w e a p o n s t h r o w n at A b r a h a m m i r a c u l o u s l y p r o v e d h a r m l e s s {Genesis Rabbah 42.3; Midrash Psalms n o [p. 4 6 6 , e d . B u b e r ] ) , t h a t the p l a n e t J u p i t e r m a d e t h e n i g h t b r i g h t for h i m (Genesis Rabbah 42.3, a n d p a r a l l e l s c i t e d b y G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:225, n. 98), a n d t h a t the 318 m e n w h o , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e ( G e n . 14:14), assisted h i m r e a l l y a m o u n t e d to his s e r v a n t E l i e z e r a l o n e , the n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f the letters o f w h o s e n a m e a d d s u p to 318 (Midrash
Tanhuma
B 1 [p. 7 3 , e d . B u b e r ] , a n d p a r a l l e l s c i t e d b y G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:224, n. 93). W h e r e J o s e p h u s ' s p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m is o f o n e u n a f r a i d o f b l o o d a n d , in fact, r e a d y to slay t h e e n e m y in their b e d s , t h e r a b b i s d e p i c t h i m as in d e e p a n g u i s h t h a t he h a d violated the prohibition against the shedding o f h u m a n b l o o d Tanhuma B 1 [ p p . 7 5 - 7 6 , e d . B u b e r ] ; Midrash
(Midrash
Tanhuma Lek Leka 15); a n d it is c o n s e -
q u e n d y n e c e s s a r y for t h e r a b b i s to h a v e G - d s o o t h e A b r a h a m ' s c o n s c i e n c e in this m a t t e r (Genesis Rabbah 4 4 . 4 - 5 ) . T o t h e m , in brief, A b r a h a m ' s v i c t o r y is r e a l l y a v i c t o r y for G - d , w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l h e l p t h a t h e h a d . J o s e p h u s l o o k s u p o n it as a h u m a n v i c t o r y o f a masterful g e n e r a l a n d sees in it lessons for the s t u d e n t o f m i l i t a r y s c i e n c e ; A b r a h a m ' s success, h e says, p r o v e s t h a t m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y d e p e n d s n o t o n n u m b e r s (TrX-qOei) a n d m u l t i t u d e o f h a n d s (TTOXVX^LPLO) o n the z e a l (irpoSvpiia, " e a g e r n e s s " ) a n d m e t d e (yevvaiov
but
"nobility," "excellence")
o f t h e c o m b a t a n t s (Ant. 1.178). T h e r e is further a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f A b r a h a m t h e g e n e r a l in t h e fact t h a t h e is e x t o l l e d b y M e l c h i z e d e k , t h e k i n g o f S a l e m , u p o n his r e t u r n f r o m t h e m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A s s y r i a n s (Ant. 1.181). M e l c h i z e d e k h o s p i t a b l y (ixopr/yrjae,
entertains
"furnish a b u n d a n d y w i t h a t h i n g , " u s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y o f d e f r a y i n g t h e
cost o f b r i n g i n g o u t a chorus) A b r a h a m ' s army, p r o v i d i n g a b u n d a n d y for all their needs.
3 4
Later, w h e n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ,
G - d a p p e a r s t o A m r a m , w h o is t o b e t h e father o f M o s e s , in a d r e a m , it is G - d ' s h e l p to A b r a h a m in this c a m p a i g n t h a t is r e c a l l e d , a l t h o u g h e v e n there, J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the g r e a t p r o w e s s t h a t A b r a h a m d i s p l a y e d (rivSpaydOrjae,
" b e h a v e in a
m a n l y , u p r i g h t fashion") in w a r (Ant. 2.214). A g a i n , in t h e w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s , u r g i n g the J e w s to s u r r e n d e r b y a r g u i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e w a r r i n g n o t a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s a l o n e b u t also a g a i n s t G - d , cites t h e historical p r e c e d e n t o f A b r a h a m , w h o d i d n o t a v e n g e h i m s e l f o n P h a r a o h in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e a b d u c tion o f S a r a i , since h e c o u l d n o t d o so w i t h o u t G - d ' s h e l p (War 5.380). T h e r e , t o o , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s speaks o f A b r a h a m as b e i n g in c o m m a n d o f 318 officers, e a c h 35
w i t h a b o u n d l e s s force (Svvapnv).
I n a n y case, in t h e m a i n b o d y o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r e
sentation o f A b r a h a m , t h e e m p h a s i s is o n his o w n m i l i t a r y qualities.
34. T h e relationship between A b r a h a m and Melchizedek is hardly businesslike, as Wacholder 1963, 106, would have us believe, in contrast with the relationship depicted in Pseudo-Eupolemus. Melchizedek is the perfect host, giving an abundant feast and praising his guest; and A b r a h a m , in turn, is the perfect guest, reciprocating with a gift of his own. 35. Niese's index (1885-95, ° l - 7) takes this to mean wealth, but more likely it refers to troops for v
ABRAHAM
237
T h e stress o n A b r a h a m the g e n e r a l is c o n t i n u e d in a r e m a r k a b l e a d d i t i o n to t h e biblical narrative, w h e r e w e are informed that A b r a h a m ' s tradition o f generalship w a s c o n t i n u e d b y his g r a n d s o n b y K e t u r a h , E o p h r e n , w h o c o n q u e r e d L i b y a , a n d t h a t his (Eophren's) g r a n d s o n s w h o s e t d e d t h e r e n a m e d t h e l a n d A f r i c a after h i m (Ant. 1.239). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o u d l y q u o t e s the n o n - J e w i s h w r i t e r A l e x a n d e r P o l y histor, w h o r e p o r t s that, a c c o r d i n g to C l e o d e m u s the p r o p h e t , also c a l l e d M a l c h u s , t w o o f A b r a h a m ' s sons b y K e t u r a h j o i n e d the g r e a t h e r o H e r a c l e s in his c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t L i b y a a n d A n t a e u s , the g i a n t s o n o f E a r t h , a n d t h a t H e r a c l e s a c t u a l l y m a r r i e d t h e d a u g h t e r o f o n e o f t h e m , w h o b e c a m e the a n c e s t o r o f the c a l l e d S o p h a k e s (Ant. 1 . 2 4 0 - 4 1 ) .
barbarians
36
ABRAHAM'S TEMPERANCE I n t h e A b r a h a m p e r i c o p e , w e find a n u m b e r o f i n s t a n c e s w h e r e o t h e r s d o n o t o b serve t h e b o u n d s o f t e m p e r a n c e . T h u s , w h e n A b r a m a n d S a r a i l e a v e C a n a a n b e c a u s e o f a f a m i n e a n d c o m e t o E g y p t (Ant. 1.161), t h e E g y p t i a n s a r e p o r t r a y e d as h a v i n g a f r e n z y for w o m e n (Ant. 1.162), a n d P h a r a o h h i m s e l f k n o w s n o b o u n d s i n his p a s s i o n (Ant. 1.162). O n e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d A b r a m , as a result, t o g o to e x t r e m e s h i m s e l f in his c o n t e m p t for the E g y p t i a n s ; instead, h e s h o w s e x e m p l a r y m o d e r a t i o n , a n d w e are told that he consorted with the most learned o f the E g y p tians a n d c o m p a r e d his scientific v i e w s w i t h theirs (Ant. 1.165). Similarly, A b i m e l e c h , t h e k i n g o f G e r a r , is, at first, d e p i c t e d as l a c k i n g in m o d e r a t i o n i n t h a t h e h a s a lustful i n t e n t (iiridviJLia) t o w a r d S a r a h a n d is p r e p a r e d to s e d u c e h e r (Ant. 1.207). W h e n A b i m e l e c h is r e s t r a i n e d f r o m his lust b y a g r i e v o u s disease v i s i t e d u p o n h i m b y G - d , A b r a h a m d o e s n o t seek r e v e n g e b u t r a t h e r s h o w s a d m i r a b l e m o d e r a t i o n in m a k i n g a c o v e n a n t w i t h A b i m e l e c h w h e r e b y t h e y a g r e e t o d e a l h o n e s d y w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d s w e a r a n o a t h to t h a t effect. T h e S o d o m i t e s , like P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h , are d e p i c t e d as utterly l a c k i n g in self-control in b e i n g c a r r i e d a w a y b y their p a s s i o n for t h e a n g e l s , w i t h their re-
war, and is so taken by T h a c k e r a y and M a r c u s 1930-55, s.v. hvvafxis
(6)(b). Rengstorf 1973-83, vol. 1,
s.v, does not indicate the specific m e a n i n g in this passage. 36. Perhaps there is some connection between this and the statement in 1 M a c e . 12:10, 20 and 14:20 and 2 M a c e . 5:9 and Ant. 12.226 (the letter o f Areios, the Spartan king, to Onias), that the Spar tans were regarded as descended from A b r a h a m . Similarly, in the decree o f the people o f P e r g a m u m cited by Josephus, there is mention that in the time of A b r a h a m , the ancestors o f the Pergamenes were friends o f the H e b r e w s (Ant. 14.255). T h e only hint in midrashic literature connecting A b r a h a m with the Greeks is the statement (Talqut Reubeni, G e n . 26.2.36c) that K e t u r a h was the daughter o f Japheth, the traditional ancestor o f the Greeks (perhaps to be identified with Iapetos, the father o f i:i
Prometheus?). See Freudenthal 1874-75, 30~~36, 215. W e m a y conjecture that this notion connecting A b r a h a m with the Greeks m a y just possibly have contributed to the bracketing o f the Jews and the B r a h m a n s ( A b r a h a m w o u l d equal B r a h m a n with a prothetic vowel) found in Megasthenes, Indica (ap. C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, Stromata 1.5.72.5; cf. Aristode, ap. Clearchus o f Soli, De Somno, ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.179, w h o declares that the Jews are descended from the Indian philosophers).
238
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m a r k a b l e fair a p p e a r a n c e , w h o a r e g i v e n h o s p i t a l i t y b y L o t (Ant. 1.200). T h e y a r e b e n t o n l y o n v i o l e n c e (ftiav) a n d o u t r a g e (vfipiv), qualities t h a t a r e a g a i n t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f t e m p e r a n c e . H e r e J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t L o t a d j u r e d t h e m to s h o w selfc o n t r o l (aa)(f)pov€Lv) a n d , i n d e e d , w e n t so far as to offer t h e m his o w n d a u g h t e r s to gratify t h e i r lust so t h a t t h e y s h o u l d n o t defile these s t r a n g e r s (Ant. 1.201). T h a t this a c t r e d o u n d s n o t o n l y to L o t ' s b u t also t o A b r a h a m ' s c r e d i t is m a d e c l e a r b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t L o t h a d l e a r n e d t h e lesson o f l i b e r a l i t y f r o m A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.200). J o s e p h u s m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f self-control in his a c c o u n t o f H a g a r , A b r a h a m ' s c o n c u b i n e , w h o , w h e n she resolves to flee f r o m h e r mistress S a r a h , is a d v i s e d b y a n a n g e l to r e t u r n to h e r m a s t e r a n d mistress a n d is a s s u r e d t h a t she w i l l attain a h a p p i e r l o t t h r o u g h self-control (oaxfrpovovoav)
(Ant. 1.189).
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e r p l i g h t is d u e to h e r a r r o g a n t (ayvco/xova, " u n r e a s o n a b l e , " " o b s t i n a t e , " " r e b e l l i o u s , " " u n r u l y " ) a n d p r e s u m p t u o u s (avdddrj,
"arrogant," "in
s o l e n t , " " s t u b b o r n , " " r e b e l l i o u s " ) attitude, the qualities t h a t a r e t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f t e m p e r a n c e . W h e n she gives u p h e r a r r o g a n c e a n d p r e s u m p t i o n a n d s h o w s selfc o n t r o l in r e t u r n i n g to h e r m a s t e r a n d mistress, they, in t u r n , s h o w n o t v i n d i c t i v e ness b u t self-control in f o r g i v i n g h e r (Ant. 1.190). T h e r e w a r d o f h e r o w n selfc o n t r o l is, as t h e a n g e l p r o m i s e d her, t h a t she b e c o m e s t h e m o t h e r o f a s o n w h o is to reign over the country o f C a n a a n .
ABRAHAM'S JUSTICE C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is t h e e n o r m o u s responsibility t o tell t h e truth. H e n c e t h e p a i n s t a k e n b y J o s e p h u s , as w e shall see, to e x p l a i n w h y A b r a m h a d to lie w h e n h e c a m e to P h a r a o h w i t h S a r a i (Ant. 1 . 1 6 2 ) .
37
Likewise, Josephus attempts
to justify A b r a h a m ' s lie t o A b i m e l e c h ( G e n . 20:2-3), c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h a t w h i c h h e h a d t o l d to P h a r a o h , t h a t S a r a h w a s his sister. H e e x p l a i n s t h a t h e h a d a c t e d f r o m fear (^ojSov), for h e d r e a d e d (eSeSiei) A b i m e l e c h , w h o w a s p r e p a r e d t o s e d u c e S a r a h (Ant. 1.207). J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h bitterly r e m o n s t r a t e s w i t h A b r a h a m for d e c e i v i n g h i m ( G e n . 20:9); i n s t e a d , w e are t o l d t h a t A b i m e l e c h sent for A b r a h a m a n d b a d e h i m h a v e n o further fear o f a n y in d i g n i t y to his wife. I n a s m u c h as S a r a h is so c l o s e l y identified w i t h A b r a h a m , b o t h h e r c h a r a c t e r a n d his a r e t a r n i s h e d b y t h e fact t h a t she s h o w s l a c k o f faith b y l a u g h i n g w h e n t h e a n g e l s p r e d i c t t h a t she w i l l g i v e b i r t h t o a s o n ( G e n . 18:12) a n d t h e n lies in d e n y i n g t h a t she l a u g h e d ( G e n . 18:15). It is a further d e f e c t in h e r c h a r a c t e r w h e n she e x -
37. Similarly it m a y be noted, the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, lines 14-21) attempts to justify A b r a ham's deceit: it speaks of a dream in which A b r a h a m sees two trees, a cedar and a palm, with a group of men planning to cut down the cedar (representing Abraham) and to leave the palm (representing Sarah). T h e r e u p o n the palm, in tears, warns the m e n that if they cut down the cedar, they will b e cursed.
ABRAHAM
239
p l a i n s t h a t n o t o n l y is she o l d b u t t h a t h e r h u s b a n d is t o o ( G e n . 18:12), t h e latter re m a r k b e i n g c e r t a i n l y s u p e r f l u o u s a n d a n insult t o A b r a h a m . T o c o m p o u n d t h e p r o b l e m , t h e B i b l e h a s a s c e n e in w h i c h G - d confronts A b r a h a m a n d , in a p p a r e n t i n d i g n a t i o n , asks w h y S a r a h l a u g h e d a n d t h e n , r e p o r t i n g S a r a h ' s w o r d s , o m i t s h e r s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e r h u s b a n d is o l d ( G e n . 18:13). J o s e p h u s resolves these p r o b l e m s b y o m i t t i n g t h e role o f G - d a l t o g e t h e r a n d b y h a v i n g t h e discussion t a k e p l a c e b e t w e e n o n l y the a n g e l s a n d A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h , b y h a v i n g S a r a h smile r a t h e r t h a n l a u g h , b y o m i t t i n g t h e s c e n e in w h i c h S a r a h d e n i e s t h a t she l a u g h e d , a n d b y n o t h a v i n g G - d c o n f r o n t A b r a h a m at all w i t h S a r a h ' s lie, thus o m i t t i n g G - d ' s s e e m i n g d i s s i m u l a t i o n in r e p o r t i n g S a r a h ' s w o r d s (Ant. 1.198). I n t h e B i b l e , A b r a h a m a p p e a r s t o b e d i s i n g e n u o u s in telling the y o u n g m e n w h o a c c o m p a n y h i m to the s c e n e o f the sacrifice o f I s a a c t h a t h e a n d I s a a c w i l l w o r s h i p a n d r e t u r n to t h e m ( G e n . 22:5); t h e r a b b i s in Genesis Rabbah 56.2 e x p l a i n this d e c e p t i o n b y s a y i n g t h a t A b r a h a m is h e r e p r o p h e s y i n g u n c o n s c i o u s l y t h a t t h e y w i l l r e t u r n . J o s e p h u s characteristically, for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, o m i t s this s t a t e m e n t altogether. A final p r o b l e m w i t h r e g a r d t o A b r a h a m ' s r e p u t a t i o n for j u s t i c e arises b e c a u s e the B i b l e a s c r i b e s to A b r a h a m a n a p p a r e n t u n e q u a l t r e a t m e n t o f his sons ( G e n . 2 5 : 5 - 6 ) . H e is said to h a v e b e q u e a t h e d all t h a t h e h a d t o I s a a c a n d to h a v e g i v e n o n l y gifts t o his sons b y K e t u r a h . J o s e p h u s , for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, o m i t s a l t o g e t h e r this distribution o f his p r o p e r l y b y A b r a h a m .
A B R A H A M ' S HOSPITALITY J o s e p h u s e n d e a v o r s to a n s w e r the c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s o f inhospitality b y p o r t r a y i n g A b r a h a m as b o t h t h e p e r f e c t h o s t
3 8
a n d the p e r f e c t guest. W e first see
A b r a h a m g r a c i o u s l y r e c i p r o c a t i n g M e l c h i z e d e k ' s lavish hospitality w i t h a m o s t g e n e r o u s offer o f a tithe o f all t h e spoils t h a t h e h a s t a k e n in t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A s s y r i a n s . It is n o t c l e a r f r o m the B i b l e w h e t h e r A b r a h a m g a v e the t e n t h o r re c e i v e d it f r o m M e l c h i z e d e k ( G e n . 1 4 : 2 0 ) ; Genesis Apocryphon (col. 22, line 1 7 )
40
39
a n d J o s e p h u s is h e r e in line w i t h t h e
and Jubilees ( 1 3 . 2 5 - 2 7 )
41
in i n t e r p r e t i n g this p a s
s a g e t o m e a n t h a t A b r a h a m g a v e a t e n t h to M e l c h i z e d e k . T h i s is n o business arrangement
consisting o f a return
for the
lavish h o s p i t a l i t y t e n d e r e d
by
M e l c h i z e d e k to A b r a h a m ' s a r m y ; it is t h e n o r m a l G r e e k w a y o f r e c i p r o c a t i n g h o s pitality. It is significant for t h e e m p h a s i s p l a c e d b y J o s e p h u s o n the p r o p e r a c t i o n
38. For midrashic parallels to the elaboration o f Abraham's hospitality, see Ginzberg 1909-38, 5:235, n. 140, and 5:248, n. 223. 39. Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.6, says only that A b r a h a m received gifts from Melchizedek. See Wacholder 1963, 106. 40. Since, according to the Genesis Apocryphon, the tithe was given from the actual w a r loot, only A b r a h a m could have given it, since the loot was in his custody. 41. S o also rabbinic tradition: Nedarim 32b; Sotah 5a; Genesis Rabbah 43, cited by Wacholder 1963, 106.
240
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o f a h o s t a n d o f his e a g e r n e s s to a g g r a n d i z e A b r a h a m t h a t J o s e p h u s follows t h e B i b l e in h a v i n g M e l c h i z e d e k first e x t o l A b r a h a m a n d thereafter bless G - d ( G e n . +2
i4:i9)A n o u t s t a n d i n g e x a m p l e o f A b r a h a m ' s hospitality is t o b e s e e n in t h e r e c e p t i o n h e g i v e s the t h r e e s t r a n g e r s w h o c o m e t o visit h i m after his c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.196). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e identifies t h e m s i m p l y as t h r e e m e n ( G e n . 18:2), J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s A b r a h a m ' s h o s p i t a l i t y b y stating t h a t h e t o o k t h e m for m e r e strangers (Ant. 1 . 1 9 6 ) .
43
J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , n o t e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s n e p h e w L o t l e a r n e d t h e lesson o f h o s p i t a l i t y (xprjaroTrjTos,
" g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t , " " k i n d n e s s " ) to strangers
f r o m A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.200). It is t r u e t h a t the r a b b i s
4 4
similarly state t h a t L o t
l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m ; b u t t h e y s p e a k in g e n e r a l t e r m s o f hospitality, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s specifies t h a t h e l e a r n e d t o b e
(f>tXdv0p(x)7Tos,
p r e s u m a b l y in a n s w e r t o
t h o s e anti-Jewish critics w h o c a l l e d the J e w s m i s a n t h r o p i c . T h e r e a d e r o f t h e B i b l e m a y w e l l w o n d e r why, i f L o t h a s risked his life b y fight i n g as a n ally o f t h e S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.175), a n d is so h o s p i t a b l e t o strangers t h a t h e is r e a d y t o offer the S o d o m i t e s his t w o d a u g h t e r s in o r d e r t o save t h e strangers f r o m t h e m ( G e n . 19:8), it is o n l y b e c a u s e G - d r e m e m b e r s A b r a h a m t h a t H e res c u e s L o t ( G e n . 19:29). O n c e a g a i n J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y s i m p l y o m i t t i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d r e s c u e d L o t b e c a u s e h e r e m e m b e r e d A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.204). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h o s p i t a l i t y is l i k e w i s e stressed in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling o f t h e story o f A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h . J o s e p h u s e x p r e s s l y states t h a t G - d inflicted a dis ease u p o n A b i m e l e c h in o r d e r to v i n d i c a t e t h e rights o f his g u e s t (£evos) a n d t o p r e serve his wife f r o m v i o l e n c e (Ant. 1.208). I n the later e p i s o d e o f A b i m e l e c h a n d I s a a c , J o s e p h u s recalls A b r a h a m ' s h o s p i t a l i t y b y a d d i n g to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( G e n . 26:1) t h a t A b i m e l e c h w e l c o m e d I s a a c b e c a u s e o f t h e f o r m e r hospitality (^eviav) a n d friendship o f A b r a h a m a n d c o n s e q u e n t i y s h o w e d h i m t h e u t m o s t g o o d w i l l (Ant. 1.259). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to t h e B i b l e , R e b e k a h is p r a i s e d for h e r g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t in m i n i s t e r i n g to a n o t h e r at t h e c o s t o f h e r o w n toil (Ant. 1.247). B u t
a
m
a
n
m
Greek
s o c i e t y m u s t n o t give gifts to a w o m a n w h o m h e d o e s n o t k n o w , a n d so, w h e r e a s in
42. T h i s sequence is sharply criticized by the rabbis, w h o remark that because o f it, M e l c h i z e d e k was deposed from his priesthood, w h i c h office passed over to A b r a h a m , with whose descendants it thereafter remained (Nedarim 32b and Leviticus Rabbah 25.6, cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:226, n. 104). 43. Philo also stresses A b r a h a m ' s hospitality in noting that even though he h a d m a n y slaves, he in sisted on personally preparing the m e a l for his guests (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.10). 44. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25, Genesis Rabbah 50.4, and Tanhuma Vayera 15a, cited in S a n d m e l 1956, 68, n. 298, and R a p p a p o r t 1930, 105, n. 97. T h e rabbis, as S a n d m e l 1956, 68, n. 294, adds, contrast Lot's stature and A b r a h a m ' s ; and they remark that the angels accepted A b r a h a m ' s offer o f hospitality im mediately, whereas they h a d to be persuaded by L o t (Genesis Rabbah 50.4). Josephus, on the other hand, omits the biblical statement that at first the angels declined to accept Lot's hospitality and only later agreed to do so after being urged by L o t (Gen. 19:2).
ABRAHAM
241
the B i b l e , E l i e z e r gives gifts to R e b e k a h b e f o r e h e l e a r n s h e r identity ( G e n . 24:22), in J o s e p h u s , h e first l e a r n s h e r identity (Ant. 1.248) a n d o n l y t h e n , since she h a s w o n the c o n t e s t o f c o u r t e s y a n d hospitality, p r o d u c e s the gifts (Ant. 1.249). H e t h e n takes a d v a n t a g e o f the safe hospitality offered b y R e b e k a h (Ant. 1.250); a n d h e is p a r t i c u l a r l y grateful for this, as h e s h o w s b y b e s t o w i n g a n e c k l a c e a n d o t h e r o r n a m e n t s u p o n her. F r o m the v i r t u e s t h a t E l i e z e r a d m i r e s in others, o n e c a n , as n o t e d , s u r m i s e w h a t h e h a s l e a r n e d f r o m his master, A b r a h a m . H e p a r t i c u l a r l y a d m i r e s kindliness (<j)i\avdpa)7Tiav) (Ant. 1.250), a q u a l i t y t h a t w e h a v e s e e n e x e m p l i f i e d b y A b r a h a m . A n d , like a g o o d guest, h e d o e s n o t w i s h t o b e b u r d e n s o m e to his hosts a n d offers to p a y for their g r a c i o u s hospitality (faXogevias)
a n d to live at his o w n e x p e n s e . R e
b e k a h , the g r a c i o u s hostess, a k i n d o f J e w i s h N a u s i c a a , r e b u k e s h i m for s u s p e c t i n g h e r p a r e n t s o f m e a n n e s s (puKpoXoyovs)
a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t h e shall h a v e e v e r y t h i n g
free o f c h a r g e , a l t h o u g h she m u s t first g e t the c o n s e n t o f h e r b r o t h e r L a b a n (Ant. 1.251). I n t h e B i b l e , E l i e z e r d e c l a r e s t h a t h e will n o t eat until h e h a s t o l d his e r r a n d ( G e n . 24:33); b u t the g o o d g u e s t m u s t eat first, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , w h e n T e l e m a c h u s visits N e s t o r (Odyssey 3 . 6 7 - 6 8 ) ; a n d so J o s e p h u s reverses the b i b l i c a l o r d e r (Ant. 1.252). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s r e a d i n e s s to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c , J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e D a m o c r i t u s (ap. S u i d a s , s.v. AapLOKpiros) a n d A p i o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2 . 9 1 - 9 6 ) h a d , in effect, e x p r e s s e d a b l o o d libel a g a i n s t the J e w s , g o e s to g r e a t l e n g t h s to p o i n t out, in a s p e e c h p u t into the m o u t h o f G - d , r a t h e r t h a n a n a n g e l as in G e n . 22:11, t h a t the G - d o f the J e w s d o e s n o t c r a v e h u m a n b l o o d , is n o t c a p r i c i o u s in t a k i n g a w a y w h a t H e h a s g i v e n , a n d h a s g i v e n H i s c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m o n l y " t o test his soul a n d see w h e t h e r s u c h o r d e r s w o u l d find h i m o b e d i e n t " (Ant. 1.233-36). T h r o u g h o u t his n a r r a t i v e , J o s e p h u s , in his c o n c e r n w i t h a n s w e r i n g G e n t i l e c h a r g e s o f misanthropy, a d d s e x t r a b i b l i c a l details to s h o w J e w i s h g e n e r o s i t y t o w a r d o t h e r p e o p l e s . T h u s , w h e r e a s the Book of Jubilees h a s a n a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m s m a s h i n g a n d b u r n i n g the idols o f N i m r o d a n d o f his father T e r a h ,
4 5
Josephus,
p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e s u c h a tale w o u l d h a v e b e e n offensive to his G r e e k a u d i e n c e , w h o w o u l d h a v e r e g a r d e d it as d e m o n s t r a t i n g i n t o l e r a n c e , m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f it ( S a n d m e l 1956, 7 6 , n. 354). It is in a n s w e r t o T a c i t u s ' s reiteration o f the c h a r g e t h a t J e w s feel o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d a n y o n e w h o is n o t o f their r e l i g i o n (Histories 5.5.1) t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s A b r a h a m s h o w s p i t y for his friends the S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.199). T h e fact t h a t the S o d o m i t e s a r e d e p i c t e d e v e n m o r e n e g a t i v e l y in J o s e p h u s t h a n in the B i b l e g l o r i fies still m o r e the figure o f A b r a h a m for his p i t y t o w a r d t h e m a n d for his p r a y i n g in their behalf. M o r e o v e r , L o t , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m t o b e >L\dv0paj7Tos (Ant. 1.200); t h u s J o s e p h u s a n s w e r s those critics w h o c l a i m e d t h a t the
45. S o also rabbinic tradition, as cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:217, nn. 4 9 - 5 0 .
242
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
J e w s w e r e m i s a n t h r o p e s . L i k e w i s e , A b r a h a m s h o w s d e v o t i o n a n d k i n d n e s s to A b i m e l e c h in o r d e r to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e w a s in n o w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for the k i n g ' s illness b u t , rather, w a s e a g e r for his r e c o v e r y (Ant. 1.211). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the p a t h e t i c s c e n e ( G e n . 21:16) in w h i c h H a g a r w e e p s w h e n cast o u t into the w i l d e r n e s s b y S a r a h , since this m i g h t reflect u n f a v o r a b l y o n A b r a h a m as pitiless (Ant. 1.218). B i b l i c a l A b r a h a m ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h P h a r a o h a n d his readiness to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c m i g h t w e l l b e r e g a r d e d as instances o f m i s a n t h r o p y a n d b a r b a r i s m ; J o s e p h u s therefore takes p a i n s to d e f e n d h i m a n d the J e w s against these c h a r g e s . P h a r a o h , for his p a r t , is e x c u s e d , as w e h a v e seen, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S a r a i , as h a v i n g a c t e d u n d e r the i m p u l s e o f passion. H e is p o r t r a y e d as g e n e r o u s t o w a r d A b r a m , not, as in the B i b l e , before the d i s c o v e r y that S a r a i is his wife ( G e n . 12:16), w h e n h e o b v i o u s l y w o u l d h a v e ulterior m o t i v e s , b u t as a g o o d G r e e k o r R o m a n h o s t w h o sends his g u e s t a w a y w i t h a b u n d a n t gifts after h e l e a r n s that h e c a n n o t k e e p S a r a i (Ant. 1.165). J o s e p h u s ' s a n s w e r to the c h a r g e o f m i s a n t h r o p y is to s h o w t h a t it is the E g y p tians, t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n for the g r e a t e s t w i s d o m in a n t i q u i t y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , w h o , b e i n g a d d i c t e d to a v a r i e t y o f different c u s t o m s (eOeoi), d i s p a r a g e
(eK^avXt^ovrcov
"belittle," " d e p r e c i a t e " ) o n e a n o t h e r ' s p r a c t i c e s (vo/xt/xa, " u s a g e s , " " c u s t o m s " ) a n d are c o n s t a n d y hostile (Svafjuevcos) t o o n e a n o t h e r (Ant. 1.166). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is A b r a h a m w h o , as a k i n d o f m e d i a t o r , p a t i e n d y confers (ov/jupaXtov) w i t h e a c h g r o u p a n d p o i n t s o u t their errors. O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the p a s s a g e in H e r o d o t u s in w h i c h the G r e e k s a n d the I n d i a n s a p p e a r before the P e r s i a n k i n g D a r i u s a n d c o m p a r e their r e s p e c t i v e c u s t o m s w i t h r e s p e c t to d i s p o s i n g o f the d e a d , w h e r e u p o n H e r o d o t u s c o n c l u d e s , in the w o r d s o f Pindar, t h a t c u s t o m (vo/xo?) is k i n g o f all 46
(3-3°>)- T h e J e w s w e r e a c c u s e d (see, e.g., T a c i t u s , Histories 5.4.1) o f h a v i n g insti t u t e d n e w rites, o p p o s e d to those o f all the rest o f m a n k i n d , r e g a r d i n g as p r o f a n e all t h a t w a s s a c r e d a m o n g o t h e r p e o p l e s a n d p e r m i t t i n g t h a t w h i c h w a s p r o h i b i t e d b y others. It is the E g y p t i a n s , J o s e p h u s is, in effect, s a y i n g in this p a s s a g e , w h o h a v e p e c u l i a r c u s t o m s , as H e r o d o t u s also n o t e s , since t h e y " s e e m t o h a v e r e v e r s e d the o r d i n a r y p r a c t i c e s o f m a n k i n d " (2.35). O f A b r a h a m w e also l e a r n t h a t h e w a s m o v e d , u p o n h e a r i n g o f the S o d o m i t e s ' disaster, n o t o n l y w i t h fear for his k i n s m a n L o t , w h o h a d b e e n c a p t u r e d , b u t also w i t h p i t y for his friends (<j>iXa)v) a n d n e i g h b o r s (yenvioovrtov),
the S o d o m i t e s (Ant.
1.176). O n the o t h e r h a n d , in the B i b l e , it is c l e a r that A b r a h a m u n d e r t a k e s his e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t the A s s y r i a n s solely in o r d e r to rescue his n e p h e w L o t ( G e n . 14:14), w h i l e in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 22, line 5), A b r a h a m w e e p s for his n e p h e w . A b r a h a m ' s c o n c e r n for the S o d o m i t e s is p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e w o r t h y in v i e w o f their o w n r e p u t a t i o n for misanthropy, as w e find attested in the B o o k o f W i s d o m
1
(igw^-i^).^
46. This passage, cited by Plato, Gorgias 484, comes from an otherwise unknown p o e m of Pindar. 47. S o also in rabbinic literature (Sanhedrin i o g a - b Tosefta Sotah 3:12; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). In deed, it is only in the Z o h a r (1.112b), which was codified in the thirteenth century, that we read, as we do in Josephus, of Abraham's friendship with the Sodomites.
ABRAHAM
243
T h e b i b l i c a l text d e c l a r e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s will b e s t r a n g e r s in a l a n d t h a t is n o t theirs ( G e n . 15:13). I n a n a d d i t i o n to this text, J o s e p h u s w o u l d s e e m to b e s a y i n g t h a t it is n o t t h e J e w s w h o a r e b a d n e i g h b o r s b u t t h e o t h e r p e o p l e s in w h o s e m i d s t t h e y d w e l l (Ant. 1.185). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , G - d a n n o u n c e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s p o s t e r i t y will for f o u r h u n d r e d y e a r s find evil n e i g h b o r s (Trovrjpovs . . . yeirovas)
in E g y p t .
I n t h e B i b l e , t h e r e w o u l d s e e m to b e a g r a t u i t o u s insult t o n o n - J e w s in A b r a h a m ' s r e m a r k , j u s t i f y i n g his l y i n g to A b i m e l e c h a b o u t his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o S a r a h , t h a t h e t h o u g h t t h a t surely t h e fear o f G - d w a s l a c k i n g in t h a t p l a c e ( G e n . 20:11). J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e b i b lical c o m m a n d ( E x o d . 22:27) f o r b i d d i n g d e r i s i o n o r b l a s p h e m i n g t h e g o d s r e c o g n i z e d b y o t h e r s , a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t o t h e r n a t i o n s a r e G - d - f e a r i n g , since t h e r e a s o n t h a t h e gives for this i n j u n c t i o n is t h a t t h e J e w s r e s p e c t t h e v e r y w o r d " G - d " (Ag. Ap. 2.237). J o s e p h u s ' s a p o l o g y for A b r a h a m in his p a r a l l e l to G e n . 20:11 is in m u c h m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m s : w i t h o u t s u c h dissimulation, h e tells A b i m e l e c h t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e felt it unsafe to s o j o u r n in the c o u n t r y — t h a t is, his A b r a h a m says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e fear o f G - d b e i n g a b s e n t in that p l a c e (Ant. 1.211). S i n c e I s h m a e l is the a n c e s t o r o f t h e A r a b s a n d J o s e p h u s seeks to a v o i d attacks o n n o n - J e w s w h e r e v e r possible, it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t in t h e a n g e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n t o H a g a r a b o u t h e r u n b o r n son, J o s e p h u s o m i t s the b i b l i c a l details ( G e n . 16:12) t h a t h e will b e a w i l d ass o f a m a n a n d t h a t h e will c o n s t a n d y b e i n v o l v e d in
fighting
(Ant. 1.190). Similarly, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t ( G e n . 21:20) t h a t Ish m a e l d w e l t in t h e w i l d e r n e s s a n d b e c a m e a n a r c h e r (Ant. 1.220).
48
I n a s m u c h as S a r a h w a s so closely identified w i t h A b r a h a m , a n d since A b r a h a m so l o y a l l y listened to S a r a h , o n e m i g h t w e l l criticize A b r a h a m , as w e l l as S a r a h , for t h e latter's s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n to I s h m a e l . I n t h e B i b l e , S a r a h ' s r e a s o n for a s k i n g A b r a h a m t o b a n i s h H a g a r a n d t h e latter's s o n I s h m a e l is t h a t she h a s s e e n I s h m a e l m a k i n g s p o r t (me^ahek) ( G e n . 21:9), w h i c h t h e r a b b i s i n t e r p r e t to m e a n t h a t h e w a s e n g a g i n g in o n e o r a n o t h e r o f t h e t h r e e u n p a r d o n a b l e sins o f idolatry, incest, o r in t e n d e d m u r d e r (of I s a a c ) .
49
S i n c e this m i g h t b e c o n s t r u e d as a n o t - s o - v e i l e d a t t a c k
u p o n n o n - J e w s generally, J o s e p h u s gives a totally different a n d v e r y p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n for S a r a h ' s o p p o s i t i o n to I s h m a e l — n a m e l y , t h a t h e m i g h t d o injury t o h e r s o n I s a a c after A b r a h a m ' s d e a t h (Ant. 1.215). I n defense o f S a r a h , w e a r e t o l d t h a t at first, w h e n I s h m a e l w a s b o r n , she c h e r i s h e d h i m w i t h a n affection n o less t h a n i f h e h a d b e e n h e r o w n s o n , s e e i n g t h a t h e w a s b e i n g t r a i n e d (irpecfyero) as h e i r (8ia8oxfj) t o t h e c h i e f t a i n c y
(rjyepiovias).
48. T h e rabbis interpret this statement to signify that Ishmael robbed travelers (see Rashi's c o m mentary ad l o c ) . 49. See Tosefta Sotah 6:6 and Rashi's c o m m e n t a r y ad loc. T h e rabbis tell o f actual attempts by Ishmael to kill Isaac and o f Ishmael's idolatry (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:246, n. 211; R a p p a p o r t 1930, 107, n. 103; S a n d m e l 1956, 71, n. 313). T h e picture o f Ishmael m a k i n g sport o f Isaac is found also in J e r o m e (see R a h m e r 1861, 31).
244
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
T h e i n c i d e n t o f A b r a h a m ' s e x p u l s i o n o f H a g a r , w h i c h m i g h t a p p e a r to s h o w h o w pitiless S a r a h a n d A b r a h a m w e r e , is r e t o l d b y J o s e p h u s w i t h t o u c h e s t h a t definitely h e l p t o m a k e this a c t s e e m m o r e defensible. T h e B i b l e says t h a t " w h e n H a g a r s a w t h a t she h a d c o n c e i v e d , h e r mistress w a s d e s p i s e d in h e r e y e s " ( G e n . 16:4). J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s H a g a r in d a r k e r c o l o r s as g u i l t y ofvppts b o l d n e s s (iroXpLrjoe) t o b r e a k o u t into i n s o l e n c e (igvftpl^eiv) air o f a q u e e n (fiaoiXi^ovoa),
a n d as h a v i n g the
at S a r a h , a s s u m i n g the
as t h o u g h h e r u n b o r n s o n w o u l d i n h e r i t A b r a h a m ' s
d o m i n i o n (Ant. 1.188). S e e k i n g to k e e p A b r a h a m f r o m b e i n g c a u g h t b e t w e e n the S c y l l a o f d i s r e g a r d i n g S a r a h ' s feelings a n d the C h a r y b d i s o f d i s r e g a r d i n g H a g a r ' s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a r a h ' s a t t a c k o n A b r a h a m for l i s t e n i n g t o H a g a r ' s insults in si l e n c e , as w e l l as h e r a p p e a l to h i m for r e v e n g e o n h e r h a n d m a i d e n , w h i l e o n t h e o t h e r h a n d j u s t i f y i n g A b r a h a m ' s u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n b y h a v i n g the a n g e l , in a c o n s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n t o S c r i p t u r e ( G e n . 16:9), b e r a t e H a g a r b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t h e r p r e s e n t p l i g h t w a s b e c a u s e she h a d b e e n i n c o n s i d e r a t e (dyvwpiova,
"contuma
c i o u s , " "senseless") a n d p r e s u m p t u o u s (avddSrj, " w i l l f u l , " " a r r o g a n t " ) t o w a r d h e r mistress (Ant. 1.189-90). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e a n g e l w a r n s h e r t h a t i f she c o n t i n u e s to d i s o b e y G - d , she will p e r i s h , w h e r e a s she c a n attain a h a p p i e r life t h r o u g h self-con trol
(oaxfrpovovoav).
S a r a h is h e r s e l f d e p i c t e d as n o t so c o n t e m p t u o u s o f H a g a r ' s servile status a n d as n o t so h a r s h in t h e p e n a l t y t h a t she r e c o m m e n d s for H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l (Ant. 1.216). I n the B i b l e , she tells A b r a h a m "to cast o u t the b o n d w o m a n a n d h e r s o n " ( G e n . 21:10). I n J o s e p h u s , she d o e s n o t s p e a k o f H a g a r as a b o n d w o m a n . A n d , i n d e e d , w h e n she d e c i d e s t h a t I s h m a e l m u s t b e sent away, she seeks m e r e l y to h a v e h i m f o u n d a colony, a solution familiar f r o m G r e e k history (els aTroiKiav) (Ant. 1.216). W h e n , after t h e b i r t h o f I s a a c , S a r a h u r g e s h e r h u s b a n d to cast o u t H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l b e c a u s e o f I s h m a e P s b e h a v i o r ( G e n . 21:10), t h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h a t this re q u e s t w a s v e r y g r i e v o u s in A b r a h a m ' s eyes ( G e n . 21:11). J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s c o m p a s s i o n m u c h m o r e , stating t h a t at first h e a c t u a l l y refused to c o n s e n t to S a r a h ' s p r o p o s a l ( a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e this itself m o r e r e a s o n a b l e ) , think i n g t h a t n o t h i n g c o u l d b e m o r e b r u t a l (wpborarov,
"most savage," "fierce," "cruel,"
" h a r s h " ) t h a n to s e n d o f f a n infant (v-qiriov)—actually,
I s h m a e l is at least a n a d o
l e s c e n t at this p o i n t — w i t h a w o m a n destitute o f the necessities o f life (Ant. 1 . 2 1 6 ) .
50
T h e fact t h a t A b r a h a m refers h e r e to I s h m a e l as a n infant (v^mov) a n d t h a t h e a d d s t h a t I s h m a e l is n o t y e t a b l e t o g o a l o n e (Ant. 1.217), w h e n a c t u a l l y h e is at least seventeen,
51
u n d e r s c o r e s his c o n c e r n for I s h m a e l . T h e B i b l e says t h a t after A b r a -
50. T h e rabbis likewise note the difficulty o f this decision, remarking that it was the most severe trial of A b r a h a m u p to that point (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30). 51. A b r a h a m was 86 w h e n Ishmael was born to him (Gen. 16:16), and he was 100 w h e n Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). Sarah's request to banish Ishmael occurred after Isaac was weaned, which, according to tradition, would take place after the child h a d lived 24 months (Gittin 75b). T h e incident o f Sarah's attempt to banish H a g a r and Ishmael is recounted (Gen. 21:9) immediately after the mention of the weaning of Isaac (Gen. 21:8). A c c o r d i n g to Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30, Ishmael was 24; according to Gene sis Rabbah 53, he was 27.
ABRAHAM
245
h a m sent a w a y H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l , t h e y s t r a y e d in t h e w i l d e r n e s s o f B e e r s h e b a , p r e s u m a b l y b e i n g lost ( G e n . 21:14). J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g t o soften t h e c h a r g e o f c r u elty t h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n m a d e a g a i n s t A b r a h a m , says n o t h i n g o f their l o s i n g their 52
w a y (Ant. 1 . 2 1 8 ) . T h e p a t h e t i c s c e n e in w h i c h H a g a r lifts u p h e r v o i c e a n d w e e p s ( G e n . 21:16) is c o m p l e t e l y o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.218), since it w o u l d a p p a r e n d y reflect u n f a v o r a b l y o n A b r a h a m as pitiless. T h e p i c t u r e o f the c h i l d I s h m a e l b e i n g cast u n d e r o n e o f t h e s h r u b s ( G e n . 21:15) is s o m e w h a t r e d u c e d in h a r s h n e s s b y h a v i n g h i m l a i d u n d e r a fir tree, w i t h the m o t h e r g o i n g further a w a y (Ant. 1.218), in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f E u r i p i d e s (Hercules Furens, 3 2 3 - 2 4 ) , so as n o t t o b e p r e sent w h e n h e g i v e s u p his spirit (i/jvxoppayovv)
(noted b y T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 ,
4:108). T h e h a r s h n e s s is l e s s e n e d b y t h e o m i s s i o n o f I s h m a e l ' s w e e p i n g o r p r a y e r ( G e n . 21:17 v s . Ant. 1.291). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to S c r i p t u r e , J o s e p h u s
presents
A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h in a m o r e f a v o r a b l e light b y n o t i n g t h a t t h e y forgive H a g a r after she r e t u r n s to t h e m (Ant. 1.190). O n e c a n r e a d d y see, f r o m s u c h a p o l o g e t i c w o r k s as t h e Letter of Aristeas
and
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n Against Apion, t h a t J e w s like J o s e p h u s w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o u d o f the fact that non-Jews
s u c h as A r i s t o t l e , T h e o p h r a s t u s ,
Megasthenes,
and
P t o l e m y P h d a d e l p h u s a c k n o w l e d g e d the w i s d o m o f G - d , the T o r a h , a n d the J e w s . J o s e p h u s e x e m p l i f i e s this t r e n d in t h e Antiquities
also. In the Bible, A b i
m e l e c h c o m p l a i n s t o G - d t h a t h e is i n n o c e n t , a n d G - d a n s w e r s b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g his i n n o c e n c e a n d b y i n s t r u c t i n g h i m w h a t t o d o ( G e n . 2 0 : 4 - 7 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n the other h a n d , has A b i m e l e c h , a non-Jewish king, a c k n o w l e d g e the p o w e r o f G - d b y h a v i n g h i m tell his friends, w h o are, o f c o u r s e , n o n - J e w s , t h a t it w a s G - d w h o h a d b r o u g h t t h e d i s e a s e u p o n h i m t o v i n d i c a t e t h e r i g h t s o f his g u e s t (Ant. 1.208). I n his e a g e r n e s s t o a v o i d offense t o n o n - J e w s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e a p p a r e n t s a r c a s m i n A b i m e l e c h ' s r e m a r k to S a r a h t h a t h e h a s g i v e n h e r b r o t h e r a t h o u s a n d p i e c e s o f silver ( G e n . 20:16 v s . Ant.
1.212). H e l i k e w i s e o m i t s w h a t
m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d as a c r u d e c o m p e n s a t i o n b y A b i m e l e c h for t h e i n j u r y t o S a r a h c i t e d in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 20:16 v s . Ant. 1.212), w h e r e t h e sense s e e m s t o b e t h a t S a r a h ' s h o n o r h a s n o w b e e n c o m p l e t e l y r e h a b i l i t a t e d (so S k i n n e r 1930, J
3 9)It is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n is to p r e v e n t t h e Israelites f r o m m i x i n g (ovpucfrvpopLevov,
"confuse," "confound") with others
(Ant.
53
1 . 1 9 2 ) . J o s e p h u s w a s e v i d e n d y w e l l a w a r e t h a t this m i g h t l e a d to a c h a r g e o f m i s anthropy, h o w e v e r , a n d so h e i m m e d i a t e l y a d d s t h a t h e w i l l e l s e w h e r e e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n — t h a t is, p r e s u m a b l y , t h e r a t i o n a l o r s y m b o l i c m e a n i n g o f this p r a c t i c e . T h e a n n o u n c e d w o r k h a s n o t c o m e d o w n to us, b u t in it J o s e p h u s m i g h t w e l l h a v e
52. T a r g u m Jonathan depicts this scene with even more vividness, as S a n d m e l (1956,71, n. 317) has remarked, than does the biblical text. 53. Schalit 1944-63, ad l o c , cites Jubilees 15:26-32 as giving a similar reason, but there is nothing c o m p a r a b l e there, since Jubilees mentions merely that G - d did not ordain this practice a m o n g the nonIsraelites.
246
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
p o i n t e d to the s e p a r a t i s m o f t h e r e p u t e d l y w i s e E g y p t i a n s , w h o , h e says, t h e m selves p r a c t i c e c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 6 4 - 7 0 a n d 2 . 1 4 1 - 4 2 ) . I n a n y c a s e , it is signi ficant
t h a t w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e d r a w s u p o n the Book of Jubilees, h e o m i t s
the s t r o n g s t a t e m e n t in Jubilees (15:26), p r e s u m a b l y d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the H e l l e n i z e r s o f the p e r i o d , t h a t those w h o a r e n o t c i r c u m c i s e d a r e d e s t i n e d " t o b e d e s t r o y e d a n d slain f r o m t h e e a r t h , a n d to b e r o o t e d o u t o f the e a r t h " ( S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 42). B y a t t a c k i n g t h e S o d o m i t e s as h a t i n g f o r e i g n e r s (puao&voi)
a n d as d e c l i n i n g
all i n t e r c o u r s e (opuXlas) w i t h o t h e r s (Ant. 1.194), J o s e p h u s s h o w s t h a t s u c h a n at titude is u t t e r l y u n a c c e p t a b l e . T o b e sure, this p i c t u r e o f t h e S o d o m i t e s ' m i s a n t h r o p y is a l s o f o u n d in t h e Book of Wisdom ( i Q , : i 3 - i 4 ) ;
54
but the fact that J o s e p h u s
uses t h e v e r y w o r d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m t h a t J e w - b a i t e r s h a d d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e J e w s t h e m s e l v e s e m p h a s i z e s J u d a i s m ' s o p p o s i t i o n to m i s a n t h r o p y
T h e Sodo
m i t e s a r e d e p i c t e d in e v e n w o r s e c o l o r s in J o s e p h u s t h a n t h e y a r e in t h e B i b l e . T h i s glorifies still m o r e t h e figure o f A b r a h a m for s h o w i n g p i t y t o w a r d t h e m a n d for p r a y i n g to G - d in t h e i r b e h a l f (Ant. 1.199). I n d e e d , w e r e a d , in a series o f d e tails a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , t h a t t h e S o d o m i t e s w e r e b e n t o n v i o l e n c e ifiiav) a n d in s o l e n c e (vfipw) t o w a r d t h e v i s i t i n g a n g e l s , w h o w e r e o f r e m a r k a b l y fair a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 1.200). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t in s t a t i n g t h a t A b r a h a m ' s n e p h e w L o t h a d l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m to b e v e r y k i n d (i\dvdp<x>TTos) t o s t r a n g e r s (Ant. 1.200), u s i n g a w o r d , )L\dvdpa)7Tos, c o n v e y i n g t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f t h e m i s a n t h r o p y o f w h i c h A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w e r e a c c u s e d b y t h e critics o f the Jews. W e a r e i m p r e s s e d w i t h the p i t y t h a t A b r a h a m s h o w s for A b i m e l e c h . I n the B i b l e , G - d o r d e r s A b i m e l e c h to restore S a r a h to A b r a h a m a n d p r o m i s e s t h a t A b r a h a m w i l l p r a y in his b e h a l f ( G e n . 20:7). I n J o s e p h u s , the figure o f A b r a h a m the m e r c i f u l l o o m s larger, a n d it is A b i m e l e c h w h o d i r e c t l y b e g s h i m to t r e a t h i m i n d u l g e n d y (irpqcos " m i l d l y , " " g e n t i y " ) a n d w i n G - d ' s f a v o r (Ant. 1.210). A b r a h a m t h e n s h o w s his d e v o t i o n a n d k i n d n e s s to A b i m e l e c h , for, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n (Ant. 1.210), in c o n t r a s t to the b i b l i c a l o n e , w h e r e A b i m e l e c h invites A b r a h a m to stay ( G e n . 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) , A b i m e l e c h gives h i m a c h o i c e o f l e a v i n g o r staying. A b r a h a m c h o o s e s to stay " t o s h o w t h a t h e w a s in n o w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for the k i n g ' s illness b u t a n x i o u s for his r e c o v e r y " (Ant. 1.211). T h e G r e e k h e r o is also d e p i c t e d as s h o w i n g g r a t i t u d e , w h i c h is still a n o t h e r as p e c t o f j u s t i c e , to his b e n e f a c t o r s . A c c o r d i n g l y , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , after
G-d
p r o m i s e s A b r a h a m a son w i t h w h o m h e w i l l establish H i s c o v e n a n t , G - d is s p o k e n o f as l e a v i n g A b r a h a m , a n d n o m e n t i o n is m a d e o f a n y e x p r e s s i o n o f g r a t i t u d e by
Abraham
(evxapioTrjoas)
(Gen.
17:22), J o s e p h u s
says
that
Abraham
rendered
thanks
to G - d for H i s w o r d s (Ant. 1.193). T h e S o d o m i t e s , b y c o n t r a s t , a r e
c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g i m p i o u s , since t h e y s h o w n o g r a t i t u d e for t h e benefits t h a t t h e y have received from G - d .
54. A similar picture o f the Sodomites is found in rabbinic literature. For citations, see R a p p a p o r t 1930, 104, n. 92, and S a n d m e l 1956, 67, n. 285.
ABRAHAM
247
A B R A H A M ' S PIETY I n the p r o e m o f his Antiquities
(1.14) J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t the m a i n lesson to b e
l e a r n e d f r o m his h i s t o r y is t h a t those w h o o b e y G - d " p r o s p e r in all things b e y o n d belief, a n d for their r e w a r d are offered b y G - d felicity [eu8ai/xovia]." A b r a h a m is the p r i m e e x a m p l e in the B i b l e o f faith a n d o f G - d ' s r e w a r d for t h a t faith, a n d J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s these points. T h i s n o t i o n o f A b r a h a m as the friend o f G - d h a d p e r m e a t e d e v e n to the anti-Jewish w r i t e r A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , w h o g i v e s the e t y m o l o g y o f A b r a h a m ' s n a m e as "friend o f the f a t h e r " l\ov) (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 9 . 2 ) .
(irarpos
55
A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h u s stresses his faith (Ant. 1.154). W h e r e a s w e are s i m p l y i n f o r m e d in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t t h a t G - d t o l d A b r a m to l e a v e his f a m i l y a n d c o u n t r y a n d to g o to the l a n d t h a t G - d w o u l d s h o w h i m ( G e n . 12:1), J o s e p h u s calls a t t e n t i o n to his t r e m e n d o u s faith a n d sacrifice b y n o t i n g i m m e d i a t e l y t h a t h e w a s seventy-five, c e r t a i n l y a n a d v a n c e d a g e for s o m e o n e u n d e r t a k i n g s u c h a l o n g trip to a n u n k n o w n destination. I n the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , w e l e a r n o f A b r a m ' s a g e o n l y w h e n h e r e a c h e s H a r a n ( G e n . 12:4). A l m o s t at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the p e r i c o p e o f A b r a h a m , w e r e a d t h a t after A b r a h a m left his h o m e l a n d a n d c a m e to a m o u n t a i n east o f B e t h e l , h e built a n altar to G - d a n d c a l l e d u p o n H i s n a m e ( G e n . 1 2 : 8 ) .
56
E a g e r that A b r a h a m ' s piety
n o t b e i m p u g n e d , J o s e p h u s , like Jubilees (13:9), a d d s specifically t h a t A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y d i d offer a sacrifice (Ant. 1.157). I n the B i b l e , A b r a h a m , in o b v i o u s d o u b t t h a t h e will, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h G - d ' s p r o m i s e , inherit Palestine, asks G - d for a sign ( G e n . 15:8). T h e r a b b i s take h i m t o task s e v e r e l y for this a n d c o m m e n t t h a t b e c a u s e o f this l a c k o f faith, A b r a h a m w a s p u n i s h e d b y h a v i n g his d e s c e n d a n t s serve as slaves in E g y p t for 210 y e a r s (Nedarim 32a).
57
I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , A b r a h a m asks G - d w h a t p l e a s u r e h e c a n t a k e in all
the m a t e r i a l g o o d s v o u c h s a f e d h i m , since h e h a s n o h e i r (Ant. 1.183). W h e n G - d assures h i m t h a t a s o n will b e b o r n to h i m , h o w e v e r , h e d o e s n o t ask for a sign b u t r a t h e r p r o c e e d s i m m e d i a t e l y to offer a sacrifice to G - d . I n the B i b l e , w h e n G - d tells A b r a h a m t h a t S a r a h w i l l g i v e b i r t h to a son, h e l a u g h s in d i s b e l i e f a n d q u e s t i o n s i n w a r d l y w h e t h e r a c h i l d c a n b e b o r n to s u c h 55. T h e meaning of the name A b r a h a m , according to G e n . 17:5, is "father of many nations." 56. It is significant that the rabbis, commenting on this episode, portray Satan as charging A b r a h a m with impiety in not having offered any sacrifice on his altar and therefore contending to G - d that he should be tested with the c o m m a n d to offer his own son Isaac as a sacrifice (Sanhedrin 89b). 57. G i n z b e r g (1909-38, 5:227-28, n. n o ) remarks that Philo insists that A b r a h a m did show trust in G - d here (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 20.99); and the majority of the C h u r c h Fathers, notably Origen, Theodoret, Ephraem, and Augustine, feel likewise. T h e y explain that A b r a h a m wished merely to know how the promise made to him would be fulfilled. T h e prevalent view in rabbinic literature, however, is to blame A b r a h a m for his lack o f trust in G - d here (e.g., Nedarim 32a; Tanhuma B. 3.79; Tanhuma Qedoshim 13; Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 13.65 and Seder Eliyahu %uta 2.174; Song of Songs Rabbah 5.22 and 30.16; Leviticus Rabbah 11.5; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 48; Pesiqta Rabbati 47.190; and Telammedenu on Talqut 2.819 on Ps. 78; so also Jerome on Isa. 43:27).
248
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a g e d p a r e n t s ( G e n . 17:17); J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t this m i g h t b e c o n s t r u e d as a l a c k o f faith, o m i t s t h e i n c i d e n t c o m p l e t e l y (Ant. 1.193). J o s e p h u s strives to d i m i n i s h the l a c k o f faith s h o w n b y S a r a h in the m a t t e r b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t she (ixeihiaadaiqs)
smiled
w h e n she h e a r d the p r e d i c t i o n o f the a n g e l s t h a t she w o u l d b e c o m e
a m o t h e r (Ant. 1.198), w h e r e a s the B i b l e says t h a t she l a u g h e d w i t h i n h e r s e l f ( G e n . 18:12), a n d the S e p t u a g i n t likewise states t h a t she l a u g h e d (iyeXaae).
Commenting
o n the n a m e I s a a c , J o s e p h u s c o n c e d e s t h a t it m e a n s " l a u g h t e r " (yeAcura), b u t e x p l a i n s t h a t it w a s b e s t o w e d b e c a u s e S a r a h h a d smiled (/xeiSidacu) w h e n G - d said t h a t she w o u l d g i v e b i r t h (Ant. 1.213). F i n a l l y w i s h i n g to o m i t all r e f e r e n c e to S a r a h ' s laughter, h e passes o v e r S a r a h ' s s t a t e m e n t , after she gives b i r t h t o I s a a c , t h a t G - d h a s m a d e l a u g h t e r (i.e., j o y ) for her, a n d t h a t e v e r y o n e w h o h e a r s o f h e r g i v i n g b i r t h t o I s a a c will l a u g h (i.e., rejoice) o n h e r a c c o u n t ( G e n . 21:6 v s . Ant. 1.213). A b r a h a m ' s faith is c o n t r a s t e d b y i m p l i c a t i o n w i t h the l a c k o f it s h o w n b y L o t ' s wife, w h o , w e a r e t o l d in o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s to the B i b l e ( G e n . 19:26), d e spite G - d ' s e x p r e s s p r o h i b i t i o n , c o n t i n u a l l y t u r n e d a r o u n d in h e r flight f r o m S o d o m b e c a u s e she, like a J e w i s h P a n d o r a , w a s c u r i o u s (iroXvirpaypiovovaa,
"was
m e d d l e s o m e " ) t o o b s e r v e its fate (Ant. 1.203). I n retelling the story as h e d o e s , J o s e p h u s is w a r n i n g t h a t o n e m u s t n o t m e d d l e in G - d ' s business, e v e n as A b r a h a m at the binding o f Isaac accepts G - d ' s c o m m a n d and does not question His motives. P e r h a p s , t h e n , the o m i s s i o n o f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m l o o k e d o n at S o d o m ' s d e s t r u c t i o n ( G e n . 1 9 : 2 7 - 2 8 v s . Ant. 1.204) is d u e t o J o s e p h u s ' s desire to a v o i d the c h a r g e t h a t in this respect, A b r a h a m w a s n o b e t t e r t h a n L o t ' s wife a n d t h a t G - d w a s unfair in p u n i s h i n g o n e b u t n o t the other. A b r a h a m , as a m a n o f faith, is p r o m p t in o b e y i n g G - d ' s c o m m a n d s ; a n d so, re stating the s t a t e m e n t o f G e n . 21:4 t h a t A b r a h a m c i r c u m c i s e d I s a a c w h e n h e w a s e i g h t d a y s o l d , J o s e p h u s says t h a t A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h d i d so p r o m p d y
(evOvs)
(Ant. 1.214). T h e g o a l o f the G r e e k h e r o is t o b e h e l d in everlasting (alcovtov)
remembrance
(fjLvrjfjLrjv). T h i s w a s v o u c h s a f e d also to A b r a h a m a n d the o t h e r f o u n d e r s o f the J e w ish p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s says, in a n a d d i t i o n to S c r i p t u r e ( G e n . 22:12), w h e r e it is the r e w a r d for the faith t h a t A b r a h a m s h o w e d in b e i n g w i l l i n g t o sacrifice his s o n c
I s a a c , the A q e d a h (Ant. 1.235).
m
n
^
s
c
a c c o u n t o f the A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s stresses
A b r a h a m ' s faith b y n o t i n g t h a t G - d r e q u i r e d h i m to offer u p I s a a c b y his o w n 58
h a n d (avrov).
O n e m i g h t e x p e c t A b r a h a m to h a v e s o m e d o u b t s a b o u t the sacri
fice, as w e find in K i e r k e g a a r d ' s v e r s i o n in his Fear and Trembling. I n d e e d , this is p r e cisely w h a t w e find in the r a b b i n i c sources, w h e r e w e h a v e a c o m p a r i s o n o f A b r a h a m ' s struggle a g a i n s t t e m p t a t i o n w i t h t h a t o f J o b (Tanhuma, Shelah, e d . B u b e r , 27). B u t J o s e p h u s is m o r e o f a n a p o l o g i s t for J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s , h i m s e l f a n d A b r a h a m
58. T h i s w o r d is omitted, to be sure, b y some o f the manuscripts, but retained in Niese's edition.
ABRAHAM
249
a m o n g o t h e r s , t h a n o f J e w i s h t h e o l o g y o r t h e o d i c y ; a n d so w e a r e t o l d b l u n d y t h a t A b r a h a m t h o u g h t t h a t n o t h i n g c o u l d justify d i s o b e d i e n c e to G - d (Ant. 1.225). It is significant t h a t in his final a p p r a i s a l o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t G - d h o n o r e d h i m w o r t h i l y for his z e a l (O7TOV8T]S) in his s e r v i c e (Ant. 1.256).
THE ROLE OF G - D J o s e p h u s , like the r a b b i s , felt u n c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s .
Thus,
G - d ' s q u e s t i o n , " S h a l l I h i d e f r o m A b r a h a m t h a t w h i c h I a m d o i n g ? " ( G e n . 18:17), is o m i t t e d (Ant. 1.194); a n d G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w i l l g o d o w n to c h e c k w h e t h e r t h e S o d o m i t e s r e a l l y a r e so w i c k e d is likewise o m i t t e d ( G e n . 18:21 v s . Ant. 1.195). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says p l a i n l y t h a t t h e a n g e l s visiting A b r a h a m ate the f o o d t h a t h e offered t h e m ( G e n . 18:8), J o s e p h u s a v o i d s this a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e a n g e l s m e r e l y g a v e h i m t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y ate (Ant. 1 . 1 9 7 ) .
59
Finally Jose
p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t the a n g e l s visiting L o t ate the f o o d t h a t h e offered t h e m ( G e n . 18:3). To
h a v e d e p i c t e d A b r a h a m b a r g a i n i n g w i t h G - d , as G e n . 1 8 : 1 6 - 3 3 d o e s ,
m i g h t have s e e m e d derogatory b o t h o f G - d a n d o f the noble character o f A b r a h a m . A r e a l q u e s t i o n as to G - d ' s j u s t i c e arises, since A b r a h a m s e e m s to g e t t h e b e t t e r o f G - d i n their d i a l o g u e , e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h a t t h e sins o f t h e S o d o m i t e s a r e p r e s e n t e d so briefly a n d in s u c h g e n e r a l t e r m s ( G e n . 18:20). J o s e p h u s , a c c o r d i n g l y , p r e s e n t s m u c h m o r e o f a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for G - d ' s e x t r e m e i n t e n d e d a c t i o n , in t h a t h e e n u m e r a t e s v e r y specifically the sins o f t h e S o d o m i t e s : o v e r w e e n i n g p r i d e , in s o l e n c e to m e n , i m p i e t y t o w a r d G - d , i n g r a t i t u d e to G - d for t h e benefits t h a t t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m H i m , h a t r e d o f foreigners, a n d a r r o g a n c e (Ant. 1 . 1 9 4 - 9 5 ) . J
o s e
"
p h u s o m i t s t h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c details o f the b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s ( G e n . 18:23-32) a n d i n s t e a d says m e r e l y t h a t A b r a h a m , i n s y m p a t h y w i t h t h e S o d o m i t e s , i m p l o r e d G-d
n o t t o d e s t r o y t h e g o o d a l o n g w i t h t h e w i c k e d (Ant. 1.199). " T o this," says
J o s e p h u s , " G - d a n s w e r e d t h a t n o t o n e o f the S o d o m i t e s w a s g o o d , for w e r e t h e r e b u t t e n s u c h h e w o u l d r e m i t t o all t h e c h a s t i s e m e n t for their c r i m e s ; so A b r a h a m h e l d his p e a c e . " Not
o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s t h u s a g g r a n d i z e A b r a h a m the p h i l o s o p h e r a n d s c i e n
tist, t h e g e n e r a l , t h e p e r f e c t h o s t a n d guest, a n d the m a n o f v i r t u e g e n e r a l l y ; h e a c h i e v e s a similar e n d b y d i m i n i s h i n g the role o f G - d i n t h e n a r r a t i v e , as w e h a v e a l r e a d y s e e n in t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s qualities as a g e n eral.
59.
S o also Philo, De Abrahamo 23.118, as noted by T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:97. Similarly, T a r g u m
Jonathan on G e n . 18:8 and Baba Mezia 86b, as cited by S a n d m e l 1956, 67, n. 289. See other rabbinic references and Justin and T h e o d o r e t , cited by R a p p a p o r t 1930, 104, n. 95. But there is another rab n
binic tradition (see citations in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 104-5, - 95)
m
a
t
G - d o p e n e d the mouths o f the an
gels a n d that the angels did, in fact, eat as a reward for the preparations that A b r a h a m h a d m ade.
250
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A n i n d i c a t i o n o f a d i m i n i s h e d role for G - d is to b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s o m i s s i o n o f the p a s s a g e r e c o r d i n g A b r a h a m ' s r e t u r n to the altar h e h a d built at B e t h e l a n d o f his c a l l i n g t h e r e u p o n the n a m e o f the L - r d ( G e n . 13:3-4). J o s e p h u s likewise o m i t s A b r a h a m ' s b u i l d i n g o f a n altar u n t o the L - r d at H e b r o n ( G e n . 13:18 v s . Ant. 60
1.170), a n a c c o u n t a c t u a l l y e l a b o r a t e d b y t h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 21). F u r t h e r m o r e , i n s t e a d o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e to A b r a h a m that H e will j u d g e E g y p t ( G e n . 15:14), in J o s e p h u s , G - d p r o m i s e s t h a t it is A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w h o will b e r e v e n g e d o n the E g y p t i a n s b y o v e r c o m i n g t h e i r o p p r e s s o r s (Ant. 1.185). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the m i r a c u l o u s s c e n e in w h i c h , after sunset, a t h i c k d a r k n e s s s u d d e n l y d e s c e n d s u p o n t h e a n i m a l s t h a t A b r a h a m h a s sacrificed a n d a f l a m i n g t o r c h passes t h r o u g h t h e m ( G e n . 15:17 v s . Ant. 1.185). T h e d i v i n e role is likewise d i m i n i s h e d in the s c e n e in w h i c h t h e a n g e l s u r g e L o t a n d his f a m i l y t o e s c a p e . I n the B i b l e , t h e r e is a l o n g c o n v e r s a t i o n , d u r i n g w h i c h L o t a n d his f a m i l y linger, a n d L o t h i m s e l f expresses fear t h a t h e will die, thus s h o w i n g l a c k o f faith ( G e n . 1 9 : 1 5 - 2 2 ) . T h e r e is a p r o b l e m in t h a t t h e r e is a s u d d e n shift w i t h i n the s a m e v e r s e ( G e n . 19:17) f r o m m e n t i o n o f the a n g e l s in the p l u r a l to the singular, " H e s a i d , " i m p l y i n g a r e f e r e n c e to G - d in L o t ' s reply, " N o t so, m y L - r d " ( G e n . 19:18). J o s e p h u s a v o i d s this p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g t h e d i a l o g u e w i t h the a n gels c o m p l e t e l y a n d stating m e r e l y t h a t L o t h i m s e l f e s c a p e d w i t h his d a u g h t e r s (Ant. 1.204). Similarly, the role o f G - d is d e e m p h a s i z e d in the story o f A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h . I n the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o w a r n s A b i m e l e c h t h a t h e faces d e a t h ( G e n . 20:3); J o s e p h u s , the rationalist, i n t r o d u c e s p h y s i c i a n s w h o v e r y d r a m a t i c a l l y d e spair o f his life (Ant. 1.208). T h i s p a r a p h r a s e , it w o u l d s e e m , w a s n o t f a s h i o n e d q u i c k l y a n d s o m e w h a t carelessly, as a l l e g e d b y S a n d m e l (1956, 70, n. 306), b u t is r a t h e r a d e l i b e r a t e a t t e m p t b y J o s e p h u s t o d i m i n i s h G - d ' s role a n d t o p r e s e n t t h e story, as far as possible, in naturalistic t e r m s . T h e r e is also a n a b b r e v i a t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h G - d in w h i c h G - d instructs h i m t o y i e l d to S a r a h ' s r e q u e s t to s e n d a w a y H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l , a n d o f G - d ' s r e n e w e d s t a t e m e n t o f his p r o m i s e w i t h r e g a r d to A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b o t h b y I s a a c a n d I s h m a e l ( G e n . 2 1 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . I n s t e a d , J o s e p h u s focuses g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n o n A b r a h a m b y s a y i n g t h a t after s e e i n g t h a t S a r a h ' s r e q u e s t w a s s a n c t i o n e d b y G - d , h e y i e l d e d (Ant. 1.217). N o t o n l y is the role o f G - d H i m s e l f d i m i n i s h e d in J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e , b u t m i r a c l e s are also often t o n e d d o w n .
6 1
T h u s , a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , G - d p r o m i s e s
t h a t H e will r e t u r n , a n d t h a t S a r a h will h a v e a s o n " w h e n the s e a s o n c o m e t h r o u n d " ( G e n . 18:10) T h e r a b b i s h e i g h t e n the m i r a c l e b y h a v i n g o n e o f the a n g e l s
60. Genesis Apocryphon, col. 21, significantly does not omit this detail, but records that A b r a h a m re built the altar at Bethel a n d gave thanks to G - d there for all the wealth and goods that H e h a d given him. 2
A
2I
61. For parallels, cf. Ant. 2.337, 3- 5> 4 4 8 , 5 9> 5- 4> 6.171, 8.102, 8.106, 8.349, 8.351, 9.20, 9.26, 9.28, 9.213, 10.21, 10.259, 10.260,10.272, n.237, 11.240, and 12.359.
ABRAHAM
251
visiting A b r a h a m d r a w a line o n the w a l l a n d d e c l a r e t h a t I s a a c will b e b o r n w h e n the s u n r e t u r n s to this line (see S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 67, n. 290). B u t in J o s e p h u s , it is t h e a n g e l s w h o m a k e this d e c l a r a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n G - d , a n d t h e y l e a v e the t i m e o f their r e t u r n indefinite (Ant. 1.197; so also T a r g u m J o n a t h a n o n G e n . 18:10), stating m e r e l y t h a t o n e o f t h e m will r e t u r n s o m e d a y in the future (els TO fxeXXov) t o find t h a t S a r a h h a d g i v e n b i r t h to a s o n . W h e n the b i r t h o c c u r s , J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t it o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g y e a r (Ant. 1.214). W h e r e a s the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m t h a t J o s e p h u s presents is o f a m a n , o f faith t o b e sure, h e significantly o m i t s G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t o A b i m e l e c h in the B i b l e t h a t A b r a h a m is a p r o p h e t w h o will b r i n g a b o u t the k i n g ' s c u r e t h r o u g h his p r a y e r ( G e n . 20:7). T h e m i r a c l e w h e r e b y G - d o p e n s H a g a r ' s eyes, so t h a t she sees a w e l l w h e n she a n d I s h m a e l are w i t h o u t w a t e r ( G e n . 21:19) is l e s s e n e d a n d t o a g r e a t d e g r e e r a t i o n a l i z e d in J o s e p h u s , in t h a t it is n o t G - d H i m s e l f w h o o p e n s h e r eyes b u t a n a n g e l , w h o tells h e r o f a s p r i n g close by, j u s t as s h e p h e r d s are i n t r o d u c e d w h o t h r o u g h their c a r e h e l p h e r e s c a p e h e r miseries (Ant. 1.219). J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the m e n t i o n o f the a n g e l w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o A b r a h a m ' s instructions t o his s e r v a n t Eliezer, w o u l d b e sent b y G - d t o g u i d e E l i e z e r o n his w a y ( G e n . 24:7 vs. Ant. 1.242 a n d 1.253). T h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t L o t ' s wife b e c a m e a pillar o f salt w h e n she l o o k e d b a c k as S o d o m w a s b e i n g d e s t r o y e d ( G e n . 19:26) w o u l d c e r t a i n l y h a v e s e e m e d in c r e d i b l e t o a rationalistic reader. O f c o u r s e , J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e o m i t t e d h e r t u r n i n g into a pillar o f salt altogether, b u t in this case, h e c h o s e t o a n s w e r the d o u b t s o f r e a d e r s b y asserting t h a t h e h i m s e l f h a d seen this pillar, " w h i c h r e m a i n s 62
to this d a y " (Ant. 1.203). F u r t h e r m o r e , in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , there is a q u e s t i o n o f G - d ' s j u s t i c e in t h r e a t e n i n g A b i m e l e c h w i t h d e a t h b e c a u s e o f his a d v a n c e s t o S a r a h ( G e n . 20:3), w h e n a c t u a l l y h e h a d b e e n m i s l e d b y A b r a h a m , w h o h a d d e c l a r e d S a r a h t o b e his sister ( G e n . 20:2). I n the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , A b i m e l e c h s e e m s v e r y c o n v i n c i n g in c o m p l a i n i n g t o G - d , " W i l t T h o u slay e v e n a r i g h t e o u s n a t i o n ? " H e t h e n a d d s t h a t S a r a h h e r s e l f h a d said t h a t A b r a h a m w a s h e r brother, a n d h e closes w i t h the p o i g n a n t s t a t e m e n t , " I n the simplic/ty o f m y h e a r t a n d in the i n n o c e n c e o f m y h a n d s h a v e I d o n e this" ( G e n . 20:4-5). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , A b i m e l e c h d o e s n o t c o m p l a i n t o G - d ; rather, h e a c t u a l l y tells his friends t h a t G - d is justified in b r i n g i n g his m a l a d y u p o n h i m in o r d e r to v i n d i c a t e the rights o f his g u e s t a n d t o p r e s e r v e A b r a h a m ' s wife f r o m v i o l e n c e (Ant. 1.208). J o s e p h u s , e v e r c o n c e r n e d w i t h a p o l o g e t i c s , thus g i v e s g r e a t c r e d i t to the n o n - J e w A b i m e l e c h , w h o t h e n n o t e s t h a t G - d h a d p r o m i s e d t o s h o w h i m s e l f g r a c i o u s thereafter, o n c e A b r a h a m h a s b e e n r e a s s u r e d c o n c e r n i n g his wife. It is significant t h a t w h e r e a s it is a n a n g e l w h o forbids A b r a h a m to h a r m I s a a c
62. S o also Wisdom ofSolomon 10:7 and the rabbis (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25) note that the pillar o f salt still stands. See R a p p a p o r t 1930, 105-6, n. 99, for further parallels.
252
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
in the B i b l e ( G e n . 22:12), in J o s e p h u s , as in P h i l o (De Abrahamo 32.176), it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o addresses h i m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e the subject w a s t o o i m p o r t a n t to b e left t o e v e n the m o s t e x a l t e d o f G - d ' s d e p u t i e s (Ant. 1.233). A s t o w h y G - d felt justified in testing A b r a h a m thus, the B i b l e tells us n o t h i n g . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , i n i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n to his m e n t i o n o f G - d ' s d e c i s i o n t o test A b r a h a m , e n u m e r a t e s all the benefits t h a t H e h a d c o n f e r r e d u p o n h i m , n o tably, his m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y o v e r his e n e m i e s , his felicity, a n d the b i r t h o f his s o n I s a a c (Ant. 1.223-24). H e p o i n t s o u t t h a t it is to G - d ' s z e a l (a-jTovhrjs) in his b e h a l f t h a t h e o w e s his p r e s e n t h a p p i n e s s (evhcujxovlav).
T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h u s c l e a r that, h a v
i n g g i v e n these benefits t o A b r a h a m , G - d is justified in w i t h d r a w i n g t h e m . I n J o s e p h u s , it is G - d H i m s e l f r a t h e r t h a n , as is i m p l i e d in the B i b l e ( t h r o u g h the i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f the a n g e l ' s s p e e c h a n d the s u d d e n a p p e a r a n c e o f the ram) (Gen. 22:13),
63
a n a n g e l w h o p r o d u c e s a r a m t o take the p l a c e o f the sacrificial
h u m a n v i c t i m . M o r e o v e r , the s c e n e o f the r a m c a u g h t in a thicket b y its h o r n s w o u l d h a v e s e e m e d g r o t e s q u e a n d t o o m u c h o f a m i r a c l e to a r a t i o n a l i z i n g G r e e k intellec tual. H e n c e J o s e p h u s o m i t s this feature a n d states m e r e l y t h a t G - d b r o u g h t the r a m f r o m o b s c u r i t y (IK rafavovs)
into view, w i t h the c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the r a m h a d
a l w a y s b e e n t h e r e b u t m e r e l y h i d d e n f r o m sight. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e x p l i c i d y tell us, as d o e s the Bible, t h a t A b r a h a m offered the r a m in p l a c e o f his s o n ( G e n . 22:13), p e r h a p s a g a i n b e c a u s e h e s o u g h t to a v o i d the t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the r a m w a s a surrogate for the sins o f m a n . E a g e r t h o u g h h e m i g h t h a v e b e e n e l s e w h e r e to d o w n g r a d e the i m p o r t a n c e o f theology, J o s e p h u s e v i d e n d y felt t h a t h e r e h e h a d to a n s w e r those w h o m i g h t h a v e difficulty in u n d e r s t a n d i n g s u c h a d i v i n e c o m m a n d in the first p l a c e , e s p e c i a l l y since the p r a c t i c e o f h u m a n sacrifice w a s r a r e in classical, let a l o n e Hellenistic, times (Pearson 1 9 1 3 , 8 4 7 - 4 9 ) . Still, J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e p r o t e s t i n g t o o m u c h a n d , i n d e e d , a p p e a r s h i m s e l f to h a v e f o u n d the m a n n e r o f G - d ' s testing o f A b r a h a m to b e a bit e m b a r r a s s i n g ( F r a n x m a n 1979, 161). I n a n y case, i n a s m u c h as G - d expressly forbids A b r a h a m to slay his s o n a n d says t h a t H e h a s n o c r a v i n g for h u m a n b l o o d , J o s e p h u s m a y b e i m p l i c i d y c o u n t e r i n g the possi ble c l a i m t h a t I s a a c a c t u a l l y w a s slain o r at least w o u n d e d .
6 4
63. In the third-century D u r a synagogue painting and in the sixth-century Beth A l p h a synagogue, the r a m is not caught in the thicket by its horns but stands quiedy next to, or is tethered to, a tree, as if it h a d always been there, perhaps reflecting the rabbinic tradition (^0*5:6) that it had been created at twilight on the eve o f the Sabbath o f Creation for its future use. Cf. B r e g m a n 1982, 308 and G u t m a n n 1983, 92-93. A s to Josephus's source for the fact that G - d Himself would provide (yir'eh) the l a m b for the burnt offering (Gen. 22:8), and that A b r a h a m called the n a m e o f the place " T h e L - r d will provide" iyireh)
(Gen. 22:14), Pseudo-Philo also has G - d Himself addressing A b r a h a m (Bib. Ant. 32.4). In the six teenth-century Yiddish epic Aqedat Tizhaq, presumably following the eleventh or twelfth century Midrash Vayosha, the angel R a p h a e l twice calls u p o n A b r a h a m not to g o through with the sacrifice o f his son, but A b r a h a m refuses, saying that G - d Himself must give him this c o m m a n d . B u t w h e n the angel insists that he, an angel, c a n d o nothing without G - d ' s c o m m a n d , A b r a h a m obeys him. Cf. M a t e n k o and Sloan 1968. 64. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31, Midrash Hagadol on G e n . 22:19, and other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:251, n. 243. See also Spiegel 1967, 2-8 and passim; and V e r m e s 1973, 204-8.
ABRAHAM
253
APOLOGETICS A f t e r L o t a n d A b r a h a m p a r t , G - d tells A b r a h a m to lift u p his eyes in all d i r e c t i o n s a n d t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p r o m i s e all this l a n d to h i m a n d t o his d e s c e n d a n t s f o r e v e r ( G e n . 1 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s , a w a r e t h a t t h e p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this p r o m i s e in his o w n d a y w e r e a n i m p l i c i t justification o f a J e w i s h state i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e R o m a n s , j u d i c i o u s l y o m i t s this p a s s a g e c o m p l e t e l y
6 5
W h e n A b r a h a m l a m e n t s t h a t h e is childless ( G e n . 15:2), G - d , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , reassures h i m t h a t H e h a s b r o u g h t h i m f r o m U r in o r d e r to g i v e h i m t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n t o i n h e r i t ( G e n . 15:7). W h e n A b r a h a m t h e n asks for p r o o f t h a t h e w i l l , i n d e e d , i n h e r i t t h e l a n d , G - d tells h i m t o sacrifice a heifer, s h e - g o a t , r a m , turtiedove,
a n d p i g e o n ( G e n . 15:9), w h e r e u p o n G - d m a k e s a c o v e n a n t w i t h A b r a h a m
a s s u r i n g h i m t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e l a n d f r o m the N i l e t o t h e E u p h r a t e s t o his d e s c e n d a n t s ( G e n . 15:18). S i g n i f i c a n d y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f this e p i s o d e , G - d as sures A b r a h a m t h a t a s o n w i l l b e b o r n to h i m w h o s e p o s t e r i t y w i l l b e as n u m e r o u s as the stars (Ant. 1.183); a n d after A b r a h a m sacrifices t h e a n i m a l s a n d birds, a d i v i n e v o i c e a n n o u n c e s t h a t his p o s t e r i t y w i l l o v e r c o m e their e n e m i e s , v a n q u i s h t h e C a n a a n i t e s in b a t d e , a n d t a k e possession o f their l a n d a n d cities (Ant. 1.185). T h u s , t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l a n d is a gift f r o m G - d , b u t r a t h e r t h a t it w i l l b e w o n — a n d p r e s u m a b l y l o s t — o n t h e field o f b a t d e . T h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n as t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e l a n d , w h i c h , i f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t is t a k e n literally, w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e J e w s n o t o n l y h a v e a c l a i m t o a n i n d e p e n d e n t state b u t also r e g a r d it as a m a t t e r o f d i v i n e p r o m i s e t h a t their state s h o u l d e x t e n d far b e y o n d t h e b o r d e r s o f Judaea. T h u s , t h e r e is less e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f Palestine to A b r a h a m , in line w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w t h a t a n i n d e p e n d e n t state w a s h a r d l y a sine q u a n o n for J e w s , a n d c e r t a i n l y n o t w h e n it r e q u i r e d a r e v o l u t i o n a r y w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e B i b l e tells h o w G - d a p p e a r e d to A b r a h a m , r e a s s u r e d h i m t h a t h e w a s to b e c o m e t h e father o f a m u l t i t u d e o f n a t i o n s , a n d c h a n g e d his n a m e f r o m A b r a m to A b r a h a m to signify this ( G e n . 1 7 : 1 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e G - d assures h i m t h a t h e w i l l g i v e h i m all t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n for a n e v e r l a s t i n g possession, a n d t h a t t h e seal o f this c o v e n a n t is to b e t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n t h a t h e is n o w c o m m a n d e d to p e r f o r m u p o n h i m s e l f a n d u p o n e v e r y m a l e b o r n in his f a m i l y ( G e n . 17:8). V e r y signifi c a n d y , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e c h a n g e o f n a m e a n d its i m p l i c a t i o n s , a n d C a n a a n is d e s c r i b e d n o t as a d i v i n e gift b u t r a t h e r as a l a n d t o b e w o n b y h u m a n effort in w a r (Ant. 1 . 1 9 1 - 9 3 ) — s o m e t h i n g t h a t his r a t i o n a l i z i n g r e a d ers c o u l d w e l l u n d e r s t a n d . T h e limits c i t e d o f the l a n d a r e m o r e m o d e s t , e x t e n d i n g o n l y f r o m S i d o n to E g y p t (Ant. 1.191), r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e E u p h r a t e s t o E g y p t (so G e n . 15:18), p e r h a p s b e c a u s e J e w i s h t e r r i t o r y n e v e r a c t u a l l y r e a c h e d t h e E u p h r a t e s ; a n d J o s e p h u s d i d n o t w i s h to h a v e his d i v i n e p r e d i c t i o n c o n t r a d i c t e d b y
65. In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon, which has no such apologetic motives, not only includes G-d's promise but gready elaborates it.
254
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h e h i s t o r i c a l facts (so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 6 , n. 278). A s for t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n t h a t is c o m m a n d e d , it is n o t as a seal o f a c o v e n a n t , w i t h its p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , b u t rather a means of preventing assimilation.
66
J o s e p h u s ' s fullest s t a t e m e n t o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f t h e s u p r e m a c y t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l e x e r c i s e is f o u n d i n G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t o A b r a h a m b e f o r e t h e a p c
p e a r a n c e o f t h e r a m at t h e c l i m a x o f t h e A q e d a h (Ant. 1.235-36). T h e c o n t e x t is p u r e l y religious r a t h e r t h a n p o l i t i c a l , at a t i m e w h e n A b r a h a m h a d
shown
s u p r e m e faith a n d h a d p r o v e n h i m s e l f w o r t h y o f G - d ' s blessings; h e r e , t o o , w e find t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l s u b d u e C a n a a n b y force o f a r m s a n d t h u s b e e n v i e d o f all m e n (Ant. 1.235). W h e r e a s a n a n g e l reassures H a g a r w h e n she h a s b e e n b a n i s h e d b y A b r a h a m in t h e B i b l e , telling h e r t h a t G - d w i l l m a k e h e r c h i l d into a g r e a t n a t i o n ( G e n . 21:18), J o s e p h u s v e r y carefully h a s t h e a n g e l tell h e r m e r e l y a n d v e r y v a g u e l y t h a t g r e a t blessings a w a i t h e r t h r o u g h t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f h e r c h i l d (Ant. 1.219). J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t I s h m a e l w a s t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e A r a b s (Ant. 1.221), n o t ing, as h e d o e s , t h a t t h e sons o f I s h m a e l o c c u p i e d t h e h u g e e x p a n s e o f t e r r i t o r y k n o w n as N a b a t a e a b e t w e e n t h e E u p h r a t e s a n d t h e R e d S e a . H e n c e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e b i b l i c a l p r o m i s e to H a g a r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e A r a b s w o u l d b e c o m e a g r e a t — a n d obviously independent—nation, something that could h a p p e n only if t h e p r o v i n c e o f A r a b i a r e v o l t e d a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , a situation t h a t J o s e p h u s , as a l o y a l R o m a n c i t i z e n , c o u l d h a r d l y c o u n t e n a n c e . L i k e w i s e , a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s d i c t a t e d t h e o m i s s i o n in J o s e p h u s o f G - d ' s p r e d i c t i o n to A b r a h a m t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d l e a v e E g y p t w i t h g r e a t s u b s t a n c e ( G e n . 15:14 vs. Ant. 1.185), since this w o u l d i m p l y t h a t the Israelites w e r e g u i l t y o f theft. I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e p a s s a g e stating h o w t h e Israelites d e s p o i l e d the E g y p t i a n s b e f o r e their d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e l a n d ( E x o d . 1 2 : 3 5 - 3 6 ) , J o s e p h u s c o n tinues this a p o l o g e t i c strain b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s " e v e n h o n o r e d t h e H e b r e w s w i t h gifts, s o m e to s p e e d their d e p a r t u r e , [yeiTviaKrjv]
others from
neighborly
feelings o f i n t i m a c y t o w a r d t h e m " (Ant. 2.314)
T h e s c e n e in w h i c h L o t ' s d a u g h t e r s h a v e i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h their o w n father ( G e n . 19:30-38) is, i n d e e d , a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t , i n a s m u c h as L o t , after all, is t h e n e p h e w o f A b r a h a m , the f o u n d e r o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , a n d i n a s m u c h as o n e o f the sons b o r n o f this u n i o n , M o a b , is t h e a n c e s t o r o f R u t h , t h e ancestress o f n o n e o t h e r t h a n K i n g D a v i d himself. T h e o n l y e x c u s e offered in t h e B i b l e for t h e a c t i o n o f the d a u g h t e r s is t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e a r e n o o t h e r m e n left in t h e w o r l d ( G e n . 19:31). J o s e p h u s presents a b e t t e r c a s e for L o t h i m s e l f (Ant. 1.205), a d d i n g (Ant. 1.204) t h a t after t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h , h e w a s isolated f r o m mankind
(dvOpwTrajv
iprjfjLias), a n d
that he
endured
a miserable
existence
66. In this respect, as in several others, Pseudo-Philo is closer to the biblical narrative and to the rabbis than is Josephus's account, for even though he has vasdy abbreviated the w h o l e narrative o f A b r a h a m , he twice mentions and gives the terms o f the covenant between G - d and A b r a h a m (Bib. Ant. 7.4 and 8.3). H e likewise, unlike Josephus, mentions A b r a h a m and Sarah's change o f names.
ABRAHAM
255
(TaAanrwpcDs), sufFering f r o m l a c k o f f o o d . S u c h details c a n r e a d i l y b e d e r i v e d f r o m the B i b l e ( G e n . 19:30) (so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 9 , n. 302); b u t the fact is t h a t t h e y a r e n o t c i t e d there, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to d o so. L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s m a k e s a b e t t e r c a s e for the d a u g h t e r s , stating n o t m e r e l y their b e l i e f t h a t the w h o l e o f h u m a n i t y h a d p e r i s h e d b u t also r e m a r k i n g e x p l i c i d y in their defense, t h a t t h e y a c t e d to p r e v e n t t h e e x t i n c t i o n o f the r a c e . T h e B i b l e is less e x p l i c i t a n d r e p o r t s m e r e l y the r e m a r k o f t h e firstborn d a u g h t e r t o the y o u n g e r : " O u r father is o l d , a n d t h e r e is n o t a m a n in t h e e a r t h t o c o m e in u n t o us after t h e m a n n e r o f all t h e e a r t h " (Gen. i g ^ i ) .
6 7
S i g n i f i c a n d y J o s e p h u s h e r e d e p a r t s f r o m the b o o k of Jubilees, w h i c h
e l s e w h e r e is a s o u r c e for h i m , a n d w h i c h bitterly attacks L o t a n d his d a u g h t e r s (Ju bilees 16:8) for c o m m i t t i n g a sin " s u c h as h a d n o t b e e n o n the e a r t h since t h e d a y s o f A d a m till his t i m e . " H e o m i t s the u n s a v o r y details o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e w h e r e b y the d a u g h t e r s g e t their father d r u n k o n successive nights, as w e l l as t h e conversation between them. A p p a r e n d y to j u d g e from Philo's c o m m e n t , there were "quarrelsome critics" w h o d i d n o t c o n s i d e r A b r a h a m ' s a c t i o n in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the sacrifice o f I s a a c (Ant. 1.222-36) t o b e g r e a t o r w o n d e r f u l (DeAbrahamo 33.178). J o s e p h u s is therefore p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d t o stress A b r a h a m ' s faith d u r i n g the e p i s o d e . H e a d d s t h a t A b r a h a m t o l d n o o n e in his h o u s e h o l d , n o t e v e n his wife S a r a h , a b o u t his r e s o l v e to sacrifice I s a a c , lest t h e y s h o u l d a t t e m p t to h i n d e r h i m f r o m a t t e n d i n g t o G - d ' s 68
service (Ant. 1.225). T o b e sure, P h i l o also a d d s that A b r a h a m t o l d n o o n e o f the d i v i n e c o m m a n d (DeAbrahamo
32.170); b u t J o s e p h u s is u n i q u e i n g i v i n g the r e a s o n
for this silence a n d thus stressing A b r a h a m ' s v i r t u e .
69
Josephus, however, had a
difficult e n o u g h t i m e in t r y i n g to justify the d e c e i t p r a c t i c e d b y A b r a h a m o n P h a r a o h a n d o n A b i m e l e c h in h i d i n g f r o m b o t h o f t h e m the fact t h a t S a r a h w a s his wife; h e , thus, as w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d , seeks to a v o i d h a v i n g A b r a h a m d e c e i v e S a r a h as w e l l . A l t h o u g h w e are d e a l i n g h e r e w i t h a n argumentum ex silentio, w h o s e
67. T h e notion that Lot's daughter thought that the whole world had b e e n destroyed is e c h o e d also in rabbinic passages, as well as in O r i g e n , Jerome, A m b r o s e , and E p h r a e m , cited in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 106, n. 101, R a h m e r 1861, 30, and G i n z b e r g 1899, 110-11, and 1909-38, 5: 243, n. 188. B u t other rab binic passages and Jubilees 16:8 regard the act as one o f deliberate lewdness (Rappaport 1930, 107, n. 101). A p t o w i t z e r 1927a, cited by R a p p a p o r t 1930,106-7, presents the rather far-fetched conjecture that the debate a m o n g the rabbis on the guilt o f Lot's daughters reflects one between the anti-Hasmoneans, w h o were partisans o f D a v i d , descended from Lot's son M o a b through Ruth, and their H a s m o n e a n o p ponents. Christian writers, according to this view, w h o were likewise interested in Jesus' unblemished descent from D a v i d , attempted to elevate the stature o f L o t and his daughters (2 Peter 2:7; C l e m e n t , Epistles 1 e t c . ) . W e would, however, have to explain w h y Josephus, w h o was himself descended from the H a s m o n e a n s (Life 2), should have sought to diminish the guilt o f Lot's daughters. 68. Here, too, w e m a y note a parallel between Josephus and Euripides' Phoenissae, where the father refuses to carry out his duty o f sacrificing his child. In this case, however, it is the victim, M e n o e c e u s , w h o conceals from his father the knowledge that he is about to sacrifice himself for his country. 69. T h e rabbis, on the other hand, declare either that A b r a h a m told Sarah nothing or that he told her that he w a s taking Isaac to study with S h e m and Eber. See R a p p a p o r t 1930, 108, n. 105; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 1:278, and 5:233; and S a n d m e l 1956, 73, n. 330.
256
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t e n u o u s n a t u r e s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d , J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e s o u g h t to a v o i d the i n e v i t a b l e e q u a t i o n i n this r e s p e c t o f A b r a h a m w i t h A g a m e m n o n , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to E u r i p i d e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 98), a t t e m p t e d to d e c e i v e his w i f e C l y t e m n e s t r a b y w r i t i n g a letter to h e r a s k i n g h e r to s e n d their d a u g h t e r I p h i g e n i a to b e m a r r i e d to A c h i l l e s , w h e r e a s his real i n t e n t i o n w a s to sacrifice h e r .
70
Similarly, J o s e p h u s
a v o i d s the e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f the i n c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n A b r a h a m ' s s t a t e m e n t in the B i b l e ( G e n . 22:5) t h a t h e a n d I s a a c w i l l r e t u r n to the y o u n g m e n w h o h a d a c c o m p a n i e d t h e m a n d the later n o t i c e o f G e n . 22:19, w h i c h d e c l a r e s o n l y t h a t A b r a h a m returned, omitting Isaac.
71
c
T h e e n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the A q e d a h is a " l i v e d h a p p i l y e v e r after" finale, so t y p i c a l o f H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s (so S c h a l i t 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , 2:40, n . 2 6 5 ) .
72
Josephus
d e v e l o p s further t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e the d i v i n e p r e d i c t i o n o f the blessings t h a t w i l l b e s h o w e r e d u p o n A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s ; p r e s u m a b l y , h e s o u g h t t h e r e b y to b u i l d u p A b r a h a m still m o r e . T o b e sure, J o s e p h u s d o e s h a v e G - d A b r a h a m t h a t his d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l " s u b d u e C a n a a n b y their a r m s " (Ant
promise 1.191).
Y e t , J o s e p h u s h a s d e l e t e d the b i b l i c a l t h e o l o g y o f c o v e n a n t e d l a n d , a p p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e it w o u l d b e offensive to his R o m a n p a t r o n s , w h o h a d j u s t r e c o n q u e r e d t h a t l a n d ( A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 208 a n d 229). H e d o e s n o t w a n t the l a n d to b e the f o c a l p o i n t , g i v e n its significance for the r e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o l o g y o f the F o u r t h P h i l o s o phy, w h i c h insisted t h a t the L a n d o f Israel m u s t b e free f r o m f o r e i g n rule.
CONTEMPORARY T h r o u g h o u t the Jewish
APPLICATIONS
War a n d t h e last b o o k s o f the Antiquities,
the r e a d e r c a n
sense the s t r o n g feelings t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s a b o u t the civil strife t h a t h a d t o r n the J e w i s h p e o p l e a p a r t in his o w n day. H e n c e , w h e n J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d dition, states t h a t G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s c r i m i n a l p a s s i o n for S a r a h b y inflicting p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e (ardaet) u p o n h i m , J o s e p h u s is e m p h a s i z i n g the g r a v i t y o f his offense (Ant 1.164).
70. In contrast to A b r a h a m , w h o avoids telling direct lies, w h o at worst is guilty merely o f with holding information from his wife as to w h a t he intends to d o to Isaac, and whose silence is excused b y Josephus on the ground that he did not wish to be hindered from carrying out G - d ' s c o m m a n d (Ant. 1.225), A g a m e m n o n resorts to outright lying, as w e see from his description o f h o w he acted w h e n he heard Calchas's oracle (Iphigenia at Aulis 94-98), as against Menelaus's account (359-60) o f A g a m e m non's reaction. T h e idea o f having Clytemnestra brought to Aulis as the dutiful mother and wife, de termined to give her daughter a proper wedding, is certainly Euripidean; and Josephus m a y well be re acting to this motif, although, o f course, in the case o f this contrast between S a r a h and Clytmenestra w e are dealing with an argumentum ex silentio. W h e n , however, this possibility is coupled with other par allels between Josephus and Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis, it assumes more weight. 71. T h e M i d r a s h (cf. G i n z b e r g 1909-38,1:279,
a n
: 2
d 5 ^ o , n. 239) explains A b r a h a m ' s statement as
unconscious p r o p h e c y on his part. 72. Schalit 1944-63, 2:40, n. 265, cites similar h a p p y endings in X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus, Ephesiaca 5.15, and Apollonius o f Tyre, Erotica 43. W e m a y perhaps add the ending o f the B o o k o f Job.
ABRAHAM
257
A n o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y p r o b l e m s e e m s to b e a l l u d e d to in J o s e p h u s ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n for the c o m m a n d m e n t o f c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.192). I n t h e B i b l e , t h e p r a c t i c e is d e s c r i b e d as t h e sign o f the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G - d a n d A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s , w h e r e b y t h e y are to b e g u a r a n t e e d t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n ( G e n . 17:10). A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s states t h a t h e w i l l e l s e w h e r e , p r e s u m a b l y in a p r o j e c t e d w o r k o n " C u s t o m s a n d C a u s e s " t h a t h e refers to o n s e v e r a l o t h e r o c c a s i o n s (Ant. 1.25, 4 . 1 9 8 , 20.268), e x p o u n d the r e a s o n for the p r a c t i c e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.192), it is significant t h a t h e r e h e d o e s g i v e a r e a s o n for it, s a y i n g , as n o t e d , t h a t it is to p r e v e n t the J e w s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h o t h e r s , a n e x p l a n a t i o n utterly different f r o m t h e o n e g i v e n in t h e B i b l e .
7 3
c
Josephus's elaboration o f the A q e d a h w a s perhaps influenced b y c o n t e m p o r a r y e v e n t s s u c h as t h e m a s s suicides at J o t a p a t a a n d at M a s a d a , a n d b y t h e m a r t y r d o m s i n t h e d a y s o f t h e M a c c a b e e s . B e c a u s e h e h i m s e l f h a d refused to a l l o w his life to b e t a k e n at J o t a p a t a (War 3.391), J o s e p h u s h a d to b e careful t o e x p l a i n h o w G - d c o u l d h a v e c o m m a n d e d t h e t a k i n g o f I s a a c ' s life (Ant. 1.224). c
T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d t h e a c c o u n t o f the A q e d a h n o t s i m p l y t o b e t h e s t o r y o f A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness to G - d , a n d I s a a c ' s o b e d i e n c e t o G - d a n d to his father, b u t also to h a v e c o n t e m p o r a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s is c l e a r f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e specifies t h a t G - d t o l d A b r a h a m to t a k e his c h i l d u p to M o u n t M o r i a h (Ant. 1.224), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e is v a g u e i n h a v i n g G - d tell A b r a h a m to offer his sacrifice " u p o n o n e o f t h e m o u n t a i n s o f w h i c h I shall tell y o u " ( G e n . 22:2) T h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h is t h e text t h a t J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o b e f o l l o w i n g i n this p e r i c o p e for t h e m o s t p a r t , h a s " t o t h e lofty l a n d " (els TTJV yrjv rrjv vi/irjArjv), w i t h n o m e n t i o n o f M o r i a h ; p e r h a p s this o m i s s i o n is b e c a u s e fxcopla in G r e e k m e a n s "folly," a n d J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e b e e n w e l l a w a r e , g i v e n t h e similarity o f the w o r d s MwpLov a n d / x o j / n a ,
74
o f the possible
s n e e r t h a t A b r a h a m ' s t a k i n g his s o n to a " m o u n t a i n o f folly" m i g h t e v o k e f r o m G r e e k r e a d e r s . T h a t J o s e p h u s n e v e r t h e l e s s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to m e n t i o n M o u n t M o r i a h , a n d t o state t h a t it w a s t h e r e t h a t K i n g D a v i d later built the T e m p l e , s e e m s t h u s to b e d e l i b e r a t e (Ant. 1.226). A s a priest w h o h a d u n d o u b t e d l y m i n i s t e r e d i n t h e T e m p l e , J o s e p h u s q u i t e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y c h o s e to e m p h a s i z e t h a t it w a s u p o n t h e site o f A b r a h a m ' s s u p r e m e a c t o f faith t h a t t h e T e m p l e w a s built, the site o f w h i c h w a s t o r e m a i n as t h e c e n t r a l focus o f the J e w i s h r e l i g i o n until the T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n in t h e y e a r 70. J o s e p h u s stresses t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f M o r i a h w i t h t h e T e m p l e at a later p o i n t in his h i s t o r y w h e r e h e states t h a t D a v i d p u r c h a s e d a
73. T h i s motive, as S a n d m e l 1956, 66, n. 279, correcdy remarks, is lacking in the rabbinic writings. T o be sure, the rabbis do portray A b r a h a m as fearing that circumcision will deter candidates for c o n version to Judaism (Genesis Rabbah 46); but this, o f course, is totally different from the reason given b y Josephus, w h o is c o n c e r n e d not with w i n n i n g converts—a m o v e m e n t that h a d aroused great bitterness in R o m a n circles, as w e see from the banishment o f Jews from R o m e on two and possibly three o c c a sions (see Feldman 1993a, 300-304)—but rather with keeping b o r n Jews from assimilating. 74. For an example o f this type o f anti-Jewish attack, see A p i o n ' s attempt (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.21-27) to connect the w o r d " S a b b a t h " with the disease o f the groin called oafifid) in E g y p t .
2j8
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
site for t h e T e m p l e in t h e v e r y p l a c e w h e r e A b r a h a m h a d b r o u g h t his s o n I s a a c to sacrifice h i m as a b u r n t offering, a n d w h e r e h e refers the r e a d e r t o his e a r l i e r a c c o u n t (Ant. 7.333). Q u i t e clearly, J o s e p h u s i n t e n d s t o h a v e t h e r e a d e r associate t h e r e a d i n e s s o f A b r a h a m t o sacrifice his s o n w i t h t h e sacrifices t h a t w e r e , in effect, s u r r o g a t e offerings at t h e site o f t h e T e m p l e itself, a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s , in his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l issues as m u c h as possible, o m i t s a d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t c a u s a l l y c o n c
75
n e c t i n g t h e A q e d a h w i t h these s a c r i f i c e s . I n d e e d , in his s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e T e m c
p l e w a s built o n t h e site o f t h e A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to m a i n t a i n his p o s t u r e as a h i s t o r i a n r a t h e r t h a n as a t h e o l o g i a n , n o t o n l y a v o i d s stating t h a t D a v i d (ac t u a l l y S o l o m o n ) built the T e m p l e o n M o u n t M o r i a h b e c a u s e A b r a h a m b o u n d his s o n there, b u t also g o e s o u t o f his w a y to say t h a t "it
had
happened"
c
(owefir}) t h a t t h e T e m p l e w a s built o n t h e v e r y p l a c e w h e r e the A q e d a h h a d o c c u r r e d (Ant. 7.333). T h e r a b b i s , o f c o u r s e , stress the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e t w o events.
76
EROTIC E L E M E N T S A n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e , o f A b r a h a m to w h i c h t h e r e a r e m a n y p a r a l l e l s e l s e w h e r e in his w o r k is t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e r o t i c e l e m e n t s r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s . T o c r e a t e m o r e o f the r o m a n t i c interest t h a t his H e l l e n i s t i c r e a d e r s c r a v e d , J o s e p h u s , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s s o j o u r n in E g y p t , s p e a k s in t e r m s o f t h e fulfillment o f his suspicions (KCLOWS virevorjoe),
whereas
t h e B i b l e m e r e l y says: " A n d it c a m e to p a s s " ( G e n . 12:14). T h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h a t t h e p r i n c e s o f P h a r a o h s a w S a r a i a n d p r a i s e d h e r to P h a r a o h ( G e n . 12:15); J o s e p h u s m a g n i f i e s the e x t e n t o f S a r a i ' s b e a u t y a n d a r o u s e s the r e a d e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s b y t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t u p o n h e r a r r i v a l in E g y p t , S a r a i ' s b e a u t y w a s n o i s e d a b r o a d (igeftorjOrj, " c a l l a l o u d , " " c r y a l o u d " ) (Ant. 1.163). T h e p i c t u r e is o f a t o w n c r i e r p r o claiming that a famed beauty has arrived.
77
W h e r e a s the B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t
" t h e w o m a n w a s t a k e n i n t o P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e , " J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s t h e erotic e l e m e n t b y n o t i n g P h a r a o h ' s e a g e r n e s s (oirovdoas,
w h e r e the force o f the aorist tense
p e r h a p s justifies T h a c k e r a y ' s translation, " w a s fired w i t h a desire") to see her.
75. D a l y (1977, 58) finds it strange that Josephus makes no association with the T e m p l e sacrifices, not even the Passover; but Josephus's purpose here is to present a historical narrative. T o connect the sacrifice o f Isaac with Passover, as d o the rabbis [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod. 12:13) and the Book of Jubilees (17:15-16, 18:3, 49:1), w o u l d have involved a theological discussion, w h i c h Josephus generally avoids. 76. See Genesis Rabbah 55.9, and other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:253, nn. 249, 253. 77. T h e r e are m a n y rabbinic parallels to Josephus's magnifying o f Sarah's beauty. See the citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:220, n. 68, and 221, n. 69). A fuller description o f Sarah's beauty, including an erotic description o f her body, is n o w to be found in the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, lines 2 - 8 .
ABRAHAM
259
H e n c e J o s e p h u s shifts t h e e m p h a s i s f r o m the p r i n c e s o f P h a r a o h w h o s a w S a r a i t o 78
P h a r a o h himself, w h o is s m i t t e n w i t h e a g e r n e s s to see h e r .
T h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g o f w h a t P h a r a o h d i d o r a t t e m p t e d to d o w i t h S a r a i , a n d w e a r e left t o d r a w o u r i n f e r e n c e s f r o m the s t a t e m e n t that " t h e L - r d p l a g u e d P h a r a o h a n d his h o u s e w i t h g r e a t p l a g u e s b e c a u s e o f S a r a i " ( G e n . 12:17). J o s e p h u s , as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d , is m o r e d i r e c t in s u p p l y i n g erotic details for his r e a d e r s ' titillation: h e a r o u s e s suspense b y s a y i n g that P h a r a o h w a s o n the p o i n t o f lay i n g h a n d s o n h e r (olos T' rjv an/jaodcu, w h e r e dmopLai
m e a n s to t o u c h o r attack,
a n d finally, as h e r e , to h a v e i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a w o m a n ) .
7 9
B e c a u s e J o s e p h u s feels
t h e n e e d to d e f e n d A b r a m ' s d e c e i t in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h this e p i s o d e , h e criticizes P h a r a o h m o r e sharply, a n d h e n c e w e r e a d o f the E g y p t i a n s ' f r e n z y (em/xaves) for women
8 0
a n d o f A b r a m ' s fear t h a t P h a r a o h will kill h i m so t h a t h e m a y possess h e r
b e c a u s e o f h e r b e a u t y (evpuopcfriav) (Ant. 1.162).
81
I n particular, h e calls a t t e n t i o n t o
P h a r a o h ' s unjust p a s s i o n (OLSLKOV imOvpiCav), w h i c h G - d t h w a r t s
8 2
by an outbreak
o f disease a n d o f p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e (Ant. 1.164). T h e f o r m e r e v e n t is r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e terrible p u n i s h m e n t inflicted u p o n O e d i p u s ' s c i t y o f T h e b e s b e c a u s e o f his m u r d e r o f his father a n d incest w i t h his m o t h e r , w h i l e t h e latter h a p p e n i n g r e p r e sents t h e g r e a t e s t fear o f t h e p h a r a o h s , as it d i d o f rulers g e n e r a l l y T h e erotic m o t i f is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n in that w h e r e a s , in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n P h a r a o h e x p e r i e n c e s t h e p l a g u e , h e calls A b r a m t o h i m a n d asks for a n e x p l a n a t i o n ( G e n . 12:18), J o s e p h u s presents a m u c h m o r e e x c i t i n g scene, in w h i c h P h a r a o h is d e s c r i b e d as terrified a n d calls S a r a i d i r e c d y a n d asks h e r to state h e r true identity a n d to r e v e a l w h o t h e m a n is w h o b r o u g h t h e r t o E g y p t (Art. 1.165). A n e v e n m o r e n e g a t i v e p i c t u r e o f P h a r a o h is p a i n t e d b y J o s e p h u s in the
Jewish
War (5.379), w h e r e it is n o t A b r a m w h o d e s c e n d s to E g y p t b u t P h a r a o h w h o in v a d e s Palestine w i t h a h u g e a r m y a n d carries o f f the p r i n c e s s S a r a i . J o s e p h u s w r i t e s t h a t " t h e q u e e n , after o n e night's a b s e n c e , [was] sent b a c k i m m a c u l a t e [axpovTos]
to h e r l o r d " ; a n d P h a r a o h , b e s e t b y n i g h t m a r e s , flees b a c k to E g y p t
after b e s t o w i n g silver a n d g o l d u p o n t h e H e b r e w s (War 5.381). Later, the i n c i d e n t
78. T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20, lines 8-9) likewise shifts the emphasis to the reaction o f P h a r a o h w h e n he hears the report o f the princes; it also reports his eagerness to have her brought to h i m in haste and adds that w h e n he saw her, he was a m a z e d at her b e a u t y 79. Cf. Ant. 4.257 a n d passages cited b y LSJ, 231, s.v. OLITTCO. 80. Cf. Pausanias 1.6.8: T O e m ^ a v e s els ras y w a i / c a ? . T h e sensuality of the Egyptians, as G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:221, n. 68, remarks, is a frequent theme in rabbinic literature. Cf. Sifra Qedoshim (end), Jerusalem T a l m u d Sotah 1, Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 23.7 and 25.7. Here, however, in their c o m m e n t s on this passage, the rabbis d o not speak o f the sensuality o f the Egyptians. 81. T h e rabbinic tradition also stresses Sarah's beauty. Cf. Baba Batra 16a, T a r g u m Yerushalmi on G e n . 12:11, Tanhuma Lek Leka 5, a n d Tashar Lek Leka 31a, cited in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:220, n. 67. 82. A similar phrase (e^Trohi^ovra
TOLLS imOvfiiais)
is used with reference to the threat o f the B e n -
jaminites to kill the Levite o f E p h r a i m if he thwarts their lusts (Ant. 5.144).
260
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
is r e c a l l e d in a s p e e c h b y J o s e p h u s , w h o , i n u r g i n g the J e w s to s u r r e n d e r t o the R o mans, reminds t h e m that even u n d e r the most extreme provocation, A b r a m did n o t seek to a v e n g e h i m s e l f w i t h w e a p o n s o n P h a r a o h w i t h o u t t h e h e l p o f G - d , d e spite t h e fact t h a t P h a r a o h h a d r a v i s h e d S a r a i (vfipiorriv, c e n t i o u s , a n d i n s o l e n t m a n ) (War 5 . 3 8 0 ) .
83
r e f e r r i n g t o a v i o l e n t , li
Josephus's supplementary remark that
G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s p a s s i o n n o t o n l y w i t h a n o u t b r e a k o f disease ( p l a g u e in G e n . 12:17) b u t also, in t y p i c a l G r e e k f a s h i o n , w i t h p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e , r e m i n d s o n e o f t h e o p e n i n g o f S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King. A l s o in t y p i c a l G r e e k fashion, a g a i n r e m i n i s c e n t o f S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King P h a r a o h , so as t o d i s c o v e r a r e m e d y (diraXXayris) for t h e p l a g u e , consults t h e priests (Upeis), w h o r e p l y t h a t t h e c a l a m i t y (TO heivov) is G - d ' s w r a t h (jj>r)viv) b e c a u s e P h a r a o h h a d s o u g h t to o u t r a g e (vfipioai) t h e stranger's wife (Ant. 1 . 1 6 4 ) .
84
T h e erotic interest is further a r o u s e d b y
a f a c e - t o - f a c e m e e t i n g o f P h a r a o h w i t h S a r a i , at w h i c h , in terror, h e asks h e r w h o she is a n d w h o this m a n is w h o m she h a s b r o u g h t w i t h h e r (Ant. 1165). T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), b y c o n t r a s t , in n a r r a t i n g t h e tale o f t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f S a r a i to A b r a m , p u t s the e m p h a s i s , n o t o n P h a r a o h in his terror, b u t o n A b r a m in his g r i e f for S a r a i , w h o " p r a y e d a n d s u p p l i c a t e d a n d e n t r e a t e d G - d , " c o m p l a i n i n g to G - d w i t h f l o w i n g tears. J o s e p h u s offers the d r a m a t i c i m p a c t o f a d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i , w h e r e a s the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20) h a s L o t f u n c t i o n as t h e intermediary between A b r a m and Pharaoh's prince Hyrcanus, informing him w h y A b r a m c a n n o t p r a y to h a v e t h e p l a g u e a l l e v i a t e d . T h e r e is n o m e e t i n g b e t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i in t h e B i b l e itself either; t h e r e P h a r a o h
summons
A b r a m a n d c o m p l a i n s a b o u t his d e c e i t ( G e n . 12:18). I n t h e B i b l e , in t h e c o n frontation b e t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d A b r a m , P h a r a o h u p b r a i d s A b r a m for d e c e i v i n g h i m , " s o t h a t I t o o k h e r to b e m y w i f e " ( G e n . 12:19). J o s e p h u s p h r a s e s P h a r a o h ' s c h a r g e a n d his e x c u s e in m o r e r o m a n t i c t e r m s : it w a s in the b e l i e f t h a t S a r a i w a s A b r a m ' s sister t h a t h e h a d set his affections (oTrovSaoai, " m a k e h a s t e , " " b e e a g e r , " " b e s e r i o u s , " " b e earnest") o n her, a n d t h a t h e h a d a i m e d t o c o n t r a c t a m a r r i a g e a l l i a n c e (ovyyeveiav)
w i t h h e r r a t h e r t h a n to o u t r a g e (iijvfipioai,
"to break out into
83. T h e prevention o f Pharaoh's intercourse with Sarah is paralleled in midrashic literature; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:221, n. 75, cites parallels in Genesis Rabbah 40.2 and 52.13; Tanhuma B . 1.66—67; Tanhuma Lek Leka 5; and Z o h a r 1.82a. S o also Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.6-7, and the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, line 17. But as R a p p a p o r t 1930, 107, n. 102, remarks, Josephus's version is consciously apologetic, while the rabbis idealize S a r a h for her o w n sake. 84. Sirnilarly, in Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.7 (cf. Freudenthal 1874-75,1:224, and R a p p a p o r t 1930,102, n. 84), P h a r a o h summons the diviners (p,avreis). S o also in the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, lines 18-21, P h a r a o h summons all the wise m e n and the enchanters o f Egypt, together with the physicians, to determine whether they can heal him and his household. Similar statements (cf. G i n z b e r g 1899, 100; 1909-38, 5:221-22, n. 77) are found in Jerome and T h e o d o r e t . W e should note, however, that even in this instance, Josephus, in his eagerness to show respect for those in authority, comes to Pharaoh's defense, carefully remarking that once he discovered the truth about Sarai's iden tity, he apologized to A b r a m , stressing that he h a d wished to contract a legitimate marriage alliance with her and not to outrage her in a transport o f passion (Ant. 1.165).
ABRAHAM i n s o l e n c e " ) h e r in a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (KOLT* eiridvpiiav
261
(LppLTjpLevos, i.e., h a v i n g
r u s h e d h e a d l o n g into passion) (Ant. 1.165). A b i m e l e c h , k i n g o f G e r a r , is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s less f a v o r a b l y t h a n P h a r a o h , t h o u g h w i t h similar r o m a n t i c a d d i t i o n s . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t A b i m e l e c h sent a n d t o o k S a r a h ( G e n . 20:2), J o s e p h u s speaks o f h i m as b e i n g in l o v e (ipaaOets,
Ant. 1.207) w i t h h e r a n d p r e p a r e d to s e d u c e ((frOeipto, "destroy,"
" c o r r u p t , " "lure") her. I n c o n t r a s t to P h a r a o h , w h o i n t e n d s a n h o n o r a b l e m a r r i a g e r a t h e r t h a n r a p e , A b i m e l e c h is m o v e d b y lust (inidvpitas).
A s in the c a s e o f
P h a r a o h , G - d sends a g r i e v o u s disease as p u n i s h m e n t , b u t this disease is inflicted d i r e c d y o n A b i m e l e c h , thus f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n o n h i m vis-a-vis S a r a h (Ant. 1.208), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is sent u p o n his wife a n d m a i d s e r v a n t s ( G e n . 20:17). T h e r e is g r e a t e r r o m a n t i c interest in t h e e p i s o d e as J o s e p h u s tells it, since A b i m e l e c h c l a i m s i n self-defense t h a t h e w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f S a r a h a n d s p e a k s to t h e h u s b a n d , A b r a h a m , o f t h e a b d u c t e d w o m a n , r a t h e r t h a n to G - d ( G e n . 20:4 vs. Ant.
1.209). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a r o m a n t i c a s p e c t i n t o
the
c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n A b i m e l e c h a n d A b r a h a m b y h a v i n g it e n t e r e d i n t o after the e p i s o d e o f A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h (Ant. 1.212) r a t h e r t h a n , as in t h e B i b l e , after a dis p u t e c o n c e r n i n g a w e l l ( G e n . 2 1 : 2 2 - 3 4 ) , w h i c h h e o m i t s altogether. A similarly i n c r e a s e d r o m a n t i c flavor is g i v e n b y J o s e p h u s to t h e e p i s o d e o f E l i e z e r ' s s e a r c h for a w i f e for A b r a h a m ' s s o n I s a a c . T h u s , in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in S c r i p t u r e , t h e difficulty o f E l i e z e r ' s j o u r n e y is stressed; h e g o e s t h r o u g h a l a n d t h a t is m u d d y in w i n t e r a n d d r o u g h t - s t r i c k e n in s u m m e r , a c o u n t r y infested b y b a n d s o f r o b b e r s (Ant. 1.244; cf. G e n . 24:10).
HELLENIZATIONS T h e G r e e k o r R o m a n r e a d e r w o u l d e x p e c t a h e r o , i f childless, to a d o p t a s o n in o r d e r to e n s u r e t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f his n a m e a n d estate (one thinks, for e x a m p l e , o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f O e d i p u s b y K i n g P o l y b u s o f C o r i n t h ) . T h i s w a s t h e p o l i c y also o f t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r s , e v e n at times, as in the c a s e o f C l a u d i u s ' s a d o p t i o n (elaeTToirjaaro) o f N e r o , w h e n there w a s a l e g i t i m a t e (yvrjGiov) s o n ( J o s e p h u s , War 2.249; Ant. 20.150). A n d this is p r e c i s e l y w h a t J o s e p h u s , in his c o n c e r n to a p p e a l to his a u d i e n c e , says t h a t A b r a h a m d i d . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 12:5) a n d the r a b b i s (see R a p p a p o r t 1930, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , n. 78) say n o t h i n g t o i m p l y t h a t A b r a h a m a d o p t e d L o t , J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s i n s p i r e d b y a n institution k n o w n t o h i m f r o m R o m a n law, says t h a t A b r a h a m , h a v i n g n o l e g i t i m a t e (yvrjGiov) (elaeTroirjaaro)
L o t , his n e p h e w (Ant. 1 . 1 5 4 ) .
son,
adopted
85
It is significant t h a t t h e p r o o f for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d t h a t J o s e p h u s attributes
85. Rappaport 1930, 100-101, n. 78, argues from various biblical tales, such as those o f Jacob, Manasseh, and Ephraim, that there were Jewish adoption laws, just as one finds in the code o f H a m murabi. Cf. Aptowitzer 1927a, 215-16. A s has been often noted, adoption o f a child is frequendy fol lowed by the birth of a natural child to the adoptive parents. Cf. K a r d i m o n 1958, 123-26.
262
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
to A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.156) reflects the f o r m t h a t w a s p r o m u l g a t e d b y the G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y the Stoics, b u t t h a t a c t u a l l y g o e s b a c k to A n a x a g o r a s , w h o first p r e s e n t e d the t e l e o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t that the o r d e r l y state o f the u n i v e r s e m a n ifests a d e s i g n p e r f e c t e d b y the r a t i o n a l p o w e r o f a n infinite m i n d . J o s e p h u s ' s A b r a h a m , u s i n g a favorite w o r d o f Plato's a n d P h i l o ' s ,
87
8 6
G - d , says
is the c r e a t o r
(Srjfjuovpyov) o f the u n i v e r s e (rtov oXcov) a n d is o n e ; i f a n y o t h e r b e i n g c o n t r i b u t e s (ovvreXei)
t o m a n ' s w e l l - b e i n g (evSoupLovlav), h e d o e s so b y H i s c o m m a n d r a t h e r
t h a n b y his o w n i n h e r e n t p o w e r . W h a t is further distinctive a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s state m e n t is t h a t A b r a h a m inferred (ei'/
a n o t h e r favorite S t o i c w o r d ) .
m u s t s u p p o s e a c o m m a n d e r (rov
KeXevovros:
8 8
S i n c e t h e y l a c k this quality, o n e
a n o t h e r favorite S t o i c i m a g e ; cf.
E p i c t e t u s , Encheiridion 7) w h o directs t h e m , a n d t h a t w h e n t h e y w o r k t o g e t h e r (ovvepyovoi)
89
for m a n ' s benefit (xprjatpLwrepov),
t h e y d o so n o t b y v i r t u e o f their
o w n a u t h o r i t y b u t t h r o u g h the p o w e r o f G - d . A m o n g the four a r g u m e n t s for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d p r e s e n t e d b y C l e a n t h e s the S t o i c , as c i t e d b y B a l b u s the S t o i c in C i c e r o (De Natura Deorum 2 . 1 4 - 1 5 ) , the third is f r o m u n u s u a l p h e n o m e n a in the s u b l u n a r w o r l d , s u c h as s t o r m s , p l a g u e s , e a r t h q u a k e s , c o m e t s , a n d a b n o r m a l a n i m a l a n d h u m a n p r o d i g i e s ; w h i l e the fourth, a n d a c c o r d i n g to B a l b u s the w e i g h t i e s t r e a s o n , is f r o m the r e g u l a r i t y o f m o v e m e n t o f the celestial b o d i e s , t h u s p r e s u p p o s i n g a d i v i n e I n t e l l i g e n c e , w h o , in l a n g u a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m a n d e r , is said to p r e s i d e o v e r these b o d ies a n d to b e o b e y e d b y t h e m ("qui p r a e s i t et c u i p a r e a t u r " ) . J o s e p h u s w a s a p p a r e n d y dissatisfied w i t h the S t o i c v i e w o f G - d as a k i n d o f p r i s o n e r w i t h i n H i s o w n system, a c t i n g b y necessity, a n d w i s h e d to p r o v e the J e w i s h v i e w t h a t G - d is a n a b solutely i n c o r p o r e a l b e i n g e n d o w e d w i t h free will. P h i l o , w h o r e p e a t s the t e l e o l o g ical a r g u m e n t o f the Stoics, a p p a r e n d y t h o u g h t it u n n e c e s s a r y to c h a n g e their ar g u m e n t , since h e m a d e G - d ' s f r e e d o m o f will c l e a r in o t h e r w a y s (Legum Allegoriae 3 . 3 2 . 9 7 - 9 9 ; De Specialibus Legibus 1.6.33-35). T h a t it is the S t o i c s w h o m J o s e p h u s is
86. For Plato's teleological argument, see Laws 10.886A; for Aristode, see Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Physicos 1.22. Cf. Pease 1941, 163-64; Jaeger 1947, 155-64; and Theiler 1965. 87. Cf. LSJ, 386, s.v. B-qfiiovpyos; a n d Leisegang 1926, vol. 7, s.v. Srjfiiovpyos. 88. Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Physicos 1.26, w h o notes the proof of G - d ' s existence that some (evioi, presumably the Stoics) have offered from the orderly movement of the heavenly bodies (EVTOLKTOV T(X)V OVpaVlOJV KLVrjGLV). 89. S o also the Stoic Balbus in Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.15, speaks of the usefulness (utilitatem) o f the sun, moon, and stars. Lactantius (Institutiones Divinae 1.2.5) likewise speaks of the arrangement and usefulness (dispositione et utilitate) of heavenly bodies as proof of providential guidance.
ABRAHAM
263
c o m b a t i n g h e r e is h i n t e d at b y the r e f e r e n c e to the C h a l d a e a n s in the s e c t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y after the o n e c o n t a i n i n g A b r a h a m ' s p r o o f for G - d ' s e x i s t e n c e (Ant. 1.157). T h e C h a l d a e a n s , w h o m J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s as o p p o s e d to A b r a h a m ' s v i e w s , are in P h i l o p r o t o t y p e s o f the S t o i c s .
90
It s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that the S t o i c a r g u m e n t s in C l e a n t h e s (ap. C i c e r o , De Natura Deorum 2 . 1 3 - 1 5 ) for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d are n o t p r e s e n t e d as proofs, b u t r a t h e r as historical or, w e m i g h t say, a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l d a t a as to h o w p r i m i t i v e m a n a r r i v e d at his c o n c e p t i o n o f G - d . T h a t this is n o t a p r o o f o f the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d is to b e s e e n f r o m L u c r e t i u s ' s similar a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t o f the o r i g i n o f b e lief in the g o d s (5.1183-87). L u c r e t i u s , w h o , o f c o u r s e , e m p h a t i c a l l y rejects the n o tion t h a t the g o d s c o n t r o l the p h e n o m e n a o f the h e a v e n s , n o n e t h e l e s s r e c o r d s t h a t p e o p l e n o t i c e d the o r d e r l y s u c c e s s i o n o f the h e a v e n l y b o d i e s a n d o f the seasons a n d a s c r i b e d t h e m to the g o d s . J o s e p h u s , b y contrast, presents A b r a h a m as a n in novator, n o t o n l y in his c o n c e p t i o n o f G - d as o n e , b u t also as d e l i b e r a t e l y setting o u t to prove H i s p r o v i d e n t i a l nature. It w o u l d s e e m s t r a n g e t h a t J o s e p h u s s h o u l d h a v e o r i g i n a t e d this r a t h e r s o p h i s t i c a t e d a r g u m e n t for G - d ' s e x i s t e n c e f r o m the i r r e g u l a r i t y o f h e a v e n l y p h e n o m e n a , since he hardly seems to have b e e n a philosopher b y t e m p e r a m e n t . T o b e sure, at t h e v e r y e n d o f t h e Antiquities (20.268), J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s his i n t e n t i o n o f c o m p o s i n g a w o r k i n f o u r b o o k s o n the o p i n i o n s h e l d b y the J e w s c o n c e r n i n g G—d a n d H i s e s s e n c e (rrepl deov Kal rrjs ovolas
avrovj,
in w h i c h h e m i g h t h a v e
d i s c u s s e d p h i l o s o p h i c q u e s t i o n s s u c h as this. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , e i t h e r this w o r k w a s n e v e r c o m p o s e d o r it h a s b e e n l o s t .
91
In any case, w e m a y say that Josephus has
taken C l e a n t h e s ' third a r g u m e n t , b a s e d o n the irregularity o f sublunar p h e 92
n o m e n a , a n d e x t e n d e d it to the h e a v e n s t h e m s e l v e s . J o s e p h u s w a s a p p a r e n t l y
90. See Wolfson 1947, 1:176-77, 329, and 2:78, citing Philo, De Migratione Abrahami 32.179, w h o at tributes to the C h a l d a e a n s certain conceptions o f G - d that are definitely Stoic, as C o l s o n and W h i t a k e r 1929—62, 1:478, likewise c o m m e n t . It is c o m m o n e n o u g h for Philo to attribute to biblical characters certain views or antecedents o f views o f G r e e k philosophers; thus, for example (De Posteritate Caini 11.35),
m
e
vi
e w
that the h u m a n m i n d is the measure o f all things is ascribed to Protagoras as an
offspring o f Cain's madness. Wolfson 1947, 1:167-71, likewise shows how, under the guise o f "champi ons o f the m i n d " and "champions o f the senses," Philo ascribes the same Protagorean doctrine to the M o a b i t e s a n d the A m m o n i t e s and hence treats them allegorically as symbolizing this view (Legum Alkgoriae 3.25.81 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.61.334,1.62.337). I a m indebted for several points in connection with this p r o o f o f Josephus for the existence o f G - d to the late H . A , Wolfson, w h o informed m e in a letter that his unpublished second volume o f The Philosophy of the Church Fathers contains a full-length dis cussion o f this Stoic argument for the existence o f G - d . 91. Petersen 1958, 263-65, argues that this work is Against Apion, where (2.180, 188-92, 197) Jose phus discusses the nature o f G - d ; but, as I have noted (Feldman 1965, 9:531, n. d) on Ant. 20.268, the discussion in Against Apion is brief and is surely not the central theme o f that work, whereas Josephus tells us here that the work is to be about these subjects. 92. Pease 1958, 2:582, ad 2.14, remarks that eclipses are strangely omitted from the list o f examples
264
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h e first t o d o s o , a n d h i s A b r a h a m is t h u s d e p i c t e d as a p h i l o s o p h i c i n n o v a t o r .
9 3
J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n d y d e v e l o p s t h e t h e m e t h a t e x c e s s i v e w e a l t h l e a d s t o sin. T h i s p i c t u r e o f t h e c a u s e s o f sin is f o u n d i n J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l (Ant. 1.1.71) a b o u t the g r o w t h in w e a l t h
9 4
a n d p o p u l a t i o n o f S o d o m . J o s e p h u s l a t e r (Ant. 1.194)
r e p e a t s t h e s e d e t a i l s a n d e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e m ; t h e S o d o m i t e s , h e says, w e r e o v e r w e e n i n g l y p r o u d (virep^povovvres)
o f t h e i r l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n a n d w e a l t h ; a n d this
led, a c c o r d i n g t o a f o r m u l a o f S o l o n ' s , t o t h e i r b e c o m i n g i n s o l e n t (vfipiorai)
toward
cited b y Cleanthes for his third argument, despite their notoriously terrifying character. T h a t there is, however, n o significance in this omission m a y b e seen from the fact that approximately a century after Josephus, Sextus Empiricus (Adversus Physicos 1.24) does include them in noting the retort o f D e m o c r i tus, the forerunner o f the Epicureans (cf. C i c e r o , De Natura Deorum 1.120), to those philosophers, w h o m he does not n a m e but w h o are presumed to b e the forerunners o f the Stoics (as seems clear from the ar guments o f the third-century Christian Lactantius, Institutiones Divinae 7.3 [=PL 6.745B], w h o is here reflecting Stoic arguments). S e e Wolfson 1966, 362-63. T h e Stoics concluded, against Epicurus or Democritus, from the marvelous events in the world—notably thunderings, lightnings, collisions o f stars, eclipses, etc.—that the gods were the authors o f these p h e n o m e n a . T h a c k e r a y 1926-34,4:77, note on Ant. 1.156, cites, as examples o f the irregularity that Josephus might have h a d in mind, the v a r y i n g hours o f sunrise a n d sunset a n d the phases o f the m o o n . But these are visible p h e n o m e n a , w h i c h c o m e under the category o f C l e a n t h e s ' third argument, not his fourth. A n example o f the irregularities in question w o u l d be, rather, the fact that some spheres move from east to west, while others move from west to east. 93. Alternatively, w e m a y say that Josephus has taken Cleanthes' fourth argument and includes ex ceptions as part o f the teleological system. C l e a n t h e s ' third p r o o f is not found a m o n g those offered b y the C h u r c h Fathers, presumably because it was acknowledged to b e not really a p r o o f at all but only a statement concerning the historical or anthropological data as to the origin o f religion. T h e fourth ar gument, o n the other hand, is often found in the C h u r c h Fathers. T h e argument from irregularity in the movements o f the celestial bodies occurs in Lactantius (Institutiones Divinae 7.3 [=PL 6 . 7 4 5 B - 4 6 A ] ) , w h o draws u p o n C l e a n t h e s ' arguments in Cicero's De Natura Deorum to disprove the purported eternity o f the universe. Lactantius here argues that if the world were eternal, it w o u l d have n o ratio; but since there is a plan in the courses o f the stars a n d o f the heavenly bodies, " w h i c h is uniform even in variety itself" (aequalis in ipsa varietate), the world did not always exist. Cf. the discussion o f Lactantius's argu ments against the eternity o f the world in Wolfson 1966, 3 6 1 - 6 3 . W h e t h e r Lactantius derived this n o tion o f uniformity even in the variety o f the courses o f the heavenly bodies from Josephus, w h o m h e does not mention, is, o f course, highly problematical; it is quite conceivable that his source was, rather, a Stoic work that has since been lost a n d that m a y have been available to Josephus also. Josephus's argument from irregularities in celestial p h e n o m e n a to show that G - d acts freely by will and design a n d not b y necessity entered the mainstream o f philosophy; cf. Wolfson 1941, 119-30, w h o notes the use o f this argument in Islam b y G h a z a l i a n d in Judaism by J u d a h Halevi a n d M a i m o n i d e s . T h e argument is likewise found in T h o m a s A q u i n a s , Contra Gentiles 3.64, Amplius, Eorum. Philo's A b r a h a m , w e m a y note, has a different p r o o f for the existence o f G - d , namely, not from o b servation o f the courses o f the heavenly bodies but b y the analogy that just as there exists a m i n d in m a n , so there must b e o n e in the universe (DeAbrahamo 15.71). See S a n d m e l 1956, 181, n. 228. 94. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbinic tradition, the rebelliousness o f the Sodomites stemmed from their abundant wealth (Sanhedrin 109a; Tosefta Sotah 3:11; Sifre Deuteronomy 43; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25; Midrash Tannaim [ed. Hoffmann] 194). S o also Philo, DeAbrahamo 26.133 a n d Quaestiones in Genesin 4.43. T h e rab binic midrashim speak o f the riches o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38,5:237, n. 155, a n d R a p p a p o r t 1930, 103, n. 91, for citations), but Josephus's terminology is clearly that o f classical G r e e k tragedy.
ABRAHAM m e n a n d i m p i o u s (dae^ets) h a d received from H i m .
9 5
265
t o w a r d G - d , so that t h e y forgot the benefits t h a t t h e y I n a n a d d i t i o n to S c r i p t u r e , G - d (Ant. 1.195), in a fashion
r e m i n i s c e n t o f the p u n i s h m e n t m e t e d o u t in G r e e k t r a g e d y for i n s o l e n c e , is said to h a v e b l a s t e d (d<£avtcrcu, " m a k e u n s e e n " ) S o d o m so c o m p l e t e l y that it w o u l d y i e l d n o p l a n t o r fruit w h a t s o e v e r thereafter (Ant. 1.195).
96
In the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w e r e a d
t h a t G - d r a i n e d b r i m s t o n e a n d fire o u t o f h e a v e n u p o n S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h ( G e n . 19:24). T h e n o t i o n o f b r i m s t o n e a n d fire falling f r o m h e a v e n w o u l d s e e m to stretch the r e a d e r ' s credulity. J o s e p h u s , a c c o r d i n g l y , h a s G - d h u r l his t h u n d e r b o l t (fieXos) u p o n the cities in a w a y r e m i n i s c e n t o f Z e u s ' s p u n i s h m e n t s (Ant. 1.203). I n d e e d , the s a m e w o r d is u s e d o f Z e u s ' s t h u n d e r b o l t in P i n d a r (Nemean Odes 10.8) a n d in A e s c h y l u s (Prometheus Bound 360, 373, 917); the s a m e w o r d is also u s e d in c o n n e c tion w i t h the darts h u r l e d b y A p o l l o against the A c h a e a n s ( H o m e r , Iliad 1.51-52). I n his e x p a n s i o n o f the b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l a b o u t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h ( G e n . 2 5 : 1 - 6 ) , w e see a n o b v i o u s a p p e a l b y J o s e p h u s to his H e l l e n i s t i c r e a d ers. T h u s w e are t o l d t h a t his sons w e r e s t r o n g to l a b o r (irpos . . . TTOVOVS a n d q u i c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g (Seivol ovvievai)
Kaprepol)
(Ant. 1.238), qualities a s c r i b e d also to
J a c o b ' s sons (Ant. 2.7). T h e B i b l e states t h a t A b r a h a m sent a w a y f r o m I s a a c his sons b y K e t u r a h b u t offers n o e x p l a n a t i o n for this s e e m i n g l y unfair t r e a t m e n t ( G e n . 25:6). W e see f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s stricture a g a i n s t N o a h ' s d e s c e n d a n t s for refusing to f o u n d c o l o n i e s t h a t this initiative w a s a G - d - i n s p i r e d d e v i c e to p r e v e n t q u a r r e l s a m o n g the i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n o f the w o r l d a n d to e n a b l e t h e m to cultivate m o r e o f the e a r t h a n d to e n j o y its p r o d u c e (Ant. 1.115). A f t e r the c o n f u s i o n o f t o n g u e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m the d i s o b e d i e n c e o f m a n in b u i l d i n g the t o w e r o f B a b e l , G-d
l e a d s v a r i o u s g r o u p s t o c o l o n i z e all p a r t s o f the w o r l d (Ant. 1.120). I n J o s e
p h u s , A b r a h a m ' s sons are sent a w a y to f o u n d c o l o n i e s , in a f a s h i o n r e m i n i s c e n t o f the p r a c t i c e o f G r e e k poleis, as a d e v i c e c o n t r i v e d (ju^xavdrcu) b y A b r a h a m ; a n d t h e y p r o c e e d to t a k e possession o f p a r t o f A r a b i a (Ant. 1.239). T h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s a t t a c h e d to this i n n o v a t i o n is seen in the fact t h a t w h e n G - d a p p e a r s in a d r e a m to A m r a m , w h o is to b e the father o f M o s e s , h e recalls the blessings t h a t H e h a d b e s t o w e d u p o n A b r a h a m , mentioning, a m o n g others, that A b r a h a m h a d b e g o t t e n I s h m a e l , t o w h o m h e h a d b e q u e a t h e d A r a b i a ; c h i l d r e n b y K e t u r a h , to w h o m h e h a d b e q u e a t h e d T r o g l o d y t i s ; a n d I s a a c , to w h o m h e h a d b e q u e a t h e d C a n a a n (Ant. 2.213). B u t the m o s t striking n e w features r e g a r d i n g A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h a r e t h a t his g r a n d s o n E o p h r e n is d e p i c t e d as a g r e a t g e n e r a l , r e m i n i s c e n t o f
95. Philo similarly ascribes the evil o f the Sodomites to their wealth and quotes the saying o f M e n a n d e r that the chief beginning of evils is goods in excess (apxy ^yiarr) rtov kv avOpwirois KCLKIOV,
266
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f A b r a h a m himself; t h a t E o p h r e n is said to h a v e l e d a suc cessful e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t L i b y a (Ant. 1.239);
a
n
d t h a t his (Eophren's)
s e t d e d t h e r e a n d n a m e d t h e l a n d A f r i c a after their g r a n d f a t h e r . The
grandsons
97
v i r t u e o f h o s p i t a l i t y is stressed in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e t r e a t m e n t o f
A b r a h a m ' s s e r v a n t E l i e z e r b y R e b e k a h at t h e w e l l , a s c e n e r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e w e l c o m e a c c o r d e d to O d y s s e u s b y N a u s i c a a . I n a n a d d e d r o m a n t i c t o u c h , the o t h e r m a i d e n s d e c l i n e to g i v e h i m w a t e r (Ant. 1.246) a n d r u n a w a y in fear, as in t h e N a u s i c a a e p i s o d e (Odyssey 6.138); b u t R e b e k a h , in w o r d s t h a t r e c a l l N a u s i c a a ' s r e p r o o f to her c o m p a n i o n s (SVOKOXLOLS,
(Odyssey 6 . 1 9 8 - 2 1 0 ) , r e b u k e s t h e m
for their
churlishness
"peevishness," "unpleasantness") t o w a r d the stranger a n d graciously
(L\op6va)s) offers h i m water. S h e is c o n s e q u e n d y c o m m e n d e d for h e r g o o d b r e e d i n g (evyeveias)
(Ant. 1.247), j u s t
a s
O d y s s e u s assumes, because of the hospital
ity t h a t h e h a s r e c e i v e d f r o m N a u s i c a a , t h a t she m o s t c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e s A r t e m i s , t h e d a u g h t e r o f Z e u s h i m s e l f (Odyssey 6.151). A S U P R E M E E X A M P L E OF HELLENIZATION: THE
'AQEDAH
I n a w e l l - k n o w n essay c o m p a r i n g H o m e r ' s n a r r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w i t h t h a t o f t h e B i b l e , E r i c h A u e r b a c h c o n c l u d e s t h a t in t h e B i b l e t h e r e is " e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f o n l y so m u c h o f the p h e n o m e n a as is n e c e s s a r y for the p u r p o s e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e , all else [ b e i n g ] left in o b s c u r i t y ; t h e d e c i s i v e p o i n t s o f the n a r r a t i v e a l o n e a r e e m p h a s i z e d , w h a t lies b e t w e e n is n o n - e x i s t e n t ; . . . t h o u g h t s a n d feelings r e m a i n u n e x p r e s s e d , a r e o n l y s u g g e s t e d b y t h e silence a n d t h e f r a g m e n t a r y s p e e c h e s " ( A u e r b a c h 1953, 11). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , " t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s c o n c e a l n o t h i n g , t h e y c o n t a i n n o t e a c h i n g a n d n o secret s e c o n d m e a n i n g " ( A u e r b a c h 1953, 13). A u e r b a c h c h o o s e s c
t o illustrate this c o n t r a s t b y c o m p a r i n g t h e B i b l e ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e A q e d a h , t h e b i n d i n g o f I s a a c in p r e p a r a t i o n for sacrifice b y his father A b r a h a m , w i t h H o m e r ' s a c c o u n t in b o o k 19 o f t h e Odyssey o f the r e c o g n i t i o n o f O d y s s e u s b y t h e o l d n u r s e E u r y c l e i a t h r o u g h t h e s c a r o n his t h i g h . I n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e are t o l d " o n l y w h a t w e n e e d to k n o w a b o u t h i m [ I s a a c ] as a p e r s o n a g e in t h e a c t i o n h e r e a n d now."
I n c o n t r a s t , for the r e a d e r o f H o m e r , b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e c o n s t a n t r e m i n d e r s
o f the earlier h i s t o r y o f t h e p e r s o n a g e s , e v e n w h e n the g r e a t e s t c a t a s t r o p h e s are o c c u r r i n g , all is e x p l i c i t ( A u e r b a c h 1953, i o - n ) . If, i n d e e d , A u e r b a c h ' s c o n t r a s t h a s validity, w e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t J o s e p h u s , in c
his v e r s i o n o f t h e A q e d a h (Ant. 1.222-36), w h i c h is surely, as P h i l o (De Abrahamo 32.167) states, t h e g r e a t e s t o f A b r a h a m ' s a c t i o n s , h a s so h e l l e n i z e d t h e b i b l i c a l n a r rative t h a t it a c q u i r e s p r e c i s e l y t h o s e qualities t h a t are m i s s i n g in t h e B i b l e — c l a r ity a n d u n i f o r m i l l u m i n a t i o n .
97.
98
O n the legends about Heracles, see Plutarch, Sertorius 9. In this connection, Freudenthal
1874-75, 1:133-35, cited by S a n d m e l 1956,55, n. 192, identifies Heracles as originally a Phoenician
god
rather than as the son of Z e u s a n d A l c m e n a . 98. I wish to express m y thanks to H a r o l d W. Attridge and J a m e s T. M c D o n o u g h Jr. for m a n y helpful suggestions in connection with this theme.
ABRAHAM
267
W r i t i n g for those w h o w o u l d seek to k n o w the b a c k g r o u n d o f the e p i s o d e a n d w o u l d b e p u t o f f b y the B i b l e ' s stark a n d d e l i b e r a t e a t t e m p t to l e a v e a l m o s t e v e r y t h i n g u n e x p r e s s e d , J o s e p h u s carefully sets the scene. T o b e sure, the r a b b i s also set c
a n e l a b o r a t e stage for the A q e d a h , b u t t h e y a l m o s t c o n v e r t it into a n a n a l o g u e o f the B o o k o f J o b b y stressing the t h e o l o g i c a l a s p e c t o f G - d ' s testing o f A b r a h a m , b y r e l a t i n g h o w G - d a s k e d A b r a h a m to sacrifice his s o n in o r d e r to p r o v e to S a t a n t h a t A b r a h a m w a s truly a m a n o f faith, a n d h o w I s a a c s o u g h t to p r o v e his superi o r i t y in faith to his b r o t h e r I s h m a e l . " J o s e p h u s ' s b a c k g r o u n d m a t e r i a l h a s , rather, a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p u r p o s e : to p r o v i d e p r o p e r m o t i v a t i o n for w h a t follows. U n l i k e in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e are t o l d at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g t h a t A b r a h a m
had
a c h i e v e d his g o a l o f h a p p i n e s s b y the will o f G - d a n d t h a t the sacrifice w a s m e r e l y a trial o f his p i e t y (Ant. 1.223). B y e l i m i n a t i n g G - d ' s d i r e c t c o m m a n d t o A b r a h a m , as w e l l as A b r a h a m ' s l a c o n i c r e s p o n s e , " H e r e I a m " ( G e n . 22:1), a n d b y f o r m u l a t i n g t h e w h o l e s c e n e in i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , J o s e p h u s i n d i c a t e s t h a t A b r a h a m t o o k e v e r y t h i n g in his stride. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f the p e r i c o p e , w e are told, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k — c a l c u l a t e d to a r o u s e g r e a t e r e m o t i o n in the reader,
1 0 0
o n the o n e h a n d , a n d , o n the
o t h e r h a n d , to a v o i d a p o l o g e t i c a l l y g i v i n g J o s e p h u s ' s n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t A b r a h a m w a s s y m p a t h e t i c to G - d ' s c o m m a n d to sacrifice his s o n — t h a t A b r a h a m p a s s i o n a t e l y l o v e d (vTreprjyaTra,
"loved exceedingly")
1 0 1
I s a a c (Ant.
1.222), w h e r e a s in G e n . 22:2, G - d m e r e l y refers to " w h o m t h o u l o v e s t . " It is inter e s t i n g t h a t w h e r e a s the S e p t u a g i n t rendersyehideka ("your o n l y o n e , " G e n . 22:2) b y dya7T7jr6v
( " b e l o v e d " ) , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e the translators w e r e t r o u b l e d b y t h e
fact t h a t I s a a c w a s n o t , in fact, A b r a h a m ' s o n l y son, J o s e p h u s , w h o g e n e r a l l y fol l o w s t h e S e p t u a g i n t in this p o r t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e , h a s puovoyevrj ( " o n l y - b o r n " ) , to e m p h a s i z e t h a t I s a a c w a s for p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , in t e r m s o f his c a r r y i n g o n the f a m i l y t r a d i t i o n , A b r a h a m ' s o n l y son. c
T o b e sure, the r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t s o f the A q e d a h likewise h a v e e x t e n s i v e intro d u c t i o n s t h a t serve t o r e d u c e the suspense o f the n a r r a t i v e ; b u t these are m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h a d d r e s s i n g the p r o b l e m o f t h e o d i c y — t h a t is, w h y G - d s h o u l d h a v e
99. Tashar Vayera 43b; Genesis Rabbah 55.4; Sanhedrin 89b. See, in general, G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 1:272-74, and 5:248-49, nn. 226-29. T h e rabbis note, in particular, the vagueness o f the o p e n i n g phrase "after these things" (Gen. 22:1) and attempt to fill in the details with a scene between G - d a n d Satan. 100. Cf. L e D e a u t 1963, 187, n. 141. L e D e a u t remarks that this mention o f A b r a h a m ' s love for his son is placed at the beginning o f the pericope in order to emphasize the grandeur o f the sacrifice. 101. T h e same w o r d (tmeprjydTrrjoe) is used by Josephus in his description o f Joseph the Tobiad's love for his son Hyrcanus, "as if he were his only [jnovou] son" (Ant. 12.195), a phrase similar to that used o f Isaac (jAovoyevrj, "only-born," Ant. 1.222). It is significant that in the biblical episode so closely paral c
lel to that o f the A q e d a h , namely, Jephthah's sacrifice o f his daughter, she, too, like Isaac, is called an only child (yehidah [Judg. 11:34]); and there the Septuagint renders this w o r d by novoyevrjs, as does Jose phus (Ant. 5.264). Josephus has a similar usage o f ^ovoyevrjs in the sense o f "favorite," "best loved," or "one w h o has n o equal," in his description o f Izates, w h o was not an only child but w a s treated as if he were (Ant. 20.20). Cf. W i n t e r 1953, 3 3 5 - 6 5 .
268
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
tested A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c ,
1 0 2
PORTRAITS
w h e n H e w a s o m n i s c i e n t a n d c e r t a i n l y k n e w their
merits (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 1:272-74; 5 : 2 4 8 - 4 9 , n n . 2 2 6 - 2 9 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , is c o n c e r n e d m e r e l y to h a v e the e v e n t , as a historical n a r r a t i v e , m a n ifest p l a u s i b l e p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n s a n d flow s m o o t h l y as a s t o r y I f J o s e p h u s h a d c h o s e n to d e v e l o p the i d e a t h a t G - d tested I s a a c , this m i g h t h a v e h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e t h e o l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s for the c o n c e p t o f Israel as the c h o s e n p e o p l e a n d for the justification o f m a r t y r d o m , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in 4 M a c e . 13:12 (see V e r m e s 1973, 198). A l t h o u g h the r a b b i s also r e m a r k o n A b r a h a m ' s o v e r w h e l m i n g love for I s a a c (e.g., Sifre Deuteronomy 313), J o s e p h u s carefully e x p l a i n s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s g r e a t l o v e for his s o n w a s d u e t o the fact t h a t I s a a c w a s b o r n o n the t h r e s h o l d o f his father's o l d a g e (em yr/pcos ov8co, Ant. 1.222), u s i n g a p h r a s e v e r y f a m i l i a r t o a n y r e a d e r o f H o m e r o r H e s i o d , w h o s e c o m b i n e d w r i t i n g s constituted, in effect, the B i b l e o f the G r e e k s . I n H o m e r , the p h r a s e is p a r t i c u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the a g e d P r i a m , t h a t m o s t p a t h e t i c o f all c h a r a c t e r s , w h o addresses his son H e c t o r b e f o r e t h e latter g o e s o f f to the b a t d e w i t h A c h i l l e s t h a t will b r i n g a b o u t his d e a t h . W h i l e P r i a m h i m s e l f is still " o n the t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (em yrjpaos
ov8to, Iliad 22.60), his sons h a v e
p e r i s h e d b e f o r e h i m . H o m e r uses t h e s a m e p h r a s e w h e n P r i a m addresses A c h i l l e s , b e g g i n g h i m to r e t u r n his s o n H e c t o r ' s body, r e m i n d i n g h i m t h a t A c h i l l e s ' father is as o l d as h e (Priam), " o n the d e a d l y t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (oAoo> e m
yrjpaos
ovStp) (Iliad 24.487). T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d P r i a m , b o t h o f w h o m a r e a g e d fathers, a n d b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d H e c t o r , b o t h o f w h o m a r e p r o m i s i n g sons w h o are a b o u t t o die in the f l o w e r o f y o u t h , w o u l d b e e s p e c i a l l y c l e a r to J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s , i n a s m u c h as the p h r a s e e m yrjpaos p r e s s i o n for w h a t is p a t h e t i c in l i f e .
103
ovSco h a d b e c o m e a l m o s t a stock e x
Similarly, O d y s s e u s , s p e a k i n g as a s t r a n g e r
to the faithful s w i n e h e r d E u m a e u s , asks a b o u t his (Odysseus's) father L a e r t e s , w h o m h e h a d left b e h i n d t w e n t y y e a r s earlier a l r e a d y o n the t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e (Odyssey 15.348). T h e a b o v e p a r a l l e l s c e n e s in H o m e r m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s m i n d , i n a s m u c h as e l s e w h e r e h e s h o w s a k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r (Ag. Ap. 1.12). H e s i o d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , speaks o f the s o n w h o a b u s e s his a g e d father at the evil t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e (/ca/co> e m yr)paos ovSco, Works and Days 331). Z e u s is a n g r y w i t h this son, w h o in the e n d will p a y for his w r o n g d o i n g . T h e c o n t r a s t w i t h I s a a c , w h o loves his father, is s t r i k i n g .
104
102. T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 22:1 a n d Judith 8:26. See G i n z b e r g 1909-38,1:273-74,
a n
d
5:249, n. 229. T h e rabbis interpret nissah (Gen. 22:1, "tested") as "proved," in the sense that G - d proved A b r a h a m ' s virtue o f faith to his accuser Satan, whereas Josephus translates the w o r d literally. 103. T h a t this phrase (eVi yrjpaos ovSco) is a H o m e r i c favorite can be seen from the fact that it is found as well in Odyssey 15.246 a n d 23.212. 104. T h e proverbial nature o f the expression " u p o n the threshold o f old a g e , " as the height o f the pathetic in life, is seen in the passage in Herodotus 3.14, where he tells h o w Psammenitus, king o f Egypt, did not w e e p w h e n he saw his daughter degraded and his son g o i n g to his death, but broke into tears w h e n he saw one o f his b o o n companions, w h o h a d lost his possessions a n d w a s begging, "on the
ABRAHAM
26g
O n e t h i n k s o f t h o s e m o s t p a t h e t i c lines i n V i r g i l ' s Aeneid, w h i c h h a d c o m e t o b e r e g a r d e d as a classic a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y after its c o m p o s i t i o n h a l f a c e n t u r y b e fore J o s e p h u s ' s b i r t h , w h e r e , w h e n A e n e a s a r r i v e s i n C a r t h a g e , h e sees P r i a m i n a p a i n t i n g o f t h e T r o j a n W a r a n d r e m a r k s o n t h e t r a g e d y o f life a n d t h e m o r t a l i t y o f things: En Priamus! Sunt hie etiam sua praemia laudi, Sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem mortalia tangunt ( i . 4 6 1 - 6 2 ) .
105
Behold Priam! Here, too, glory has its rewards; There are tears for misfortunes, and mortal sufferings touch the mind [my translation] W h e r e a s the Bible p r o c e e d s d i r e c d y to the divine c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m to sacri fice his s o n , J o s e p h u s b u i l d s u p t h e p o i g n a n c y o f A b r a h a m ' s d e c i s i o n t o o b e y b y shifting t h e c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y t o I s a a c t h r o u g h a n a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f his v i r t u e s — h i s p r a c t i c e o f e v e r y v i r t u e (dperrj), z e a l (io7Tov8aKO)s)
his d e v o t e d filial o b e d i e n c e (Qepaireias),
for t h e w o r s h i p (dp-qoK€iav) o f G - d (Ant
a n d his
1.222). A l l o f this c a l l s
f o r t h m o r e c l e a r l y t h e a f f e c t i o n o f his p a r e n t s for h i m , j u s t as it u n d e r s c o r e s h o w
threshold o f old a g e " (irrl yrjpaos ov8a>). T h e familiarity o f the expression is also seen in the w a y in w h i c h a still middle-aged Socrates, speaking to the old m a n C e p h a l u s at the beginning o f Plato's Re public (1.328E), says, "I w o u l d gladly learn of you w h a t y o u think o f this thing, n o w that your time has c o m e to it, the thing the poets m e a n b y " o n the threshold o f old a g e " [errl yrjpaos ovSto]." T h a t this is a stock description o f a helpless person is clear from the fourth-century B.C.E. Lycurgus, w h o speaks o f "hurrying about helplessly o n the threshold o f old age [inl yfjpcus ouSai]" (Against Leocrates 40). T h a t thesaurus o f popular sayings, M e n a n d e r (ca. 342-291 B.C.E.) (fr. 671, Kock), states that "it is most pitiable w h e n o n the threshold o f old age [inl yrjpojs oSo>] just character has received the shock o f an unjust fortune." Finally, Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, in describing the evils o f war, mentions that par ents u p o n the threshold of old age (4m yfjpcus 68o>) b e c o m e slaves instead of free m e n (Rom. Ant. 8.35.3). Schalit 1944-63, 2:39, n. 250, declares that the expression was certainly d u e to Josephus's G r e e k assis tants; but, as I have noted in m y review o f T h a c k e r a y ' s Josephus: The Man and the Historian (Feldman 1970a, 545-46), Josephus's statement that he h a d fellow workers for the sake o f the G r e e k style occurs in his discussion o f the composition o f the Jewish War rather than o f the Antiquities (Ag. Ap.). T h e very fact that the phrase is found also in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, w h o lived at the e n d of the first century B.C.E., w o u l d indicate that this h a d b e c o m e characteristic o f G r e e k works b y this time rather than that it w a s the work o f a special assistant. 105. Inasmuch as Josephus prides himself on his acquisition of knowledge o f G r e e k a n d thus must have possessed a considerable linguistic aptitude (Ant. 20.263-64), a n d inasmuch as the Antiquities w a s issued by Josephus after he h a d lived in R o m e for over two decades, one w o u l d expect that he might have acquired a knowledge of Latin as well. S o m e of his sources for the period closest to his time were most probably written in Latin, especially the l o n g account at the beginning of b o o k 19 o f the Antiqui ties describing the assassination o f Caligula a n d the accession o f Claudius (see Feldman 1962, 320-33). T h a c k e r a y 1929, 7 1 - 7 2 a n d 1 1 8 - 1 9 , has remarked that occasionally the underlying Latin shines through, a n d he cites examples, notably parallels between Josephus's negative portrait of J o h n o f Gischala a n d Sallust's description o f Catiline (De Catilinae Coniuratione 5). N a d e l 1966, 256-72, postulates that in his invectives against the Zealots a n d the Sicarii, Josephus drew u p o n the orations of C i c e r o a n d the works of Sallust. D a u b e 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 1 - 9 4 , has also noted a Latinism in Josephus's Life (414) in the use o f KcXevaavros in the sense o f iubeo, "to authorize."
270
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
g r e a t A b r a h a m ' s faith is in his w i l l i n g n e s s to sacrifice s u c h a s o n . P h i l o also d e scribes I s a a c in t e r m s intelligible to his G r e e k r e a d e r s , n o t i n g t h a t h e s h o w e d a p e r f e c t i o n o f v i r t u e s (dperds)
b e y o n d his y e a r s , b u t h e a d d s t h a t I s a a c possessed
also g r e a t b o d i l y b e a u t y a n d t h a t A b r a h a m c h e r i s h e d a s t r o n g t e n d e r n e s s for h i m (tXooTopyla, " t e n d e r l o v e , " " f a m i l y affection") (DeAbrahamo
3 2 . 1 6 8 ; see S a n d m e l
1956, 72, n. 322). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , presents a p i c t u r e t h a t o m i t s P h i l o ' s stress o n t e n d e r n e s s . I n s t e a d , h e a p p e a l s p a r t i c u l a r l y to his H e l l e n i z e d r e a d e r s , for h e states, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t A b r a h a m , b e c a u s e o f I s a a c ' s virtues, rested all his o w n h a p p i n e s s (evSaLpuovlav) in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d l e a v e his s o n u n s c a t h e d (diraOr)) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) d i e d (Ant 1 . 2 2 3 ) . piness w o u l d r e m i n d
the
reader
106
T h i s emphasis on A b r a h a m ' s hap
o f Aristotle's statement
(Nicomachean
Ethics
1 . 4 . 1 0 9 5 A 1 6 - 2 0 ) t h a t b o t h the g e n e r a l r u n o f p e o p l e a n d those o f s u p e r i o r refine m e n t a g r e e t h a t h a p p i n e s s is the h i g h e s t o f all g o o d s a c h i e v a b l e b y a c t i o n , a n d t h a t p e o p l e differ o n l y as to w h a t h a p p i n e s s is. P h i l o , t o o , a g r e e s in r e g a r d i n g h a p p i n e s s as the u l t i m a t e g o a l o f h u m a n e n d e a v o r (De Cherubim 31.106). T h e r e is p a r t i c u l a r i r o n y in the fact t h a t A b r a h a m seeks to l e a v e his s o n u n s c a t h e d (drradrj, " n o t suffering," " u n a f f e c t e d , " " w i t h o u t feeling"); for the w o r d t h a t J o s e p h u s uses h e r e (Ant 1.223) h a s t w o v e r y different m e a n i n g s , b o t h o f w h i c h are a c t u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to I s a a c . O n e is " u n s c a t h e d " o r " n o t suffering"; a n d , i n d e e d , w h i l e I s a a c e n d s u p u n h a r m e d , A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y d o e s set o u t to sacrifice h i m . O n the o t h e r h a n d , I s a a c a p p e a r s " e m o t i o n l e s s " o n l y in the sense that, in his utter faith, h e d o e s n o t o b j e c t to his i m m o l a t i o n (actually, h e w e l c o m e s it enthusiasti cally). T h e p a t h e t i c i r o n y o f the fact t h a t A b r a h a m seeks h a p p i n e s s o n l y t h r o u g h his son, w h i l e t h a t s o n is a b o u t to b e sacrificed, recalls a similar i r o n y in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis, w i t h its c o m p a r a b l e situation o f a father p o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r t o sacrifice his child. T h e r e , E u r i p i d e s , in a n a t t e m p t at irony, h a s the C h o r u s , u p o n c a t c h i n g sight o f Q u e e n C l y t e m n e s t r a a n d h e r d a u g h t e r as t h e y a p p r o a c h in a c h a r i o t , start their o d e ,
la), pueydXat pueydXcov evSatpLovlai ( O h , o h ! g r e a t h a p
piness o f the great!) (590-91). T h a t J o s e p h u s h a d E u r i p i d e s in m i n d in this p a r t o f his w o r k s e e m s i n d i c a t e d c
b y the fact t h a t j u s t b e f o r e h e c o m e s t o the A q e d a h , h e d e s c r i b e s h o w the f l e e i n g H a g a r p l a c e d h e r c h i l d I s h m a e l , w h o w a s at his last g a s p , u n d e r a tree a n d t h e n w a n d e r e d a w a y so t h a t h e w o u l d n o t die in h e r p r e s e n c e (deioa TO rratdlov payovv,
(bs /XT) irapovo-qs
i/ivxop-
rr)v i^vx^v dfj, Trporjei) (Ant 1.218). H e r e J o s e p h u s i m i
tates E u r i p i d e s ' Hercules Furens (323-24), a p l a y that s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a favorite o f J o s e p h u s ' s ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 1 1 7 - 1 8 ; 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 , 4:108), or, i f w e a c c e p t T h a c k e r a y ' s t h e o r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s assistant's. T h e r e A m p h i t r y o n asks t h a t h e a n d his wife
106. T h e rabbis also, to be sure, note Isaac's virtues, particularly his piety and obedience; see R a p paport 1930, 19-20, no. 84, and Ginzberg 1909-38, 5:249, n. 230. Marmorstein 1920, 75-76, 149, re marks, however, that the merits of Isaac are very seldom alluded to in the aggada.
ABRAHAM
271
b e slain so t h a t at their last g a s p t h e y m a y n o t see their c h i l d r e n c a l l i n g u p o n t h e i r m o t h e r (d)s pir) T€KV'
elaibojpiev
i/jvxoppayovvra
Kal KaXovvra purjTepa).
T h a t J o s e p h u s is p e r h a p s m o d e l i n g his I s a a c o n I p h i g e n i a is to b e s e e n in t h e fact t h a t b o t h figures a p p r o a c h their sacrifice w i t h e n t h u s i a s m , w h e r e a s , for e x a m ple, in t h e c a s e o f t h e m a r t y r E l e a z a r in 4 M a c e . 7:14, it is his r e a s o n (XoyiopLcp), a trait n o t t o b e c r e d i t e d to I s a a c b y J o s e p h u s , t h a t p r e v a i l s o v e r his torture. T o b e sure, 4 M a c c a b e e s d o e s , i n d e e d , i m p u t e r e a s o n to I s a a c (7:14), b u t this is m o s t p r o b a b l y t h e result o f the S t o i c i n f l u e n c e t h a t p e r v a d e s t h a t b o o k . T h e s a m e m a y b e said o f t h e p o r t r a i t o f I s a a c as t h e e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f religious r e a s o n in P h i l o ( G o o d e n o u g h 1935, 153 ff.). W h e n A b r a h a m in J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s his h o p e t h a t h e will l e a v e his s o n I s a a c u n s c a t h e d (drraOr]s) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) dies (Ant. 1.223),
w
e
should note that the
t e r m drradrjs a n d the c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n drrddeia (freedom f r o m e m o t i o n a l dis t u r b a n c e ) a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y c o m m o n S t o i c t e r m s for f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n .
1 0 7
In
d e e d , for t h e S t o i c s to m a k e love (epws) s u b s e r v i e n t t o friendship (<j>i\orrodas\ cf. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.130 a n d C i c e r o * Tusculan Disputations 4.33.70-34.73) w a s p a r t o f c
the p u r s u i t o f drrddeia (Ferguson 1958, 68); a n d , in t r u t h , the w h o l e A q e d a h , w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n , is a p r i m e e x a m p l e o f h o w J o s e p h u s m a k e s J e w i s h v a l u e s c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e S t o i c s . I n fact, J o s e p h u s himself, in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in t h e B i b l e , represents t h e s a m e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f h a p p i ness a n d b e i n g u n s c a t h e d in G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t to A d a m a n d E v e t h a t H e h a d d e c r e e d for t h e m a life o f h a p p i n e s s (euScu/xova), u n m o l e s t e d (drradr)) b y all ill (Ant. 1.46). I n this p r i m e v a l U t o p i a , all t h i n g s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o e n j o y m e n t a n d p l e a s u r e s p r i n g u p s p o n t a n e o u s l y t h r o u g h G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (npovoiav,
a standard Stoic
t e r m ) , m e n h a v e l o n g lives, a n d o l d a g e d o e s n o t s o o n o v e r t a k e t h e m ( F e l d m a n 1968,
341). Similarly, I s a a c himself, in J o s e p h u s , u s i n g t h e s a m e t w o w o r d s
" h a p p y " a n d " b e i n g u n m o l e s t e d , " p r a y s to G - d to p r o t e c t his s o n J a c o b , t o p r e serve h i m f r o m e v e r y t o u c h o f ill (drradrj (evSatpiova)
KaKov), a n d to g r a n t h i m a blissful
life (Ant. 1.276). J o s e p h u s thus presents A b r a h a m as s e e k i n g for I s a a c
the S t o i c g o a l o f h a p p i n e s s as identified w i t h drrddeLa. T h e i d e a t h a t l e a v i n g o n e ' s s o n u n s c a t h e d is a sine q u a n o n in the a c h i e v e m e n t o f h a p p i n e s s r e m i n d s o n e o f the p a s s a g e in H e r o d o t u s (1.30), w h e r e S o l o n tells C r o e s u s t h a t T e l l u s o f A t h e n s w a s the h a p p i e s t o f all m e n , as i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t his c i t y w a s p r o s p e r o u s , h e h a d fine sons, h e l i v e d to see c h i l d r e n b o r n t o e a c h o f t h e m , a n d all o f his c h i l d r e n s u r v i v e d h i m . J o s e p h u s ' s i m p l i c i t c o m p a r i s o n o f A b r a h a m w i t h P r i a m , n o t e d a b o v e , is thus c a r r i e d further: t h e p a t h e t i c P r i a m sees all o f his sons d i e d u r i n g his o w n lifetime, a n d A b r a h a m ' s h o p e to see I s a a c as t h e stay o f his o l d a g e is a b o u t to b e frustrated b y G - d ' s c o m m a n d t h a t h e sacrifice his
107. Cf., e.g., Dionysius of Heraclea the Stoic (third century B.C.E.) 3.34; Epictetus, ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 4.6.34; Antipater of Tarsus the Stoic 3.109; and Philodemus, Concerning the Stoics (Herculanensia Volumina 339.7). D a l y 1977, 58, is hardly correct in his comment that "worthy of note [in Josephus's ac count] is the absence of the Stoic flavor so prominent in Philo and especially 4 Maccabees."
272
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
s o n (Ant
PORTRAITS
1.230). W h i l e it is true t h a t ostensibly the h o p e t h a t A b r a h a m h e r e e x
presses is, n o t t h a t his s o n will b e d e v o i d o f passions a n d e m o t i o n s t h a t interfere w i t h a life in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h n a t u r e , b u t s i m p l y t h a t his s o n will g r o w t o m a t u r i t y u n h a r m e d , w e m a y w e l l ask why, if this is all t h a t h e s o u g h t to convey, J o s e p h u s d i d n o t use t h e w o r d djSAajSrfc, " u n h a r m e d , " w h i c h h e uses o n six o c c a s i o n s e l s e w h e r e in the first h a l f o f the
Antiquities.
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the w o r d Oepairela (Ant
in e m p h a s i z i n g I s a a c ' s filial o b e d i e n c e
1.222) m a y w e l l h a v e b r o u g h t to t h e m i n d s o f those o f his r e a d e r s w h o a d
m i r e d P l a t o a p a s s a g e in the Laws ( 1 0 . 8 8 6 C 6 - 9 ) w h e r e P l a t o is critical o f the tra d i t i o n a l t h e o g o n y o f the G r e e k s o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t it d e p i c t s the g o d s as n o t s h o w i n g p r o p e r a t t e n d a n c e (Oepairelas)
o n a n d r e s p e c t (n/xds) for p a r e n t s . T h e
Stoics, t o o , e m p h a s i z e d this quality, as w e see in E p i c t e t u s ' s r e m a r k
(Encheiridion
30): "Is a c e r t a i n m a n y o u r father? I n this are i m p l i e d t a k i n g c a r e o f h i m , s u b m i t t i n g to h i m in all things, r e c e i v i n g his r e p r o a c h e s . " R o m a n r e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e b e e n r e m i n d e d o f the a d m o n i t i o n a d d r e s s e d to S c i p i o b y his father to c h e r i s h pietas, w h i c h is a g r e a t o b l i g a t i o n t o w a r d p a r e n t s a n d k i n ( C i c e r o , Somnium Scipio nis 3 . 8 ) .
108
It is true t h a t the r a b b i s also a s s i g n e d to I s a a c a m o r e a c t i v e role in the story t h a n d o e s the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n the oldest t a r g u m i c a c c o u n t ,
1 0 9
I s a a c gives his
c o n s e n t a n d i n d e e d asks t o b e b o u n d so t h a t the sacrifice m a y b e perfect; b u t this n e w stress is m o r e stated t h a n d e v e l o p e d (Blidstein 1975, 194, n. 9 ) .
1 1 0
W i t h Jose
p h u s , as in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis, it is the c h i l d w h o b e c o m e s the p r o t a g o n i s t . W h a t follows is, in effect, a d r a m a , in f o r m s o m e w h a t like the B o o k o f J o b o r E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus,
c o m m e n c i n g w i t h a p r o l o g u e , in w h i c h G - d a p p e a r s to
A b r a h a m . T h e n c o m e s the p l a y proper, so to speak, c o n t a i n i n g a d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c , a n d a n e p i l o g u e , in w h i c h G - d c o m m e n d s A b r a h a m a n d p r e d i c t s the g l o r i o u s future o f his d e s c e n d a n t s . A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the test, w h e r e the B i b l e h a s G - d m e r e l y g i v i n g a c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m ( G e n . 22:2), J o s e p h u s , w e l l a w a r e t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d w o n d e r at the s e e m i n g arbitrariness o f s u c h a c o m m a n d , h a s G - d e l a b o r a t e o n the c o m m a n d b y first e n u m e r a t i n g t h r e e m a j o r benefits t h a t H e h a d b e s t o w e d u p o n A b r a h a m : v i c t o r y o v e r his e n e m i e s in w a r ; h a p p i n e s s ( p r e s u m a b l y in m a t e -
108. W h i l e the rabbis also stress the importance o f filial obedience, Josephus's terminology w o u l d be recognized b y his G r e e k readers as more closely reminiscent o f Plato and o f the Stoics, since 0e/oa77€ia in this sense o f service for parents seems to be found only in Plato a n d in the sophist Gorgias (fr. 6 D). 109. Cf. V e r m e s 1973, 194, citing the fragmentary targum and the T a r g u m Neofiti on G e n . 22:10. Cf. also M o o r e 1927,1:539, citing Sifre Deuteronomy 32, w h i c h goes so far as to state that Isaac b o u n d him self. n o . Cf. M a r t i n - A c h a r d 1982, 5 - 1 0 , noting the shift in Jewish literature from the biblical era to the G r a e c o - R o m a n period in the status o f Isaac from an evoker o f smiles to martyr and from obscure son to the great witness o f Israel's suffering.
ABRAHAM
273
rial things); a n d the b i r t h o f a s o n , the last o f w h i c h will c e r t a i n l y serve to h e i g h t e n the i r o n y o f w h a t follows (Ant. 1.224). T h u s the sacrifice m a y b e v i e w e d , as in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities threefold b e n e v o l e n c e .
1 1 1
(32.2), as a l o g i c a l r e p a y m e n t to G - d for H i s
R a b b i n i c literature, o n the o t h e r h a n d , s a w n o n e e d to
h a v e G - d a p o l o g i z e for his c o m m a n d , a n d so t h e r e it is A b r a h a m w h o justifies the sacrifice in his o w n m i n d as a r e p a y m e n t for G - d ' s g r e a t gifts to h i m s e l f (Tanhuma, Lek Leka 13). J o s e p h u s ' s o w n p r e s e n t a t i o n o f sacrifice w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e a d i l y in telligible t o a p a g a n G r e e k a u d i e n c e , as w e m a y see f r o m the c o m m e n t o f the o l d m a n C e p h a l u s , r e p r e s e n t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l m o r a l i t y a n d r e l i g i o n , in Plato's Republic ( 1 . 3 3 1 A - B ) , t h a t the g r e a t v a l u e o f w e a l t h is t h a t it k e e p s o n e f r o m h a v i n g t o l e a v e life in the fear o f o w i n g d e b t s to m e n o r sacrifices to the g o d s . I n s e e k i n g t o p r e s e n t a n a p o l o g y for A b r a h a m ' s e x t r a o r d i n a r y a c t i o n , J o s e p h u s resorts a g a i n to t e r m i n o l o g y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the Stoics, since t o h a v e p r e s e n t e d A b r a h a m as a c t i n g o n m e r e b l i n d faith w o u l d h a v e b e e n unsatisfactory to J o s e p h u s ' s c u l t u r e d G e n t i l e G r e e k r e a d e r s . H e n c e h e says that, in o b e y i n g the d i v i n e c o m m a n d , A b r a h a m , in the guise o f a k i n d o f S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r , r e a s o n e d t h a t " a l l t h a t befell H i s f a v o r e d o n e s [ots \irpovolas\"
av evpievrjs
77] w a s o r d a i n e d b y p r o v i d e n c e
(Ant. 1.225). W h e r e a s the r a b b i s p r e s e n t a story o f S a t a n c h a l l e n g i n g
G - d t o p r o v e A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness, w h i c h involves g r a v e p r o b l e m s o f t h e o d icy
1 1 2
J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l e n t a n g l e m e n t s , p r o c e e d s i m m e d i a t e l y
t o A b r a h a m ' s o b e d i e n c e to G - d ' s c o m m a n d . I n his stress o n npovoia
1 1 3
h e r e , J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l b e a n s w e r i n g the E p i c u r e
1 1 4
I n d e e d , in the c o n c l u s i o n o f his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B o o k o f D a n i e l , h e signi
ficantly
states t h a t the fulfillment o f D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y p r o v e s " h o w m i s t a k e n a r e
ans.
the E p i c u r e a n s , w h o e x c l u d e p r o v i d e n c e \yrp6votav] f r o m h u m a n life a n d refuse to b e l i e v e t h a t G - d g o v e r n s its affairs o r t h a t the u n i v e r s e is d i r e c t e d b y a b l e s s e d a n d
i n . F r a n x m a n 1979, 158, remarks that G - d ' s enumeration o f the benefits that H e had bestowed u p o n A b r a h a m "does not e x a c d y compliment A b r a h a m ' s faith"; but Josephus's purpose here is most likely apologetic, namely, to avoid casting G - d in a b a d light for having m a d e such a d e m a n d u p o n A b r a h a m as to sacrifice his son. I must stress that this does not contradict the thesis stated above, that Josephus in this pericope has toned d o w n the theologizing, since he h a d to w e i g h that intention against the need to defend his people against those detractors o f Judaism w h o had charged that the G - d o f the Jews w a s cruel a n d capricious. It is to answer these critics, rather than to engage in theological specu lation, that Josephus has G - d defend Himself here. 112. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 1:272-73, and 5:248-49, nn. 227-28. A l t h o u g h w e m a y argue that submis sion to G - d ' s will is hardly an idea restricted to the Stoics, since it is found also in the M i s h n a h (Avot 2:4), the language Josephus uses in giving the reason for such submission—namely, that all that befell His favored ones w a s ordained by divine providence—has n o rabbinic parallel as such. 113. W h e n Josephus does show an interest in what w e w o u l d call theology, he does so from a Stoic perspective, in order to impress the Stoic-trained intelligentsia thereby. See Lewinsky 1887, 3 6 - 4 6 , a n d M o o r e 1929, 371-89. 114. T h e rabbis, too, found the Epicureans abhorrent, as w e see from the saying " K n o w w h a t to answer the E p i c u r e a n " (Avot 2:14).
274
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
i m m o r t a l B e i n g , to the e n d t h a t the w h o l e o f it m a y e n d u r e , b u t say t h a t the w o r l d r u n s b y its o w n m o v e m e n t w i t h o u t k n o w i n g a g u i d e o r a n o t h e r ' s c a r e "
(Ant
10.278). T h i s w h o l e p a s s a g e s o u n d s like a q u o t a t i o n f r o m a S t o i c h a n d b o o k . B y his e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (Ant
1.225)
m
s
h^ ' A q e d a h p e r i c o p e , J o s e p h u s
w o u l d s e e m to b e c o n t r a s t i n g the J e w s w i t h t h o s e — n a m e l y , the G r e e k s — w h o 115
w e r e u n d e r the spell o f fate (eipLappLevrj).
A significant c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the style o f the B i b l e a n d t h a t o f J o s e p h u s m a y b e s e e n in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c as t h e y p r o c e e d to the sacrifice. O n the o n e h a n d , in the B i b l e , w e a r e k e p t in the d a r k as to w h i c h p l a c e it w a s t h a t A b r a h a m s a w ( G e n . 22:4), y e t a r e g i v e n the g r u e s o m e e x t e r n a l details t h a t " A b r a h a m t o o k the w o o d o f the b u r n t offering a n d laid it o n I s a a c , his son; a n d h e t o o k in his h a n d the fire a n d k n i f e " ( G e n . 22:6). W e are told n o t h i n g o f the
inner
t h o u g h t s o f the pair, o t h e r t h a n I s a a c ' s q u e s t i o n as to w h e r e the l a m b for the offer i n g m i g h t b e , a n d A b r a h a m ' s d e c e p t i v e a n s w e r t h a t G - d will p r o v i d e it. J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , c l e a r l y identifies the p l a c e as t h e m o u n t a i n t h a t h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d (Ant 1.226); b u t h e o m i t s t h e e x t e r n a l details (Ant 1.227),
a
s
w
e
u
a
s
m
e
words
" a n d t h e y w a l k e d t o g e t h e r , " a p h r a s e t h a t c o n t r i b u t e s to the suspense felt b y the r e a d e r o f the a c c o u n t in G e n e s i s . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h e creates a d r a m a t i c d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n father a n d son. c
J o s e p h u s is n o t interested in p r e s e n t i n g t h e details o f the A q e d a h as a p r o t o sacrifice, since these a r e t h e o l o g i c a l m a t t e r s ; h e is c o n c e r n e d , rather, w i t h the t w o personalities i n v o l v e d . I n particular, a l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y averse to e m p h a s i z i n g the ology, J o s e p h u s d o e s p r e s e n t a defense o f G - d ' s role to r e a d e r s w h o w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y raise q u e s t i o n s a b o u t i t — t h a t G - d h a d " p o w e r alike to g i v e m e n a b u n d a n c e o f w h a t t h e y h a d n o t a n d to t a k e b a c k for H i m s e l f [d^eAeaflcu; n o t e the effect o f the m i d d l e v o i c e ] w h a t t h e y h a d f r o m those w h o felt a s s u r e d " b e c o n f i d e n t , " " b e a r r o g a n t " ] o f their p o s s e s s i o n s " (Ant
1.227).
[dappovvrwv^
116
A t t r i d g e has
n o t e d the n e a d y b a l a n c e d g n o m i c f o r m o f this e x p r e s s i o n , w h i c h s o u n d s as i f it c a m e f r o m a r h e t o r i c a l o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l h a n d b o o k (Attridge 1976, 93). T h e last p h r a s e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f the story in H e r o d o t u s (3.40-43), o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s fa v o r i t e a u t h o r s , c o n c e r n i n g the t y r a n t P o l y c r a t e s o f S a m o s (ca. 5 3 5 - 5 1 5 B.C.E.), w h o felt t o o sure o f his possessions a n d w a s c o n s e q u e n d y w a r n e d b y his friend K i n g A m a s i s o f E g y p t to t h r o w his d e a r e s t possession into the sea. P o l y c r a t e s t h e r e u p o n t h r e w into the sea a p r e c i o u s ring, o n l y to r e c o v e r it in a fish t h a t a
fisherman
later
p r e s e n t e d t o h i m , l e a d i n g A m a s i s to c o n c l u d e t h a t P o l y c r a t e s w o u l d a s s u r e d l y suffer disaster, since it is i m p o s s i b l e for a n y o n e to p r o s p e r in e v e r y t h i n g ; a n d so in d e e d it t u r n e d out. T h e r e are several o t h e r parallels to J o s e p h u s ' s g n o m i c p r o -
115. For the distinction, see M a r t i n 1981, 127-37, esp. 134 and 137, n. 25. 116. Philo similarly states on this passage, " T o G - d all things are possible, including those that are impossible or insuperable to m e n " (DeAbrahamo 32.175).
ABRAHAM
n o u n c e m e n t in E u r i p i d e s , in Phoenissae 5 5 5 - 5 7 , 711-15,
1 1 9
a n d Heracleidae 6 1 3 - 1 4 ,
1 2 0
1 1 7
Trojan Women 6 1 2 - 1 3 ,
1 1 8
as w e l l as i n a f r a g m e n t o f a lost p l a y .
275
Helen 1 2 1
We
m a y also note the parallel b e t w e e n Josephus's statement that Isaac c o u l d not e v e n c o n s i d e r r e j e c t i n g G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232) a n d I p h i g e n i a ' s c o n v i c t i o n (Iphigenia at Aulis 396) t h a t she, a m o r t a l w o m a n , c o u l d n o t s t a n d in t h e w a y (eyarohajv) o f t h e g o d d e s s . I n J o s e p h u s , it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o s t a n d s in t h e w a y (ifjLTroSwv), s o t h a t t h e h u m a n sacrifice is n o t c o n s u m m a t e d (Ant. 1.233). O n e m a j o r a d d i t i o n t o t h e B i b l e is J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t I s a a c w a s t w e n t y c
five at t h e t i m e o f t h e A q e d a h (Ant. 2 . 2 2 7 ) .
122
In Jubilees (17:15), h e is s a i d t o b e
117. "Mortals d o not, indeed, o w n their o w n possessions, but holding the things belonging to the gods, w e take care o f them, a n d w h e n e v e r they wish, they take them a w a y again." T h i s sentiment also attracted the notice o f Philo, w h o amplifies it thus: "And if w e recognize that w e have but the use [of our possessions] w e shall tend them with care as G - d ' s possessions, r e m e m b e r i n g from the first that it is the Master's custom, w h e n H e will, to take back His o w n " (De Cherubim 33.118). 118. "I see the things o f the gods, h o w they, o n the o n e hand, raise aloft those things that are noth ing, a n d , o n the other hand, have destroyed those things that have reputations." 119. " M y daughter, the w a y o f G - d is complex; he is hard for us to predict. H e moves the pieces and they c o m e s o m e h o w into a kind o f order. S o m e have b a d luck while others, scatheless, meet their evil a n d g o d o w n in turn. N o n e c a n hold fortune still a n d make it last" (trans. R . Lattimore). 120. " O n the o n e hand, raising o n e aloft, it [fate] brings h i m low, and, o n the other hand, it ren ders h a p p y the o n e w h o is unpunished." Cf. Horace, Odes 1.34.12-14: " G - d has p o w e r to change the lowest thing to the highest and, bringing to light the obscure, depresses the exalted." 121. " O f t e n G - d brings low a n d humbles again the greatest things" (Euripides, fr. 716, lines 3 - 4 [Papyrus O x y r h y n c h u s 2460, fr. 3 2 = C o l i n Austin, ed., Nova Fragmenta Euripidis (Berlin, 1968), fr. 124, p . 72]). Philo, De Somniis 1.24.154, quotes a similar passage from one o f Euripides' lost plays, Ino: " O n e day brings o n e m a n d o w n from o n high a n d lifts another up, a n d nothing relating to m a n is o f a nature to remain as it is," a n d paraphrases it again in De Vita Mosis 1.6.31. O n this motif and its appearance in later literature, see Beers 1914, 5 5 - 5 8 . O f course, the same general sentiment is to b e found also in 1 S a m . 2:7-8, " T h e L - r d maketh p o o r a n d maketh rich; h e bringeth low a n d lifteth up." For similar sen timents see Ps. 147:6, J o b 5:11, Eccles. 10:14, a n d Luke 1:52-53, as well as Homer, Odyssey 16.211-12; Hesiod, Works and Days 6; Archilochus 58; Pindar, Pythian Odes 2.51-52, 2.89; A e s o p (ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 1.3); Democritus, fr. 30; Aristophanes, Lysistrata 772-73; a n d Tacitus, Histories 4.47. 122. Davies a n d Chilton 1978, 521-22, suggests that the age o f 25 is to b e interpreted as the mini m u m for active military service, as is implied in the D e a d S e a W a r Scroll (1 Q M 7.1-3), a n d that Jose phus is thus depicting Isaac as a voluntary martyr facing death with j o y like an adult warrior. A s Davies 1977, 4 1 - 4 2 , notes, in the Bible (Num. 8:24), 25 is the lower age limit for a Levite's service in the T e n t o f Meeting. Furthermore, the lower age limit for officers at Q u m r a n (see the ^adokite Document, 10.6) was also 25. B u t the implication that Josephus admired voluntary m a r t y r d o m w o u l d not accord with his o w n strong opposition to this v i e w at Jotapata, although it w o u l d seem that Josephus does represent the R o m a n s as admiring such voluntary m a r t y r d o m at M a s a d a (War 7.405; see, however, the contrary v i e w o f L a d o u c e u r 1987, 9 5 - 1 1 3 , esp. 104-6). Davies a n d Chilton suggest that Isaac is the prototype o f those w h o were active in the w a r against the R o m a n s . T h e y theorize that martyrs' deaths during this revolt against the R o m a n s in 66-70, w h e n the m i n i m u m age for military service was probably 25, influ enced Josephus's presentation o f Isaac. B u t H a y w a r d 1981,132, n. 30, correcdy objects that there is n o evidence that 25 w a s then the m i n i m u m age for service. Moreover, as I have noted, Josephus's opposi tion to the w a r w a s so fundamental that such an association is hard to accept in view o f Josephus's o b -
276
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
twenty-three.
123
PORTRAITS
T h e significant p o i n t is t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s c h o s e n to m e n t i o n his
a g e , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e c o n s i d e r e d it i m p o r t a n t to m a k e c l e a r t h a t I s a a c w a s n o t a m e r e l a d b u t a g r o w n y o u n g m a n , a n d h e n c e w a s a b l e to m a k e a d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e as t o w h e t h e r h e w o u l d c o n s e n t t o b e i n g sacrificed. T h i s i t e m is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s in v i e w o f the fact t h a t I p h i g e n i a , w i t h w h o m Isaac w o u l d c e r t a i n l y b e c o m p a r e d b y his G r e e k r e a d e r s , d o e s h e r o i c a l l y c o n s e n t to b e sacri ficed in E u r i p i d e s ' play. J o s e p h u s thus d e p a r t s f r o m the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w h i c h c
refers to I s a a c as a l a d (na ar, G e n . 2 2 : 5 ) .
124
H i s d o i n g so further h e i g h t e n s the c o n
trast b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d I p h i g e n i a , w h o is d e p i c t e d as a y o u n g girl s c a r c e l y o f m a r riageable age, considerably younger, a p p a r e n d y than twenty-five, perhaps
no
m o r e t h a n b e t w e e n t w e l v e a n d f o u r t e e n . I n Iphigenia at Aulis, E u r i p i d e s s e e m s to b e c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o the c o m p r o m i s i n g self-centeredness c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h u m a n nature, a n d a p p e a r s to b e e x t o l l i n g the child's v i e w r e p r e s e n t e d b y I p h i g e n i a (Fer g u s o n 1 9 6 8 , 1 5 7 - 6 3 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s stresses that Isaac's a c t i o n in s u b m i t t i n g enthusiastically to sacrifice is the d e c i s i o n o f a m a t u r e m a n . I n a d d i t i o n , as F e r g u s o n also notes, it is c h a n c e t h a t c o n t r o l s the a c t i o n o f E u r i p i d e s ' p l a y in M e n e l a u s ' s i n t e r c e p t i o n o f the o l d m a n , in the a r r i v a l o f the m e s s e n g e r j u s t b e f o r e M e n e l a u s , after A g a m e m n o n h a s a n n o u n c e d his d e c i s i o n n o t to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r a n d is a b o u t to c a r r y o u t his bitter t h r e a t to t u r n to o t h e r m e a n s a n d to o t h e r friends, a n d in the a c c i d e n t a l e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n A c h i l l e s a n d C l y t e m n e s t r a . O n the c o n t r a r y in J o s e p h u s , n o t h i n g is left t o c h a n c e , a n d e v e r y t h i n g h a p p e n s as o r d a i n e d b y p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoLa, Ant. 1.225). T h e fact t h a t I s a a c is a g r o w n m a n w h o d e l i b e r a t e l y acts as h e d o e s d i m i n i s h e s the h o r r o r t h a t s u c h a story w o u l d h a v e a r o u s e d in J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s , to j u d g e f r o m L u c r e t i u s ' s c o m m e n t s
1 2 5
in his retelling o f the
vious admiration for Isaac. W h e n , however, Davies and Chilton conclude that Josephus cannot be used as evidence for any pre-Christian Jewish doctrine, since his work is contemporary with or sometimes even later than the N e w Testament, I m a y remark that there are so m a n y places where Josephus agrees with aggadic traditions that ultimately, in at least some cases, predate the N e w Testament, that their claim seems unconvincing. M o r e likely, the age o f 25 is to be seen as the m i n i m u m age, according to the ^ado/cite Document (10.6), forjudges in the community. M y student L a r r y Moscovitz, in an unpublished paper, has ingeniously suggested another solution to the mystery o f Josephus's source for Isaac's age. H e notes that according to the A d l e r manuscript o f Genesis Rabbah 56.8, as well as Elijah G a o n o f Vilna's emendation in Seder Olam 1, Isaac w a s 26 at the time o f the ' A q e d a h . T h i s tradition is based u p o n the fact that A b r a h a m spent 26 years a m o n g the Philistines and that Isaac w a s b o r n after his first c
year there. Inasmuch, however, as G e n . 22:1 says that the A q e d a h occurred "after these things," a n d supposing that "these things" refers to the time immediately after A b r a h a m ' s leaving the Philistines, Isaac w o u l d have b e e n 25 at that time. c
123. Isaac's age at the A q e d a h is variously given in rabbinic literature (37,36, 27, 26). Cf. Seder Olam 1; Genesis Rabbah 55.5. T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 22:1 declares that Isaac w a s 37 at the time o f c
the A q e d a h . 124. Philo refers to Isaac as a child (-naihos), using a w o r d related to the diminutive form -naibapiov in the Septuagint (Gen. 22:12), but that often refers to a child in relation to descent, and hence can ac tually denote an adult (DeAbrahamo 32.176). 125. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 1.101: "tantum religio potuit suadere m a l o r u m . "
ABRAHAM
277
p a r a l l e l story o f I p h i g e n i a . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , in his o w n p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t o f J e p h t h a h ' s sacrifice o f his d a u g h t e r (Ant. 5 . 2 6 4 - 6 6 ) , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t g i v e h e r a g e , b e c a u s e h e is n o t s e e k i n g to d i m i n i s h t h e h o r r o r o f t h e act, b u t i n s t e a d castigates J e p h t h a h for his rashness in m a k i n g t h e v o w to sacrifice the first c r e a t u r e to g r e e t h i m after his v i c t o r y in w a r . I n this sense, A g a m e m n o n is c o m p a r a b l e to J e p h t h a h , in t h a t h e , t o o , w a s n o t c o m m a n d e d to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r , a n d h e , t o o , w a s m i l itarily a m b i t i o u s , w h e r e a s n e i t h e r o f these factors h o l d s t r u e for A b r a h a m . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t w o r d in the entire b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , i f w e m a y j u d g e , at c
least, f r o m t h e w a y t h a t t h e r a b b i s later refer to t h e i n c i d e n t , is aqad
("bound,"
G e n . 22:9), a h a p a x l e g o m e n o n in t h e B i b l e . F r a n x m a n r e m a r k s t h a t w e shall d o u b d e s s n e v e r k n o w w h a t g a v e rise to t h e tradition, w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a s e i t h e r in v e n t e d o r f o l l o w e d , t h a t h a s A b r a h a m d e l i v e r a h o m i l y to I s a a c r a t h e r t h a n to tie h i m u p ( F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 161). W e m a y suggest t h a t a h o m i l y ties o n e u p m o r e effectively t h a n r o p e , since it i n t e r n a l i z e s t h e b i n d i n g a n d k e e p s o n e f r o m t r y i n g to e s c a p e , as a p h y s i c a l l y b o u n d p e r s o n m i g h t d o . T h e p h y s i c a l b i n d i n g o f I s a a c , h o w e v e r , w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e s e e m e d t o o m u c h for a G r e e k a u d i e n c e a n d w o u l d have incriminated A b r a h a m . Philo omits any mention o f actual binding, although h e at least d o e s d e s c r i b e A b r a h a m p l a c i n g I s a a c o n t h e altar, w h e r e a s this detail also is o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s ( S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 7 3 , n. 3 3 7 ) .
1 2 6
Furthermore, Josephus
d e l i b e r a t e l y h e i g h t e n s the h e r o i s m o f Isaac in r u s h i n g (ajpfjarjaev, Ant. 1.232) o n t o the altar.
127
U n l i k e t h e r a b b i s , w h o t h u s i n d i c a t e t h a t e v e n the p a t r i a r c h s w e r e
h u m a n e n o u g h to b e t e m p t e d t o disobey, J o s e p h u s , h e r e as e l s e w h e r e ,
1 2 8
p a i n t s his
h e r o e s l a r g e r t h a n life, a n d in this c a s e a b o v e t e m p t a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , as w e h a v e a l c
r e a d y n o t e d , in his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t specifically d e p i c t it as a sacrifice t h a t p r e s a g e d t h e sacrifices in the T e m p l e . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , A b r a h a m b e g i n s to p e r f o r m t h e sacrifice in m y s t e r i o u s a n d suspenseful silence ( G e n . 2 2 : 1 - 3 ) , J o s e p h u s , i m i t a t i n g H o m e r ' s style, r e m o v e s this v e i l o f s e c r e c y ; in fact, his d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s p i e t y r e a c h e s its c l i m a x in A b r a h a m ' s s p e e c h to I s a a c , w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a s i n v e n t e d , a n d w h i c h , far f r o m
126. A n o t h e r parallel between the accounts o f Josephus (Ant. 1.227)
a n
d o f Philo (De Abrahamo
32.172-76) has been noted by Brock 1 9 8 1 , 1 - 3 0 , namely, that Isaac's question about what sacrifice A b r a h a m w a s about to offer is posed at the site o f the ' A q e d a h itself rather than on the w a y up to it. 127. Josephus avoids the implication that Isaac h a d to be tied, perhaps because, as the rabbis say, he might have shuddered at the sight o f the knife and recoiled from the sacrifice, thus dishonoring his father and disobeying G - d (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31), or because he might have struggled and thus ren dered the sacrifice ritually unsuitable (Genesis Rabbah 56.8). 128. W h e r e a s the rabbis indicate that G - d also tested Isaac (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 22:1), Josephus avoids such a statement, presumably because it might lead to theological speculation about the results o f this test, notably the rationale o f martyrdom. W e m a y note, as does H a y w a r d 1981, 127-50, that the basic substratum o f the targumic account dates from not later than the first century, al though some elements are admittedly later. T h e definition o f the ' A q e d a h , given by Davies and C h i l t o n 1978, 5 2 1 - 2 2 , is not that o f the targumim.
278
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
b e i n g a n emotional or irrational outburst, explains A b r a h a m ' s action r a t i o n a l l y
129
a n d l o g i c a l l y (Ant. i . 2 2 8 - 3 1 ) , in a f a s h i o n w i t h o u t r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l . J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t is t h a t since I s a a c w a s b o r n o u t o f the c o u r s e o f n a t u r e ,
130
it is fitting t h a t h e
die, n o t b y sickness, o r war, o r a n y o f the u s u a l c a l a m i t i e s b y w h i c h m e n p e r i s h , b u t in this m o s t u n u s u a l fashion o f a sacrifice (Ant. 1.230-31). A s a result, G - d Himself, r a t h e r t h a n his son, I s a a c , will b e A b r a h a m ' s p r o t e c t o r ,
131
since it is t o H i m that h e
is offering this sacrifice. T h i s trait o f b e i n g b o r n in a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y w a y a n d o f l e a v i n g life in a similarly e x t r a o r d i n a r y w a y is c o m m o n in b i o g r a p h i e s o f G r e e k a n d R o m a n h e r o e s , notably, H e r a c l e s , O e d i p u s , T h e s e u s , a n d R o m u l u s . M o r e over, A b r a h a m asks his son to b e a r this c o n s e c r a t i o n (Kadiipcoaiv) n o b l e b i r t h (yewalws)
as befits o n e o f
(Ant. 1.229). T h i s e m i n e n c e o f b i r t h is e m p h a s i z e d in the r e p
etition o f this s a m e w o r d (yewalov) (Ant. 1.232), w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses t o d e s c r i b e the n o b i l i t y o f spirit w i t h w h i c h I s a a c r e c e i v e s his father's w o r d s . T h e fact that J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s a d d r e s s to I s a a c a n d d o e s n o t h a v e h i m m a k i n g a n y a p p e a l to G - d contrasts w i t h the r a b b i n i c e m p h a s i s o n A b r a h a m ' s a d d r e s s t o G - d , in w h i c h h e n o t e s t h a t a l t h o u g h h e c o u l d h a v e a r g u e d a g a i n s t the d i v i n e d e c r e e , h e d i d n o t d o so, a n d therefore p l e a d s , a c c o r d i n g to the rabbis, t h a t G - d d e f e n d the d e s c e n d a n t s w h o m I s a a c is d e s t i n e d to h a v e w h e n t h e y g e t into t r o u b l e .
132
T h e fact
t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t h a v e s u c h a n a p p e a l , fraught as it is w i t h the p r o b l e m o f theodicy, is a g a i n in line w i t h his effort to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s , w h i c h h e a p p a r e n d y i n t e n d e d to d e a l w i t h in a>separate w o r k (Ant. 1.25, 4 . 1 9 8 , 20.268). A b r a h a m ' s c a l m a n d r e a s o n e d a p p r o a c h also contrasts w i t h A g a m e m n o n ' s pitiful a p o l o g y in E u r i p i d e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 1 2 5 5 - 7 5 ) , in w h i c h h e b e w a i l s his d i l e m m a a n d c l a i m s t h a t i f h e d o e s n o t d o the w i l l o f the g o d d e s s A r t e m i s a n d sacrifice his
129. Cf. L o r d 1968,166. A s Bomstad 1979, 2, has noted, the set speech—such as A b r a h a m here de livers in Josephus—in antiquity "is a literary device used to further the aims o f the historian, to present to the reader the author's interpretation o f events, and to attempt to persuade him o f the truth o f that interpretation." N . G . C o h e n 1963-64, 311-32, remarks that in his inclusion o f long set speeches, Jose phus follows the precedent o f contemporary G r e e k historians. In the case o f the A q e d a h , his chief m o tive for the speech seems to have been apologetic, namely, to respond to the revulsion against h u m a n sacrifice that non-Jewish readers might have felt in reading the account. L u c i a n declares in his Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit—an
essay whose ideals for the writing o f history Josephus closely follows, as
Avenarius 1956 has shown—that speeches afford the historian "the counsel's right o f showing your elo quence." H e n c e the speeches in an ancient history are the natural starting point for any attempt to per ceive the author's o w n views. O n the liberties taken by Josephus in the speeches in books 1 a n d 2 o f the Antiquities, see Dibelius 1956, 138-91. 130. T h e phrase "out o f the course o f nature" is not in the Greek, w h i c h seems to have a lacuna here, but it is evident from the conclusion o f the sentence that Isaac is n o w to leave his life in an un usual fashion. 131. F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 1 5 9 - 6 0 , says that A b r a h a m breaks the news o f the impending sacrifice so del icately to Isaac that "considering the rather unusual and unexpected character o f w h a t w a s intended, it is surprising that Isaac got the point o f w h a t his father w a s saying." But w e m a y object that A b r a h a m does clearly state that Isaac is n o w to die by w a y o f the rite o f sacrifice. 132. Cf. Jerusalem T a l m u d , Ta'anit 6$d; Genesis Rabbah 56.15; a n d other passages cited by M a r morstein 1920, 76.
ABRAHAM
daughter,
his
angry
army
will slaughter
him
and
his f a m i l y
279
Agamemnon's
s p e e c h — t o j u d g e f r o m t h e E l d e r S e n e c a (Suasoriae, 3), w h e r e w e h a v e a s a m p l e o f s u c h a n a d d r e s s — a n d A b r a h a m ' s s p e e c h in J o s e p h u s a r e a p p a r e n d y e x a m p l e s o f 33
the p r o g y m n a s m a t i c (preparatory) exercise called The
ethopoeia}
f a c t t h a t A b r a h a m m a k e s n o a p p e a l t o I s a a c t o sacrifice h i m s e l f altruisti
c a l l y for t h e s a k e o f his d e s c e n d a n t s o r for t h e s a n c t i f i c a t i o n o f G - d ' s n a m e , s u c h as w e find in r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e , r e m o v e s t h e t h e o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n a n d c o n c e n trates attention o n the c h a r a c t e r o f Isaac h i m s e l f .
1 3 4
O n this p o i n t t h e r e is a b a s i c
d i f f e r e n c e a l s o b e t w e e n P s e u d o - P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s ( F e l d m a n 1 9 8 9 b , 64). I n J o s e p h u s , t h e sacrifice is t h e fulfillment o f a h u m a n , t h a t is, n a t u r a l , m i s s i o n a n d n o t
133.
S e e Spengel 1854-94, vol. 2. O f the four rhetoricians w h o m Spengel c i t e s — T h e o n , Pseudo-
H e r m o g e n e s , Aphthonius, a n d N i c o l a u s — T h e o n , the oldest, is probably Aelius T h e o n , w h o w o u l d have been a y o u n g e r contemporary of Josephus's. T h e o n (ibid., 60-130) describes fifteen exercises de signed to prepare a student not only for declamations but also specifically for writing history a n d p o etry. O n e o f the progymnasmatic exercises of A p h t h o n i u s (ibid., 2 1 - 5 6 , no. 11) presents the words that N i o b e might have uttered after h e r children h a d been slain. In such a situation, w e are told, a parent's remarks should b e c o n c e r n e d with the present, past, a n d future (as, indeed, those o f A b r a h a m are in Ant. 1.228-31). O n e o f the earliest progymnasmatic exercises taught b y the grammarians involved the reading o f a single episode from myth, poetry, or history with particular attention to the Isocratean virtues o f the narrative art—clarity, brevity, a n d plausibility—and the six elements o f agent, action, time, place, manner, a n d cause—qualities particularly discussed in Lucian's Quomodo Historia Con c
scribenda Sit a n d especially aimed at by Josephus in his retelling of the A q e d a h episode. A l t h o u g h nar ratives based o n mythological excerpts were, to be sure, more c o m m o n , w e d o have exercises on papyri that are based o n actual historical episodes. O n progymnasmatic exercises, see M a r r o u 1956, 194-205; N o r t h 1956, 234-42; a n d C l a r k 1957,177-212. W h i l e it is true that the address of a father to a son is not a distinctive type in classical rhetoric, the portrayals o f the character o f a father a n d o f a son are fea tures of ethopoeia; a n d progymnasmatic exercises occasionally created situations in w h i c h a father might address a child, as, for example, in the Elder Seneca. D . L . Balch (1974; 1 9 7 5 , 1 8 7 - 9 2 ; 1982,102-22) has noted that Josephus, in his defense o f the Jewish constitution (Ag. Ap. 2.145-295), follows the standard rhetorical pattern for such e n c o m i a as described most fully in the later h a n d b o o k b y the third-century M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (77epi ImheiKTLKcbv,
in Spengel 1854-94, 3:331-446). T h e o n , in his preface,
notes the utility of rhetorical exercises for the writing of history; a n d w e m a y recall Cicero's famous re mark (De Legibus 1.5) noted above, that history is a n "opus . . . u n u m . . . oratorium m a x i m e . " O n this phrase, see Feldman 1951, 1 4 9 - 6 9 . (I a m indebted to G e o r g e A . K e n n e d y o f the University o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a for several suggestions in connection with Josephus's possible indebtedness to rhetorical the ory.) 134.
A n expiatory view o f Isaac's sacrifice was widely held by the rabbis of Josephus's time. S e e
L e v i 1912, 161-84; Schoeps 1940, 385-92; Spiegel 1967; V e r m e s 1973, 193-227; a n d W o o d 1967-68, 583-89. D a n i e l o u 1947, 363 ff., contests this view o n the ground that the texts that speak o f an expia tory sacrifice are all post-Christian a n d are therefore more likely to have been influenced b y Christian theology than vice versa. But these texts clearly reflect motifs that were current long before they were written d o w n . In particular, w e m a y stress the importance o f Spiegel's contribution in showing that in rabbinic teaching, the story o f the ' A q e d a h w a s interpreted in the light of the Suffering Servant o f Isa. 53; thus Paul's doctrine o f atonement is derived from the connection already m a d e in Jewish teaching between Isaac a n d the Servant. Spiegel 1967, 1 1 6 - 1 8 , also suggests the possibility o f a c o m m o n p a g a n source for both the Jewish a n d Christian theme o f the expiatory or redemptive act; but such a view is hardly likely in view o f the general repugnance that the rabbis felt for p a g a n ideas.
280
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
only a divine mission, whereas Pseudo-Philo emphasizes the theological conse q u e n c e s o f I s a a c ' s sacrifice, w h i c h , h e says, will b r i n g blessedness t o all m e n a n d i n struction t o all later g e n e r a t i o n s t h r o u g h this e x a m p l e (Bib. Ant. 32.3). T h u s P s e u d o - P h i l o w o u l d a p p e a r t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e classical C h r i s t i a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the m o t i f o f J e s u s ' c r u c i f i x i o n . T o b e sure, A b r a h a m , i n his a d d r e s s t o I s a a c , d o e s state that G - d will r e c e i v e I s a a c ' s soul a n d k e e p it b y H i s side (Ant. 1.231); b u t this allusion t o t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f t h e soul is i n line w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e e x p o u n d e d b y 135
S o c r a t e s in his last d a y s , as s e e n i n P l a t o ' s Apology (41C) a n d Phaedo.
Josephus
m a y h a v e b e e n e a g e r h e r e t o a p p e a l t o his p a g a n r e a d e r s , w h o w o u l d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d this as a P y t h a g o r e a n o r P l a t o n i c belief. W e may, in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f E l e a z a r b e n J a i r ' s s p e e c h a t M a s a d a (War 7.344), n o t e t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a similar P l a t o n i c b e l i e f t h a t d e a t h gives l i b e r t y t o t h e soul. The
d e g r e e o f A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness t o G - d is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e o f his
readiness t o g i v e u p t h e s o n w h o w a s t o h a v e b e e n t h e p r o t e c t o r (KrjSepiova) a n d stay o f his o l d a g e
(yrjpoKOfjLov)
(Ant. 1 . 2 3 1 ) .
136
O n e is r e m i n d e d o f P r i a m ' s s p e e c h
b e g g i n g his s o n H e c t o r n o t t o l e a v e h i m bereft o f t h e c a r e o f his c h i l d r e n b u t t o p r o t e c t h i m i n o l d a g e , so t h a t r a v e n i n g d o g s will n o t t e a r his c o r p s e after his d e a t h (Iliad 2 2 . 3 8 - 7 6 ) . S i m i l a r l y H e s i o d s p e a k s o f the c u r s e o f n o t h a v i n g a n y o n e t o t e n d (yrfpoKOfjuoLo) o n e i n o n e ' s baleful o l d a g e (oXoov . . . yrjpas) (Theogony 605). A g a i n , M e d e a says t o h e r sons t h a t she h a d h o p e s t h a t t h e y will l o o k after h e r i n h e r o l d age
(Euripides, Medea 1032). A s J o s e p h u s states e l s e w h e r e , i n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i
t i o n , t h e w h o l e p u r p o s e o f h a v i n g c h i l d r e n is t o p r o d u c e those w h o will t e n d t h e old a g e (yrjpoKopLrfoovoiv) o f their p a r e n t s , a n d w h o , in t u r n , will r e c e i v e f r o m t h e m e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e y n e e d (Ant. 4 . 2 6 1 ) .
137
T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s in this b r i e f p e r i
c o p e (Ant. 1.222-36) uses a f o r m o f t h e w o r d for h a p p i n e s s o n five o c c a s i o n s
1 3 8
stresses h o w m u c h h a p p i n e s s m e a n t t o A b r a h a m , w h i l e his r e a d i n e s s t o f o r e g o this h a p p i n e s s s h o w s h o w g r e a t w a s his faithfulness t o G - d . T h e r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t s (Sefer ha-Tashar, Vayera 4 3 b ; Sanhedrin 89b), as w e l l as Jubilees (18:6), a r e likewise full o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t s at this p o i n t ; b u t t h e i r stress is o n t h e role o f S a t a n , w h e r e a s J o s e -
135.
Rivkin 1971, 6 2 - 6 3 , says that Josephus here unwittingly bears witness to the Pharisaic revolu
tion in introducing the c o n c e p t of an immortal soul, a n d that Josephus's source must have b e e n a n oral teaching that took precedence over the literal m e a n i n g of the text; but a Platonic source seems at least as likely. 136.
A l t h o u g h Pseudo-Philo, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1971, lviii-lxi), often parallels
Josephus in his divergence from the biblical text, Isaac, in Pseudo-Philo, quite logically asks h o w his fa ther could tell him that he was to inherit a secure life for a duration of time that could n o t b e measured, and yet simultaneously expect h i m to b e sacrificed (Bib. Ant. 32.3) 137.
Cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.336, where the son b o r n to B o a z a n d Ruth is nursed b y N a o m i , " w h o o n
the counsel o f the w o m e n called h i m O b e d , because he was brought u p to b e the stay o f her old a g e [e77-i yrjpoKOfila]."
Cf. also Ant. 7.183, where a w o m a n , o n e o f whose sons has killed the other, asks
D a v i d to spare the life of her remaining son, so as not to deprive her of her last h o p e o f support in old (yrjpoKOfxlas).
age
138.
EvSaipLOVtav (Ant. 1.223), evSaivofiiav
1.234), evSai/AOvcDs (Ant. 1.236).
(Ant. 1.224), evSaivfwvrjoeiv
(Ant. 1.228), evSaifxovcus (Ant.
ABRAHAM
281
p h u s d o e s n o t h a v e this s u p e r n a t u r a l f e a t u r e a n d f o c u s e s a t t e n t i o n o n A b r a h a m himself a n d on Isaac. I n J o s e p h u s , I s a a c , w h o i n t h e B i b l e is s u c h a p a s s i v e , s e c o n d a r y , a n d e v e n s h a d o w y f i g u r e , c o m e s t o t h e fore like I p h i g e n i a w i t h a m a g n i f i c e n d y b r a v e r e s p o n s e . J u s t as I p h i g e n i a p r o c l a i m s , " S h a l l I, w h o a m a m o r t a l , s t a n d in t h e w a y o f t h e g o d d e s s ? " ( E u r i p i d e s , Iphigenia at Aulis 1 3 9 6 ) ,
1 3 9
so I s a a c e x c l a i m s t h a t h e w o u l d d e
s e r v e n e v e r t o h a v e b e e n b o r n at all w e r e h e t o r e j e c t G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232). P s e u d o - P h i l o u s e s p a r a l l e l l a n g u a g e i n h a v i n g I s a a c ask, " W h a t i f I h a d
not
b e e n b o r n i n t h e w o r l d t o b e o f f e r e d a sacrifice u n t o H i m t h a t m a d e m e ? " (Bib. Ant. 32.3) ( F e l d m a n 1 9 7 1 , c x v i i ) . T h u s b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o l o o k u p o n t h e sacrifice as p a y m e n t d u e t o G - d ; b u t t h e r e is a l s o a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h a t P s e u d o - P h i l o has n o equivalent to the J o s e p h a n Isaac's statement that not to allow h i m s e l f to b e s a c r i f i c e d w o u l d b e t o d i s o b e y his father. F o r P s e u d o - P h i l o , t h e sacrifice is t h e ful f i l l m e n t o f a d i v i n e m i s s i o n a l o n e ; for J o s e p h u s , it is, i n t h e first i n s t a n c e , r a t h e r , t h e
139.
O n e of the questions that has most exercised critics o f Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis is w h y Iphi
genia changes from opposition to the sacrifice to acceptance o f it (assuming that the latter passage is not a n interpolation). A t o n e point in the play (1211-53), Iphigenia protests that she h a d nothing to d o with the abduction of Helen, a n d contends, like Achilles in b o o k 11 of the Odyssey, that it is better to live ignobly than to die gloriously, a n d that anyone w h o seeks to die is insane. A mere 116 lines (and a p proximately ten minutes o f acting time) later, however, Iphigenia asserts that she will achieve glory through death. Funk 1964, 284-99, concludes that Aristode, Poetics 15.1454A28-31, is justified in criti cizing Iphigenia's conduct as here inconsistent. Bhattacharji 1977, 63, holds that while all the major characters o f the p l a y — A g a m e m n o n , M e n e l a u s , Clytemnestra, Achilles, a n d I p h i g e n i a — d o flit from one attitude to another, from determination a n d clear-sightedness to bewilderment a n d helplessness, Iphigenia's sudden exaltation a n d willingness for death are not psychologically motivated. K n o x 1966, 213-32, however, concludes that Iphigenia's change of attitude has b e e n well prepared for in Euripides' play, a n d that it is n o m o r e violent than those that w e have seen earlier in the tragedy, although it is ad mittedly the climax o f a series o f swift a n d sudden changes o f decision unparalleled in ancient d r a m a . H e regards Iphigenia's act as truly heroic, springing not from stubborn resolution but from a genuine change of mind. Siegel 1978 a n d 1980, 300-302, argues, however, that, pace Aristode, Iphigenia's char acter c a n b e v i e w e d as consistent, inasmuch as the pure, life-loving, politically unaware early Iphigenia forms the psychological starting point for the self-deluded, overly emotional, virtually insane later Iphi genia. I f so, Iphigenia has undergone not a change of mind in the usual sense but rather a bizarre un conscious change, w h i c h leaves h e r character consistent. Josephus, o n the other hand, makes it clear that there is n o change, whether in a usual or bizarre sense, in Isaac's character (Ant. 1.232). Neitzel 1980,
61-70, also argues that Iphigenia does not change in the play, a n d that she is the same sponta
neous, loving, naive, unreflective, trusting person that she w a s previously, o n e ready to die for h e r credulity. W h e t h e r this represents a shift in, or a continuation of, h e r previous m o o d , such a stance w o u l d b e close to that o f Isaac as delineated by Josephus, although Iphigenia's speech is intended to give a patriotic 7TpoTp€7TTiKos,
whereas Isaac's is intended primarily to emphasize his filial a n d religious
piety. Cf. Schmitt 1921, 22-28, 3 9 - 4 1 . Alternatively, Iphigenia's acceptance o f her death might b e viewed as an a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f its inevitability should she continue to resist the will o f the army, as Schreiber 1 9 6 3 , 5 4 - 5 7 , suggests. In this view, Iphigenia is anything but a heroine, since she is really un willing a n d submits only to political a n d military pressure. H e r reasons for submitting w o u l d then a p p e a r to b e "false, illogical, unjust, and. . .meant to b e taken ironically," as Siegel 1980, 3 1 1 - 1 4 , remarks. Euripides w o u l d thus appear to b e questioning the nature of her heroism, whereas Josephus is deliber ately enlarging u p o n Isaac's.
282
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
fulfillment o f a h u m a n , t h a t is, p a t e r n a l , m i s s i o n , a n d n o t o n l y a d i v i n e o n e . I n short, P s e u d o - P h i l o , like the r a b b i s (Leviticus Rabbah 2.11), e m p h a s i z e s the t h e o l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f I s a a c ' s sacrifice, w h i c h , h e says, will b r i n g blessedness t o all m e n , j u s t as all later g e n e r a t i o n s w i l l b e i n s t r u c t e d b y his e x a m p l e (Bib. 32.3).
140
Ant.
C a h n a t t e m p t s to find m e s s i a n i c i m p l i c a t i o n s in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l affirma
t i o n b y I s a a c o f his w i l l i n g n e s s t o die at G - d ' s c o m m a n d , j u s t as h e sees a m e s sianic allusion in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f M o s e s to P h a r a o h , w h o p l a c e s his c r o w n u p o n the infant M o s e s ' h e a d o n l y to h a v e M o s e s cast it to the g r o u n d , w h e r e u p o n P h a r a o h ' s a d v i s e r s r e c o g n i z e M o s e s as the future savior o f the J e w s (Ant. 2.233) ( C a h n 1 9 6 6 , 2 9 5 - 3 1 0 ) . H o w e v e r , it is u n l i k e l y t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e a d d e d s u c h m e s s i a n i c allusions to his n a r r a t i v e , i n a s m u c h as these w o u l d i m p l y a h o p e o f p o l i t i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e , t h e sine q u a n o n for J e w i s h a d h e r e n t s o f a m e s s i a n i c m o v e m e n t , a n d i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s s u c h allusions e v e n w h e n t h e y are t o b e f o u n d in the b i b l i c a l text, n o t a b l y in the B o o k o f D a n i e l . Finally, w h i l e it is t r u e that, as n o t e d e l s e w h e r e , Isaac's v o l u n t e e r i n g h a s r a b b i n i c parallels, t h e r e is n o c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t these parallels a n t e d a t e J o s e p h u s or, i f t h e y did, t h a t J o s e p h u s d r e w u p o n t h e m . I n v i e w o f the p a r a l l e l s w i t h E u r i p i d e s e l s e w h e r e in this p e r i c o p e , it is at least as likely t h a t J o s e p h u s d r e w u p o n h i m as a source. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , w e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t J o s e p h u s is s e e k i n g to e m p h a s i z e the c o n trast b e t w e e n I s a a c , w h o k n o w i n g l y a n d enthusiastically offers himself, a n d I p h i g e n i a , w h o a p p e a r s as a n i n n o c e n t v i c t i m o f p o l i t i c a l e x p e d i e n c y a n d necessity (so S i e g e l 1980, 3 0 0 - 3 2 1 , esp. 316). J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h e n b e c o n t r a s t i n g the s h e e r i d e a l i s m o f b o t h A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c w i t h the selfishness o f C l y t e m n e s t r a , w h o is r e a d y to a l l o w a n o t h e r c h i l d to b e sacrificed in p l a c e o f h e r d a u g h t e r ; the a m b i t i o n a n d p a r a n o i a o f A g a m e m n o n , w h o lies a n d seeks pretexts; the p r i d e o f A c h i l l e s , w h o w o u l d h a v e p e r m i t t e d the G r e e k s t o sacrifice I p h i g e n i a i f t h e y r e s t o r e d his p r o p e r t y ; a n d t h e a p a t h y a n d r e s i g n a t i o n o f I p h i g e n i a , w h o a c c e p t s h e r fate o n l y b e c a u s e she realizes t h a t it c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d . E u r i p i d e s ' p l a y w o u l d t h e n b e a subtle, t r e n c h a n t , a n d ironic thrust at w a r , its irrational p r o p o n e n t s , a n d its sense less c a u s e s (Siegel 1980, 3 0 0 - 3 2 1 ) . I s a a c ' s s t a t e m e n t in J o s e p h u s t h a t e v e n i f the c o m m a n d to b e sacrificed h a d b e e n the b r a i n c h i l d o f his father a l o n e , it w o u l d h a v e b e e n i m p i o u s to d i s o b e y it (Ant. 1.232), h a s n o r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l a n d i n d e e d v i o l a t e s the r a b b i n i c rule t h a t w h e r e a p a r e n t c o m m a n d s a c h i l d to d o s o m e t h i n g in v i o l a t i o n o f the T o r a h (as w o u l d h a v e b e e n the c a s e h e r e i f it h a d n o t h a d G - d ' s d i r e c t sanction), the c h i l d should not o b e y
1 4 1
H e r e , t o o , as in o t h e r details, J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e h a d in m i n d
140. O n Pseudo-Philo's v i e w o f the ' A q e d a h , see further V e r m e s 1973, 199-202; D a l y 1977, 59 ff.; a n d Davies and C h i l t o n 1978, 522 ff. 141. See Yevamot 5b; Sifira Qedoshim 1.10.87a; a n d Blidstein 1975, 80-94. Pseudo-Philo also does not have the concept that for Isaac not to allow himself to be sacrificed w o u l d have b e e n to disobey his fa ther.
ABRAHAM
t h e b a s i c p a t t e r n o f p a g a n sacrifice, as s e e n , for e x a m p l e , in E u r i p i d e s '
283
m
Bacchae,
w h i c h r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e sacrificial a n i m a l s h o u l d n o t b e d r a g g e d a l o n g b u t s h o u l d press f o r w a r d as if voluntarily, as a sign t h a t it w a s w i l l i n g l y l e d b y t h e g o d . A g a i n , w h e n the a n i m a l w a s p l a c e d o n the altar, it w a s e x p e c t e d to i n d i c a t e its a c q u i e s c e n c e t o b e i n g sacrificed b y n o d d i n g its h e a d . T h e r e w o u l d t h u s s e e m to b e a d e l i b e r a t e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n I s a a c ' s m o t i v e in s u b m i t t i n g t o his s a c r i f i c e — n a m e l y , o b e d i e n c e t o G - d a n d to his father (Ant. 1.232)—and I p h i g e n i a ' s m o t i v e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 1 3 7 4 - 1 4 0 1 . ) , w h i c h a r e p a t r i o t i c at best a n d s m a c k o f m a r t y r - c o m p l e x v a n ity at w o r s t . I s a a c , w e a r e told, w i l l b e b l e s s e d for his p i e t y (Ant. 1.234), w h e r e a s I p h i g e n i a will b e b l e s s e d as the l i b e r a t o r o f H e l l a s . P a r a d o x i c a l l y , a significant p a r t o f I s a a c ' s r e w a r d is the g r e a t n e s s o f his d e s c e n d a n t s as t h e c h i l d r e n o f Israel; a n d so I s a a c gets f r o m G - d w h a t I p h i g e n i a set o u t to a c h i e v e for h e r p e o p l e . T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d I p h i g e n i a are all t h e m o r e striking a n d all the m o r e likely t o b e d e l i b e r a t e in v i e w o f the fact t h a t shortly b e f o r e his a c c o u n t o f t h e c
A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.218), as w e h a v e n o t e d , parallels a n o t h e r p l a y o f E u r i p i
des, Hercules Furens (323-24). T h a t E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis c o n t i n u e d t o b e a k e y i n f l u e n c e o n J o s e p h u s m a y b e i n f e r r e d f r o m the fact t h a t in J o s e p h u s , S a u l s w e a r s t o slay his son, " r e s p e c t i n g his o a t h m o r e t h a n the t e n d e r ties [lXTpa)v, " l o v e , " " a f f e c t i o n " ] o f f a t h e r h o o d [yeveaecos] a n d o f n a t u r e [va€a)sY (Ant. 6.126). P h i l o , for his p a r t , reacts a g a i n s t the fact t h a t I p h i g e n i a w a s sacrificed to save the G r e e k a r m e d forces b y c o n t r a s t i n g this w i t h the a b h o r r e n c e o f c h i l d sacrifice t h a t the c
T o r a h expresses, e x c e p t in the c a s e o f the A q e d a h (DeAbrahamo
33.180-81). T h e
p o p u l a r i t y o f E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t P h i l o else w h e r e c l o s e l y p a r a p h r a s e s a line (122) f r o m t h a t p l a y (De Vita Mosis 1.24.135). I n a d d i t i o n t o the p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t c
o f the A q e d a h , t h e r e are also p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n the Iphigenia a n d 4 M a c c a b e e s . I n g e n e r a l , E u r i p i d e s s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in the f o r m a t i o n o f later J e w i s h / C h r i s t i a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f sacrifice a n d m a r t y r d o m . O n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d t h a t the c l i m a x o f the n a r r a t i v e , w h e r e A b r a h a m is a c t u a l l y a b o u t to s l a u g h t e r his s o n , w o u l d b e d r a m a t i z e d b y J o s e p h u s e v e n b e y o n d the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t . W e l l a w a r e o f the fact t h a t the s c e n e r a i s e d a m a j o r p r o b l e m o f theodicy, J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , presents it, rather, in matter-of-fact fashion: " T h e d e e d w o u l d h a v e b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d h a d n o t G - d s t o o d in the w a y "
(ifiirodajv,
Ant. 1.233). D a l y h a s n o t e d J o s e p h u s ' s a v o i d a n c e o f the i d e a t h a t I s a a c w a s a c t u a l l y sacrificed, as w e l l as the v i e w o f P h i l o t h a t the sacrifice w a s c o n s i d e r e d as i f it h a d b e e n a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d o u t (DeAbrahamo
33.177) ( D a l y 1977, 5 8 ) ;
1 4 3
but he does not
142. See Burkert 1 9 6 6 , 1 0 6 - 7 , citing the m a n y legends that tell h o w animal victims pressed forward voluntarily to the sacrifice. See also Seidensticker 1979, 183-84, noting that Pentheus in the Bacchae is led willingly and, indeed, b y the g o d himself. c
143. D a l y concludes that the theology o f the A q e d a h had, on the basis o f the treatments o f Philo, Pseudo-Philo, a n d Josephus, b e c o m e accessible to Christian writers by the beginning o f the second century. However, it is not until the third century that extant writings o f C h u r c h Fathers refer to the
284
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n for t h i s — n a m e l y , t h a t J o s e p h u s is a n a p o l o g i s t w h o seeks i m c
p l i c i t l y t o c o n t r a s t t h e A q e d a h w i t h t h e sacrifice o f I p h i g e n i a , w h i c h is a c t u a l l y c o n s u m m a t e d in m o s t a c c o u n t s (although not, o f course, in E u r i p i d e s '
Iphigenia
among the Taurians). N e x t c o m e s a r e m a r k a b l e addition in w h i c h G - d H i m s e l f presents the a p o l o g y t h a t it w a s " f r o m n o c r a v i n g for h u m a n b l o o d " (iTnOvpLrjoas aipuaros t h a t H e h a d g i v e n t h e o r d e r t o A b r a h a m (Ant. 1 . 2 3 3 ) .
144
I*
1 m
avdptoirlvov)
i s , G - d would seem
t o b e in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o A r t e m i s , w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c h o r u s ( w h e t h e r as t h e v o i c e o f t h e p o e t h i m s e l f o r t h e a v e r a g e s p e c t a t o r ) in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis ( 1 5 2 4 - 2 5 ) , " r e j o i c e s i n h u m a n s a c r i f i c e s " (dvpuaaiv
pporrjolois
a
€
x P ^aa).
145
Criti
c i s m s o f a n c i e n t n o t i o n s a b o u t t h e g o d s d e l i g h t i n g in sacrifice w e r e w i d e s p r e a d i n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d ; t o j u d g e f r o m s u c h w r i t e r s as L u c r e t i u s (1.101), t h e r e w e r e p a g a n s w h o c o u l d not a c c e p t the i d e a that the g o d s delighted in b l o o d .
1 4 6
O n e is r e m i n d e d o f P l u t a r c h ' s c o m m e n t (Pelopidas 21.4) o n t h e v i s i o n t h a t c a m e t o P e l o p i d a s i n s t r u c t i n g h i m t o sacrifice a v i r g i n w i t h a u b u r n hair. C o n s e q u e n t l y s o m e s a i d t h a t to b e l i e v e i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d i v i n e b e i n g s w h o t a k e (xalpovras)
delight
in t h e s l a u g h t e r a n d b l o o d ( a t / x a n /cat (fyovcp) o f m e n w a s p e r h a p s
a
folly, a n d t h a t e v e n i f s u c h s u p e r n a t u r a l b e i n g s e x i s t e d , t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e o b e y e d , since they h a d n o power, "for o n l y w e a k n e s s a n d depravity o f soul c o u l d p r o d u c e or harbor such unnatural and cruel desire"
(emdvpLias).
J o s e p h u s is h e r e stressing t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e p u r p o s e o f s a c r i f i c i n g c h i l d r e n i n p a g a n m y t h o l o g y a n d A b r a h a m ' s m o t i v e in t h e c a s e o f I s a a c . I n e v e r y e x -
c
A q e d a h passage in Josephus; they never allude to the passage in Pseudo-Philo's handling o f the
episode, a n d most likely derive their theology of the A q e d a h from a direct reading o f the biblical pas sage itself. 144. cal
Similarly, in connection with Jephthah's sacrifice o f his daughter, Josephus, in an extrabibli
addition, remarks that such a sacrifice w a s neither sanctioned b y l a w (vofxifiov)
n o r pleasing
(K€xaptoiJL€vr)v) to G - d (Ant. 5.166). 145.
Cf. Sansone 1978, 3 5 - 3 6 , calling attention to Euripides' Iphigenia among the Taurians, 221-28, "I
bloody the altars with the fate o f strangers, w h o cry o u t piteously a n d shed piteous tears," a n d 258-59, "The
altar of the goddess has not yet b e e n reddened by streams of G r e e k b l o o d . " Sansone stresses Iphi
genia's ambivalence, in that, o n the one hand, she cannot believe that Artemis requires h u m a n sacri fice and denounces the goddess w h o demands such a thing (385-91), while, o n the other hand, she is prepared to sacrifice a Greek, although she thinks Greeks less suitable to b e sacrificed than non-Greeks. 146.
Cf. Attridge 1978, 4 5 - 7 8 , w h o (70-71) notes that the most distinctive aspect o f the stance o f
Apollonius o f T y a n a , as reported in Philostratus's biography o f h i m (1.1), is a corollary o f his Pythagorean principles, w h i c h prohibited even secular consumption o f flesh, let alone religious offer ing o f blood. Attridge also cites Apollonius's statement that if a person is to serve a g o d properly, he must first of all recognize the god's unity a n d transcendence a n d not offer him any sacrifice or external cult at all, but must instead concentrate o n interior spiritual worship (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 4.12-13). In deed, this type o f criticism w a s b y n o means unique in Apollonius but m a y likewise b e found in the Epistles o f Heraclitus, dating from the first century. Bernays 1869 thought that the Epistles emanated in part from a Jewish author because of their passionate criticisms of paganism; but Attridge 1976b argues more convincingly that the work comes, rather, from a p a g a n C y n i c milieu.
ABRAHAM
tant instance o f the f o r m e r ,
1 4 7
285
t h e sacrifice w a s for the sake o f the country, w h e t h e r
t o alleviate a f a m i n e , as in t h e c a s e o f L e o s ' s sacrifice o f his three d a u g h t e r s (Pausanias 1.5.2); o r a p l a g u e , as in A r i s t o d e m u s ' s sacrifice o f his d a u g h t e r (Pausanias 4 . 9 . 4 - 5 ) ; o r a d r o u g h t , as in t h e sacrifice o f P h r i x u s , in w h o s e p l a c e , as w i t h I s a a c , t h e g o d sent a r a m ( w h e n c e t h e f a m o u s g o l d e n fleece o f the J a s o n story) ( A p o l l o d o r u s 1 . 9 . 1 - 2 ; H e r o d o t u s 7.197) (cf. S p i e g e l 1967, 9 - 1 2 ) . Similarly, in H e l i o d o r u s (Aethiopica 10.16), K i n g H y d a s p e s resolves to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r C h a r i c l e a for t h e sake o f his c o u n t r y I n t h e h i s t o r y o f R o m e , w e h e a r o f the self-sacrifice o f M a r cus C u r t i u s ( L i v y 7.6.4) a n d o f D e c i u s M u s ( L i v y 8.9) a n d his s o n ( L i v y 10.28), all three b r i n g i n g v i c t o r y to t h e n a t i o n b y p l u n g i n g into t h e m i d s t o f the e n e m y . A n o t h e r p o i n t o f difference is t h a t in t h e c a s e o f P h r i x u s , for e x a m p l e ( A p o l l o d o r u s 1.9.1), h e is f o r c i b l y b r o u g h t to t h e altar b y his father, K i n g A t h a m a s o f B o e o t i a , w h o h a d b e e n p r e s s u r e d b y t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f the l a n d to d o this in o r d e r to relieve the d r o u g h t , u n d e r the t h r e a t t h a t t h e y w o u l d sacrifice A t h a m a s h i m s e l f i f h e re fused t o sacrifice P h r i x u s ( H e r o d o t u s 7.187); I s a a c , o n the c o n t r a r y p r o c e e d s w i l l i n g l y a n d A b r a h a m is u n d e r n o duress f r o m f a m i l y o r kin to sacrifice h i m . P h i l o (DeAbrahamo
35.197) a n d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , J o s e p h u s c o m p a r e A b r a h a m w i t h o t h e r
fathers, h i g h l i g h t i n g t w o m a j o r p o i n t s o f difference: first, the latter g a v e their c h i l d r e n t o b e sacrificed for t h e safety o f their c o u n t r y o r a r m i e s ; a n d secondly, t h e y c o u l d n o t b e a r the sight a n d left to o t h e r s t h e grisly task o f t h e killing itself.
REMOVAL OF
DIFFICULTIES
W h i l e it is true t h a t t h e B i b l e ' s d e p i c t i o n o f A b r a h a m as r e a d y to l e a v e his f a m i l y a n d his b i r t h p l a c e s i m p l y b e c a u s e G - d tells h i m to d o so presents h i m as a k n i g h t o f faith ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 - 4 ) , t h e r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l w o n d e r w h y so intelligent a p e r s o n , as J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s h i m , w o u l d h a v e b e e n w i l l i n g to d o so w i t h o u t b e i n g g i v e n a m o r e specific r e a s o n for setting forth. J o s e p h u s , w h i l e stating, in a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e B i b l e , t h a t h e left at the b e h e s t o f G - d (Ant. 1.154), a d d s a further, a n d e x t r e m e l y p l a u s i b l e , r e a s o n (Ant. 1.157), n a m e l y t h a t the C h a l d a e a n s a n d t h e o t h e r
147. Euripides, in particular, seems to have been preoccupied with the concept of h u m a n sacrifice, treating it in n o fewer than seven plays of which we know: in Iphigenia at Aulis, retrospectively in Iphige nia among the Taurians, in the sacrifice o f Polyxena in the first half o f Hecuba and in the first half of The Trojan Women, in the sacrifice of Macaria in the first half of the Heracleidae, in the sacrifice of Menoeceus in the Phoenissae, and in the sacrifice of Otionia in the fragmentary Erechtheus. T h e sacrifice of Iphigenia is also alluded to b y Clytemnestra in Euripides' Electa (1024-25), while the slaying o f Aegisthus is viewed as a sacrifice, as we see from the fact that he is slain with the sacrificial knife at a sacrifice (Elec ta 785 ff., 816, 838). A similar sacrificial theme appears likewise in the Alcestis, where after K i n g A d metus's parents refuse to die in his stead, his wife Alcestis heroically does so. So also, from one point of view, the slaying of K i n g Pentheus b y his mother Agave and the other Maenads may be regarded as a sacrifice to the god Dionysus. Cf. Schmitt 1921.
286
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
p e o p l e o f M e s o p o t a m i a , a n d e v e n his o w n k i n s f o l k ,
148
h a d risen u p a g a i n s t h i m b e
c a u s e o f his b e l i e f in m o n o t h e i s m (Ant. 1.281). S u c h a n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n for his d e p a r t u r e a c t u a l l y a d d s t o A b r a h a m ' s stature, since it s h o w s t h a t h e is r e a d y t o suffer for his faith. T h e r e is a n a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n in t h e b i b l i c a l text i n t h a t w e are i n f o r m e d t h a t the k i n g s o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h fled a n d fell ( G e n . 14:10); a n d y e t , a f e w verses later, w e hear, w i t h o u t further e x p l a n a t i o n , t h a t the k i n g o f S o d o m , a p p a r e n d y r e s u r r e c t e d , w e n t o u t to m e e t A b r a h a m ( G e n . 14:17). O f c o u r s e , the B i b l e c o u l d h a v e e x p l a i n e d , b u t d o e s n o t d o so, t h a t it w a s the s u c c e s s o r o f the d e a d k i n g w h o w e n t o u t to m e e t A b r a h a m . J o s e p h u s n e a d y a v o i d s this p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the k i n g s o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h fled a n d fell. T h e r e is a serious p r o b l e m in the b i b l i c a l text in t h a t it starts o u t b y stating t h a t G - d a p p e a r e d t o A b r a h a m at M a m r e b u t t h e n g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t w h e n h e lifted u p his eyes, h e s a w t h r e e m e n s t a n d i n g n e a r h i m , w h o m h e t h e n p r o c e e d s to a d dress as " M y L - r d , " u s i n g the f o r m o f the s i n g u l a r e v e n t h o u g h the m e n are t h r e e in n u m b e r ( G e n . 1 8 : 1 - 3 ) . A n o t h e r p r o b l e m is t h a t w h e n A b r a h a m , w i t h t r u e h o s pitality, sets f o o d b e f o r e t h e m , t h e y eat ( G e n . 18:8), e v e n t h o u g h o n e d o e s n o t e x pect G - d or angels to d o t h i s .
149
J o s e p h u s resolves these p r o b l e m s b y totally o m i t
t i n g G - d ' s visit t o A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.196). S e c o n d l y , h e d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the t h r e e visitors as m e n o r G - d b u t r a t h e r as a n g e l s , w h o m A b r a h a m takes for strangers (Ant. 1.196). H e clarifies the matter, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , b y h a v i n g the a n gels finally r e v e a l t h e m s e l v e s as m e s s e n g e r s o f G - d (Ant. 1.198). Finally, h e says t h a t the a n g e l s g a v e A b r a h a m to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y ate, w h e r e a s a p p a r e n d y t h e y d i d n o t do s o .
1 5 0
T h e r e w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e a n e m b a r r a s s i n g c o n t r a d i c t i o n in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a tive, w h e r e w e are initially t o l d t h a t L o t m a g n a n i m o u s l y offered the S o d o m i t e s his o w n d a u g h t e r s , " w h o h a v e n o t k n o w n m a n " ( G e n . 19:8) so t h a t t h e y m i g h t n o t m o l e s t the strangers w h o h a d c o m e to visit h i m a n d w i t h w h o m t h e y w e r e s e e k i n g
148. T h e theme o f the persecution o f A b r a h a m is further developed by Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities (6.3—18), where he is cast into a fiery furnace because o f his refusal to participate in the build ing o f the T o w e r o f Babel. 149. O n e w a y in w h i c h the rabbis resolve this contradiction is by asserting that there were two dis tinct visits to A b r a h a m : G - d appeared to h i m first, an appearance that w a s interrupted by the c o m i n g of three angels (Genesis Rabbah 48). T h e other rabbinic v i e w identifies the visit o f G - d with the visit o f the three angels. 150. S o also Philo, DeAbrahamo 23.118, as well as the rabbinic tradition (Genesis Rabbah 48.14; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3.14; Baba Mezia 86b; T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 18:8) a n d the C h u r c h Fathers (Justin and Theodoret). See R a p p a p o r t 1930,104, n. 95, citing another rabbinic v i e w (Seder Eliyahu Rab bah 13), i.e., G - d opened their mouths a n d they did eat because o f all the effort that A b r a h a m exerted in giving them hospitality. A n o t h e r problem is that A b r a h a m , w h o , according to rabbinic tradition (Mishnah, Qiddushin 4:14 a n d Toma 28b), observed the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f the T o r a h even before the rev elation at Sinai, served the three angels meat and milk (Gen. 18:7—8), w h i c h is in violation o f the dietary laws as interpreted by the rabbis (Hullin 115b). O n c e again, if this w a s a p r o b l e m to Josephus, he very neady resolves it by omitting mention o f the milk (Ant. 1.197).
ABRAHAM
287
t o h a v e h o m o s e x u a l relations ( G e n . 19:5). A f e w verses later, h o w e v e r , w e a r e t o l d t h a t L o t s p o k e t o his sons-in-law, " w h o h a v e m a r r i e d his d a u g h t e r s , "
1 5 1
urging
t h e m t o l e a v e , since G - d is a b o u t t o d e s t r o y t h e city ( G e n . 19:14). J o s e p h u s solves t h e p r o b l e m b y s p e a k i n g , n o t o f L o t ' s sons-in-law, b u t r a t h e r o f his d a u g h t e r s ' suit o r s (fivrjOTrjpes) (Ant. I . 2 0 2 ) .
1 5 2
T h e r e a d e r m a y also w o n d e r at t h e s e e m i n g d u p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i ( G e n . 12:10-20) b y t h a t i n v o l v i n g A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h ( G e n . 2 0 : 1 - 1 3 ) , i n b o t h o f w h i c h a k i n g b e c o m e s e n a m o r e d o f S a r a i / S a r a h , w h o is said t o b e A b r a h a m ' s sister. J o s e p h u s a n t i c i p a t e s this o b j e c t i o n b y stating q u i t e openly, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s e c o n d e p i s o d e , t h a t A b r a h a m h e r e p r a c t i c e d t h e s a m e d i s s i m u l a t i o n as b e f o r e , a n d f r o m t h e s a m e m o t i v e , n a m e l y , fear (Ant. 1.207). A s o u r c e o f e m b a r r a s s m e n t i n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m is t h a t S a r a h , w h o m h e m a r r i e d , w a s a c t u a l l y his o w n half-sister ( G e n . 2 0 : 1 2 ) .
153
T h i s relation
ship is necessary, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e i n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n A b r a h a m tells A b i m e l e c h t h a t S a r a h is his sister ( G e n . 20:5); a n d A b r a h a m , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d b y A b i m e l e c h w i t h his a p p a r e n t d e c e i t , insists t h a t s h e is i n d e e d his sister. J o s e p h u s a v o i d s t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t b y stating t h a t S a r a h w a s A b r a h a m ' s n i e c e (Ant. 1 . 1 5 1 ) ,
154
so
t h a t c o n s e q u e n d y their m a r r i a g e is a p e r f e c d y l e g i t i m a t e o n e b y later S i n a i t i c stan d a r d s . A s t o t h e d e c e i t p r a c t i c e d o n A b i m e l e c h , t o w h o m A b r a h a m asserted t h a t S a r a h w a s h i s sister, J o s e p h u s n e a d y justifies this b y stating t h a t A b r a h a m d i d s o o u t o f fear (Ant. 1.207). O n e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s , e v e n b y P l u t a r c h , w h o w a s relatively s y m pathetic to them, w a s that they w e r e superstitious.
155
T h u s , to the Greeks, the ad
d i t i o n o f a n alpha t o t h e n a m e o f A b r a m ( G e n . 17:5) w o u l d s e e m difficult t o c o m p r e h e n d , as P h i l o ' s efforts t o e x p l a i n t h e m a t t e r m a k e c l e a r (De Mutatione
Nominum
9 . 6 6 - 1 0 . 7 6 ) ( so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 6 , n . 277). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s s i m p l y o m i t s it c o m p l e t e l y F o r similar r e a s o n s , it w o u l d s e e m , as a p p e a r s f r o m P h i l o ' s s t r a i n e d efforts
151. T h e Septuagint has the corresponding yatifipovs,
"sons-in-law," a n d clearly states that they
h a d married Lot's daughters (rovs elXrj^oras ras dvyarepas
avrov).
152. O n e rabbinic solution is to understand that L o t actually h a d four daughters, two o f t h e m mar ried a n d two o f them betrothed (Genesis Rabbah 50.9; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). Jerome, in his Vulgate o n G e n . 19:14, reads qui accepturi erant, " w h o were about to marry," thus adopting the rabbinic solution; E p h r a e m Syrus, 1.135, follows Josephus's solution. 153. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, such a marriage w a s apparendy permitted for a son o f N o a h , as Rashi (ad loc.) notes in his commentary. T h e reader, especially one w h o held A b r a h a m to the stan dards o f the l a w revealed at Sinai, a n d certainly one w h o w o u l d b e acquainted with the tradition, al though to b e sure recorded later, that A b r a h a m observed the T o r a h even before the revelation at Sinai, w o u l d have found such a marital relationship hard to justify. 154. S o also in the rabbinic tradition, as cited b y R a p p a p o r t 1930, 100, n. 77: Sanhedrin 6 9 b ; Megillah 14a; Seder Olam Rabbah 2.21; T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan o n G e n . 11:29
a n <
! 20:12; Midrash Psalms
118.11. 155. Cf. Plutarch, De Superstitione 8.169C: " B u t the Jews, because it w a s the S a b b a t h day, sat in their places immovable, while the e n e m y were planting ladders against the walls a n d capturing the defenses, a n d they did not get up, but remained there, fast b o u n d in the toils o f superstition as in o n e great net."
288
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
to e x p l a i n t h e c h a n g e o f S a r a i ' s n a m e t o S a r a h ( G e n . 18:15; P h i l o , De
Mutatione
Nominum 1 1 . 7 7 - 8 0 ) , J o s e p h u s o m i t s h e r c h a n g e o f n a m e also. L i k e w i s e , A b r a h a m c a n n o t b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h o m e y details t h a t l a c k n o b i l i t y H e n c e , w h e n A b r a h a m e n t e r t a i n s t h e t h r e e a n g e l s , h e is s e a t e d n o t in t h e t e n t d o o r ( G e n . 18:1) b u t b e f o r e t h e d o o r o f his c o u r t y a r d (av\r)s) (Ant. 1.196), in a G r e e k t y p e o f h o u s e (so T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 , 4:97). For similar r e a s o n s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e detail a b o u t A b r a h a m ' s i n v i t i n g t h e m t o w a s h their feet ( G e n . 18:4).
SUMMARY J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f A b r a h a m displays u n i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e . A b r a h a m e m e r g e s as a t y p i c a l n a t i o n a l h e r o . H i s c h a r a c t e r is built u p t h r o u g h t h e a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f his a d o p t e d s o n L o t a n d o f his n a t u r a l s o n I s a a c , his d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h , a n d his wife S a r a h . J o s e p h u s a d d s t o A b r a h a m ' s stature b y e m p h a s i z i n g his antiquity, his n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h , a n d his w e a l t h . H e is d e p i c t e d as p o s s e s s i n g the f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e spiritual q u a l i t y o f piety. B e c a u s e t h e J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f b e i n g the m o s t w i d e s s o f b a r b a r i a n s , J o s e p h u s takes s p e c i a l c a r e t o e m p h a s i z e A b r a h a m ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e , w h i c h t h e latter displays in a r r i v i n g at m o r e lofty c o n c e p t i o n s o f v i r t u e a n d o f t h e o l o g y t h a n o t h e r m e n hold. T h e most prominent example o f A b r a h a m ' s p o w e r o f logical deduction is his o r i g i n a l a n d h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d p r o o f o f m o n o t h e i s m , w h i c h h e b a s e s o n the irregularities o f celestial p h e n o m e n a . F a r f r o m b e i n g n a r r o w - m i n d e d a n d sel fish w i t h his k n o w l e d g e , A b r a h a m , in g o i n g d o w n t o E g y p t , like a t y p i c a l H e l lenistic p h i l o s o p h e r a t t e n d i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n g r e s s , d e c l a r e s his w i l l i n g n e s s t o a d o p t t h e E g y p t i a n priests' d o c t r i n e s i f h e finds t h e m s u p e r i o r t o his o w n or, i f h e s h o u l d w i n the d e b a t e , to c o n v e r t t h e m t o his beliefs. J o s e p h u s presents A b r a h a m as the o n e w h o t a u g h t t h e E g y p t i a n s t h e v e r y sciences, n o t a b l y m a t h e m a t i c s a n d a s t r o n o m y for w h i c h t h e y later b e c a m e so f a m o u s . Because the J e w s h a d b e e n r e p r o a c h e d with cowardice, Josephus emphasizes A b r a h a m ' s i n g e n u i t y a n d b r a v e r y as a g e n e r a l . T h i s t r a d i t i o n is said t o b e c o n t i n u e d b y his sons b y K e t u r a h w h o j o i n e d t h e f a m o u s h e r o H e r a c l e s in his A f r i c a n c a m p a i g n . A b r a h a m ' s t e m p e r a n c e stands in c o n t r a s t to t h e f r e n z y o f P h a r a o h , A b i m e l e c h , a n d t h e S o d o m i t e s . H i s j u s t i c e is s e e n in his truthfulness;
Josephus
carefully o m i t s t h e i n s t a n c e s o f a p p a r e n t dissimulation. B e c a u s e t h e J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f h a t i n g non-Jews, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s A b r a h a m ' s h o s p i t a l i t y a n d c o m passion, particularly t o w a r d the Sodomites a n d A b i m e l e c h . J o s e p h u s p l a c e s g r e a t stress u p o n A b r a h a m ' s piety. P a s s a g e s in t h e B i b l e t h a t w o u l d s e e m to cast s o m e d o u b t o n this r e p u t a t i o n , s u c h as A b r a h a m ' s a s k i n g G - d for a sign t h a t h e w i l l i n h e r i t Palestine o r his l a u g h i n g in d i s b e l i e f t h a t at his a d v a n c e d age h e will have a child, are carefully omitted. J o s e p h u s a v o i d s a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s , especially, as in t h e s c e n e o f A b r a h a m ' s b a r g a i n i n g w i t h G - d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e fate o f S o d o m , w h e n these reflect o n
ABRAHAM
289
G - d ' s lofty a n d j u s t c h a r a c t e r . I n g e n e r a l , h e d i m i n i s h e s the role o f G - d a n d t o n e s d o w n m i r a c l e s . H e is careful to justify G - d ' s d e c i s i o n to test A b r a h a m b y o r d e r i n g h i m t o sacrifice his s o n I s a a c . B e c a u s e h e w a s so sensitive a b o u t J e w i s h nationalism", e s p e c i a l l y after q u a s h e d r e v o l u t i o n a g a i n s t R o m e in 6 6 - 7 4
a n c
the
^ his o w n i g n o m i n i o u s role in it,
J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s d i v i n e statements p r o m i s i n g A b r a h a m t h a t his d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l inherit a g r e a t n a t i o n . I n J o s e p h u s ' s view, the l a n d o f Palestine is n o t a gift f r o m G - d b u t r a t h e r will b e w o n — a n d p r e s u m a b l y l o s t — o n the field o f b a t d e . Significandy, the p u r p o s e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n is n o t to serve as a seal o f the p r o m i s e o f the l a n d b y G - d t o A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b u t r a t h e r as a m e a n s t o p r e v e n t as similation. T o m a k e his n a r r a t i v e m o r e attractive to his r e a d e r s , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s erotic e l e m e n t s , n o t a b l y in the e p i s o d e s o f P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h w i t h S a r a h . T h e r e a r e significant h e l l e n i z a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y in the S t o i c i n f l u e n c e o n his p r o o f for t h e c
e x i s t e n c e o f G - d a n d , a b o v e all, in his p o r t r a y a l o f t h e A q e d a h , w i t h its m a n y p a r allels in motifs a n d in l a n g u a g e to E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis. Finally, J o s e p h u s a v o i d s difficulties a n d e m b a r r a s s i n g c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t are in the b i b l i c a l t e x t b y o m i t t i n g t h e m f r o m his p a r a p h r a s e o r b y e x p l a i n i n g t h e m .
C H A P T E R
SEVEN
Isaac
J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e felt h i m s e l f in a q u a n d a r y as to w h a t to d o w i t h I s a a c , w h o gets m u c h less a t t e n t i o n in the B i b l e t h a n d o the o t h e r forefathers. H e m i g h t h a v e a d o p t e d the a p p r o a c h o f P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o , in his Biblical Antiquities,
w h e n he
c o m e s t o a n o t h e r o b s c u r e b i b l i c a l figure, the j u d g e C e n e z (Judg. 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) , g r e a d y m a g n i f i e s his a c c o u n t (Bib. Ant. 2 5 - 2 8 ) . T h i s w o u l d s e e m also to h a v e b e e n the a p p r o a c h o f P h i l o , for w h o m I s a a c , w h o represents p e r f e c t i o n (reActor^-ros), is a p p a r e n d y s u p e r i o r e v e n to A b r a h a m , w h o represents t e a c h i n g , a n d J a c o b , w h o r e p resents p r a c t i c e (De Mutatione
Nominum 2.12).
1
P h i l o e x p l a i n s his
extraordinary
assessment o f I s a a c b y n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b h a d their n a m e s c h a n g e d , I s a a c b o r e the s a m e n a m e t h r o u g h o u t his lifetime, a n i n d i c a t i o n to P h i l o t h a t the o t h e r t w o forefathers w e r e s u b j e c t to i m p r o v i n g influences, w h i l e I s a a c , b e i n g o f the sort that h a s n o t e a c h e r o r p u p i l b u t itself, h a v i n g b e e n m a d e w h a t it is b y n a t u r e r a t h e r t h a n b y d i l i g e n c e , is p e r f e c t f r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g (De Muta tione Nominum 14.88). W h e r e a s v i r t u e m a y b e a c q u i r e d e i t h e r b y n a t u r e (as r e p r e s e n t e d b y Isaac) (De Somniis 1.27.167) o r b y p r a c t i c e (as e x e m p l i f i e d b y J a c o b ) o r b y l e a r n i n g (as e x e m p l i f i e d b y A b r a h a m ) , it is c l e a r that in P h i l o ' s m i n d , a l t h o u g h all these forefathers w e r e b e n t o n r e a c h i n g the s a m e g o a l , the m e t h o d p u r s u e d b y I s a a c w a s the v e r y best since, as P h i l o states, h e h a d as his g u i d e a n a t u r e t h a t lis t e n e d to a n d l e a r n e d f r o m itself a l o n e (ibid. 1.27.168). Isaac's s u p e r i o r i t y is likewise to b e seen, a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o , in the fact t h a t w h e r e a s A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b b e c a m e the h u s b a n d s o f several w o m e n , b o t h l e g i t i m a t e w i v e s a n d c o n c u b i n e s , a n i n d i c a t i o n o f their n e e d for the fruits o f several studies, I s a a c h a d o n l y o n e lawful wife t h r o u g h o u t his life (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 7.34-38). I s a a c h a s
1. C o l s o n a n d W h i t a k e r (1929-62,5:586) say that Philo's representation o f Isaac as perfection does not seem appropriate and is not, to their knowledge, paralleled elsewhere. T h e y suggest the possibility of textual corruption.
290
ISAAC
291
a n o t h e r a d v a n t a g e o v e r A b r a h a m in t h a t h e w a s a d w e l l e r o n his n a t i v e soil, w h e r e a s A b r a h a m w a s a n e m i g r a n t a n d a s t r a n g e r in the l a n d (De 1.26.160). I s a a c is t e r m e d " b e s t " (aptaros,
Somniis
De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis
Gratia
31.175), the m a n w h o possesses in their fullness the gifts o f G - d (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 7.38) a n d w h o is p e r f e c t in v i r t u e s (ev dperals
re'Aeiov,
De Sobrietate 2.8). H e is r e p r e s e n t e d as the o n l y e x a m p l e o f f r e e d o m f r o m p a s s i o n b e n e a t h t h e sun (QuodDeterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 14.46). H e is the e m b o d i m e n t o f p e r f e c t h a p p i n e s s (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 17.60), w h i c h P h i l o , f o l l o w i n g A r i s t o d e (Nicomachean Ethics i . 7 . i o g 8 a i 6 - i 8 ) , defines as the e x e r c i s e o f c o m p l e t e v i r t u e in a c o m p l e t e life. H i s h e a r t w a s set o n the p u r s u i t n o t o f childish sports b u t o f t h o s e t h a t are d i v i n e (De Cherubim 2.8). E v e n as a c h i l d , h e w a s o f g r e a t b o d i l y b e a u t y a n d e x c e l l e n c e o f soul, possessed o f a p e r f e c t i o n o f virtues b e y o n d his y e a r s (De Abrahamo 32.168). Finally, P h i l o cites as e v i d e n c e o f Isaac's filial p i e t y the fact t h a t h e g a v e t h e w e l l s (see G e n . 26:18) t h a t h e d u g the s a m e n a m e s t h a t his father b e f o r e h i m h a d a s s i g n e d (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.194). Similarly, the r a b b i s g r e a d y e x p a t i a t e o n Isaac's merits. H e is m e n t i o n e d as o n e o f the t h r e e to w h o m G - d g a v e a foretaste o f the w o r l d to c o m e w h i l e t h e y w e r e still in this w o r l d , o n e o f t h r e e o v e r w h o m the evil i n c l i n a t i o n h a d n o d o m i n i o n , o n e o f six o v e r w h o m the a n g e l o f d e a t h h a d n o d o m i n i o n , a n d o n e o f s e v e n o v e r w h o m t h e w o r m s h a d n o d o m i n i o n (Baba Batra i 6 b - i 7 a ) . O n e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n g o e s so far as t o d e c l a r e that the T o r a h itself w a s r e v e a l e d o n S i n a i o n l y b e c a u s e o f the m e r i t s o f I s a a c (Midrash Psalms 68.318). A n o t h e r tradition ascribes to the m e r its o f I s a a c the r e d u c t i o n in the n u m b e r o f y e a r s t h a t the Israelites spent in servi 2
t u d e in E g y p t f r o m 400 to 2 1 0 . T h e r a b b i s m a k e m u c h o f the fact that, in a g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a in w h i c h scarcity o f w a t e r w a s a c o n s t a n t p r o b l e m , I s a a c d u g w e l l s n o t for his o w n n e e d s b u t for the p o o r p e o p l e in the n e i g h b o r h o o d (Midrash
Ha-
gadol 1.409). H i s c o n c e r n for the p o o r is likewise to b e s e e n in the tradition t h a t h e w a s t h e first to i n t r o d u c e the l a w o f t i t h i n g for the poor. (Pesiqta de-Rao Kahana n ) .
3
I n a s o c i e t y t h a t p l a c e d s u c h a p r e m i u m u p o n filial piety, the r a b b i s , like P h i l o , re m a r k t h a t I s a a c ' s r e v e r e n c e for his father A b r a h a m w a s so g r e a t that h e g a v e t h e wells h e d u g t h e s a m e n a m e s t h a t his father h a d a s s i g n e d to them.(Midrash
Hagadol
1.407-8) A s a r e w a r d for this, h e is the o n l y o n e o f the p a t r i a r c h s w h o s e n a m e w a s n o t later c h a n g e d ( J e r u s a l e m
T a l m u d , Berakot 1.9.4a; cf. P h i l o , De
Mutatione
Nominum 14.88). H i s w e a l t h , c l e a r l y s e e n as G - d ' s r e w a r d to h i m for his virtues,
2. Hadar, Imre No'am and Paaneah on Exod. 6:1; Midrash Aggada o n Exod. 4:24 and G e n . 21:1; Shu'aib, Va-Yiggash 21a; and Yalqut Reubeni on Exod. 11, cited in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:281, n. 69. A c cording to this view, in exchange for this favor, Isaac h a d to submit to a reduction in the numerical value o f his name, which should have been Yishak but is reduced to Yizhak, the numerical difference between the shin and the zade being 210, corresponding to the number of years that the Israelites spent in servitude in Egypt. 3. See also Pesiqta Rabbati 25.127b, Tanhuma B 5.24, and T a n h u m a Re eh 14, cited in G i n z b e r g 8
n
i 9 ° 9 - 3 > 5:279> -
6 o
-
292
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
w a s said to h a v e b e e n so g r e a t t h a t p e o p l e w i s h e d to h a v e the d u n g f r o m his shem u l e s r a t h e r t h a n the g o l d a n d silver o f K i n g A b i m e l e c h (Genesis Rabbah 64.6; T a r g u m Y e r u s h a l m i o n G e n . 26:2). A c c o r d i n g to o n e tradition, w h e n his b r o t h e r I s h m a e l c l a i m e d t h a t h e w a s m o r e v i r t u o u s t h a n I s a a c , i n a s m u c h as h e s u b m i t t e d to the o p e r a t i o n o f c i r c u m c i sion at the a g e o f t h i r t e e n ( w h e n , as a l e g a l adult, h e c o u l d h a v e refused it), w h e r e a s c
I s a a c w a s e i g h t d a y s o l d w h e n h e w a s c i r c u m c i s e d , I s a a c p o i n t e d to the A q e d a h as p r o o f t h a t h e w a s m o r e w o r t h y (Sanhedrin 8 9 b ; Genesis Rabbah 55.4). S a t a n is d e p i c t e d as a t t e m p t i n g unsuccessfully to d i s s u a d e I s a a c f r o m o b e y i n g his father at the c
A q e d a h (Genesis Rabbah 56.4). I s a a c is said to h a v e c o o p e r a t e d fully in the p r o p o s e d
sacrifice, e v e n t o the p o i n t o f telling his father to b i n d h i m tightly so t h a t h e m i g h t n o t i n v o l u n t a r i l y struggle (Genesis Rabbah 56.8). T h e a n g e l s t h e m s e l v e s are said to h a v e c r i e d for I s a a c w h e n A b r a h a m lifted u p his knife to s l a u g h t e r h i m (Genesis Rabbah 65.10); a n d it w a s their tears that fell i n t o Isaac's eyes, w h i c h s u p p o s e d l y c a u s e d his s u b s e q u e n t blindness, the o t h e r c a u s e for w h i c h is said to h a v e b e e n the fact that w h i l e o n the altar, h e l o o k e d d i r e c t l y at the d i v i n e P r e s e n c e . T h e r e is e v e n a tradition t h a t I s a a c a c t u a l l y d i e d o f t e r r o r w h e n his father r a i s e d his knife, so t h a t G - d r e g a r d e d the sacrifice as h a v i n g b e e n c o n s u m m a t e d , a n d t h a t h e w a s r e v i v e d b y the h e a v e n l y v o i c e telling A b r a h a m to refrain (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31). C o n s e quently, w h e n e v e r G - d is r e a d y t o issue h a r s h j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t Israel, H e desists w h e n H e recalls " I s a a c ' s ashes h e a p e d u p o n the a l t a r " (Ta'anit 1 6 a ; Leviticus Rabbah c
36.5). I s a a c ' s role in b e i n g r e a d y to sacrifice his life at the A q e d a h gives h i m a u n i q u e p l a c e as intercessor for the J e w i s h p e o p l e , s u c h t h a t the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f this e p i s o d e b e c o m e s the c e n t r a l feature o f all p e n i t e n t i a l p r a y e r s in the liturgy, e s p e cially in the ^ikronot p o r t i o n o f the a d d i t i o n a l service o n R o s h H a s h a n a h . I n d e e d , it is I s a a c w h o successfully p l e a d s w i t h G - d o n b e h a l f o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e a n d re d e e m s t h e m f r o m the p u n i s h m e n t o f H e l l w h e n the o t h e r p a t r i a r c h s fail to d o so (Shabbat
A
Sgb).
J o s e p h u s , in his t u r n , m i g h t h a v e e l e v a t e d I s a a c , as d i d P h i l o a n d the r a b b i s , far b e y o n d the status t h a t h e o c c u p i e s in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ; b u t h e a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t to d o so w o u l d h a v e d e t r a c t e d f r o m the i m p o r t a n c e o f A b r a h a m , the fa t h e r o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e , w h o w a s far b e t t e r k n o w n to non-Jews, J o s e p h u s ' s p r i n c i p a l a u d i e n c e , a n d w h o , i n d e e d , w a s s e c o n d o n l y to M o s e s in p r o m i n e n c e . W e m a y n o t e , for e x a m p l e , t h a t e v e n the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. anti-Jewish A p o l l o n i u s
4. T o be sure, the rabbinic portrait o f Isaac is not wholly favorable. In particular, the rabbis explain that Isaac's blindness, as well as his loss o f the prophetic spirit, was a punishment inflicted by G - d for his favoring the wicked Esau over the pious J a c o b . See Megillah 28a and other passages cited in G i n z b e r g 1909-38,5:282, n. 74. Another, clearly minority, view, maintains that Isa. 63:16 does not m e n tion Isaac a m o n g the Fathers because he did not act as a father o f Israel w h e n he bestowed the p o w e r o f the sword u p o n Esau, that is, R o m e (Genesis Rabbah 67.7). O t h e r rabbinic sources (Midrash Hagadol 1.397), however, explain Isaac's blessing o f Esau as due to his hope that he w o u l d thereby induce Esau to m e n d his ways. S o also Philo, Quaestiones in Genesis 4.198.
ISAAC
293
M o l o n (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9 . 1 9 . 2 - 3 ) , in his c o n d e n s a t i o n o f J e w i s h history, says that t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s after N o a h , A b r a h a m w a s b o r n , w h o s e n a m e signifies " t h e friend o f t h e father." H e further a c k n o w l e d g e s that A b r a h a m w a s w i s e a n d t h a t h e e a g e r l y w e n t i n t o t h e desert. T h e sole m e n t i o n o f I s a a c in A p o l l o n i u s ' s a c c o u n t is that A b r a h a m ' s l a w f u l wife g a v e b i r t h t o a n o n l y s o n , w h o s e n a m e , G e l o s [i.e., the G r e e k translation o f t h e n a m e I s a a c ] , signifies laughter. T h a t I s a a c w a s n o t w e l l k n o w n to n o n - J e w s m a y b e s e e n f r o m t h e m i s i n f o r m a t i o n that follows, n a m e l y , that to G e l o s , w h o m A p o l l o n i u s o b v i o u s l y c o n f u s e d w i t h J a c o b , w e r e b o r n e l e v e n sons p l u s J o s e p h . T h e o n l y o t h e r e x t a n t text b y a p a g a n w r i t e r that m e n t i o n s t h e n a m e o f I s a a c b e f o r e t h e C h r i s t i a n e r a is b y A p o l l o n i u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r (ap. 5
E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 9 ) , w h o cites in s o m e detail, a n d s u r p r i s i n g l y w i t h n o errors, t h e story o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c , o f A b r a h a m ' s l e a d i n g t h e c h i l d u p t h e m o u n t a i n , o f his p l a c i n g I s a a c u p o n a funeral p y r e , a n d o f 6
the a n g e l p r o v i d i n g a r a m i n s t e a d . B u t h e r e , t o o , the c l e a r f o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n is n o t I s a a c b u t A b r a h a m , since the i n c i d e n t is m e n t i o n e d i n A l e x a n d e r ' s n a r r a t i v e o f Abraham.
7
E v e n from the Christian era, there are only t w o extant references to
I s a a c in p a g a n literature, o n e b y t h e N e o p l a t o n i s t A l e x a n d e r o f L y c o p o l i s (ca. 300 B.C.E.) (Contra Manichaei
Opiniones Disputatio 24), w h o refers, w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g
I s a a c b y n a m e , to t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e s o n o f A b r a h a m for sacrifice to G - d , a n d t h e o t h e r b y t h e f o u r t h - c e n t u r y e m p e r o r J u l i a n , w h o , w h i l e m e n t i o n i n g that h e r e v e r e s t h e G - d o f A b r a h a m , I s a a c , a n d J a c o b , t h e n p r o c e e d s to d w e l l at l e n g t h ( 3 5 4 B - 3 5 8 E ) o n t h e g r e a t n e s s o f A b r a h a m a l o n e , n o t i n g , in particular, his m e t h o d s o f d i v i n a t i o n (Contra Galilaeos 3 5 4 A ) . O n e c l u e to t h e relative i m p o r t a n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s a t t a c h e d to his b i b l i c a l p e r 8
sonalities is to b e f o u n d in the s h e e r l e n g t h o f his a c c o u n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m . T o
5. J a e g e r 1938, 143, n. 1, suggests the possibility that Theophrastus's assertion that the J e w s sacri ficed live victims (^(OOOVTOVVTCDV) (ap. Porphyry, De Abstinentia 2.26) m i g h t have b e e n based on some v a g u e knowledge o f the attempted sacrifice o f Isaac; but since the passage in T h e o p h r a s t u s says that it is the Syrians, o f w h o m the J e w s constitute a part, w h o sacrifice live victims, this practice m a y refer only to the Syrians. T h e o p h r a s t u s does not at this point specify that the Syrians sacrificed live h u m a n s , so that it w o u l d a p p e a r that the reference m a y be to live animals, but he does g o on to say that the Syri ans were the first to institute sacrifices b o t h o f other living beings and o f themselves. H e n c e , he does as cribe h u m a n sacrifices to them. In any case, however, since he states that they n o w sacrificed live vic tims according to their old m o d e o f sacrifice, T h e o p h r a s t u s w a s not thinking o f the unique case o f the sacrifice o f Isaac but rather o f a continuing practice. 6. Unless w e hold that Eusebius interpolated this passage or that the parallel with A g a m e m n o n ' s sacrifice o f his d a u g h t e r Iphigenia aroused his interest in this particular episode, w e must conclude that such precise knowledge indicates that A l e x a n d e r k n e w the biblical passage
firsthand.
7. T h a t the central figure in Alexander's c o m m e n t is A b r a h a m is clear from w h a t follows (ap. E u sebius, Pr. Ev. 9.20): "Alexander Polyhistor testifies to w h a t I say, stating as follows: . . . ' T h i s will be e n o u g h a b o u t A b r a a m , as befits the shortness o f our exposition.'" 8. For Josephus, I have used the L o e b Classical Library text, T h a c k e r a y 1926—34, vol. 4. For the H e b r e w text, I have used the standard edition with the c o m m e n t a r y o f M a l b i m n.d.
294
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A b r a h a m ( G e n . 1 1 : 2 6 - 2 5 : 1 1 ) , t h e H e b r e w t e x t d e v o t e s 5 9 5 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t
9
6 9 8 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.148-256) 7 1 3 lines. T h u s J o s e p h u s h a s a r a t i o o f 1.20 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e H e b r e w t e x t c o n c e r n i n g A b r a h a m , a n d 1.02 as c o m p a r e d c
w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t . A s for I s a a c , t h e A q e d a h e p i s o d e ( G e n . 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ) c o m p r i s e s 35 lines in t h e H e b r e w , 4 4 lines i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t , a n d 100 lines in J o s e p h u s
(Ant.
1.222-36), g i v i n g a r a t i o o f 2.86 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e H e b r e w a n d 2.27 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t . F o r t h e e p i s o d e o f E l i e z e r ' s c h o i c e o f R e b e k a h as a wife for I s a a c ( G e n . 2 4 : 1 - 6 7 ) , t h e H e b r e w h a s 107 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 148 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s 97 lines (Ant. 1.242-55), g i v i n g a r a t i o o f .91 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w a n d .66 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t . F o r t h e e p i s o d e o f I s a a c a n d A b i m e l e c h a n d t h e d i g g i n g o f the w e l l s ( G e n . 2 6 : 1 - 3 3 ) , the o n l y e p i s o d e s t h a t i n v o l v e I s a a c p r i m a r i l y a n d therefore a r e a r e a l c l u e to his i m p o r t a n c e , t h e H e b r e w h a s 53 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t h a s 72 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.259-64) h a s 38 lines, g i v i n g a r a t i o o f .72 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e H e brew, a n d .53 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t . F o r t h e e p i s o d e o f t h e I s a a c ' s b l e s s i n g o f J a c o b a n d E s a u ( G e n . 27:1-28:5), the H e b r e w h a s 8 6 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t h a s 120 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.267-75) h a s 58 lines, g i v i n g a r a t i o o f .67 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w a n d .48 as c o m p a r e d w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t . W e t h u s see h o w m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t A b r a h a m is to J o s e p h u s t h a n is I s a a c . I n t h e o n e p e r i c o p e t h a t c e n t e r s o n I s a a c , J o s e p h u s h a s r e d u c e d his treat m e n t to a p o i n t b e l o w t h a t o f a n y o t h e r m a j o r b i b l i c a l figure e x c e p t N e h e m i a h , w h e r e a s in the o n e e p i s o d e t h a t h e e x p a n d s to a d e g r e e f o u n d a l m o s t n o w h e r e c
else, n a m e l y , in t h e p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e A q e d a h , h e d o e s so p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e h e c e n t e r s the a c c o u n t o n A b r a h a m , o n t h e terrible d e c i s i o n f a c i n g h i m , a n d o n t h e t r e m e n d o u s faith t h a t h e s h o w s in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d r e s s to his s o n .
1 0
I S A A C ' S QUALITIES OF C H A R A C T E R T h e g r e a t h e r o , as w e see p a r t i c u l a r l y in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t s o f b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i ties, m u s t b e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , w e l l - b o r n , m u s t h a v e r e v e r e n c e for his p a r e n t s a n d a n c e s t o r s , a n d m u s t , like P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g , possess t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , plus the v i r t u e o f piety. T h e s e a r e v i r t u e s t h a t a d m i r e r s o f t h e J e w s s u c h as A r i s t o d e , T h e o p h r a s t u s , M e g a s t h e n e s ,
9. For the Septuagint, I have used the text o f Rahlfs 1935, vol. 1. 10. W e m a y note the relative lack o f Isaac's importance for other Graeco-Jewish writers, to the ex tent that w e m a y j u d g e from their extant writings. O n l y one other Graeco-Jewish writer, Demetrius, w h o flourished in the third century B.C.E., mentions Isaac at all. H e declares (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.21.16) that Isaac dwelt in C a n a a n for sixty years a n d (Pr. En 9.29.2) was already himself married w h e n A b r a h a m married K e t u r a h , and that A b r a h a m was one hundred years old w h e n he fathered Isaac. W e c
m a y also note that Pseudo-Philo, aside from the recollection of t h e A q e d a h in his version o f D e b o r a h ' s h y m n (32.3-4) and in the parallel scene o f Jephthah's daughter (40.2), mentions only that Sarah gave birth to Isaac (8.3); that Isaac married the daughter o f Bethuel, w h o in turn gave birth to Esau and J a c o b (8.4, 32.5); and that Isaac blessed J a c o b (32.6).
ISAAC
295
H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a , a n d V a r r o n o t e d in t h e m , b u t in w h i c h their d e t r a c t o r s found them wanting.
11
T h e J e w i s h h e r o , in a d d i t i o n to b e i n g , in effect, a p h i l o s o
p h e r in the P l a t o n i c style, m u s t also b e a Pericles-like s t a t e s m a n , a h i g h priest, a n d a p r o p h e t , all in o n e . T h e r e c i t a t i o n o f his virtues is a v e r i t a b l e aretalogy, s u c h as w a s p o p u l a r in H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s (see H a d a s 1 9 5 9 , 1 7 0 - 8 1 ) . W e may, c o n s e q u e n t l y , w e l l ask to w h a t d e g r e e I s a a c , in J o s e p h u s ' s portrait, e m b o d i e s these ideals. O n e b a s i c p r o b l e m t h a t c o n f r o n t e d J o s e p h u s in his t r e a t m e n t o f I s a a c w a s t h a t I s a a c ' s life s e e m s to s u c h a h i g h d e g r e e m e r e l y a c a r b o n c o p y o f t h a t o f his father, A b r a h a m . T h u s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , b o t h d e c i d e to g o to E g y p t in t i m e o f f a m i n e ( a l t h o u g h I s a a c e v e n t u a l l y d o e s n o t g o ) ; b o t h g o to the Philistines in t i m e o f f a m i n e ; b o t h lie t o t h e s a m e ruler, A b i m e l e c h , a b o u t their w i v e s in o r d e r t o save t h e m s e l v e s ; b o t h d i g t h e s a m e wells; b o t h find t h e m s e l v e s e n v i e d b y their Philistine hosts; b o t h r e m a i n childless for a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e ; b o t h h a v e t w o c h i l d r e n , o n e p i o u s a n d o n e w i c k e d . J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , seeks t o p o r t r a y I s a a c as a p e r s o n a l i t y in his o w n right. T h u s , j u s t as S a r a h w a s b a r r e n for m a n y y e a r s , t h e B i b l e i n f o r m s us t h a t R e b e k a h also w a s b a r r e n ( G e n . 2 5 : 2 1 ) ;
12
b u t J o s e p h u s o m i t s this
d e t a i l (Ant. 1.257). A g a i n , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.259) o m i t s m e n t i o n o f I s a a c ' s l y i n g state m e n t t o t h e Philistines, so similar to t h a t o f A b r a h a m , t h a t R e b e k a h is his sister ( G e n . 26:7). E v e n w h e r e I s a a c is d e p i c t e d as f o l l o w i n g in A b r a h a m ' s footsteps, as, for e x a m p l e , in his d e c i s i o n to g o d o w n to E g y p t in t i m e o f f a m i n e ( G e n . 26:2), J o s e p h u s is careful to g i v e a p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n (not m e n t i o n e d in the Bible) for this—rnamely t h a t t h a t c o u n t r y w a s fruitful (Ant. 1.259). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d that I s a a c r e d u g the wells t h a t his f a t h e r h a d d u g a n d g a v e t h e m t h e s a m e n a m e s ( G e n . 26:18), J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g a b o u t his r e d i g g i n g A b r a h a m ' s wells (Ant. 1.260), let a l o n e g i v i n g t h e m t h e s a m e n a m e s , e v e n t h o u g h b y d o i n g so h e m i g h t h a v e e m p h a s i z e d I s a a c ' s r e v e r e n c e for his father a n d his o w n m o d e s t y
1 3
A s for I s a a c ' s p a r t i c u l a r v i r t u e s , J o s e p h u s m o s t d r a m a t i c a l l y m e n t i o n s I s a a c ' s g o o d b i r t h at t h e m o m e n t w h e n A b r a h a m is a b o u t to sacrifice h i m (Ant. 1.229). A b r a h a m asks his s o n to b e a r this c o n s e c r a t i o n (Kadiepajoiv) as befits o n e o f n o b l e b i r t h (yevvaiojs).
H i s n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h is e m p h a s i z e d in the r e p e t i t i o n o f this s a m e
w o r d (yewatov,
Ant. 1.232) in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the spirit w i t h w h i c h I s a a c
r e c e i v e d his father's w o r d s . W h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , w h e n I s a a c is t a k e n b y his father to b e sacri ficed, t h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e to t h e qualities o f his c h a r a c t e r ( G e n . 22:1), e v e n t h o u g h
11. See Feldman 1958-59, 27-39; 1988a, 15-42; and 1987-88, 187-251.
12. R a b b i n i c tradition, basing itself u p o n G e n . 25:21 and 26, notes that R e b e k a h w a s childless for
twenty years (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 22). 13. S o in Philo, Quaestiones in Genesin 4.194, w h o , in answer to the question o f w h y Isaac gave the wells the same names as h a d his father, responds that the wise m a n is the e n e m y o f self-love.
296
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
h e is n o w a p p a r e n t l y a g r o w n m a n ,
1 4
in J o s e p h u s , w e are t o l d t h a t I s a a c c a l l e d
forth the affection (evvoiav) o f his p a r e n t s a n d e n d e a r e d h i m s e l f b y the p r a c t i c e o f e v e r y v i r t u e (ap€Tr)v) (Ant. 1.222). S i g n i f i c a n d y the v e r y first q u a l i t y o f I s a a c ' s c h a r a c t e r t h a t J o s e p h u s sees fit to m e n t i o n is p r e c i s e l y the o n e , v e n e r a t i o n for o n e ' s a n cestors (rrjs . . . rcbv -rrarepajv BepaireLas) (Ant. 1.222),
15
t h a t b o t h his H e l l e n i s t i c
G r e e k a n d R o m a n audiences w o u l d have appreciated the most. In an extrabibli cal a d d i t i o n , I s a a c d e c l a r e s t h a t for h i m n o t to o b e y the c o m m a n d o f his father t h a t h e b e sacrificed w o u l d b e i m p i o u s (Ant. 1.232). W i s d o m (ao(/>La) is, as h a s b e e n n o t e d , t h e p r i m e requisite for a leader, a n d J o s e p h u s ' s I s a a c s h o w s his w i s d o m in p a r t i c u l a r in his d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e h e r d s m e n w h o c o n t e n d w i t h h i m o v e r t h e w e l l s t h a t h e h a s d u g . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , the h e r d s m e n o f A b i m e l e c h a n d I s a a c strive o v e r t h e w e l l t h a t I s a a c ' s m e n h a v e d u g ( G e n . 26:21), in J o s e p h u s , I s a a c a v o i d s s u c h a struggle, g a i n i n g s e c u r i t y (aSeiav, "fear lessness," " f r e e d o m f r o m fear") b y r e a s o n a b l e (evyvtopuovi, " c o n s i d e r a t e , " "sensi ble,"
" p r u d e n t , " " j u d i c i o u s " ) c a l c u l a t i o n (\oyiop,tp,
" r e a s o n i n g , " " c o o l , sensible
reflection," "deliberation," "thought," "prudence," "intelligence," "understand ing") (Ant. 1.261). O n e b l o t o n I s a a c ' s r e c o r d for w i s d o m m i g h t p e r h a p s b e s e e n in his d e c i s i o n to s e n d his s o n J a c o b to t a k e a wife f r o m o n e o f t h e d a u g h t e r s o f L a b a n , t h e b r o t h e r o f R e b e k a h ( G e n . 28:2). O n e m i g h t w e l l s u p p o s e t h a t since h e w a s r e l a t e d to L a b a n b y m a r r i a g e , h e w o u l d h a v e k n o w n o f t h e latter's c e l e b r a t e d g r e e d a n d craftiness, a n d o n e m i g h t w o n d e r , therefore, a b o u t t h e w i s d o m o f s e n d i n g his s o n to s u c h a swindler. J o s e p h u s resolves the m a t t e r b y asserting t h a t it w a s Rebekah
who
sent J a c o b
to
her
brother's
house,
with
Isaac
consenting
(i7TLrp€if;avTos, " p e r m i t , " " a l l o w , " " g r a n t , " " s u b m i t " ) to t h e m a r r i a g e in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h his wife's w i s h e s (Ant. 1.278). I s a a c displays his c o u r a g e , t h e s e c o n d o f the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s , a b o v e all at t h e c
A q e d a h . T h e r e h e is t e r m e d , i n a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t b y J o s e p h u s , b r a v e - h e a r t e d
(yevvaiov
. . . T O cfrpovrjpLa), t h a t is, n o b l e in c o u r a g e ("resoluteness," " b r a v e r y , "
" p l u c k " ) (Ant. 1.232). I s a a c also s h o w s c o u r a g e a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n in his c o n t e n t i o n w i t h t h e h e r d s m e n o f G e r a r . It is significant t h a t in t h e B i b l e , the h e r d s m e n o f G e r a r c o n t e n d w i t h I s a a c ' s h e r d s m e n ( G e n . 26:20), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , it is I s a a c h i m s e l f w h o m t h e y a t t a c k (Ant. 1.260). S i m i l a r l y w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e p i c t s t h e s t r u g g l e for t h e sec o n d w e l l as o n e b e t w e e n t h e r e s p e c t i v e h e r d s m e n o f G e r a r a n d o f I s a a c ( G e n . 26:21), in J o s e p h u s it is I s a a c h i m s e l f to w h o m t h e y d o v i o l e n c e (Ant. 1.261). I n b o t h o f these i n c i d e n t s , w h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , w h i c h speaks o f the h e r d s m e n o f G e r a r striving w i t h I s a a c ' s h e r d s m e n , it is c l e a r t h a t I s a a c ' s h e r d s m e n f o u g h t
14. According to Josephus (Ant. 1.227), Isaac was twenty-five years old at the time o f the ' A q e d a h . 15. T h e word depaireia, which Josephus uses here, implies service, attendance, attention, favor, es teem, veneration, respect, homage, and reverence. T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:111, renders it as "filial obe dience," but the fact that Josephus uses the plural, narepajv, indicates that he h a d in mind Isaac's rev erence for his ancestors generally and not merely for his father.
ISAAC
297
b a c k , I s a a c displays a c o n c i l i a t o r y spirit, in t h a t w h e n the h e r d s m e n a t t a c k h i m , h e seeks to a v o i d a fight b y d e p a r t i n g , e v e n to the p o i n t o f a l l o w i n g t h e m to c l a i m a v i c t o r y (KeKpanqKevai)
( G e n . 2 6 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) . A n d y e t , lest the r e a d e r c o n c l u d e t h a t J e w s
d o n o t fight b a c k , in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the s c e n e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h seeks r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h I s a a c ( G e n . 26:27), A b i m e l e c h is said to b e afraid t h a t I s a a c will t u r n t o a v e n g e h i m s e l f for his injuries (Ant. 1.263). I f w e w e r e to j u d g e f r o m the B i b l e , w e w o u l d p r o b a b l y c o n c l u d e t h a t t e m p e r a n c e , the t h i r d o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, w a s n o t o n e o f Isaac's virtues, i n a s m u c h as w e r e a d t h a t I s a a c l o v e d E s a u b e c a u s e h e ate o f his v e n i s o n ( G e n . 25:28). S o m e h o w , t h a t o n e o f the p a t r i a r c h s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s w a y e d b y love o f f o o d in his at titude t o w a r d his c h i l d r e n m u s t h a v e s e e m e d u n b e c o m i n g to J o s e p h u s , a n d so, in his p a r a p h r a s e o f this p a s s a g e , w e r e a d o n l y t h a t the father l o v e d the o l d e r s o n , w i t h n o r e a s o n g i v e n (Ant. 1.258), e v e n t h o u g h it is the w a y o f the r a t i o n a l J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y to g i v e r e a s o n s w h e r e these a r e l a c k i n g in the B i b l e . W h e n I s a a c asks E s a u to g o h u n t i n g a n d t o b r i n g h i m s a v o r y f o o d so t h a t h e m a y bless h i m ( G e n . 2 7 : 3 - 4 ) , it w o u l d s e e m t h a t Isaac's p r i m a r y c o n c e r n is to h a v e a g o o d m e a l , a n d this w o u l d surely n o t reflect w e l l o n his q u a l i t y o f t e m p e r a n c e . C o n s e q u e n d y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f I s a a c ' s love o f s a v o r y 16
f o o d (Ant. 1 . 2 6 7 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s I s a a c raises the r e q u e s t to a m u c h h i g h e r level, since h e e x p l a i n s t h a t it is b e c a u s e his y e a r s h i n d e r h i m f r o m m i n i s t e r i n g to G - d t h a t h e is s e n d i n g o u t his s o n to c a t c h a n a n i m a l , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e c o u l d n o t h i m self p r o c u r e a n a n i m a l for a sacrifice. T h e t e x t also s e e m s to i m p u t e to I s a a c , to j u d g e f r o m the b l e s s i n g h e gives to J a c o b , m u c h t o o g r e a t a c o n c e r n w i t h the smells o f this w o r l d ( G e n . 27:27). J o s e p h u s resolves t h e difficulty b y o m i t t i n g s u c h materialistic blessings (Ant. 1.272).
17
M o r e o v e r , I s a a c s h o w s self-control in t w o a d d i t i o n s t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n the first p l a c e , w h e n E s a u , w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g h i m , i n t e r m a r r i e s w i t h C a n a a n i t e w o m e n , h e resolves t o h o l d his p e a c e (Ant. 1.266). H e s h o w s similar self-control w h e n E s a u c o m e s b a c k f r o m the h u n t in o r d e r to o b t a i n Isaac's b l e s s i n g o n l y to d i s c o v e r t h a t h e h a s a l r e a d y g i v e n it to J a c o b . H e r e , t o o , in p l a c e o f the b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t I s a a c t r e m b l e d v e r y e x c e e d i n g l y , w e s i m p l y r e a d t h a t I s a a c h e l d his p e a c e (r)ovxtav
ayei) (Ant. 1.274).
T h e r e is p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to I s a a c ' s q u a l i t y o f j u s t i c e , the fourth o f the c a r c
d i n a l virtues, in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the A q e d a h . T h e r e w e r e a d t h a t I s a a c d e clares t h a t it w o u l d h a v e b e e n unjust
(OLSLKOV)
for h i m to d i s o b e y his father
(Ant.
1.232). I s a a c e x h i b i t s the q u a l i t y o f gratefulness, w h i c h is a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f j u s t i c e ,
16. Nor, for that matter, is there in Josephus any mention o f savory food in Rebekah's instructions to J a c o b (Gen. 27:9) to fetch two kids so that she m a y prepare tasty food for Isaac, "such as he loves" (Ant. 1.269). 17. Philo's solution to this problem is predictably to allegorize: the fruits are the deeds o f the soul (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.214).
298
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
p a r t i c u l a r l y in his relations w i t h A b i m e l e c h . A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , I s a a c set m o r e store o n a n c i e n t favors b e s t o w e d u p o n h i m s e l f a n d his father t h a n o n the r e c e n t i n d i g n i t y (Ant. 1.264; cf. G e n . 2 6 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) . J o s e p h u s c o n s e q u e n d y cites this attitude as a n e x a m p l e o f Isaac's g o o d n a t u r e
(xprjaroTrjra,
" k i n d n e s s , " "friendliness," " g e n e r o s i t y " ) . A k i n to these qualities o f h u m a n i t y a n d kindness is the v i r t u e o f s h o w i n g s y m p a t h y for the d e p r i v e d . I s a a c e x h i b i t s this quality, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h e n h e is m o v e d (dxSopievos,
"be grieved," "be sad," "be indignant," "be a n g r y "
" b e e m b i t t e r e d " ) b y the tears o f E s a u , w h o h a s c o m e for the b l e s s i n g h e h a s al r e a d y g i v e n to J a c o b (Ant. 1 . 2 7 5 ) .
18
B e c a u s e t r u t h is s u c h a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f j u s t i c e , J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e n o t e d , is m u c h c o n c e r n e d t o e x p l a i n w h y A b r a h a m h a d to devise a l y i n g s c h e m e w h e n g o i n g t o E g y p t a n d later to K i n g A b i m e l e c h d u r i n g the t i m e o f f a m i n e (Ant. 1.162, 207); a n d h e s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s (Ant. 1.209) the p a s s a g e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h re b u k e s A b r a h a m for his d e c e i t ( G e n . 20:9). A l t h o u g h the B i b l e d e p i c t s I s a a c as p r a c t i c i n g a n e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y similar d e c e i t o n the s a m e A b i m e l e c h ( G e n . 26:6), J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to a v o i d p r e s e n t i n g I s a a c as a d u p l i c a t e o f his father a n d , in p a r ticular, e a g e r to a v o i d the c h a r g e t h a t o n e o f the forefathers w a s g u i l t y o f duplicity, 19
o m i t s the d e c e i t a l t o g e t h e r (Ant. 1.259). H i s o m i s s i o n is all the m o r e
understand
able, since w h i l e A b r a h a m c o u l d justify his d e c e i t in d e c l a r i n g S a r a h to b e his sis ter, g i v e n that, a c c o r d i n g to G e n . 20:12, she a c t u a l l y w a s his half-sister, I s a a c ' s s t a t e m e n t to the s a m e effect is c o m p l e t e l y u n t r u e ( G e n . 26:7). Piety, t h e fifth o f t h e c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s , is t h e s u p r e m e q u a l i t y o f I s a a c , as w e see in J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t I s a a c d i s p l a y e d z e a l (eairovhaKajs)
for
the w o r s h i p (dprjoKeiav) o f G - d (Ant. 1.222). Isaac's piety is further h e i g h t e n e d b y the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , g i v e s I s a a c ' s a g e at t h e t i m e o f c
t h e A q e d a h as t w e n t y - f i v e (Ant. 1.227), w h e r e a s the B i b l e refers t o h i m as a l a d c
(na ar) w h o p r e s u m a b l y w a s n o t o l d e n o u g h t o m a k e a d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n ( G e n . 22:5). T h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n is i m p o r t a n t for J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , i n a s m u c h as h e d i d n o t w a n t I s a a c t o a p p e a r a n y less h e r o i c t h a n I p h i g e n i a , w i t h w h o m m a n y o f his G r e e k r e a d e r s w o u l d h a v e c o m p a r e d I s a a c , a n d w h o e n t h u s i astically c o n s e n t s to b e sacrificed in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis. I s a a c s h o w s the u l t i m a t e d e g r e e o f p i e t y w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e w o u l d d e serve n e v e r to h a v e b e e n b o r n at all if h e w e r e to reject G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232). T h u s I s a a c e m e r g e s as n o less b r a v e t h a n I p h i g e n i a , w h o (Euripides, Iphigenia at
18. Philo objects to the v i e w that Isaac was m o v e d to pity by seeing Esau in tears, since, he says, the wise m a n feels pity for all but prays only for the deserving (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.233). Rather, he sug gests, Isaac was m o v e d by Esau's repentance. 19. Franxman 1 9 7 9 , 1 7 7 - 7 8 , suggests, as an additional reason for the omission, that Josephus w o u l d have found it unlikely that A b r a h a m and Isaac w o u l d both have practiced the same deception on the same person. H e also notes that Jubilees 24 omits this incident.
ISAAC
299
Aulis 1396) s i m i l a r l y e x c l a i m s : " S h a l l I, w h o a m a m o r t a l , s t a n d in t h e w a y o f t h e goddess?" F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t it w a s R e b e k a h w h o w e n t t o m a k e i n q u i r y o f G - d a b o u t h e r difficult p r e g n a n c y ( G e n . 25:22), J o s e p h u s , w h o g e n e r ally d o w n g r a d e s w o m e n , d e p i c t s I s a a c as t h e o n e w h o a n x i o u s l y c o n s u l t s G - d . Finally, in his e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y b r i e f e n c o m i u m o f I s a a c , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t h e w a s b e l o v e d o f G - d (deo^iXrjs) a n d w a s d e e m e d w o r t h y o f H i s s p e c i a l (TTOXXTJS) p r o v i d e n c e (irpovolas), s e c o n d o n l y t o his f a t h e r A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.345). POLITICAL AND S O C I A L IMPLICATIONS W r i t i n g i n R o m e , u n d e r t h e p a t r o n a g e o f t h e e m p e r o r , a n d in t h e w a k e o f t h e dis aster o f t h e J e w i s h r e v o l t o f 6 6 - 7 3 / 7 4 ? J o s e p h u s w a s k e e n l y a w a r e t h a t his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e m i g h t b e i n t e r p r e t e d as h a v i n g f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s . H e t h e r e f o r e p l a c e s less e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f P a l e s t i n e t o A b r a h a m (see A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 2 0 1 - 2 9 ) a n d a p p e a r s m o r e i n t e r e s t e d in p o r t r a y i n g t h e m a r r i a g e a l l i a n c e a r r a n g e d b y A b r a h a m for I s a a c t h a n in t h e b i b l i c a l t h e m e o f t h e fulfillment o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l i n h e r i t t h e L a n d o f Israel ( B a i l e y 1987, 162). A g a i n , after I s a a c p r o v e s his u n q u e s t i o n i n g faith at t h e c
A q e d a h , G - d p r o m i s e s h i m t h a t after a life o f felicity, h e w i l l b e q u e a t h t o a v i r t u
o u s a n d l a w f u l l y b e g o t t e n offspring a g r e a t d o m i n i o n (rjye/jLovlav), w h o s e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t J o s e p h u s k e e p s d e l i b e r a t e l y v a g u e (Ant. 1.234). S i n c e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h e J e w s h a d b e e n r e p e a t e d l y c h a r g e d w i t h m i s a n thropy, J o s e p h u s , b y a v e r y s u b d e c h a n g e , c o n v e r t s G - d ' s p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e n a tions o f t h e e a r t h w i l l b e b l e s s e d in A b r a h a m ' s s e e d ( G e n . 22:18) i n t o a p r e d i c t i o n t h a t his d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l swell i n t o a m u l t i t u d e o f n a t i o n s (Ant. 1.235). H e r e , b y i n dicating that the descendants o f Isaac are to include not just the J e w s but m a n y o t h e r n a t i o n s as w e l l , J o s e p h u s a v o i d s t h e c h a r g e , so often b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e Jews, o f provincialism a n d illiberalism. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s e e k i n g t o b u i l d u p a p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m a n d o f his d e s c e n d a n t s as fighters r a t h e r t h a n as m e r e heirs, J o s e p h u s h a s G - d a d d in his p r o m i s e t o A b r a h a m ( G e n . 1 5 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) t h a t his p o s t e r i t y w i l l v a n q u i s h t h e C a n a a n ites in b a t t l e a n d w i l l t a k e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i r l a n d a n d cities (Ant. 1.185). Similarly, J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G - d ' s c o n v e n a n t w i t h A b r a h a m in G e n . 1 7 : 1 - 2 1 is m u c h briefer: G - d is h a r d l y m e n t i o n e d , t h e p r o m i s e t h a t A b r a h a m w i l l h a v e a s o n p r e cedes the c o m m a n d m e n t o f circumcision, a n d Josephus adds the statement that t h e Israelites w i l l w i n p o s s e s s i o n o f C a n a a n b y w a r (Ant. 1.191). S i g n i f i c a n d y t h e fullest v e r s i o n o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f t h e s u p r e m a c y t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l e x e r c i s e is f o u n d in G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t o A b r a h a m b e f o r e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e c
r a m at t h e c l i m a x o f t h e A q e d a h , after A b r a h a m h a s s h o w n s u p r e m e faith a n d h a s p r o v e n h i m s e l f w o r t h y o f G - d ' s blessings (Ant. 1.235-36). T h e r e , t o o , w e find t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t his d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l s u b d u e C a n a a n b y force o f a r m s a n d t h u s b e e n v i e d b y all m e n (Ant. 1.235).
300
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
c
I s a a c ' s prayer, in his b l e s s i n g o f J a c o b , t h a t p e o p l e s s h o u l d serve (ya aveduka) h i m a n d n a t i o n s b o w d o w n t o h i m (the latter h a l f o f w h i c h b e c o m e s in t h e S e p t u a g i n t "let rulers [apxovres]
b o w d o w n t o y o u " ) ( G e n . 27:29), w o u l d c l e a r l y n o t h a v e b e e n
w e l l r e c e i v e d b y t h e p e o p l e s , n a t i o n s , a n d rulers o f the w o r l d , i n c l u d i n g , o f c o u r s e , t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y R o m a n s . P h i l o ' s s o l u t i o n is to i n t e r p r e t t h e p a s s a g e a l l e g o r i cally: it is t h e n a t i o n s o f t h e soul t h a t a r e to b e r u l e d b y r e a s o n , w h i l e t h e p r i n c e s a r e t h o s e w h o p r e s i d e o v e r a n d a r e in c h a r g e o f h e t e r o d o x p r i n c i p l e s (Quaestiones in Genesin 4 . 2 1 6 - 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s resolves t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g all m e n t i o n o f the s u b s e r v i e n c e o f n a t i o n s a n d rulers a n d b y substituting a p r a y e r t h a t J a c o b w i l l b e a t e r r o r to his foes a n d a treasure a n d d e l i g h t to his friends (Ant. 1.273), r e m i n i s c e n t o f S i m o n i d e s ' definition o f j u s t i c e in P l a t o ' s Republic (1.332D). I f J e w s a r e h a t e d , J o s e p h u s , w i t h a c l e a r e y e to the situation o f his o w n day, e x plains this as d u e t o envy. T h u s , in r e l a t i n g Isaac's e n c o u n t e r w i t h A b i m e l e c h ( G e n . 2 6 : 6 - 1 5 ) , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e c h i e f c a u s e o f t h e friction t h a t p r e v e n t e d A b i m e l e c h f r o m m a i n t a i n i n g his f o r m e r feelings o f friendship, hospitality, a n d b e n e v o l e n c e w a s e n v y w h e n h e s a w G - d s h o w e r i n g I s a a c w i t h favors (Ant. 1.259-60). Similarly, w e n o t e t h a t after t h e d e a t h o f J o s e p h , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , the E g y p t i a n s b e c a m e bitterly d i s p o s e d t o w a r d t h e
Israelites
t h r o u g h e n v y (c/>06vov) o f their p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 2.201). THE P R O B L E M O F
INTERMARRIAGE
A l t h o u g h a w a r e o f t h e b i b l i c a l p r o h i b i t i o n o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e ( D e u t . 7:3) a n d its c o n t e m p o r a r y d a n g e r , J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e d t h a t t o o strenuous a n o b j e c t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e w o u l d p l a y into t h e h a n d s o f t h o s e o p p o n e n t s o f t h e J e w s w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h m i s a n t h r o p y . A s to I s a a c , w e r e a d in t h e B i b l e t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e s o f his s o n E s a u w i t h Hittite w o m e n m a d e life bitter for h i m a n d for R e b e k a h ( G e n . 26:35). J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y s e e k i n g to m i n i m i z e t h e matter, o m i t s these m a r r i a g e s al t o g e t h e r (Ant.
1.266) a n d i n s t e a d m e n t i o n s
E s a u ' s later m a r r i a g e s w i t h t w o
C a n a a n i t e w o m e n ( G e n . 36:2). H e v e r y d i p l o m a t i c a l l y r e m i n d s t h e r e a d e r t h a t E s a u w a s t h e favorite o f his father, a n d states t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e s w e r e c o n t r a c t e d b y E s a u o n his o w n responsibility w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g his father, w h o w o u l d n e v e r h a v e p e r m i t t e d t h e m i f his a d v i c e h a d b e e n s o u g h t , since h e d i d n o t w i s h to f o r m ties o f affinity w i t h t h e n a t i v e i n h a b i t a n t s (Ant. 1.265-66). B u t t h e n h e a d d s t h a t I s a a c , q u i t e c l e a r l y a m a n w h o s i n c e r e l y seeks to h a v e p e a c e f u l relations w i t h his n e i g h b o r s , as w e h a v e s e e n in his d e a l i n g s w i t h A b i m e l e c h (and i n this r e s p e c t the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y as well), a n d w h o d o e s n o t w i s h t o b e at o d d s w i t h his s o n as a result o f o r d e r i n g h i m t o s e p a r a t e h i m s e l f f r o m these w o m e n , r e s o l v e d to h o l d his p e a c e (mydv STYLISTIC
eKpive).
IMPROVEMENTS
O n e m e a n s b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s seeks to " i m p r o v e " u p o n the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e is b y p r o v i d i n g b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n a n d i n c r e a s i n g the plausibility o f events. I n t h e c a s e o f
ISAAC
I s a a c , t h e r e a d e r w i l l n a t u r a l l y ask w h y if t h e d i g g i n g of two
301
w e l l s l e d to c o n t e n t i o n
w i t h t h e h e r d s m e n o f G e r a r ( G e n . 26:18, 21), there w a s n o q u a r r e l o v e r t h e t h i r d w e l l ( G e n . 26:22). J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s this b y s a y i n g t h a t this w a s d u e t o a c c i d e n t (avrofidrov, who
" c h a n c e " ) (Ant. 1.262), a n e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t t h o s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s
were Epicureans w o u l d readily have understood.
20
J o s e p h u s also tries t o a v o i d a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in t h e b i b l i c a l text. T h u s , in t h e a c c o u n t o f I s a a c ' s b l e s s i n g of his sons, there is a c l e a r i n c o n s i s t e n c y ,
21
in t h a t w e
r e a d t h a t I s a a c b l e s s e d J a c o b ( G e n . 27:23) a n d t h e n , i m m e d i a t e l y thereafter, find I s a a c a s k i n g J a c o b , " A r e y o u r e a l l y m y s o n E s a u ? " ( G e n . 27:24). Surely, t h e r e a d e r thinks, I s a a c s h o u l d h a v e a s k e d t h a t q u e s t i o n b e f o r e b l e s s i n g J a c o b . I n d e e d , this m a t t e r is c l e a r e d u p i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n b y the s i m p l e e x p e d i e n t o f o m i t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n , " A r e y o u r e a l l y m y s o n E s a u ? " (Ant. 1.271). J o s e p h u s also, as w e h a v e s e e n , seeks to i n c r e a s e the d r a m a t i c interest o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n t h e c a s e o f I s a a c , there is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e d r a m a t i c inter c
est in J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d l i n g o f t h e p e r i c o p e o f t h e A q e d a h . I n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , G-d
instructs A b r a h a m as follows: " T a k e y o u r son, y o u r o n l y s o n I s a a c , w h o m
you
love, a n d g o t o t h e l a n d o f M o r i a h , a n d offer h i m there as a b u r n t offering
u p o n o n e o f t h e m o u n t a i n s w h i c h I shall tell y o u " ( G e n . 22:2) I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r sion, t h e r e q u i r e d sacrifice is all the g r e a t e r in t h a t I s a a c is n o t m e r e l y l o v e d b u t p a s s i o n a t e l y l o v e d (imeprjydiro) The
(Ant. 1.222).
22
d r a m a is also i n c r e a s e d b y v i r t u e o f the fact t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is
A b r a h a m w h o b u i l d s the altar for the sacrifice ( G e n . 22:9), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is I s a a c h i m s e l f w h o
l
c o n s t r u c t s t h e altar for his o w n sacrifice (Ant. 1.227). I* $ l i k e
w i s e m o r e d r a m a t i c to h a v e A b r a h a m r e c a l l his p r a y e r s for a s o n w h e n a b o u t t o p l a c e I s a a c o n the altar to b e sacrificed a n d to h a v e h i m c o n s i d e r t h a t h e h a d n o t h o u g h t o f h i g h e r h a p p i n e s s t h a n t o see I s a a c g r o w to m a n ' s estate a n d to l e a v e h i m at his o w n d e a t h to b e h e i r t o his d o m i n i o n (Ant. 1.228). It is f u r t h e r m o r e d r a m a t i c t h a t in his a d d r e s s to I s a a c w h e n the latter is a b o u t to b e sacrificed, A b r a h a m says t h a t it is m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t since I s a a c w a s b o r n o u t o f t h e c o u r s e of n a t u r e , h e s h o u l d die, n o t in the m a n n e r in w h i c h m o s t p e o p l e die,
b u t a m i d p r a y e r s a n d sacrificial c e r e m o n i e s (Ant. 1.230). I n d e e d , the m o s t d r a c
m a t i c e l e m e n t in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e A q e d a h is t h a t I s a a c n o t m e r e l y a c c e p t s t h e d e c i s i o n o f his father to sacrifice h i m b u t a c t u a l l y rushes h e a d l o n g ((LpfjLrjcjev, " h a s t e n e d " ) to t h e altar a n d his d o o m .
20. Cf. Ant. 10.278, where Josephus notes, critically to be sure, that Epicureans declare that "the world runs by its o w n m o v e m e n t [avTOfxdrcos] 21.
without k n o w i n g a guide or another's care."
Philo recognizes this as a problem, asking, " W h y is it that he says, "Art thou m y son E s a u ? "
after he has blessed h i m ? " His answer is that it was G - d w h o did the blessing through the prophet (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.212). 22.
T h e same verb, w e m a y note, is used with similar effectiveness in the description o f the extra
ordinary enchantment evoked in Pharaoh's daughter by the size and beauty of the litde child M o s e s in the basket on the Nile R i v e r (Ant. 2.224).
302
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
c
Finally, as in a H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l , after t h e h a r r o w i n g e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e A q e d a h , t h e r e is a d r a m a t i c c o n c l u s i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l t o u c h t h a t father a n d s o n e m b r a c e e a c h other, r e t u r n h o m e , a n d , a l m o s t as in a fairy tale, live h a p p i l y e v e r after (Ant. 1.236). O n e key element that renders Josephus's paraphrase
m o r e effective is its
h e i g h t e n e d i r o n y A n e x t r e m e l y p o w e r f u l n o t e o f i r o n y m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e f e r e n c e to t h e fact t h a t A b r a h a m d e c l a r e s t h a t I s a a c , w h o m h e is a b o u t to sacri fice, w a s t o h a v e b e e n t h e p r o t e c t o r (K7JS€/JL6VO)
a n d stay o f his o l d a g e (yrjpoKopLov)
(Ant. 1.231). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e w o r d for " p r o t e c t o r " (KrjSefjLovos) (Ant. 3.98) t h a t is u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to M o s e s , w h o s e a b s e n c e for forty d a y s c r e a t e s r u m o r s o f his d e a t h ; in t h e latter case, the Israelites a r e in d e e p dis tress, i m a g i n i n g t h e m s e l v e s bereft o f a p r o t e c t o r (/cnSe/xovo?) w h o s e like t h e y will n e v e r m e e t a g a i n . E l s e w h e r e , the t e r m " p r o t e c t o r " (KrjSepiova) is u s e d o f G - d Himself, w h o m D a v i d blesses as t h e g u a r d i a n o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e (Ant. 7.380). It is f u r t h e r m o r e m o s t ironic t h a t A b r a h a m s h o u l d refer to I s a a c as t h e stay o f his o l d age
w h e n h e is a b o u t to s l a u g h t e r h i m . T h e r e is a striking c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e life o f I s a a c , o n t h e v e r y v e r g e o f b e i n g
c u t short in its p r i m e , a n d t h e e x t r e m e o l d a g e t h a t G - d p r e d i c t s to A b r a h a m I s a a c will attain (Ant. 1.234). It is l i k e w i s e q u i t e ironic t h a t i n this b r i e f p e r i c o p e (Ant. 1.222-36), J o s e p h u s o n five o c c a s i o n s (1.223,
2 2
4>
2 2
2
8 > 34?
a
n
t h e r the n o u n for h a p p i n e s s (evdaipLovia), the v e r b "to b e h a p p y "
d 236) uses ei (evSaipuovrjoeiv),
o r the a d v e r b " h a p p i l y " (evSaipuovcos) w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o A b r a h a m ' s h a p p i n e s s in t h e first t h r e e i n s t a n c e s a n d to I s a a c ' s in the latter t w o , w h e r e a s b o t h h a v e b e e n o n t h e v e r y e d g e o f u n s p e a k a b l e disaster. It is truly ironic that, as J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t , I s a a c s h o u l d h a v e s u r p a s s e d e v e n A b r a h a m in l o n g e v i t y (Ant. 1 . 3 4 6 ) .
23
SUMMARY U n l i k e P h i l o a n d t h e r a b b i s , w h o a g g r a n d i z e the figure o f I s a a c , J o s e p h u s , in o r d e r n o t to d i m i n i s h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f A b r a h a m , w h o w a s far b e t t e r k n o w n to his G e n tile r e a d e r s , g i v e s m u c h less a t t e n t i o n to I s a a c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , as w i t h his o t h e r b i b lical h e r o e s , h e d o e s d e v e l o p t h e t h e m e s o f I s a a c ' s n o b l e b i r t h , his r e v e r e n c e for his father, a n d his possession o f t h e c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , j u s t i c e , a n d piety. H e a v o i d s m a k i n g I s a a c a m e r e c a r b o n c o p y o f A b r a h a m b y o m i t t i n g t h o s e instances, s u c h as the b a r r e n n e s s o f R e b e k a h , t h e d e c e p t i o n o f A b i m e l e c h , a n d t h e d i g g i n g o f t h e s a m e wells, w h e r e the b i b l i c a l I s a a c r e c a p i t u lates his father's e x p e r i e n c e s . I s a a c , as a m o d e l for J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w s , is a m a n o f p e a c e w h o a c h i e v e s s e c u r i t y t h r o u g h r e a s o n a b l e c a l c u l a t i o n . H e displays c o u r a g e a n d c a l m
23.
A c c o r d i n g to Josephus (Ant.
1.346), Isaac lived to the age of 185, whereas the Bible (Gen.
35:28),
both in the H e b r e w and in all the manuscripts of the Greek, indicates that he died at the age of
180.
ISAAC
303
d e t e r m i n a t i o n in his successful d e a l i n g s w i t h the h e r d s m e n w h o m o l e s t h i m . H e s h o w s self-control in his silence b o t h w h e n E s a u m a r r i e s f o r e i g n w o m e n a n d w h e n E s a u r e t u r n s f r o m t h e h u n t o n l y to d i s c o v e r t h a t I s a a c h a s a l r e a d y g i v e n his bless c
i n g to J a c o b . A s for j u s t i c e , I s a a c at the A q e d a h d e c l a r e s t h a t it w o u l d b e unjust for h i m t o d i s o b e y his father. H e s h o w s h u m a n i t y , w h i c h is a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f j u s tice, in his d e a l i n g s w i t h A b i m e l e c h . H e e x h i b i t s s y m p a t h y for t h e o p p r e s s e d i n t h a t h e is m o v e d b y the tears o f E s a u . H e manifests his r e g a r d for t r u t h , w h i c h is so f u n d a m e n t a l to j u s t i c e , in his o m i s s i o n o f t h e b i b l i c a l I s a a c ' s d u p l i c i t y t o w a r d A b i m e l e c h , to w h o m h e m i s r e p r e s e n t e d his wife as his sister. I s a a c ' s
supreme
c
v i r t u e is piety, w h i c h h e s h o w s in p a r t i c u l a r at the A q e d a h . F a r f r o m b e i n g , as in t h e B i b l e , a m e r e l a d , h e is, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , t w e n t y - f i v e at t h e t i m e o f this e v e n t , a n d t h u s a b l e to m a k e a d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e ; a n d so h e a p p e a r s n o less h e r o i c t h a n I p h i g e n i a , w i t h w h o m the G e n t i l e G r a e c o - R o m a n r e a d e r w o u l d h a v e s e e n an obvious comparison. B e c a u s e J o s e p h u s w a s e a g e r n o t to offend his R o m a n p a t r o n s , h e a v o i d s m e n t i o n o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e to A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c a n d their d e s c e n d a n t s o f a p o l i t i c a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t state in Palestine. M o r e o v e r , to c o u n t e r a c t t h e c h a r g e o f illiberalism, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t I s a a c is to b e t h e ancestor, n o t o n l y o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n , b u t o f m a n y o t h e r s as w e l l . I n p l a c e o f a d i v i n e c o v e n a n t g r a n t i n g Palestine to I s a a c ' s d e s c e n d a n t s , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e y a r e t o c o n q u e r the l a n d . I n p l a c e o f I s a a c ' s p e t i tion t h a t rulers, i n c l u d i n g p r e s u m a b l y t h e R o m a n s , s h o u l d b o w d o w n to t h e J e w s , w e h a v e a S i m o n i d e s - l i k e p r a y e r t h a t J a c o b b e a t e r r o r to his foes a n d a d e l i g h t to his friends. J o s e p h u s f o u n d h i m s e l f in a q u a n d a r y as to h o w to d e a l w i t h the i n t e r m a r r i a g e s o f E s a u b e c a u s e , w h i l e these w e r e c o n t r a r y to the T o r a h , v o i c i n g d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e m w o u l d h a v e g i v e n c r e d e n c e to t h e f r e q u e n t c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s h a t e d n o n J e w s . J o s e p h u s ' s solution is t o m a k e c l e a r t h a t I s a a c w a s n o t c o n s u l t e d b y E s a u re g a r d i n g t h e m a r r i a g e s , b u t t h a t o n c e t h e y h a d t a k e n p l a c e , I s a a c h e l d his p e a c e . Stylistically, J o s e p h u s h a s a t t e m p t e d t o " i m p r o v e " u p o n t h e n a r r a t i v e b y p r o v i d i n g b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n a n d i n c r e a s i n g t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o f events. H e also a v o i d s a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in t h e text. A b o v e all, h e i n c r e a s e s t h e d r a m a t i c interest, c
p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e A q e d a h , m o s t effectively b y h a v i n g I s a a c h i m self, r a t h e r t h a n A b r a h a m , b u i l d t h e altar o n w h i c h h e is to b e sacrificed. Finally, t h e r e is p o i n t e d i r o n y in the fact t h a t v a r i o u s f o r m s o f t h e w o r d " h a p p i n e s s " a r e c
u s e d five t i m e s w i t h i n J o s e p h u s ' s b r i e f p e r i c o p e o f t h e A q e d a h .
C H A P T E R
E I G H T
Jacob
F o r t h e b i b l i c a l p e r i o d o f J e w i s h history, t h e quintessential J e w i s h forefather is, w i t h o u t d o u b t , J a c o b , as is e v i d e n t f r o m t h e P e n t a t e u c h , w h e r e n o t o n l y is m o r e s p a c e a l l o t t e d to h i m t h a n to the o t h e r p a t r i a r c h s b u t also m o r e p a t h o s a n d suffer ing, these p r e f i g u r i n g , it w o u l d s e e m , t h e h i s t o r y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e . It is n o t a c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t o f all the forefathers, it is J a c o b w h o is g i v e n t h e a l t e r n a t e n a m e , Israel, b y w h i c h the J e w s a r e d e s i g n a t e d . J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f h i m — e x p a n sions, a b b r e v i a t i o n s , a n d o m i s s i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r l i t e r a r y r h e t o r i c a l , a n d p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s — w o u l d t h u s s e e m to b e a n e x c e l l e n t litmus test o f his attitude t o w a r d his o w n J e w i s h n e s s . I n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , J a c o b ' s striking l a c k o f i m p o r t a n c e for J o s e p h u s n e e d s to b e e x p l a i n e d .
1
I n v i e w o f J a c o b ' s conflict, f r o m b i r t h itself, w i t h his t w i n b r o t h e r E s a u , J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this s t r u g g l e m a y s h e d l i g h t o n his a t t i t u d e t o w a r d n o n J e w s ; a n d if, as I c o n j e c t u r e , E s a u w a s a l r e a d y identified in J o s e p h u s ' s m i n d w i t h R o m e , w e shall b e in a p o s i t i o n to j u d g e t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h p r o - R o m a n senti m e n t s m a y h a v e p l a y e d a role in his d e p i c t i o n o f the strife b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d Esau. F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the r o m a n t i c s c e n e o f J a c o b ' s w o o i n g o f R a c h e l m a y g i v e us clues as to the i n f l u e n c e o f G r e e k novelistic motifs u p o n his t r e a t m e n t o f the B i b l e .
i. J a c o b is also unimportant for Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, which, although covering the pe riod from the C r e a t i o n to the death o f Saul, mentions only one incident in J a c o b ' s life, namely, the story o f the rape o f D i n a h (8.7). T h e author o f this w o r k is a presumed c o n t e m p o r a r y of Josephus's: see Feldman 1971, x x v i i i - x x x i .
304
JACOB
3
o
5
THE I M P O R T A N C E OF J A C O B F O R J O S E P H U S O n e m e a s u r e o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f J a c o b for J o s e p h u s is s i m p l y quantitative in c h a r acter. A b r a h a m is the m a j o r subject o f 6 9 8 lines in the P e n t a t e u c h ( G e n . 11:26-25:11) a n d the c e n t e r o f focus in 713 lines in the G r e e k text o f J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.148-256), a 2
ratio o f 1.20 to 1. J o s e p h , b y c o m p a r i s o n , is the m a j o r subject o f 627 lines in the H e b r e w text o f the P e n t a t e u c h ( G e n . 3 7 : 1 - 3 6 , 39:1-48:22, 50:1-26) a n d the c e n t e r o f focus in 1,025 lines o f J o s e p h u s ' s G r e e k text (Ant. 2 . 9 - 1 6 7 , 1 8 9 - 9 3 , 198-200), a ratio o f 1.63 to 1 o f J o s e p h u s to the P e n t a t e u c h . J a c o b is the m a j o r focus o f 662 lines in the :
H e b r e w text ( G e n . 2 5 : 1 9 - 3 4 , 2 7 : 1 - 3 7 : 3 , 3 2 - 3 5 ; 4 2 : 1 - 2 ; 4 5 2 5 ~ 2 8 ; 4 6 : 1 - 2 6 ; 4 7 : 7 - 1 2 , 2 8 - 3 1 ; 4 8 : 1 - 2 ; 4 9 : 1 - 5 0 . 1 4 ) a n d o f 718 lines o f Josephus's G r e e k text (Ant. 1.257-58, 2 6 7 - 3 4 6 , 2 . 1 - 8 , 1 6 8 - 8 8 , 194-^97), a ratio o f 1.08 to 1 o f J o s e p h u s to the P e n t a t e u c h . H e n c e , quantitatively at least, J o s e p h u s gives J a c o b s o m e w h a t less i m p o r t a n c e t h a n A b r a h a m a n d c o n s i d e r a b l y less i m p o r t a n c e t h a n J o s e p h in relation to the biblical 3
a c c o u n t . A s w e shall see, J o s e p h u s ' s omissions r e g a r d i n g J a c o b are at least as signi ficant as his additions. M o r e o v e r , if w e e x a m i n e the eulogies that J o s e p h u s a p p e n d s u p o n the d e a t h o f his p r i n c i p a l c h a r a c t e r s , w e see that A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.256) receives 14 w o r d s , Isaac (Ant. 1.346) 27 w o r d s , J o s e p h (Ant. 2.198) 33 w o r d s , M o s e s (Ant. 4.328-31) 127 w o r d s , a n d S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) 373 w o r d s . T h e e n c o m i u m to J a c o b (Ant. 1.196) consists o f a m e r e 19 w o r d s , a g a i n illustrating his relative l a c k o f signifi c a n c e for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d to his o b v i o u s i m p o r t a n c e in the Bible. It is, f u r t h e r m o r e , n o t m e r e l y J o s e p h u s w h o s e e m s to h a v e h a d less interest in J a c o b t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e . A s i d e f r o m the f r a g m e n t s o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o , in t h e first c e n t u r y B.C.E., q u o t e s the G r a e c o - J e w i s h t h i r d - c e n t u r y B.C.E. h i s t o r i a n D e m e t r i u s (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 2 1 . 1 - 1 9 ) , the o n l y r e f e r e n c e to J a c o b in e x t a n t p a g a n literature is in P o m p e i u s T r o g u s (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitome 2.3-5),
w
n
o
calls h i m b y his a l t e r n a t e n a m e " I s r a h e l " a n d w h o m a k e s h i m the s u c
c e s s o r o f A b r a h a m as k i n g o f D a m a s c u s . P o l y h i s t o r w a s o b v i o u s l y n o t w e l l in f o r m e d a b o u t J a c o b , since h e d e c l a r e s ( p r e s u m a b l y c o n f u s i n g J a c o b ' s n a m e " I s r a e l " w i t h t h e m u c h later k i n g d o m o f Israel) t h a t h e h a d t e n sons a n d d i v i d e d his p e o p l e i n t o t e n k i n g d o m s . A similar l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n is s e e n in the r e m a r k o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor's c o n t e m p o r a r y A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n in the first c e n t u r y B.C.E., t h a t to G e l o s (i.e., I s a a c , w h o s e H e b r e w n a m e , m e a n i n g " l a u g h t e r , " is h e r e trans l a t e d i n t o the e q u i v a l e n t G r e e k w o r d ) w e r e b o r n t w e l v e sons, w h e r e a s , o f c o u r s e , I s a a c h a d o n l y t w o sons (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.19.3). A p o l l o n i u s h e r e h a s q u i t e o b v i o u s l y c o n f u s e d I s a a c w i t h J a c o b , w h o s e n a m e h e d o e s n o t s e e m to h a v e k n o w n .
2. For the H e b r e w text, I have used the standard edition with the c o m m e n t a r y of M a l b i m n.d. For Josephus, I have used T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, vol. 4. 3. Cf. F r a n x m a n 1979,181, w h o c o m m e n t s on the " s o m e w h a t light and rapid h a n d l i n g " that J a c o b receives from Josephus, in contrast to Josephus's treatment of A b r a h a m and Joseph, but does not de tail his remark.
306
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
W r i t i n g in the fourth century, the e m p e r o r Julian h a d m i x e d feelings a b o u t the J e w s , a n d h e d e n i g r a t e s J a c o b , r e m a r k i n g (clearly in c o n t r a d i c t i o n to the
Penta
t e u c h itself) t h a t h e w a s a s l a v e , first i n S y r i a , t h e n i n P a l e s t i n e , a n d i n h i s o l d a g e i n E g y p t (Contra Galilaeos 2 0 9 D - E ) . I n c o n t r a s t t o this d i m i n u t i o n o f h i s i m p o r t a n c e a n d e v e n d e n i g r a t i o n b y n o n J e w s , J a c o b , i n t h e b o o k of Jubilees (19:15, 31), d a t i n g , it w o u l d s e e m , f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y B . C . E . , is s a i d t o h a v e f o u n d f a v o r n o t o n l y w i t h h i s m o t h e r R e b e k a h b u t also w i t h his g r a n d f a t h e r A b r a h a m . S i m i l a r l y , a l t h o u g h w e d o n o t h a v e a n y treatises a b o u t J a c o b as s u c h b y P h i l o , it is c l e a r f r o m h i s m a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o h i m h o w c e n t r a l a n d h o w p r a i s e w o r t h y J a c o b w a s i n P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g . P h i l o c o n s t a n d y refers (e.g., Legum Allegoriae 3.30.93) t o h i m as t h e " p r a c t i c e r " o r t r a i n e d s e e k e r ( d a / c ^ r ^ ? , De Plantatione 21.90) o r l o v e r o f v i r t u e (i\ap€ros, De Somniis 1.8.45, Legum Allegoriae 3.30.93), w h o o v e r t h r o w s t h e p a s s i o n s a n d w i c k e d n e s s (Legum Allegoriae 3 . 6 8 . 1 9 0 , De Mutatione
J A C O B ' S QUALITIES OF
Nominum
12.81).
4
CHARACTER
W h a t strikes o n e w h e n r e a d i n g J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f J a c o b is t h a t f o r s o m e r e a s o n , w h i c h w e s h a l l t r y t o f a t h o m , J o s e p h u s s e e m s , as h e d o e s i n h i s p o r t r a i t o f
4. In Philo, J a c o b is not the learner, whose course is determined b y w h a t another person says, but the practicer, whose course is determined b y the person himself (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 13.70). His very n a m e signifies learning (jiaOr^aecjs) a n d progress (TTpoKOTrrjs), while his n e w name, Israel, stands for perfection (reAeioT^To?) a n d expresses the vision o f G - d (De Ebrietate 20.82). J a c o b is the " m a n o f mark" (imarffios) a n d hence, appropriately enough, in his dealings with L a b a n , claims the marked an imals for himself. H e is a plain a n d simple m a n in the best sense (De Plantatione 11.44; Legum Allegoriae 3.1.2). H e is the m a n full o f w i s d o m w h o belongs to a city (dcretos,
"town-bred, polite") (Legum Allego
riae 3.1.2, 3.68.190) a n d w h o subjects to himself the secondary as well as the p r i m a r y objects (Legum Allegoriae 3.8.26). T h e biblical incident (Gen. 25:26) describing the origin o f the n a m e o f J a c o b as "supplanter" b e c o m e s for Philo a n occasion to praise J a c o b as a supplanter o f the passions (Legum Allegoriae 2.22.89, 3.68.190) w h o shows strength o f character in not allowing passion to raise itself u p (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.163). H e wins the respect o f P h a r a o h as though h e were the father, not o f his viceroy, but o f P h a r a o h himself (De Josepho 42.257). H i s success in obtaining the animal for his father's m e a l is due to divine intervention (De Ebrietate 31.120; De Fuga et Inventione 30.169). J a c o b is, in effect, a true Platonist, since h e recognizes (De Migratione Abrahami 1.5) that the H o u s e o f G - d (Gen. 28:17) is not the visible but the invisible world, w h i c h is a p p r e h e n d e d only b y the soul as soul; h e quits the dwelling place o f the senses, looking b e y o n d things perceived (De Migratione Abrahami 38.214). T o Philo, J a c o b is the perfect athlete—surely a tremendous compliment in the eyes o f G r e e k readers o f his day, with their adulation o f successful a t h l e t e s — o f noble pursuits (De Somniis 1.20.126), w h o has b e e n drilled in the gymnastics o f the soul (De Mutatione Nominum 12.81) a n d a w a r d e d prizes a n d crowns with virtue presiding (De Migra tione Abrahami 6.27). E v e n his immaturity (since his m o t h e r R e b e k a h addresses h i m as "child" [TCKVOV] in the Septuagint version [ G e n . 27:43]) is explained as actually a n indication o f his kindly feeling, suited to his tender age, o n e that is capable (repeating the athletic imagery) o f w i n n i n g the prizes offered to boys (De Fuga et Inventione 7.40). Finally, in taking a wife, J a c o b b e c o m e s associated with g o o d things a p r
propriate to h i m (De Posteritate Caini 22.75). P ° further characterization o f the Philonic J a c o b a n d a n ex haustive list o f passages illustrating these qualities, see C o l s o n a n d W h i t a k e r 1929-62, 10:336-48.
JACOB
307
5
D a v i d , to b e w a l k i n g a tightrope b e t w e e n adulation a n d denigration. O n the one h a n d , as w i t h his o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , J o s e p h u s stresses J a c o b ' s g e n e a l o g y , a p p e a r a n c e , wealth, a n d possession o f the cardinal virtues plus piety; o n the other h a n d , h e d o w n p l a y s the shortcomings o f Esau, J a c o b ' s twin brother a n d bitter rival, as w e l l as t h e strife b e t w e e n t h e m . J o s e p h u s , in e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s , c o m m e n d s a n u m b e r o f b i b l i c a l figures for t h e i r g o o d b i r t h . W h e n J a c o b first m e e t s R a c h e l , h e g i v e s his g e n e a l o g y at s o m e l e n g t h (Ant. 1.288-90), in a s c e n e r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e m e e t i n g o f G l a u c u s a n d D i o m e d e s (Iliad 6 . 1 2 3 - 2 3 1 ) , w h e r e a s in G e n e s i s (29:12), w e r e a d s i m p l y t h a t J a c o b t o l d R a c h e l t h a t h e w a s h e r father's b r o t h e r a n d t h a t h e w a s R e b e k a h ' s s o n . I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h e n L a b a n asks J a c o b w h y h e h a d left his p a r e n t s at a t i m e w h e n t h e y n e e d e d his c a r e , J a c o b replies at l e n g t h , t e l l i n g h i m n o t o n l y t h e s t o r y o f his life b u t also m e n t i o n i n g t h a t t h e i r g r a n d f a t h e r s w e r e b r o t h e r s (Ant. 1.294-^96). A s e c o n d q u a l i t y o f t h e g r e a t h e r o is t h a t h e s h o u l d b e p h y s i c a l l y attractive. I n t h e c a s e o f J a c o b , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , to b e sure, c o m m e n t o n his b e a u t y , b u t h e d o e s r e m a r k o n t h e b e a u t y o f his sons a n d h e n c e , i n d i r e c t l y o n J a c o b ' s h a n d s o m e ness, w h e n h e h a s J o s e p h d e c l a r e t o his b r o t h e r s t h a t h e d o e s n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y a r e all b r o t h e r s , since it w o u l d b e i m p o s s i b l e for a n y c o m m o n e r to h a v e r e a r e d sons " w i t h figures [jiopcfrds] so d i s t i n g u i s h e d [em^aveiY], w h e n e v e n k i n g s f o u n d it h a r d t o raise t h e l i k e " (Ant. 2.98). A t h i r d q u a l i t y o f t h e g r e a t h e r o , s u c h as a M i d a s o r a n O e d i p u s , is t h a t h e s h o u l d b e w e a l t h y H e n c e , J o s e p h u s stresses J a c o b ' s prosperity, as w e c a n see f r o m his r e m a r k , u n p a r a l l e l e d in his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e (cf. G e n . 37:1), t h a t "it befell t o J a c o b to r e a c h a d e g r e e o f p r o s p e r i t y [evSaipiovlas,
" g o o d fortune," "blessing," "well-
b e i n g , " " w e a l t h " ] h a r d l y a t t a i n e d b y a n y m a n " a n d t h a t " i n r i c h e s [TTAOUTOJ] h e s u r p a s s e d the i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e c o u n t r y " (Ant. 2.7). M o r e o v e r , in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f J o s e p h ' s d r e a m , J a c o b p r e d i c t s t h a t his s o n w i l l h a v e prosperity, e m p l o y i n g t h e s a m e w o r d (evSaipLovlav) t h a t J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h a d u s e d to d e s c r i b e J a c o b (Ant. 2.15). T h a t w e a l t h w a s o n e o f J a c o b ' s o u t s t a n d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s is c l e a r f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e n G - d s p e a k s to A m r a m , t h e father o f M o s e s , to e n c o u r a g e h i m in t h e f a c e o f t h e terrible d e c r e e s o f P h a r a o h , H e r e m i n d s h i m t h a t J a c o b h a d b e c o m e f a m o u s a m o n g a n a l i e n p e o p l e for t h e h e i g h t o f t h e p r o s p e r i t y
(evSaifiovlas)
" t h a t h e a t t a i n e d in his lifetime a n d t h a t h e left to his c h i l d r e n " (Ant. 2.214). J o s e p h u s in n u m e r o u s p l a c e s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l t e x t i n stressing t h e w i s d o m o f J e w i s h l e a d e r s ; a n d this is c e r t a i n l y t r u e o f J a c o b . I n particular, J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l text, h i g h l i g h t s t h e fact t h a t J a c o b g r a s p e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f
5. Franxman 1979, 211, recognizes that in Josephus, Jacob's character, while not blackened, is far from being idealized. Josephus's representation of Jacob, he concludes, is ambiguous and thus consti tutes "a grand exception to any theory which would have Josephus too liberally glorify or idealize the historical personages appearing in his version of Genesis." Franxman makes no attempt, however, to explain this apparent exception to Josephus's standard treatment of biblical heroes.
308
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
J o s e p h ' s d r e a m a n d s a g e l y (/xera oolas) a n d u n e r r i n g l y (OVK aaKonajs,
"not by
c h a n c e " ) d i v i n e d its i m p o r t (Ant. 2.15). S o m e w h a t later, J o s e p h u s reiterates t h a t J a c o b s h r e w d l y (OVK aovvercDs, " n o t w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g , " " c l e v e r l y , " " w i t h dis c e r n m e n t , " " c l a i r v o y a n d y " ) i n t e r p r e t e d t h e v i s i o n (Ant. 2.17). M o r e o v e r , J a c o b is said t o h a v e t h e w i s d o m o f a p r o p h e t i n h i s p r e d i c t i o n o f h o w e a c h o f his s o n s ' d e s c e n d a n t s w a s d e s t i n e d t o find a h a b i t a t i o n i n C a n a a n (Ant. 2.194). T h i s q u a l i t y o f c l e v e r n e s s is also t o b e s e e n i n J a c o b ' s w i f e R a c h e l , a s w e c a n d e d u c e f r o m t h e e x trabiblical addition
finding
o u t d o n e (avTirexvaoaadcu)
the source o f the n a m e Naphtali in Rachel's having t h e f e c u n d i t y o f h e r sister L e a h (Ant. 1.305), w h e r e a s
t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t s i m p l y states t h a t t h e n a m e N a p h t a l i is d e r i v e d f r o m t h e m i g h t y w r e s d i n g s w i t h w h i c h R a c h e l h a d w r e s d e d w i t h h e r sister a n d p r e v a i l e d ( G e n . 30:8). L i k e w i s e , t h e q u a l i t y o f c l e v e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g (Sewol ovvievai) is n o t e d i n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n (Ant. 2.7).
o f J a c o b ' s sons
6
A s t o J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f J a c o b ' s c o u r a g e , w e m a y n o t e a striking p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n I s a a c ' s p r a y e r for J a c o b i n J o s e p h u s , t h a t G - d s h o u l d m a k e h i m a t e r r o r to his foes (of$€pov . . . ixOpois) a n d a t r e a s u r e a n d a d e l i g h t (Kexapcapievov) friends
(Ant. 1.273),
a n <
^ H e c t o r ' s p r a y e r for his s o n A s t y a n a x ( H o m e r ,
t o his Iliad
6.476-81) that h e b e distinguished a m o n g the Trojans a n d that his m o t h e r rejoice (xapelrj,
f r o m t h e s a m e r o o t as J o s e p h u s ' s w o r d Kexapiop-evov)
"in her soul." In
J o s e p h u s , i n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , G - d u r g e s J a c o b t o s h o w c o u r a g e (dappwv) o n his j o u r n e y t o M e s o p o t a m i a (Ant. 1.282), w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , G - d s i m p l y says t h a t H e w i l l b e w i t h J a c o b w h e r e v e r h e g o e s ( G e n . 28:15). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s J a c o b ' s fear ( G e n . 28:17) after his d r e a m a b o u t t h e a n g e l s g o i n g u p a n d d o w n a l a d d e r ; in J o s e p h u s , J a c o b is " o v e r j o y e d " (irtpixapris)
at these v i
sions a n d p r o m i s e s (Ant. 1.284). J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s J a c o b as a m i l i t a r y m a n , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n t h e w a y J a c o b s e p a r a t e s h i m s e l f f r o m h i s w i v e s (Ant. 1.335)
s
o
m
a
t
m
e
Y
m
a
v
w a t c h the bat
d e f r o m afar, i n a m a n n e r r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e s c e n e i n H o m e r ' s Iliad 3 . 1 6 1 - 2 4 2 . T h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t J a c o b sent m e s s e n g e r s b e f o r e h i m t o E s a u a n d t h e n d i -
6. Philo also, as would b e expected in an admirer o f Plato, stresses the wisdom o f Jacob. T h u s , in his De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia 18.99, o f Jacob's supremacy in reason, since it is the feeling o f gratefulness to G - d arising from reason and intelligence that prompts the m a n of practice (aa/c^ri/cos) to b e generous in giving tithes (Gen. 28:22). Elsewhere, Philo refers to J a c o b as a "practicer of wisdom" (aoias daKrjrris [De Ebrietate 12.48]) a n d as an earnest seeker o f knowledge w h o is at w a r with igno rance (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 2.3). J a c o b represents the fire o f reason that subdues passion, as personified b y Esau (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 24.81). His quality of wisdom is apparendy so widely recognized that he c a n b e referred to without even being named as "the wise m a n " (De Virtutibus 40.223). H e is cited as the "all-wise father" w h o trains his sons in wisdom so that they are not dazzled by Pharaoh's lavish p o m p a n d splendor (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 11.48). Philo praises J a c o b for going to the house o f wisdom (oolas), namely, the h o m e o f Bethuel, to find a bride (De Fuga et Inventione 9.52). Philo's J a c o b is depicted as being even wiser than Joseph, in that he teaches Joseph that the foods that nourish the soul are various forms o f knowledge that are bestowed not by bodily sense but by G - d (Legum Allegoriae 3.63.179). w
e
n e a r
JACOB
og
3
v i d e d the p e o p l e t h a t w e r e w i t h h i m , so t h a t i f E s a u s h o u l d smite o n e b a n d , the o t h e r m i g h t b e a b l e t o e s c a p e ( G e n . 32:4, 8-9); J o s e p h u s , i n a n a d d i t i o n t o t h e B i b l e , d e p i c t s h i m as a m i l i t a r y strategist a n d a m a s t e r o f r e c o n n a i s s a n c e , n o t i n g t h a t h e sent f o r w a r d a p a r t y t o o b t a i n full a n d p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d t h e n sent o n e g r o u p in a d v a n c e a n d b a d e the rest follow closely b e h i n d , so t h a t i f t h e a d v a n c e g u a r d w e r e o v e r p o w e r e d , those in the r e a r m i g h t c o m e t o their a i d 1.325, 328).
(Ant
7
L i k e w i s e , t h e q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e is s i n g l e d o u t in J a c o b ' s c h i l d r e n , w h o a r e t e r m e d stout o f h e a r t (evifjvxoi) for m a n u a l l a b o r a n d e n d u r a n c e o f toil a n d w h o a r e c o n s e q u e n d y e n v i e d a n d a d m i r e d (Ant 2.7). It m i g h t s e e m t h a t J o s e p h u s d e tracts f r o m J a c o b ' s c o u r a g e b y i m p u t i n g fear t o h i m as his m o t i v e i n s e n d i n g 8
J o s e p h t o his b r o t h e r s (Ant 2.19); b u t u n d o u b t e d l y h e felt that, u n l i k e t h e S c r i p ture, h e h a d t o s u p p l y a g o o d r e a s o n for J a c o b ' s s e n d i n g J o s e p h t o his hostile b r o t h e r s . C o n s e q u e n d y h e e x p l a i n s , as d o the r a b b i s , t h a t J a c o b w a s a p p r e h e n s i v e a b o u t t h e b r o t h e r s , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e f e a r e d t h a t the H i v i t e s w o u l d c o m e a n d kill t h e m , since t h e y h a d killed H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m a n d t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f their city C o n n e c t e d w i t h this q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e , the g r e a t h e r o m u s t s h o w p r o w e s s .
9
H e n c e , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s J a c o b ' s g r e a t d i s p l a y o f strength in o v e r c o m i n g t h e a n g e l (Ant 1.332); J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t the a n g e l b i d s h i m r e j o i c e in his a c h i e v e m e n t a n d n o t to i m a g i n e t h a t it w a s a p u n y (jxiKpov) a d v e r s a r y w h o m h e h a d m a s t e r e d . W h e r e a s i n the B i b l e , it is J a c o b w h o d e m a n d s t h a t t h e a n g e l bless h i m (Ant 1.332), in J o s e p h u s , it is the a n g e l h i m s e l f w h o takes the initiative in d o i n g so (Ant 1.332). L i k e w i s e , the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t the a n g e l , after J a c o b h a s w r e s d e d w i t h h i m , b l e s s e d J a c o b w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g the c o n t e n t s o f the b l e s s i n g ( G e n . 32:30), w h e r e a s i n J o s e p h u s , the a n g e l assures h i m t h a t his r a c e will n e v e r b e e x t i n g u i s h e d a n d t h a t n o m o r t a l m a n w i l l surpass h i m i n strength (laxvos)
(Ant 1.332).
A s t o t h e c a r d i n a l v i r t u e o f m o d e r a t i o n , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , J a c o b loses his t e m p e r w i t h R a c h e l w h e n she tells h i m either t o give h e r c h i l d r e n o r t o let h e r die ( G e n . 30:2), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this s h o w o f a n g e r c o m p l e t e l y (Ant 1.305).
10
7. A similar portrayal o f Moses as a skilled general m a y be seen in Josephus's extrabiblical de scription of his organization of his army against the Amalekites (Ant. 3.47); of his strategy (Ant. 3.42) in attacking them at the outset before they were too strong; of his preparations for the batde (Ant. 3.50); and of his ability to lead a good retreat (Ant. 4.9). 8. S o also the rabbinic aggada (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 37:13; Sefer ha-Yashar 147). 9. S o also Philo declares that Jacob exercised himself in mastering the laborious life (De Sobrietate 13.65) and praises him for his practice of toil a n d endurance (De Somniis 1.20.120-21). Jacob, says Philo, is the symbol of labor (TTOVOV) and progress (irpoKOTrrjs) (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 36.120). In contrast, Esau is the b a d man, who, w h e n he sees his supports conquered and robbed of strength by the reason that corrects them, must in natural consequence find the bonds that h a d knitted his strength together loosened (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 24.81). 10. Philo also ascribes this quality o f moderation to Jacob, noting that he was unflagging in selfdiscipline (aoKrjoiv) (De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia 6.24). Indeed, he says that Jacob is named on the basis of his discipline, as Esau is from his folly (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caen? 4.17-18; cf. De Congressu Quaeren-
3W
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS A s t o j u s t i c e , w h e n N e h e m i a h a d d r e s s e s t h e p e o p l e in J e r u s a l e m , h e e m p h a
sizes t h a t G - d c h e r i s h e s the m e m o r y o f t h e forefathers A b r a h a m , I s a a c , a n d J a c o b , a n d t h a t it is b e c a u s e o f their r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SiKaioovvrjs,
"justice") t h a t H e
d o e s n o t g i v e u p H i s p r o v i d e n t i a l c a r e for t h e J e w s (Ant. 11.169). C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e attribute o f j u s t i c e a r e the attributes o f h u m a n i t y
1 1
and
g e n e r o s i t y J a c o b s h o w s his g e n e r o s i t y w h e n h e sends a m u l t i t u d e o f a n i m a l s s u c h as w o u l d b e t r e a s u r e d o n a c c o u n t o f t h e i r r a r i t y as a gift to his b r o t h e r E s a u (Ant. 1.329). M o r e o v e r , J a c o b lavishes praises u p o n his s o n J o s e p h for n o t b e a r i n g a n y m a l i c e a g a i n s t his b r o t h e r s a n d for b e i n g g e n e r o u s (xprjoros)
t o t h e m in l o a d i n g
t h e m w i t h p r e s e n t s " s u c h as s o m e w o u l d n o t h a v e g i v e n e v e n to r e q u i t e their b e n e f a c t o r s " (Ant. 2.195). L i k e w i s e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is the responsibility t o b e h o n e s t . T h u s , J u d a h , in his a p p e a l to J o s e p h to p i t y t h e o l d a g e o f their father, J a c o b , d e clares t h a t J a c o b is a n h o n e s t (xprjoros)
m a n w h o d o e s n o t d e s e r v e to suffer thus
(Ant. 2.149). A s to t h e fifth o f t h e c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s , piety, i n the c a s e o f J a c o b , a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s e n c o m i u m o f h i m (Ant. 1.196) is e x t r e m e l y b r i e f (only n i n e t e e n w o r d s ) , es p e c i a l l y as c o m p a r e d w i t h S a u l ' s (Ant. 6.343-50), it is p r e c i s e l y his p i e t y
(evoefieia)
t h a t is s i n g l e d o u t as a v i r t u e in w h i c h J a c o b w a s inferior t o n o n e o f his a n c e s t o r s (Ant. 2.196). I n particular, J a c o b ' s faith in G - d is s h o w n w h e n , in c o n t r a s t to t h e B i b l e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t J a c o b d i d n o t b e l i e v e his sons w h e n t h e y t o l d h i m t h a t J o s e p h w a s still alive a n d w a s r u l e r o v e r all o f E g y p t ( G e n . 45:26), J o s e p h u s ' s J a c o b , in his piety, d e e m s n o n e o f these r e p o r t s i n c r e d i b l e , since h e reflects o n G - d ' s m i g h t y p o w e r a n d b e n e v o l e n c e t o w a r d h i m (Ant. 2 . 1 6 9 ) .
12
THE A L L E G E D D E F E C T S IN J A C O B ' S C H A R A C T E R I n a s m u c h as J a c o b is so c l o s e l y identified w i t h t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , his v e r y n a m e h a v i n g b e e n c h a n g e d to " I s r a e l , " J o s e p h u s takes g r e a t p a i n s to r e p l y to t h o s e w h o m i g h t b e d i s p o s e d to criticize h i m for his deceitfulness. I n this c o n n e c t i o n , w e s h o u l d r e c a l l h o w s t r o n g l y the R o m a n s , a p r i m a r y a u d i e n c e for J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , felt a b o u t d e c e i t , a s e n t i m e n t e x p r e s s e d , for e x a m p l e , in L i v y ' s d i s d a i n (1.27-28) for the A l b a n l e a d e r M e t t i u s Fufetius, w h o b r o k e a treaty w i t h R o m e , a n d for t h e
doe Eruditionis Gratia 31.175-76). In fact, Philo actually derives the name " E d o m " from "flame-colored" or "earthy" and says that the name was given to him because he was intemperate and unrestrained in character (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.168). 11. Philo contrasts the humanity a n d civilized (doreios) character of Jacob with the inhumanity and unsocial attitude of Esau (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.165). 12. Likewise, Philo has Jacob very piously declare to Rachel, when the latter complains about her childlessness, that only G - d has the power to open the w o m b s of souls (Legum Allegoriae 3.63.180). Fur thermore, Philo depicts Jacob, w h o has discerned the kindness of G - d , as offering a prayer worthy o f the utmost admiration (De Somniis 1.26.163).
JACOB
311
C a r t h a g i n i a n s , w h o w e r e k n o w n for their faithlessness [fides Punka). A t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t o f J a c o b , J o s e p h u s gives the e t y m o l o g y o f " E s a u " (Ant. 1.258); b u t w h i l e h e d o e s m e n t i o n t h a t J a c o b h e l d his t w i n b r o t h e r E s a u b y t h e h e e l , h e o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l e t y m o l o g y o f the n a m e " J a c o b " t h a t f o l l o w s — t h a t is, as m e a n i n g " s u p p l a n t e r " ( G e n . 25:26). F r a n x m a n is p u z z l e d as t o w h y J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s to e x p l a i n t h e e t y m o l o g y o f the less intelligible n a m e , E s a u , a n d t o l e a v e a s i d e t h a t o f the m o r e i m p o r t a n t a n d m o r e significant n a m e , J a c o b ( F r a n x m a n 1979, 177); b u t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d s e e m t o b e t h a t J o s e p h u s f o u n d it e m b a r r a s s i n g t h a t t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e s h o u l d a p p e a r a g g r e s s i v e f r o m his very birth. T h e n e x t m a j o r e v e n t in J a c o b ' s life, the p u r c h a s e o f E s a u ' s b i r t h r i g h t ( G e n . 25:29-34), is p o s t p o n e d in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 1 - 3 ) until after his a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e is p r o c e e d i n g t h e m a t i c a l l y a n d at this p o i n t is a b o u t t o t a k e u p the list o f E s a u ' s d e s c e n d a n t s . T h e s c e n e o f J a c o b ' s d e c e p t i o n o f his father in o r d e r to o b t a i n his b l e s s i n g is a p a r t i c u l a r l y t r o u b l e s o m e o n e for t h e a p o l o g i s t . O n t h e o n e h a n d , J o s e p h u s d o e s m e n t i o n t h a t J a c o b w a s fearful lest his g u i l e (KaKovpycjv) b e d i s c o v e r e d (Ant. 1.270; so G e n . 27:12). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.271) o m i t s t h e e m b a r r a s s i n g q u e s t i o n " H o w is it t h a t t h o u h a s t f o u n d it [i.e., v e n i s o n ] so quickly, m y s o n ? " ( G e n . 27:20). H e l i k e w i s e o m i t s I s a a c ' s e m b a r r a s s i n g s u b s e q u e n t c o m m a n d s t h a t J a c o b c o m e n e a r so t h a t h e m a y feel h i m to see w h e t h e r h e r e a l l y is E s a u , as h e c l a i m s , a n d kiss h i m ( G e n . 27:21). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.271) o m i t s J a c o b ' s o w n i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t " I a m E s a u t h y firstborn" ( G e n . 27:19). I n J o s e p h u s , G - d H i m s e l f justifies J a c o b ' s theft o f t h e blessing, s a y i n g t h a t it w a s H e w h o h a d g i v e n t h e p r i n c e d o m to h i m r a t h e r t h a n to E s a u (Ant. 2.173), a l t h o u g h h e p o s t p o n e s t h e s t a t e m e n t to a later p o i n t , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e felt self-conscious a b o u t h a v i n g G - d justify the theft o n the spot a n d p r e f e r r e d to d e f e n d it e x p o s t f a c t o . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s transfers t h e b l a m e for t h e d e c e p t i o n c o m p l e t e l y to R e b e k a h (Ant. 1.269), e v e n t h o u g h , in g e n e r a l , h e d r a s t i c a l l y r e d u c e s h e r r o l e .
13
W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e m e r e l y q u o t e s R e b e k a h as s a y i n g , " A n d now, m y s o n , o b e y m y v o i c e i n t h a t w h i c h I c o m m a n d t h e e " ( G e n . 27:8), J o s e p h u s e m p h a t i c a l l y states t h a t it w a s R e b e k a h , w h o , b e i n g d e t e r m i n e d to i n v o k e G - d ' s f a v o r u p o n J a c o b , e v e n i n d e f i a n c e o f I s a a c ' s intent, t o o k t h e initiative in b i d d i n g J a c o b kill s o m e kids a n d p r e p a r e a m e a l for his father. W e r e a d in J o s e p h u s t h a t " J a c o b o b e y e d his m o t h e r , t a k i n g all his instructions f r o m her," e v e n t h o u g h it is J a c o b h i m s e l f (1.269) r a t h e r t h a n R e b e k a h ( G e n . 27:9) w h o a c t u a l l y p r e p a r e s t h e m e a l for I s a a c a n d p u t s t h e skins o f t h e kids u p o n his o w n h a n d s (Ant. 1.270; cf. G e n . 27:16). W h e n J a c o b later r e c o u n t s t o L a b a n the story o f h o w h e r e c e i v e d t h e blessing, h e states t h a t E s a u failed to o b t a i n (bi-qpuapTe, " h a d n o success") his father's blessings t h r o u g h his
13. See F r a n x m a n 1979, 182, w h o notes, for example, that R e b e k a h does not overhear the conver sation between Isaac and Esau (Gen. 27:5), m u c h less tell J a c o b about it. O n Josephus's portrait o f R e I
bekah, see Bailey 1 9 8 7 , 1 5 4 - 7 9 , esp. 1 6 1 - 6 5 , 73^74-
312
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m o t h e r ' s artifice (ao<£ia, " c l e v e r n e s s " ) (Ant. 1.295). J o s e p h u s significantly o m i t s J a c o b ' s s a y i n g , " P e r a d v e n t u r e m y f a t h e r will find m e , a n d I shall s e e m to h i m as a d e c e i v e r , " w h i c h stresses his d e c e p t i o n ( G e n . 27:12) T h e r e is less e l a b o r a t i o n o f the d e c e p t i o n in J o s e p h u s (he r e d u c e s the biblical scene f r o m 155 w o r d s to 88 words); thus J a c o b c o v e r s o n l y his a r m , a n d not, as in the Bible, his h a n d s a n d n e c k , w i t h the skin o f a g o a t ; h e is n o t dressed, as in the Bible, in E s a u ' s best g a r m e n t s ( G e n . 27:15), a n d the m e n u h e serves is n o t u n d e r s c o r e d b y b e i n g d e s c r i b e d as s a v o r y (so G e n . 27:17). T h e r e is h a r d l y m u c h d e c e p t i o n at all, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.270), i n a s m u c h as J a c o b , b e i n g his t w i n , resembles E s a u in all else e x c e p t h a i r i n e s s .
14
M o r e o v e r , the v i v i d t e r m KaravuxOevros
("be sorely
p r i c k e d , " " b e b e w i l d e r e d , " " b e stunned") u s e d in the S e p t u a g i n t ( G e n . 27:38) to d e scribe Isaac's d e e p distress at E s a u ' s w e e p i n g w h e n h e discovers that J a c o b h a s u s u r p e d his blessing, is a v o i d e d b y J o s e p h u s , w h o says m e r e l y that Isaac w a s m o v e d (axOopuevos, " b e v e x e d , " " b e g r i e v e d " ) b y E s a u ' s tears (Ant. 1.275). F i n a l l y in order, presumably, n o t to p u t t o o m u c h stress o n the t h e m e o f the y o u n g e r o b t a i n i n g the blessing in lieu o f the older, J o s e p h u s o m i t s the a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s blessing o f J o s e p h ' s sons (Ant. 2.195), w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to G e n . (48:14-19), J a c o b k n o w i n g l y p l a c e d his right h a n d u p o n the y o u n g e r , E p h r a i m , a n d the left h a n d u p o n the older, M a n a s s e h . A n o t h e r a p p a r e n t d e f e c t i n J a c o b ' s c h a r a c t e r is his favoritism t o w a r d R a c h e l a n d his h a t r e d o f his o t h e r wife, L e a h , as s u g g e s t e d b y b o t h t h e H e b r e w a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f G e n . 29:31 (senuah, " h a t e d " ; S e p t u a g i n t , ipuLaeiro, " w a s h a t e d " ) . J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g o f J a c o b ' s h a t r e d for L e a h , b u t r a t h e r a c c e n t u a t e s t h e p o s i tive, n a m e l y , his p a s s i o n (epcos) for R a c h e l (Ant. 1.303). Similarly, w h e n a c h i l d is b o r n to L e a h , t h e B i b l e q u o t e s h e r as s a y i n g t h a t n o w h e r h u s b a n d w i l l love her, a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t l i k e w i s e uses t h e future tense (dyairr) o r e t ) , e x p r e s s i n g L e a h ' s h o p e ( G e n . 29:32). J o s e p h u s ' s J a c o b , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is m o r e a p p r e c i a t i v e o f L e a h ; a n d after the b i r t h o f R e u b e n , w e a r e t o l d t h a t h e w a s d r a w n t o w a r d h e r (i7T€arpafjLiJi€vov, " t u r n e d a r o u n d , " " t u r n e d b a c k " ) (Ant. 1.304). It is significant that J o s e p h u s o m i t s J a c o b ' s t r i c k e r y w i t h L a b a n ' s s p e c k l e d a n d s p o t t e d l a m b s a n d g o a t s ( G e n . 3 0 : 3 2 - 4 3 ; Ant. 1.309), e v e n t h o u g h h e m i g h t h a v e justified s u c h a n a c t o f r e v e n g e in v i e w o f w h a t L a b a n h a d d o n e t o h i m .
1 5
H e omits
14. Philo goes even further than Josephus in justifying Jacob's deception o f Isaac, stressing the truth o f J a c o b ' s reply, w h e n asked by his father h o w he w a s able to find venison so quickly: "It is w h a t the L - r d G - d set before m e " (Gen. 27:20) (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 17.64; Quod D-us Immutabilis Sit 20.92). E v e n w h e n J a c o b tells his father, "I a m Esau, thy firstborn," Philo remarks that he merely seems to be a deceiver, whereas actually he should not be thought to be associated with any evil (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.206). Philo then asks: " W h a t dispensation is better than w h e n one does not ascribe g o o d things and virtues to those w h o wish to live shamefully and disgracefully?" Indeed, he completely justi fies the acquisition o f the blessing b y J a c o b on the g r o u n d that J a c o b did not take Esau's blessing but rather one that w a s suitable to himself, since Esau w a s inscribed to be a m o n g the slaves, whereas J a c o b was inscribed to be a m o n g the masters (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.229). 15. W e m a y note that both Philo (De Plantatione 26.110-11; De Somniis 1.35.202) and Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. (17.2-3) d o mention this incident.
JACOB
3
i
3
b o t h L a b a n ' s c h a r g e s ( G e n . 31:20 a n d 31:26) a n d t h o s e o f his sons ( G e n . 3 1 : 1 - 2 ) t h a t J a c o b h a d o u t w i t t e d h i m . O n t h e contrary, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e effusive craftiness o f L a b a n in his p r o m i s e to J a c o b o f gifts a n d h o n o r s a n d e v e r y k i n d n e s s , b o t h in t h e n a m e o f their a n c e s t o r s a n d also for his m o t h e r ' s sake (Ant. 1.297; cf. G e n . 29:19), a n d in his enthusiastic d e l i g h t t h a t J a c o b w i s h e s to m a r r y his d a u g h ter R a c h e l (Ant. 1.299;
2
: i
G e n . 9 9 ) - J o s e p h u s shifts t h e c h a r g e o f d e c e i t f r o m
J a c o b to L a b a n w h e n h e a d d s t h a t L a b a n b r o u g h t L e a h t o t h e c h a m b e r o f J a c o b , w h o w a s c o m p l e t e l y u n a w a r e o f w h a t h e w a s d o i n g (Ant. 1.301). T h a t J o s e p h u s is c o g n i z a n t o f t h e c h a r g e o f t r i c k e r y is c l e a r f r o m his i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a n a p o l o g y b y J a c o b (Ant. 1.318), n o t f o u n d i n his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e ( G e n . 31:31), n a m e l y , t h a t L a b a n o u g h t to b e grateful to h i m for h a v i n g k e p t a n d m u l t i p l i e d his cattle, a n d it is u n r e a s o n a b l e for h i m to b e a n g r y w i t h h i m o v e r t h e s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h o s e t h a t h e took with him. J o s e p h u s , in his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g G e n t i l e r e a d e r s , is careful to stress t h a t S i m e o n a n d L e v i , in m a s s a c r i n g the S h e c h e m i t e s , a c t e d w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f J a c o b , their father (Ant. 1.340). T h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g o f J a c o b ' s at titude to their a c t i o n , a l t h o u g h a f t e r w a r d s J a c o b d o e s s a y t h a t t h e y h a v e m a d e h i m o d i o u s to t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e l a n d ( G e n . 34:30). J o s e p h u s uses s t r o n g l a n g u a g e in stating t h a t J a c o b w a s a g h a s t ( e W A a y e V n ) at the e n o r m i t y o f their acts a n d in d i g n a n t (xaXeiraivovTL) at his sons (Ant. 1.341). B y c o n t r a s t , P h i l o , w h i l e i g n o r i n g t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n o f t h e S h e c h e m i t e s , praises S i m e o n a n d L e v i as " h e a r e r s a n d p u p i l s o f s o u n d s e n s e " (De Migratione Abraham 39.224). T h e Book of Jubilees (30:3), w h i l e also a v o i d i n g t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n m o t i f a n d similarly o m i t t i n g a n y r e f e r e n c e to n e g o t i a tions w i t h t h e S h e c h e m i t e s , stresses t h e justifiable a n g e r o f J a c o b a n d his sons. I n c o n t r a s t to their p r e c i p i t o u s a c t i o n , J o s e p h u s ' s J a c o b s h o w s h o w r e a s o n a b l e h e is b y h o l d i n g a c o u n c i l o n t h e s u b j e c t o f H a m o r ' s r e q u e s t for t h e h a n d o f D i n a h (Ant. 1.338). O n e o f the charges that m i g h t well be m a d e against J a c o b w a s that he s h o w e d favoritism t o w a r d his s o n J o s e p h . J o s e p h u s i m p l i c i t l y a n s w e r s this b y g i v i n g as t h e r e a s o n w h y J a c o b l o v e d J o s e p h so m u c h , n o t t h a t h e w a s the s o n o f his o l d a g e ( G e n . 37:3), b u t r a t h e r t h a t h e w a s so h a n d s o m e , p o s s e s s e d v i r t u o u s qualities o f soul (oid i/tvxrjs dpeTrjv), a n d h a d e x c e p t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g (<j>povr)oei) (Ant. 2 . 9 ) .
16
I n o r d e r n o t to e m p h a s i z e the unfairness o f J a c o b ' s favoritism t o w a r d J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e n o t o r i o u s fact t h a t h e h a d m a d e a c o a t o f m a n y c o l o r s for h i m ( G e n . 3 7 : 3 ; Ant. 2.9). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t J a c o b r e b u k e d J o s e p h w h e n t o l d o f t h e d r e a m p r e d i c t i n g J o s e p h ' s a s c e n d a n c y o v e r his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 37:10), J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e w a s d e l i g h t e d , " g r a s p i n g in his m i n d w h a t it p r e d i c t e d a n d s a g e l y a n d u n e r r i n g l y d i v i n i n g its i m p o r t " (Ant. 2.15). I n a w o r l d t h a t p l a c e d g r e a t store
16. The targum of Onkelos, as well as the Samaritan targum, translating ben zequnim not as "son of his old age" but as "wise" (cf. Qvidushin 32b), likewise declares that Jacob loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, "for he was a wise son to him."
314
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d r e a m s , J a c o b ' s d o i n g this w o u l d h a v e b e e n m u c h m o r e a c c e p t a b l e t h a n t h e b i b l i c a l p a t r i a r c h ' s r e b u k e o f J o s e p h a n d t h e " w a i t - a n d - s e e " at titude h e a d o p t s .
1 7
J O S E P H U S ' S TREATMENT OF ESAU J o s e p h u s w a s confronted w i t h a d i l e m m a o n the question o f h o w to treat the
figure
o f Esau. O n the o n e h a n d , there w a s a long-standing tradition, c o m m e n c i n g w i t h t h e B i b l e itself, o f d e n i g r a t i n g h i m . T h u s t h e B i b l e q u i t e o b v i o u s l y f a v o r s J a c o b , t h e " p l a i n " (tarn; S e p t u a g i n t , drrXaaTos; T a r g u m O n k e l o s a n d N e o f i t i , shelim, " p e r fect") m a n , d w e l l i n g i n tents, i n c o n t r a s t t o E s a u t h e h u n t e r , t h e m a n o f t h e
field
( G e n . 25:27). J o s e p h u s o m i t s this c o n t r a s t c o m p l e t e l y , a p p a r e n d y b e c a u s e h e seeks to w a l k a tightrope b e t w e e n d e g r a d i n g a n d uplifting either J a c o b or E s a u 1.258). C o n t r a s t t h e p r o p h e t M a l a c h i ( 1 : 2 - 3 ) ,
w
n
o
(Ant.
q u o t e s G - d as s a y i n g e x p l i c i d y
"Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." The
n e g a t i v e b i b l i c a l v i e w o f E s a u is c o n t i n u e d i n t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h i c Book of
Jubilees, w h e r e w e find his d e s c e n d a n t s c o n d e m n e d as t h e e n e m i e s o f I s r a e l (Jubilees 1 9 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , a n d w h e r e w e a r e t o l d t h a t e v e n after his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n A b r a h a m ' s b u r ial rites, his m o t h e r R e b e k a h still c o n s i d e r e d his e v e r y t h o u g h t a n d d e e d t o b e evil (Jubilees 3 5 : 9 - 1 2 ) . I n a J e w i s h s o c i e t y w h e r e l i t e r a c y w a s p r i z e d , w e a r e i n f o r m e d t h a t as t h e y o u t h s g r e w u p , J a c o b l e a r n e d t o w r i t e b u t t h a t E s a u d i d n o t (Jubilees 19:14). I n P h i l o , w e h a v e a n o u t r i g h t d e n i g r a t i o n o f E s a u as t h e w o r s e p a r t o f t h e s o u l , in c o n t r a s t t o J a c o b , w h o is s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e b e t t e r p a r t o f t h e s o u l (De Fuga et Inventione 4.24); E s a u (4.24-7.43.) is b o t h t h e i n w a r d a n d o u t w a r d e n e m y , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f folly (d(/)poavvrjs) i n c o n t r a s t t o J a c o b ' s p r u d e n c e (p6vrjOLs) (De Ebri etate 2 . 9 - 1 0 ) .
1 8
I n d e e d , it is E s a u , r a t h e r t h a n J a c o b , w h o is t e r m e d d e c e i t f u l b y
17. T h e M i d r a s h also declares that J a c o b saw, through his analysis o f this dream, that Joseph would rule in the future (Genesis Rabbah 84.12; cf. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). 18. Indeed, for Philo, Esau is the prototype o f the person whose ignorance makes h i m disobedient and w h o nurses a grudge; a n d he offers the baits o f this mortal life—money, fame, pleasures, a n d the like—to destroy J a c o b (De Fuga et Inventione 7.39). W h e r e a s J a c o b in Rebekah's w o m b is heavenly a n d worthy o f the divine light, Esau is "earthy and corruptible and like darkness" (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.157). Jacob's rule over Esau (ibid.) is explained as exemplifying the law o f nature that g o o d must rule over folly. A g a i n a n d again, Philo identifies Esau with foolish ignorance a n d vice; he is unbending, stiff-necked, evil, full of fictions a n d sugared over, untamed, unrestrained, a n d undisciplined (e.g., Quaestiones in Genesin 4.161-62, 220, 232; cf. De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 12.61-62). A whole catalogue o f undesirable qualities are ascribed to Esau (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.227): he is envious, treacherous, self-contradictory, and quarrelsome in deeds, thoughts, a n d words. In Philo's view, Esau is b y nature rash a n d bold, while paradoxically also timid a n d cowardly (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.197). A s an example o f profligacy a n d in decency, Esau does not merit being called Rebekah's son; he and J a c o b are brothers only in the sense that o d d a n d even or ordered a n d disordered are related (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.199). H e is the personi fication o f evil (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 39.175), the votary (OIGLOOJTOV, a m e m b e r o f a religious guild), as it were, o f wickedness, w h o seeks to substitute the stamp o f vice for the image o f virtue (Quod Deterius Po tiori Insidiari Soleat 14.45). Since J a c o b represents g o o d a n d Esau evil, it is best that they be set apart from each other a n d n o longer have the same habitation (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 2.4). W h i l e yet in the
JACOB
3
i
5
P h i l o (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.238). E v e n w h e n E s a u d o e s s o m e t h i n g v i r t u o u s , as h e d o e s i n s h o w i n g filial p i e t y b y p r e p a r i n g a m e a l for h i s father, h e is d e s e r v i n g o f h a t r e d , b e c a u s e h e d o e s so w i t h i m p u r e m o t i v e s (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.221), P h i l o c o m p a r i n g h i m w i t h t h e d e s p i s e d sophists, w h o d o t h e s a m e t h i n g s a s w i s e m e n . I n fact, a c c o r d i n g t o P h i l o , it is J a c o b w h o w a s o b e d i e n t t o his p a r e n t s a n d w h o w o n such favor that G - d too j o i n e d in praising h i m , w h e r e a s E s a u w a s actually dis o b e d i e n t , i n d u l g i n g in the pleasures o f the belly a n d the l o w e r parts, his sole c o n c e r n b e i n g t o c a u s e g r i e f t o h i s p a r e n t s (De Virtutibus 38.208; cf. Quaestiones in Genesin 4 . 1 6 8 ) . I n s h o r t , his life is t h e c l e a r e s t p r o o f t h a t for t h o s e w h o a r e u n w o r t h y o f n o bility, n o b i l i t y is o f n o v a l u e (De Virtutibus 38.210). The
s a m e e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e v i e w o f E s a u is f o u n d i n t h e N e w
Testament
( H e b . 1 2 . 1 5 - 1 7 ) , w h i c h s p e a k s o f " s o m e f o r n i c a t o r o r p r o f a n e p e r s o n like E s a u , " who
found
no
opportunity
for
repentance.
1 9
Likewise,
in the
talmudic
and
m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n s , E s a u s e r v e s as a n e m b o d i m e n t o f e v e r y t r a i t a g a i n s t w h i c h the T o r a h counsels ( A m i n o f f 1981, 2 ) .
2 0
w o m b , G - d h a d declared that J a c o b was to b e ruler a n d leader a n d master, while Esau w a s to b e sub j e c t a n d slave (Legum Allegoriae 3.29.88-89; cf. De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 23.129-30, 31.175—76). Esau follows after rustic grossness (dypoiKiav, Stoic idea that the b a d m a n or fool is essentially
"state of being untrained," reminiscent o f the
aypotKos)
(De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia
23.129-30). Philo justifies the lordship of J a c o b over Esau by stating that it is actually more profitable for the foolish m a n (i.e., Esau) not to b e free but rather to have wisdom (i.e., Jacob) as a mistress so as to curb his passions a n d expel his fever, as if he were a diseased person (De Virtutibus 38.209; Quaestiones in Genesin 4.218); for such a person, servitude is actually a b o o n , especially w h e n h e gets a virtuous master like J a c o b (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.236). For further characteristics of the^Philonic Esau a n d a n exhaustive list of passages in Philo illustrating them, see C o l s o n a n d Whitaker 1929-62,10:308-10. 19.
It is truly ironic that despite the fact that J a c o b is called Israel, the C h u r c h Fathers (e.g., Ire-
naeus, Against Heresies 4.21.2-3; P s e u d o - C y p r i a n , De Montibus Sina et Sion; Hippolytus, ap. Jerome, Epis tles 36 [ = M i g n e , PL 22.460]) identified Esau as the Jew, hated b y G - d a n d supplanted by J a c o b , w h o m they regard as the prototype of the C h u r c h a n d beloved b y G - d . Perhaps the rabbis' attempts to reha bilitate Esau seek, to some degree, to answer such attacks. 20. R a b b i E l e a z a r b e n A z a r i a h in the first century declares that o n e beneficial aspect o f Isaac's blindness w a s that it confined h i m to his house so that h e did not have to g o out in public a n d b e ridiculed as the father o f the wicked Esau (Genesis Rabbah 65.5-7). After the B a r K o c h b a rebellion (132-35), J u d a h b a r Ilai, w h o c a m e from Galilee a n d w h o w a s one o f five rabbis ordained by J u d a h b e n B a v a at the cost o f the latter's life at the time o f the Hadrianic persecution (Sanhedrin 14a), remarks, in c o m m e n t i n g o n the biblical passage " T h e voice is the voice of J a c o b , but the hands are the hands o f E s a u " (Gen. 27:22): " T h e voice of J a c o b cries out at w h a t the hands o f Esau did to h i m at B e t a r " (the last stronghold o f B a r K o c h b a , w h e r e h e w a s besieged b y the Romans) (Jerusalem T a l m u d ,
Tdanit
4.8.68d; Genesis Rabbah 65.21). T h a t Esau is the epitome of wickedness is manifest from the comparison m a d e b y the second-century R a b b i Isaac between the prophet O b a d i a h , w h o lived with t w o wicked people, A h a b a n d Jezebel, a n d did not follow their example, a n d Esau, w h o lived with two righteous people, Isaac a n d R e b e k a h , but did not learn from their g o o d deeds (Sanhedrin 39b). Furthermore, the second-century R a b b i Eleazar actually attributes Isaac's blindness to his looking at Esau too often (Gen esis Rabbah 65.10). Indeed, the Palestinian H a m a b a r Hanina, in the middle of the third century, names S a m a e l , w h o is usually identified with Satan, the greatest of all the angels, as Esau's guardian angel (Ex odus Rabbah 21.7); a n d S a m a e l is, indeed, later specifically identified as M a r s , the red planet (presum-
Ji6
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
I n his d e p i c t i o n o f E s a u , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s w a s i n a q u a n d a r y , i n a s m u c h as i f h e d e n i g r a t e d h i m , h e w o u l d b e d i m i n i s h i n g r e s p e c t for R o m e , s i n c e , as w e s h a l l see, E s a u h a d a l r e a d y i n J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e b e c o m e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h R o m e (see M a i e r I
994)W e m a y note Josephus's a d e p t h a n d l i n g o f the d i l e m m a a l r e a d y in his a c c o u n t
o f t h e b i r t h o f t h e t w i n s . I n t h e first p l a c e , e v e n b e f o r e t h e i r b i r t h , J o s e p h u s o m i t s all m e n t i o n vayiterozeiu,
o f the
struggle b e t w e e n t h e m
i n R e b e k a h ' s w o m b (the
Hebrew,
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y c r u s h e d e a c h o t h e r ) ( G e n . 25:22 v s . Ant.
1.257).
W h e r e a s t h e o r a c l e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e H e b r e w , d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e o l d e r shall s e r v e (ydavod)
t h e y o u n g e r ( G e n . 25:23), a n d w h e r e a s t h e S e p t u a g i n t l i k e w i s e r e a d s
" s h a l l s e r v e " (oovXevaei),
Josephus, in o r d e r to avoid suggesting that the d e s c e n
d a n t s o f E s a u w e r e d e s t i n e d t o b e slaves t o t h e J e w s ,
2 1
writes that " h e that to a p
p e a r a n c e w a s t h e lesser w o u l d e x c e l (TTporeprjoeiv, " c o m e b e f o r e " ) t h e
greater"
(Ant. 1.257). H e r e J o s e p h u s f o l l o w s t h e i m p o r t o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h r e a d s t h a t Jacob
w i l l virepi^ei
("be
above") E s a u , rather t h a n the
H e b r e w ye'emaz
("be
stronger") a n d thus avoids the e m b a r r a s s i n g prophetic implication that R o m e
ably because o f the connection o f E d o m = r e d = E s a u ) a n d consequendy as the guardian angel o f the R o mans, M a r s ' alleged descendants. (Scholem 1971, 720, notes, however, that in the H e b r e w B o o k o f E n o c h [3*Enoch] 14:2, Satan is distinguished from Samael.) It is perhaps significant, nevertheless, that the identification o f S a m a e l with Esau's guardian angel is not m a d e until the m i d third century. (Cf. Song of Songs Rabbah 3.6, where the Palestinian R a b b i H a m a b a r Hanina has J a c o b declare to Esau: " Y o u r countenance resembles that o f your guardian angel.") Epstein 1885,173-77, notes the association o f E d o m , which means "red" in Hebrew, with M a r s , the red planet. A n o t h e r association was through the fact that M a r s was the alleged father o f R o m u l u s a n d Remus, the founders o f R o m e . G . D . C o h e n 1967, 21, n. 7, finds the suggestion far-fetched that the n a m e o f E d o m is derived from the H e b r e w n a m e (Mdadim) for M a r s ; but the key point, w e m a y suggest, is not that E d o m is derived from the H e b r e w n a m e for M a r s but that both are associated with the w o r d "red." Even the fact that R e b e k a h took the special garments o f Esau (which he h a d inherited from A d a m by virtue o f his b e i n g the eldest son) a n d gave them to J a c o b was justified b y the rabbis because, it is said, Esau was disdainful o f them (Targum o f Pseudo-Jonathan o n G e n . 27:15). Likewise, Esau's ap parendy laudable restraint in waiting until the days o f m o u r n i n g for Isaac were over before deciding to kill J a c o b is explained b y stating that his motive, far from being a humanitarian one, was actually to avoid the mistake that C a i n h a d m a d e in killing A b e l while A d a m was still alive, thus leaving enough time for A d a m to beget Seth, w h o w a s able to acquire the inheritance in place o f C a i n (Targum Yerushalmi o n G e n . 27:41). In the Midrash, the third-century R a b b i A b b a b a r K a h a n a , c o m m e n t i n g on the fact that Esau was blood red at birth, remarks that this was a sign o f his utterly sanguine future character (Genesis Rabbah 63.8). W e are even told that o n the very day o f A b r a h a m ' s death, Esau c o m mitted three abominations—violating a betrothed maiden, murder, a n d theft—and that these sins were responsible for the death o f A b r a h a m , since he w a s supposed to live to b e 180 years old like his son Isaac, but that he died, rather, at 175, lest he see his grandson committing these three cardinal sins (Gen esis Rabbah 63.12-13). 21. T h e T a r g u m Onkelos renders ydavod by the w o r d yishtdaved, "will be subjected to." A b e r b a c h and Grossfeld 1982, 151, c o m m e n t that Jewish national pride required that in the messianic future, R o m e should not only "serve" Judaea but should actually b e subjugated to the Jews. Cf. Groibart 1935, 75-8i.
JACOB
317
w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y b e m i l i t a r i l y w e a k e r t h a n J u d a e a , w h i c h it h a d j u s t d e f e a t e d i n a p r o t r a c t e d w a r ( 6 6 - 7 3 / 7 4 ) . T h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t E s a u c a m e o u t r u d d y ('ademoni), " a l l o v e r like a h a i r y g a r m e n t " ( G e n . 25:25); the S e p t u a g i n t faithfully r e n d e r s this as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e c a m e o u t " r e d , h a i r y all o v e r like a s k i n " (TrvppaKrjs, oXos
22
S l a v e s w e r e a p p a r e n d y c o n v e n t i o n a l l y d e p i c t e d w i t h r e d hair, as w e m a y
see f r o m t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h r e e o f t h e m in R o m a n c o m e d i e s (Plautus, 400, a n d Pseudolus 1218; T e r e n c e , Phormio 5 1 ) ; Rufus ( " R e d " ) .
2 4
2 3
a n d slaves often b o r e t h e
Asinaria name
P h i l o , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h his p r a c t i c e o f d e n i g r a t i n g E s a u , r e m a r k s
t h a t E s a u ' s r u d d y b o d y a n d h a i r y h i d e w e r e a sign o f his c h a r a c t e r as a s a v a g e m a n w h o r a g e d furiously in the m a n n e r o f a w i l d b e a s t (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.160). T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f the n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n o f redness m a y b e s e e n in his r e n d e r i n g (Ant. 6.164) o f t h e p a s s a g e (1 S a m . 16:12) in w h i c h D a v i d is d e s c r i b e d as r u d d y ('ademoni, t h e s a m e w o r d is u s e d to d e s c r i b e E s a u i n G e n . 25:25). T h e S e p t u a g i n t , h e r e as i n t h e c a s e o f E s a u , r e n d e r s t h e H e b r e w w o r d b y 7rvppdKr)s, t h a t is, "fiery r e d " ; b u t J o s e p h u s speaks, rather, o f D a v i d ' s c o m p l e x i o n as " g o l d e n " 25
(£av06s, " y e l l o w w i t h a t i n g e o f r e d , f a i r " ) . J o s e p h u s , a w a r e o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n s o f r e d n e s s w i t h b l o o d s h e d a n d a p p a r e n d y c o n c e r n e d n o t to i m p l y t h a t the d e s c e n d a n t s o f E s a u , t h e R o m a n s , w e r e slaves, thus totally o m i t s E s a u ' s r e d n e s s a n d re m a r k s m e r e l y t h a t h e w a s e x c e s s i v e l y h a i r y (Ant. 1.258). J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d l i n g o f E s a u ' s sale o f his b i r t h r i g h t b y E s a u is likewise c a l c u l a t e d to m i t i g a t e c r i t i c i s m o f h i m . I n t h e first p l a c e , h e p o s t p o n e s e v e n m e n t i o n i n g t h e i n c i d e n t until after t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d E s a u , since, w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e , i f h e h a d m e n t i o n e d it in its p r o p e r b i b l i c a l t i m e f r a m e , this w o u l d h a v e s e r v e d t o b u i l d u p a c u m u l a t i v e dossier o f e v i d e n c e t h a t E s a u w a s r e a l l y u n w o r t h y o f I s a a c ' s blessing, i n a s m u c h as h e h a d s u c h a l o w o p i n i o n o f his b i r t h r i g h t as to sell it. J o s e p h u s therefore p o s t p o n e s m e n t i o n o f the sale until h e c o m e s to the d e a t h o f
22. See T. Gaster 1969, 165-66. In the M i d d l e Ages, Judas Iscariot is represented as having red hair. O n hairiness as a mark o f savagery, see Speiser 1964, 196, a n d Vawter 1977, 288. 23. T o be sure, D u c k w o r t h 1952, 89, asserts that there seems to be n o g o o d authority for the claim that slaves always w o r e red wigs in plays. A clue, however, to the fact that this w a s normally the case m a y be seen in Plautus's Captivi (648), where Philocrates, although a free y o u n g m a n , is described by his c o u n t r y m a n as h a v i n g " s o m e w h a t reddish hair" (subrufus), presumably because he h a d been disguised as a slave earlier in the play. n
I
24. T h e rabbis associate redness with the shedding o f blood. See G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:247, - 3 25. T h e w o r d gavdos is used by Josephus (Ant. 2.2 and 3) with reference to the " t a w n y " pottage that J a c o b gave Esau in exchange for his rights as firstborn son. H e n c e , in referring to D a v i d as gavdos, far from associating D a v i d with the messiah w h o will overthrow the R o m a n Empire, Josephus m a y be c o n necting D a v i d with R o m e , itself to b e identified with Esau or E d o m .
318
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
I s a a c , w h e r e u p o n h e e x p l a i n s t h e d i v i s i o n o f the i n h e r i t a n c e . T h e r e is further s y m p a t h y g e n e r a t e d for E s a u , b e c a u s e w e a r e t o l d t h a t h e w a s still a l a d (irais, " c h i l d " ) at the m o m e n t o f t h e sale, w h e r e a s t h e H e b r e w text gives n o i n d i c a t i o n o f his a g e c
(Ant. 2.2). W h e r e a s t h e p a r a l l e l H e b r e w text states t h a t E s a u w a s tired ( qyef) ( G e n . 25:29), J o s e p h u s uses a s t r o n g e r w o r d , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e w a s f a t i g u e d (TTOVOV, i m p l y i n g " t o i l " , "strain," " e x e r t i o n " ) a n d a d d s t h a t h e w a s f a m i s h e d (Xifxcorrcov, " h u n g r y , " " s t a r v i n g " ) (Ant. 2.2). T h e H e b r e w text m i g h t t e m p t o n e t o despise E s a u , w h o w a s r e a d y t o sell so p r e c i o u s a status as his b i r t h r i g h t for s o m e m e r e b o i l e d p o t t a g e (nazid); J o s e p h u s m a k e s E s a u ' s d e e d m o r e p l a u s i b l e , since i n his a c c o u n t the f o o d in q u e s t i o n is a d i s h o f lentils o f r i c h (acfroSpa, " e s p e c i a l l y " ) t a w n y h u e , " w h i c h still further w h e t t e d his a p p e t i t e . " F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s i n the H e b r e w text, J a c o b m e r e l y asks E s a u to sell h i m t h e b i r t h r i g h t ( G e n . 25:31), J o s e p h u s o b v i o u s l y a i m s t o a r o u s e m o r e s y m p a t h y for E s a u , i n a s m u c h as h e e x p l i c i t l y states t h a t J a c o b t o o k a d v a n t a g e (xprjodpuevos) (rjvdyKa^e)
o f E s a u ' s f a m i s h e d state a n d f o r c e d
h i m t o sell it (Ant. 2.3). J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s E s a u ' s h u n g e r t h r e e t i m e s in
this b r i e f s e c t i o n , w h e r e a s the H e b r e w t e x t d o e s n o t refer to it at all. H e n c e , t h e sale a p p e a r s m o r e justifiable as a m a t t e r o f s h e e r s u r v i v a l for E s a u . W h a t is m o s t striking o f all, h o w e v e r , is t h a t J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g (2.3) a b o u t 26
E s a u ' s d e s p i s i n g his b i r t h r i g h t ( G e n . 2 5 : 3 4 ) ; instead, h e uses the story to e x p l a i n the e t y m o l o g y o f the n a m e o f the r e g i o n o f I d u m a e a , w h i c h h e d e r i v e s f r o m E s a u ' s n i c k n a m e "Adorn" (i.e., E d o m ) , r e f e r r i n g t o the r e d c o l o r o f the p o t t a g e J a c o b sold E s a u . If, as I suggest, E s a u w a s a l r e a d y r e g a r d e d as the a n c e s t o r o f t h e R o m a n s in J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , the latter w a s b e i n g careful n o t to offend his R o m a n p a t r o n s . T h u s h e d i v e r g e s f r o m the b i b l i c a l text, for e x a m p l e (Ant. 2.2), i n n o t h a v i n g E s a u c
ask to s w a l l o w d o w n (hale iteni [ G e n . 25:30], i m p l y i n g v o r a c i o u s eating) t h e p o t t a g e , b u t r a t h e r asserting s i m p l y t h a t J a c o b g a v e h i m f o o d ( r p o ^ v ) .
2 7
I n the H e b r e w , the
s e c o n d h a l f o f G e n . 25:34 p r e s e n t s a s t a c c a t o s u c c e s s i o n o f five v e r b a l f o r m s c a l c u l a t e d to e m p h a s i z e E s a u ' s l a c k o f m a n n e r s a n d j u d g m e n t : h e ate, d r a n k , rose u p , w e n t his w a y , a n d finally d e s p i s e d (vayivez) his b i r t h r i g h t (Speiser 1964, 1 9 5 ) ;
28
finally, the S e p t u a g i n t says t h a t " h e h e l d it c h e a p " (e^auAiaev, " h e l d o f little v a l u e " ) .
26. Philo remarks that while the literal m e a n i n g o f Jacob's statement "Sell m e this day thy birthright" (Gen. 25:31) suggests Jacob's greed in wishing to deprive Esau o f his rights, the allegorical meaning, w h i c h Philo obviously prefers, is that an a b u n d a n c e o f possessions brings sin d o w n on a wicked m a n (i.e., someone like Esau) and is necessary for the righteous m a n alone (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.172). Elsewhere, Philo justifies Jacob's acquisition o f the birthright by noting that Esau h a d a servile character a n d that, therefore, the birthright a n d blessings were inappropriate for him, since he w a s sunk in boundless ignorance (Legum Allegoriae 3.69.192-70.195). Pseudo-Philo completely omits the ac tual barter o f the birthright (Bib. Ant. 32.5-6). 27. S o also the Septuagint reads yevaov, that is, "taste" (Gen. 25:30) T h e T a r g u m O n k e l o s has " G i v e m e n o w some o f that red stuff to taste." 28. T h e T a r g u m Neofiti adds two other negative statements to the description o f Esau, namely, that he despised not only his birthright but also the concept o f resurrection o f the d e a d a n d the world to c o m e .
JACOB
ig
3
A l l this is m i s s i n g f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e is b e i n g c a r e ful n o t t o d e n i g r a t e E s a u .
2 9
A n d y e t , true t o his careful b a l a n c i n g a c t , J o s e p h u s fol
l o w s t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( G e n . 25:31; cf. 25:33) in h a v i n g E s a u ask J a c o b t o " g i v e in re t u r n " (airooov,
" g i v e b a c k " ) t h e b i r t h r i g h t , r a t h e r t h a n t o sell it to h i m , t h e
i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t J a c o b r e a l l y h a d a r i g h t to it i n t h e first p l a c e , t h u s m i t i g a t ing his guilt. I n his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E s a u ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his father I s a a c , J o s e p h u s like w i s e a r o u s e s m o r e s y m p a t h y for E s a u . I n t h e first p l a c e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e u n a b a s h e d l y a d m i t s t h a t I s a a c f a v o r e d E s a u b e c a u s e h e l o v e d t o e a t his v e n i s o n ( G e n . 25:28), J o s e p h u s carefully o m i t s this r e a s o n a n d d e c l a r e s s i m p l y that his f a t h e r es p e c i a l l y f a v o r e d h i m (eoirovoaKei,
" p u r s u e w i t h z e a l , " " s p e n d all o n e ' s e n e r g i e s , "
" s p a r e n o effort") (Ant. 1.265). Significantly, w e find t h e s a m e v e r b u s e d o f E s a u ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o his wife B a s e m a t h (Ant. 1.277),
a
n
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t in this r e l a t i o n
ship, E s a u m a t c h e d the d e v o t i o n t h a t his father s h o w e d t o w a r d h i m . E s a u is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s , m o r e o v e r , as r e c i p r o c a t i n g the d e v o t i o n t h a t his father s h o w e d t o w a r d h i m , a n attribute t h a t w o u l d h a v e struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d p a r t i c u l a r l y a m o n g t h e R o m a n s , w h o v a l u e d t h e pietas t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d t h e c a r d i n a l trait o f their founder, A e n e a s , as r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e g r e a t n a t i o n a l p o e m , V i r g i l ' s Aeneid (e.g., 1.10), a n d as reflected e s p e c i a l l y in t h e l o v i n g c a r e o f A e n e a s for his father, A n c h i s e s , in t h e s c e n e o f t h e d e p a r t u r e f r o m T r o y ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 2.634-704). T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e ( G e n . 27:5) states t h a t E s a u w e n t (vayelek) to t h e field to get v e n i s o n for I s a a c , J o s e p h u s presents h i m as a c t i n g w i t h m u c h g r e a t e r e n t h u s i a s m , s a y i n g t h a t h e s p e d (I^COPFJURJAEV, " r u s h e d , " "started r a p i d l y " ) to t h e c h a s e (Ant. 1.269).
30
F u r t h e r s y m p a t h y is a r o u s e d for E s a u in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f t h e s c e n e
i n w h i c h I s a a c blesses J a c o b a n d E s a u . I n t h e first p l a c e , w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , I s a a c asks E s a u to b r i n g h i m v e n i s o n , so that " m y soul m a y bless t h e e b e f o r e I d i e " (Gen.
27:4), in J o s e p h u s , it is n o t I s a a c w h o blesses E s a u b u t G - d Himself, w h o m
I s a a c b e s e e c h e s to s u p p o r t a n d assist E s a u t h r o u g h o u t his life (Ant. 1.268). S e c -
29.
Philo goes m u c h further than Josephus in defending Jacob's deception o f his brother. H e cites
the parallel o f athletes, whose use o f deceit and trickery in contests is considered honorable (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.228). 30. O n e o f the rabbis, the first-century patriarch S i m e o n b e n G a m a l i e l , a direct c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus's, is quoted as p a y i n g Esau the supreme compliment w h e n he declares: "All m y lifetime I at tended u p o n m y father, yet I did not d o for h i m a hundredth part of the service that Esau did for his fa ther" (Genesis Rabbah 65.16; cf. Deuteronomy Rabbah 1.15). T h e second-century J u d a h b a r Ilai declares that J a c o b feared that Esau h a d been m o r e righteous than he because he h a d kept two c o m m a n d m e n t s that he, J a c o b , h a d neglected, namely, living in the H o l y L a n d a n d attending to his parents (Genesis Rabbah 76.2). T h e third-century R a b b i Simlai (some report the dictum, rather, in the n a m e o f his c o n t e m p o rary R a b b i A b b a h u ) presents a scenario in w h i c h G - d rebukes Isaac for speaking kind words to the w i c k e d Esau after the latter h a d cried w h e n he discovered that J a c o b h a d received Isaac's blessing (Gen esis Rabbah 67.5). Isaac's reply to G - d ' s charge that Esau is wicked is that Esau h a d acted righteously in h o n o r i n g his parents. Indeed, the rabbis remark that the g o o d fortune that the R o m a n s enjoyed o n earth w a s because o f the great respect that their ancestor Esau h a d showed toward his father (Genesis Rabbah 65.16).
320
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o n d l y the s c e n e o f the b l e s s i n g is m u c h m o r e e l a b o r a t e a n d p o i g n a n t in the H e b r e w t h a n in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s s o u g h t to di m i n i s h the friction b e t w e e n the d e s c e n d a n t s o f J a c o b a n d E s a u . I n particular, J o s e p h u s o m i t s f r o m the b l e s s i n g o f E s a u the p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t h e will live b y the s w o r d a n d will s o m e d a y b r e a k J a c o b ' s y o k e f r o m o f f his n e c k ( G e n . 27:40); instead, w e h a v e the m u c h m i l d e r assertion t h a t E s a u will b e r e n o w n e d for strength o f b o d y in a r m s a n d in l a b o r s o f all k i n d s (Ant. 1.275).
31
T h i r d l y whereas Isaac, according
to the H e b r e w , in the b l e s s i n g tells J a c o b t h a t " n a t i o n s shall serve t h e e a n d p e o p l e b o w d o w n t o t h e e " ( G e n . 27:29), J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e h a s a n e x p a n d e d v e r s i o n o f the blessing, o m i t s this s t a t e m e n t a l t o g e t h e r (Ant. 1.272-73), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e d o e s n o t w a n t his R o m a n p a t r o n s t o t h i n k t h a t the J e w s l o o k f o r w a r d t o re v e n g e for the loss o f their T e m p l e a n d their i n d e p e n d e n c e . Finally, w h e n I s a a c re alizes t h a t J a c o b h a s w r e s t e d the b l e s s i n g f r o m E s a u , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says t h a t h e t r e m b l e d e x c e e d i n g l y ( G e n . 27:33), J o s e p h u s , a g a i n s e e k i n g to r e d u c e the ten sion b e t w e e n the t w o b r o t h e r s , states t h a t " p e r c e i v i n g his error, I s a a c h e l d his p e a c e " (Ant. 1.274) A n o t h e r delicate t o p i c c o n n e c t e d w i t h J a c o b o n w h i c h J o s e p h u s w a l k e d a tight r o p e , so to speak, w a s w i t h r e g a r d t o i n t e r m a r r i a g e . I n d e a l i n g w i t h the r e q u e s t o f H a m o r for the h a n d o f D i n a h ( G e n . 34:6), J o s e p h u s carefully b a l a n c e s the fact t h a t it is u n l a w f u l for J a c o b to m a r r y his d a u g h t e r to a f o r e i g n e r a g a i n s t the r a n k o f the p e t i t i o n e r ; a n d so, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e s a g e l y asks p e r m i s s i o n to h o l d a c o u n c i l o n the m a t t e r (Ant. 1.338).
32
I n the c a s e o f E s a u , w h e r e a s the B i b l e uses v e r y s t r o n g l a n g u a g e in stating t h a t E s a u ' s w i v e s w e r e " a bitterness o f spirit (morat ruah) u n t o I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h " ( G e n . 26:35), J o s e p h u s , w h i l e h e carefully a v o i d s c o n d o n i n g his m a r r i a g e s w i t h C a n a a n ite w o m e n , uses r e s t r a i n e d l a n g u a g e in d o i n g so (Ant. 1.265-66). H e d e c l a r e s t h a t E s a u c o n t r a c t e d the m a r r i a g e s o n his o w n responsibility w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g his fa ther, "for I s a a c w o u l d n e v e r h a v e p e r m i t t e d t h e m , h a d his a d v i c e b e e n s o u g h t , h a v i n g n o desire t o f o r m ties o f affinity w i t h the i n d i g e n o u s p o p u l a t i o n . " B u t t h e n , d e p a r t i n g f r o m the H e b r e w text, as w e l l as f r o m the S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n ( w h i c h d e scribes E s a u ' s w i v e s as ipi^ovoai,
i.e., " c o n t e n d i n g , " " q u a r r e l i n g , " " p r o v o k i n g " ) ,
a n d totally i g n o r i n g the e x t e n t , n o t e d in the B i b l e , to w h i c h t h e y m a d e life m i s e r a b l e for I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h , J o s e p h u s states t h a t I s a a c , n o t w i s h i n g t o a n t a g o n i z e
31. O n e is reminded o f Virgil's statement in the p r o e m to the Aeneid (1.10) about A e n e a s undergo ing so m a n y labors (tot adire labores), as well as o f Aeneas's o w n statement to his son Ascanius just before he goes forth to the final batde with Turnus that he (Ascanius) should learn manliness and true labor (verumque laborem) from him and H e c t o r and luck from others (Aeneid 12.435-36). S u c h virtues w o u l d have been especially appreciated by a R o m a n audience. 32. Because he realized h o w unfavorably the whole circumcision incident, including the massacre o f the Shechemites while they were w e a k and the taking o f spoil from them by S i m e o n and Levi (Gen. 34:13-29), w o u l d be v i e w e d b y his non-Jewish readers, Josephus omits it completely (Ant. 1.338-40). In stead, just as D i n a h had b e e n ravished during a festival, so they are slaughtered, measure for measure, during a festival.
JACOB
321
his s o n b y o r d e r i n g h i m t o s e p a r a t e h i m s e l f f r o m these w o m e n , r e s o l v e d t o h o l d his p e a c e , j u s t as h e d i d w h e n h e r e a l i z e d t h a t J a c o b h a d w r e s t e d t h e b l e s s i n g f r o m E s a u . E v e n w h e n E s a u finally d o e s r e f o r m a n d m a r r i e s his relative B a s e m a t h ( H e b r e w M a h a l a t h ) , it is c l e a r i n t h e B i b l e t h a t h e d o e s so b e c a u s e h e r e a l i z e s t h a t t h e C a n a a n i t e w o m e n w e r e evil i n t h e eyes o f his father a n d b e c a u s e h e follows t h e e x a m p l e o f J a c o b i n s e e k i n g a m a t e f r o m a m o n g his k i n ( G e n . 28:9). J o s e p h u s , o n t h e contrary, specifically states t h a t E s a u h a d already m a r r i e d B a s e m a t h p r i o r t o J a c o b ' s l e a v i n g t o t a k e a wife for h i m s e l f f r o m a m o n g his kinsfolk i n M e s o p o t a m i a (Ant. 1.277). W h e r e a s t h e H e b r e w t e x t identifies B a s e m a t h as t h e d a u g h t e r o f E l o n t h e H i t t i t e a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t E s a u ' s m a r r i a g e t o h e r c a u s e d bitterness o f spirit t o I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h ( G e n . 2 6 : 3 4 - 3 5 ) , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s h e r as t h e d a u g h t e r o f Ish m a e l , his k i n s m a n , w h o m E s a u , m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y , m a r r i e d i n o r d e r t o gratify his p a r e n t s . M o r e o v e r , w e a r e t o l d , i n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n d e s i g n e d t o c r e a t e further s y m p a t h y for E s a u , t h a t h e w a s d e e p l y d e v o t e d (oiTovbaoas, " p u r s u e w i t h z e a l , " " s p e n d all o n e ' s e n e r g i e s u p o n , " " s p a r e n o effort") t o h e r (Ant. 1.277). I n g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s d o w n p l a y s E s a u ' s anger. W h e r e a s w e a r e t o l d i n t h e H e b r e w t e x t o f G e n . 27:43 t h a t R e b e k a h t o l d J a c o b t h a t E s a u i n t e n d e d t o kill h i m , a n d s h e p e r s u a d e s J a c o b t o flee t o L a b a n i n o r d e r t o e s c a p e t h e furious w r a t h o f E s a u , J o s e p h u s m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f E s a u ' s i n t e n t i o n o f killing J a c o b (Ant. 1.276); a n d it is I s a a c w h o m R e b e k a h p e r s u a d e s t o take a wife for J a c o b f r o m a m o n g his kinsfolk i n M e s o p o t a m i a , t h u s o b t a i n i n g a n o p p o r t u n i t y for J a c o b t o l e a v e . A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e r e c o r d s E s a u ' s p l e d g e t o slay J a c o b as s o o n as their father dies ( G e n . 27:41), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this p l e d g e a n d says m e r e l y t h a t J a c o b w a s i n t e r r o r o f his brother, w h o w i s h e d t o a v e n g e h i m s e l f for b e i n g d e p r i v e d (the w o r d J o s e p h u s uses, S i a / x a p r t a s , is a v e r y m i l d o n e , r e f e r r i n g m e r e l y t o a m i s t a k e o r a d i s a p p o i n t m e n t ) o f t h e b e n e d i c t i o n (Ant. 1.276). T h e s c e n e i n w h i c h J a c o b a n d E s a u a r e r e c o n c i l e d ( G e n . 3 3 : 1 - 1 6 ) b e c o m e s , in J o s e p h u s a c e n t r a l e v e n t , w h i c h h e n a r r a t e s i n g r e a t detail (Ant. 1.325-36). O n t h e o n e h a n d , J a c o b ' s p r e p a r a t i o n s for t h e e n c o u n t e r i n v o l v e a f u l l - b l o w n m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g e m , g i v i n g J o s e p h u s , t h e g e n e r a l i n G a l i l e e , a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s p l a y his k n o w l e d g e o f m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g y (Esau h a s n o t m e r e l y 400 m e n , as in G e n . 32:7, b u t 400 armed men [Ant. 1.327]); o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J a c o b ' s instructions t o his m e s s e n g e r s a r e m u c h m o r e conciliatory, c o n t a i n i n g , as t h e y d o , t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l details t h a t h e h a d left t h e c o u n t r y o f his o w n free will, t h i n k i n g it w r o n g t o live w i t h E s a u w h i l e h i s w r a t h persisted, a n d t h a t h e w a s n o w e n t r u s t i n g h i m s e l f i n t o his h a n d s , " h o l d i n g it t h e g r e a t e s t o f blessings t o share w i t h his b r o t h e r w h a t G - d h a d g i v e n t o h i m " (Ant. 1.326) T o t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( G e n . 3 2 : 4 - 5 ) , J o s e p h u s further a d d s t h a t J a c o b i n s t r u c t e d his m e s s e n g e r s t o tell E s a u t h a t h e n o w d e e m e d t h a t t h e l o n g i n t e r v a l o f t i m e d u r i n g w h i c h t h e y h a d b e e n s e p a r a t e d w a s sufficient t o m a k e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n p o s s i b l e (Ant. 1.326). M o r e o v e r , J a c o b , s e e k i n g s u c h r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , d i rects t h e e n v o y s t o a d d r e s s E s a u affably (Ant. 1.331). I n t h e H e b r e w , t h e w h o l e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s c e n e is f r a u g h t w i t h a m b i g u i t y W a s E s a u s i n c e r e ? I n particular, t h e w o r d vayishaqehu, " a n d h e [ E s a u ] kissed h i m
322
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
[ J a c o b ] " ( G e n . 33:4), w h i c h , in t h e M a s o r e t i c T e x t , is d o t t e d a n d h e n c e a p p a r e n d y involves some d o u b t ,
3 3
l e d to a f u n d a m e n t a l dispute a m o n g t h e r a b b i s as to
E s a u ' s sincerity. J o s e p h u s , e v e r e a g e r to d i m i n i s h t h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e m , d e clares o u t r i g h t t h a t E s a u a p p r o a c h e d J a c o b w i t h n o t h o u g h t o f t r e a c h e r y
(Ant.
1.335). A s for t h e k e y w o r d " k i s s e d , " w h i c h l e d to s u c h d i s a g r e e m e n t a m o n g the r a b b i s , J o s e p h u s e l i m i n a t e s it, stating i n s t e a d t h a t E s a u e m b r a c e d
(dairaadpievos)
J a c o b a n d q u e s t i o n e d h i m c o n c e r n i n g t h e c r o w d o f c h i l d r e n a r o u n d h i m (Ant. 1.336). A n d o n e final t o u c h : in G e n . 3 3 . 8 - 1 1 , J a c o b h a s to insist t h a t E s a u a c c e p t the gifts t h a t h e is offering h i m , a n d E s a u finally d o e s so. I n J o s e p h u s , there is n o m e n t i o n o f E s a u ' s initially refusing the gifts (Ant. 1.335-36), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e G r e e k s t h o u g h t ill o f s o m e o n e w h o w o u l d d o so, as e x e m p l i f i e d in a m a j o r t h e m e o f H o m e r ' s Iliad, A c h i l l e s ' refusal o f t h e gifts offered b y A g a m e m n o n i n b o o k 9, in c o n t r a s t t o t h e e v e n t u a l w i l l i n g n e s s o f M e l e a g e r t o a c c e p t t h e m .
THE E Q U A T I O N O F E S A U AND How
ROME
c a n w e e x p l a i n t h e relatively f a v o r a b l e t r e a t m e n t o f E s a u b y J o s e p h u s ? Is it
b e c a u s e h e e q u a t e d E s a u a n d R o m e , a n d , as a l a c k e y o f t h e R o m a n s , s o u g h t t o re habilitate E s a u a n d to d i m i n i s h t h e e n m i t y b e t w e e n h i m a n d J a c o b ? H o w far b a c k does the equation o f E s a u a n d R o m e g o ? The
e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d E d o m is f o u n d in the B i b l e ( G e n . 25:30, 36:8); a n d
J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , specifically e q u a t e s E d o m w i t h I d u m a e a (Ant. 2 . 1 - 3 ) . T h e Book of Jubilees (37-38), d a t i n g , as w e h a v e n o t e d , f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E., d e v e l o p s at l e n g t h t h e t r a d i t i o n o f the w a r f a r e b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d E s a u a n d t h e d e a t h o f E s a u in t h a t conflict. A t the e n d o f t h e a c c o u n t in Jubilees, w e h a v e a n i m p l i c i t e q u a t i o n o f E d o m w i t h I d u m a e a i n the s t a t e m e n t " A n d the sons o f E d o m h a v e n o t g o t q u i t o f t h e y o k e o f s e r v i t u d e w h i c h t h e t w e l v e sons o f J a c o b h a d i m p o s e d u p o n t h e m until this d a y " (38:14). T h i s a f f i r m a t i o n w o u l d s e e m to reflect a l o n g - s t a n d i n g conflict (see C h a r l e s 1913, 2:219-22). P e r h a p s t h e r e is a hint o f t h e e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e in a n e n i g m a t i c p a s s a g e o f the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Gad 7:4) t h a t w a r n s a g a i n s t a c c u m u l a t ing w e a l t h b y evil m e a n s as d i d E s a u . P e r h a p s t h e a u t h o r is h e r e a l l u d i n g to t h e ra p a c i t y o f R o m e (one thinks, for e x a m p l e , o f V e r r e s , t h e i n f a m o u s g o v e r n o r o f Sicily, w h o m C i c e r o p r o s e c u t e d in t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . E . ) .
34
I n a s m u c h as p o r t i o n s
33. See L i e b e r m a n 1950, 4 3 - 4 6 . T h e second-century R a b b i S h i m o n bar Yohai, although he had himself suffered g r e a d y at the hands o f the R o m a n s , remarked that while it is k n o w n that, as a rule, Esau hated J a c o b , on this occasion his true love for his brother was stirred (Sifie Numbers 69 [ed. Horovitz, p. 65]). O n the other hand, R a b b i Y a n n a i (second and third centuries) avers that Esau in tended to bite J a c o b (Genesis Rabbah 78.9). 34. T h e rabbis, at a later time, also c o m m e n t e d bitterly on the acquisitiveness o f R o m a n adminis trators. Cf. the remark of the third-century R a b b i J u d a h b e n R a b b i that at first Esau (who is here iden tified with R o m e ) turned d o w n the presents that J a c o b offered him, but that this w a s merely a pretense, and that, in fact, while pretending to refuse the gifts, he stretched out his hands to accept them (Genesis
JACOB
323
of the Testaments of Levi, J u d a h , a n d N a p h t a l i have b e e n found a m o n g the Q u m r a n scrolls, w e c a n p r o b a b l y d a t e the a b o v e r e f e r e n c e to t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n the s e c o n d a n d first c e n t u r i e s B.C.E.; b u t its e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e is at b e s t p r o b l e m a t i c . A n o t h e r possible p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e for t h e e q u a t i o n is 1 E n o c h 89:12, dat ing f r o m as e a r l y as t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. (since this p a r t o f E n o c h w a s f o u n d a m o n g t h e Q u m r a n scrolls), w h i c h speaks o f a b l a c k w i l d b o a r b o r n o f a b u l l . T h e b o a r is E s a u (so C h a r l e s 1913, 2:252); a n d the s t a n d a r d o f t h e R o m a n l e g i o n h a d as its e m b l e m a b o a r ( w h e n c e t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f R o m e as "the b o a r o u t o f t h e w o o d " ) (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5 . 2 9 4 , n. 162). T h a t t h e R o m a n s w e r e t h o u g h t o f as t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f E s a u is p o s s i b l y t o b e s e e n also in 4 E z r a (10:8) (q.v.) (so H e i n e m a n n 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 , 193), w h i c h w a s a p p a r e n d y w r i t t e n at a b o u t t h e s a m e t i m e as t h e Antiqui ties (so S t o n e 1992, 611). T h e r e is q u i t e likely a r e f e r e n c e to t h e e q u a t i o n in P h i l o (De
Vita Mosis 1.43.242), w h o speaks o f the f e u d b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d E s a u as " r e
n e w e d b y t h e n a t i o n so m a n y g e n e r a t i o n s l a t e r . "
35
Z u n z w a s the first to s u g g e s t
t h a t t h e e q u a t i o n o f E d o m a n d R o m e a r o s e o n t h e basis o f the I d u m a e a n o r i g i n o f H e r o d , w h o , h a v i n g r e c e i v e d his k i n g s h i p in R o m e , w a s a b l e to m a i n t a i n it o n l y w i t h t h e h e l p o f t h e R o m a n authorities, a n d w h o thus b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e l a n d a n d t h e e x i l e o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e ( Z u n z 1845, 4 8 4 ) .
36
However,
t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e to c o n f i r m this c o n j e c t u r e , a l t h o u g h w e k n o w m o r e a b o u t H e r o d t h a n a b o u t a l m o s t a n y o t h e r figure f r o m a n t i q u i t y S c h l a t t e r suggests t h a t t h e e q u a t i o n reflects a n a n t i - H e r o d i a n a t t a c k b y the Z e a l o t s , w h o n e e d e d t h e s u p p o r t o f p r o p h e c y to justify their t a k i n g u p a r m s a g a i n s t R o m e ; a n d this e q u a t i o n w a s later a p p r o p r i a t e d b y t h e r a b b i s (Schlatter 1955, 2 5 5 - 5 6 ) . T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t this v i e w (see G . D . C o h e n 1967, 21, n. 7); i n d e e d , since J o s e p h u s f a v o r e d R o m e a n d , as a d e s c e n d a n t o f the H a s m o n e a n s , h a t e d H e r o d , it is u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e c r e d i t e d the e q u a t i o n o f H e r o d i a n E d o m w i t h Rome. It w a s p e r h a p s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t t h o s e t w o g r e a t p e o p l e s o f antiquity, t h e J e w s a n d
Rabbah 78.12). N o t e also the remark o f the Palestinian R a b b i Levi in the third century: " T h e eyes o f E d o m [i.e., R o m e ] are never satisfied" (Eccksiastes Rabbah 1.7.9). 35. It is more likely that Philo w a s thinking of the tension between the Jews and the R o m a n s in his own day, in whose attempted resolution he played such a key role in the embassy to G a i u s C a l i g u l a , than of the quarrel between J u d a e a and the Idumaeans (Idumaea b e i n g the nation of those descended from E d o m , another n a m e for Esau), especially since he does not mention, in his extant works, the equation o f Esau and E d o m nor the Idumaeans o f his o w n day. Schlatter 1955, 255-56, suggests that the equation o f E d o m with R o m e is paralleled by the similar equation at about the same time in Pales tinian Judaism between B a b y l o n and R o m e , as seen, for example, in 1 Peter 5:13. M o s t recendy, H a y w a r d 1993-94, 177-88, has suggested that the statement in Pseudo-Jonathan's targum on G e n . 27:31 that Esau presented his father with a cooked d o g on Passover in place of the proper offering m a y be ex plained once w e realize that Esau is a cipher for R o m e and that the R o m a n s sacrificed dogs at p o p u l a r festivals such as the Lupercalia and the Robigalia. T h e fact that red dogs were sacrificed annually in R o m e should likewise be correlated with the identification o f Esau with E d o m , "the red one." 36.
S o also G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:272, n. 19, and Groibart 1935, 7 5 - 8 1 . Herod's role in the equation
is disputed in H e r r 1970, 15-29.
324
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
the R o m a n s , e a c h o f w h i c h c o n s i d e r e d itself to b e d i v i n e l y c h o s e n a n d d e s t i n e d for a u n i q u e history, w o u l d c o m e t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r (see G . D . C o h e n 1967, 2 5 - 2 6 ) , a l t h o u g h the q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s o f w h y E d o m w a s t h e c i p h e r u s e d for R o m e , a n d n o t , for e x a m p l e , B a b y l o n , w h i c h w a s later to b e identified as t h e p r o t o t y p e o f R o m e (1 P e t e r 5:13; R e v . 1 4 : 8 , 1 6 : 1 9 , 1 7 : 2 , 1 7 : 5 , 1 8 : 2 , 1 8 : 1 0 , 1 8 : 2 1 ) . T h e first r a b b i w h o is c i t e d as c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y i n g R o m e w i t h E s a u a n d E d o m is R a b b i A k i v a (ca. 5 0 - 1 3 5 ) , a s o m e w h a t y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s , w h o e x p l a i n s " T h e v o i c e is the v o i c e o f J a c o b , b u t t h e h a n d s a r e t h e h a n d s o f E s a u " ( G e n . 27:22) as il lustrating t h e a n g u i s h e d c r y o f J a c o b , t h a t is, t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , b e c a u s e o f w h a t t h e h a n d s o f E s a u , t h a t is, p r e s u m a b l y t h e R o m a n s , h a d d o n e t o t h e m (Genesis Rab bah 65.21). T h e fact t h a t in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y R a b b i S i m e o n b a r Y o h a i is said to h a v e c o m m e n t e d , in a n o b v i o u s allusion to t h e struggle b e t w e e n t h e J e w s a n d t h e R o m a n E m p i r e ,
3 7
contemporary
at the h a n d s o f w h i c h h e suf
fered so m u c h , "It is a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t r a d i t i o n [halakhah]: E s a u h a t e s J a c o b " (Sijre Numbers 6 9 , p . 6 5 , e d . H o r o v i t z ) w o u l d s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e w a s a l r e a d y a x i o m a t i c ; h e n c e , it s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t it w a s k n o w n h a l f a c e n t u r y earlier w h e n J o s e p h u s w a s writing. W h e n , at t h e e n d o f t h e s e c o n d century, t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r A n t o n i n u s a s k e d R a b b i J u d a h the P r i n c e w h e t h e r h e ( A n t o n i n u s ) w o u l d e n t e r t h e w o r l d to c o m e , i n a s m u c h as, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o p h e t O v a d i a h (1:18), t h e r e w o u l d b e n o r e m n a n t o f t h e h o u s e o f E s a u , h e w a s a s s u r e d b y t h e r a b b i t h a t this a p p l i e d o n l y to those w h o s e evil d e e d s w e r e like t h o s e o f E s a u (Avodah £arah i o b ) .
3 8
If, i n d e e d , as I h a v e s u g g e s t e d , J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l b i b l i c a l exegesis, b o t h l e g a l a n d a g g a d i c , w e m i g h t w e l l e x p e c t h i m to b e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h this e q u a t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e . H e n c e , w h e n J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , h a s I s a a c p r e d i c t t h a t E s a u ' s d e s c e n d a n t s , t h r o u g h s t r e n g t h o f b o d y in a r m s a n d t h r o u g h l a b o r s o f all kinds, w i l l r e a p a n a g e - l o n g (oV alwvos)
reputation
(Ant. 1.275), it w o u l d s e e m likely t h a t h e h a d R o m e , V i r g i l ' s urbs aeterna, in m i n d .
J A C O B AND
NATIONALISM
A s o n e w h o h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s b u t h a d c o m e to t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s u c h resistance w a s futile, since R o m e w a s d i v i n e l y d e s t i n e d to rule the w o r l d , J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y s o u g h t to p e r s u a d e his c o m p a t r i o t s to g i v e u p the
37. T h a t the reference is to the R o m a n Empire and not merely to Gentiles in general is clear from the context, w h i c h deals with the fall o f Betar to the R o m a n s in 135 after the bitter B a r K o c h b a strug gle. 38. W e m a y here note that the B o o k o f Josippon (1.2), written in 953 but apparendy dependent u p o n g o o d sources o f information, some o f which are no longer extant, has a story a b o u t Esau's grand son Z e p h o (otherwise unknown), w h o accompanies A e n e a s on his expeditions in Italy, b e c o m e s king o f the K i t t i m , has a grandson Latinus (the n a m e o f Aeneas's father-in-law), and eventually has a descen dant, Romulus, w h o founds the city o f R o m e .
JACOB
3
2
5
d r e a m o f n a t i o n a l i n d e p e n d e n c e . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , the p r o m i s e o f l a n d t o A b r a h a m is c o n s t a n d y r e n e w e d (see A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 2 0 1 - 2 9 ) , J o s e p h u s shifts t h e stress f r o m t h e c o v e n a n t e d l a n d o f Israel, so d e a r to t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , t o t h e b i b lical p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s a n d t o the role o f t h e D i a s p o r a . T h u s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e p a s s a g e t h a t relates G - d ' s b l e s s i n g o f I s a a c p r o m i s i n g t h e l a n d to A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s ( G e n . 2 6 : 3 - 5 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , in I s a a c ' s b l e s s i n g o f J a c o b ( w h o m h e thinks to b e E s a u ) , h e asks G - d for a g r i c u l t u r a l a b u n d a n c e a n d for p o w e r to d e m a n d r e s p e c t f r o m o t h e r n a t i o n s ( G e n . 27:27-29) (the H e b r e w r e a d s : " N a t i o n s shall serve t h e e a n d p e o p l e s b o w d o w n to t h e e " ; see t h e S e p t u a g i n t : " L e t n a t i o n s serve t h e e , a n d p r i n c e s b o w d o w n t o t h e e " ) . S i g n i f i c a n d y in J o s e p h u s , t h e n a t i o n a l a s p e c t is t o t a l l y o m i t t e d , a n d i n s t e a d w e h a v e a p r a y e r for E s a u ' s p e r s o n a l h a p p i ness a n d satisfaction (Ant. 1.272). W h e n I s a a c blesses J a c o b b e f o r e s e n d i n g h i m o f f to find a wife, t h e B i b l e h a s h i m i n v o k e G - d ' s b l e s s i n g to " m a k e t h e e fruitful a n d m u l t i p l y thee, t h a t t h o u m a y e s t b e c o m e a m u l t i t u d e o f p e o p l e " ( G e n . 28:3) a n d to inherit t h e l a n d t h a t G - d g a v e to A b r a h a m ( G e n . 28:4). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , a w a r e t h a t t h e R o m a n s w e r e sensitive a b o u t the g r e a t e x p a n s i o n o f the J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y t h r o u g h p r o s e l y t i s m , o m i t s this (Ant. 1.278). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s , in G - d ' s p r o m i s e in J a c o b ' s d r e a m , t h a t his s e e d will b e " a s t h e dust o f t h e e a r t h , " a n d t h a t " t h o u shall s p r e a d a b r o a d t o t h e w e s t a n d t o t h e east a n d to t h e n o r t h a n d t o t h e s o u t h " ( G e n . 28:14). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e n u m b e r o f J a c o b ' s d i r e c t descendants (viols) w i l l b e v a s t (Ant. 1.282) (as, i n d e e d , w a s t h e c a s e at t h e t i m e w h e n J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g ) , b u t is careful to a v o i d a n y s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e y w i l l seek t o c o n v e r t o t h e r s to J u d a i s m . E v e n t h e J o s e p h a n G - d ' s p r o m i s e to J a c o b t h a t " t o t h e m [thy c h i l d r e n ] d o I g r a n t d o m i n i o n [Kpdros]
o v e r this l a n d "
i n d i c a t e s n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h a t t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f J a c o b will h a v e p o w e r o r s t r e n g t h in t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n , a l t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p o l i t i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e there. T h e r e is a further o m i s s i o n o f l a n d t h e o l o g y b y J o s e p h u s w h e n J a c o b e x presses t h e desire to d e p a r t to his o w n home (irpos avrov) (Ant. 1.309); o n t h e c o n trary, in t h e B i b l e , J a c o b asks L a b a n to s e n d h i m a w a y , " t h a t I m a y g o u n t o m y o w n p l a c e , a n d t o m y c o u n t r y [ule'arzi]"
( G e n . 30:25). W h e n J a c o b replies t o
L a b a n ' s o b j e c t i o n t o his a t t e m p t to e s c a p e f r o m h i m , h e speaks, in a l o n g e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , n o t in nationalistic t e r m s b u t , o f love o f n a t i v e l a n d w h i c h , h e says, is i n n a t e (ipL^voai)
(naTplSos),
in all (Ant. 1.317; cf. G e n . 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) .
A k e y t o J o s e p h u s ' s p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n m a y b e s e e n in the s c e n e w h e r e J a c o b w r e s d e s w i t h t h e a n g e l (Ant. 1.331-34). I n the H e b r e w , t h e a n g e l tells h i m t h a t his n a m e w i l l f r o m n o w o n b e Israel, b e c a u s e " y o u h a v e striven w i t h G - d a n d w i t h m e n a n d h a v e p r e v a i l e d " ( G e n . 32:28). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e s t r u g g l e w i t h m e n ( w h i c h m i g h t , p r e s u m a b l y , i n c l u d e t h e R o m a n s ) is s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t t e d f r o m t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n a m e , w h i c h , w e a r e told, m e r e l y " d e n o t e s t h e o p p o n e n t o f a n a n g e l o f G - d " (Ant. 1.333). T h e a s s u r a n c e t h e a n g e l gives J a c o b is n o t in t e r m s o f a future n a t i o n b u t r a t h e r t h a t his r a c e (yevos) w i l l n e v e r b e e x t i n g u i s h e d a n d t h a t n o m o r t a l w i l l surpass h i m p e r s o n a l l y in strength (Ant. 1.332). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s
326
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
h a s g i v e n us a gereinigten text, w h e r e the n a m e "Israel a s s u m e s a n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l , rather than a political, significance" (Butterweck 1981, 51-56). It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e H e b r e w , G - d at B e t h e l tells J a c o b t h a t " a n a t i o n a n d a c o m p a n y o f n a t i o n s shall c o m e f r o m y o u , a n d k i n g s shall s p r i n g f r o m y o u " ( G e n . 3 5 : 1 1 ) — a p a s s a g e t h e p o l i t i c a l significance o f w h i c h , e s p e cially in v i e w o f t h e r e c e n t r e v o l t o f t h e J e w s a g a i n s t R o m e , m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n offensive t o t h e R o m a n s — J o s e p h u s q u i e t l y o m i t s t h e w h o l e s c e n e . A g a i n , w h e n J a c o b d e s c e n d s t o E g y p t , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , G - d d e c l a r e s t h a t H e w i l l m a k e a g r e a t n a t i o n o f h i m t h e r e ( G e n . 40:3), t h e w o r d " n a t i o n " is significantly o m i t t e d in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.175), w h o h a s G - d a n n o u n c e a l o n g e r a o f d o m i n i o n (^ye^ovia) a n d g l o r y for his posterity. T h e p h r a s e " l o n g e r a " i m p l i e s a t i m e l i m i t a t i o n h e r e , a n d , in a n y case, t h e l a n g u a g e o f c o v e n a n t e d l a n d is a b s e n t ( A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 209). Striking, m o r e o v e r , is J o s e p h u s ' s o m i s s i o n (Ant. 2.194) o f J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f J u d a h p r e d i c t i n g his m i l i t a r i s m a n d s o v e r e i g n t y ( G e n . 4 9 : 8 - 1 0 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n a s m u c h as the i n c r e a s e in n u m b e r s o f t h e J e w s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h r o u g h p r o s e l y t i s m , h a d c a u s e d g r e a t a n g u i s h to s o m e R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.194) o m i t s J a c o b ' s state m e n t to J o s e p h t h a t G - d w o u l d m a k e h i m fruitful a n d multiply, w o u l d m a k e o f h i m a m u l t i t u d e o f p e o p l e , a n d w o u l d g i v e his d e s c e n d a n t s t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n as a n " e t e r n a l p o s s e s s i o n " ( G e n . 48:4) M o r e o v e r , in his a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s d e a t h , J o s e p h u s h a s h i m p r o p h e s y h o w e a c h o f his d e s c e n d a n t s is d e s t i n e d to find a h a b i tation (KCLToiKeiv)
in C a n a a n (Ant. 2.194); b u t there is n o m e n t i o n o f a n i n d e p e n
d e n t state for t h e m . L i k e w i s e , h e o m i t s (Ant. 2.195) J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h , s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w i l l g r o w i n t o a m u l t i t u d e in t h e m i d s t o f t h e e a r t h (Gen.
48:16). Finally, J o s e p h u s also c h a n g e s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t Israel in
E g y p t " w a s fruitful a n d m u l t i p l i e d e x c e e d i n g l y " ( G e n . 47:17) i n t o o n e t h a t the E g y p t i a n s b e c a m e bitterly d i s p o s e d t o w a r d the H e b r e w s o u t o f e n v y o f their p r o s p e r i t y (evbaijxovias),
o m i t t i n g all m e n t i o n o f their i n c r e a s e in n u m b e r s (Ant. 2.201).
D E T H E O L O G I Z I N G AND AVOIDANCE O F T H E O L O G I C A L DIFFICULTIES J o s e p h u s ' s J a c o b p e r i c o p e offers n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s o f w h a t w e m a y c a l l " d e t h e o l o g i z i n g . " T h u s , w h e n G - d a p p e a r s to J a c o b i n a d r e a m , in t h e H e b r e w text, H e identifies H i m s e l f thus: " I a m t h e L - r d , t h e G - d o f A b r a h a m t h y father, a n d t h e G-d
o f I s a a c " ( G e n . 28:13). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , G - d d o e s n o t identify H i m s e l f
at all b u t rather, in a d d r e s s i n g h i m , e m p h a s i z e s J a c o b ' s g e n e a l o g y : " J a c o b , offspring o f a g o o d sire a n d o f a g r a n d s i r e w h o w o n r e n o w n for e x c e e d i n g v i r t u e " (Ant. 1.280). W h e n J a c o b is a w a k e n e d o u t o f his sleep, h e says, in the b i b l i c a l text: " S u r e l y the L - r d is p r e s e n t in this p l a c e , a n d I k n e w it n o t " ( G e n . 28:16); J o s e p h u s totally o m i t s this r e f e r e n c e to G - d . A g a i n , the B i b l e says t h a t " t h e L - r d s a w t h a t L e a h w a s h a t e d , a n d H e o p e n e d h e r w o m b " ( G e n . 29:31), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s p u t s t h e e m p h a s i s o n L e a h ' s feelings r a t h e r t h a n o n G - d ' s : " N o w L e a h w a s g r i e v o u s l y m o r t i f i e d b y h e r h u s b a n d ' s p a s s i o n for h e r sister; a n d h o p i n g t o w i n his e s t e e m b y
JACOB
327
b e a r i n g c h i l d r e n , she m a d e c o n t i n u a l s u p p l i c a t i o n to G - d " (Ant. 1.303-4). B e f o r e t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h E s a u , J a c o b p r a y s at l e n g t h t o G - d a n d d e c l a r e s his u n w o r t h i n e s s o f all t h e k i n d n e s s a n d t r u t h t h a t H e h a s s h o w n t o h i m ( G e n . 3 2 : 1 0 - 1 3 ) . J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.329) o m i t s t h e p r a y e r a n d s i m p l y d e c l a r e s t h a t J a c o b c o m m i t t e d t o G - d his h o p e o f s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 1.327). J o s e p h u s ' s s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e a d e r s m i g h t w e l l o b j e c t t o t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t , in t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f J a c o b ' s n e w n a m e , Israel, t h a t J a c o b h a d striven w i t h G - d ( G e n . 32:29); a n d so J a c o b says t h a t h e h a d d e f e a t e d a n a n g e l o f G - d (Ant. 1.332). T h e role o f G - d is further d i m i n i s h e d in J o s e p h u s ' s o m i s s i o n (Ant. 1.342) o f t h e t e r r o r o f G - d t h a t befell t h e cities t h r o u g h w h i c h J a c o b j o u r n e y e d ( G e n . 35:5), as w e l l as o f t h e s e c o n d t h e o p h a n y at B e t h e l ( G e n . 35-9-13)W h e r e J o s e p h u s d o e s , in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , i n t r o d u c e t h e role o f G - d , it is i n S t o i c fashion, as p r o v i d e n c e , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n his p r e f a c e t o t h e J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e , t h a t G - d ( d e s i g n a t e d as a n e u t e r a b s t r a c t i o n , T O Seiov) s h o w e d s u c h p r o v i d e n t i a l c a r e (irpovoiav) for J a c o b t h a t H e m a d e e v e n events t h a t s e e m e d to h i m d e p l o r a b l e b e c o m e t h e s o u r c e o f t h e u t m o s t felicity (Ant. 2.8). M o s t instructive a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude is t h e s c e n e at B e e r - s h e b a w h e n J a c o b is a b o u t t o d e p a r t for E g y p t . I n t h e H e b r e w , J a c o b offers sacrifices a n d G - d speaks to h i m ( G e n . 4 6 : 1 - 4 ) . I n J o s e p h u s , J a c o b offers sacrifices, b u t G - d a p p e a r s to h i m o n l y after w e a r e t o l d o f his fears o f w h a t settling in E g y p t will m e a n for his p o s t e r i t y
(Ant.
2 . 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , in the a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f his sons, J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n t h e n a m e o f G - d e v e n o n c e (Ant. 2.194), w h e r e a s in G e n . 4 9 , G - d is m e n t i o n e d four t i m e s (49.19, 24, 25 bis). W e m a y n o t e , in particular, t h a t in t h e b l e s s i n g o f J o s e p h , w h e r e a s in t h e H e b r e w , J a c o b m e n t i o n s G - d t w i c e ( G e n . 48:15), i n J o s e p h u s , w e a r e t o l d t h a t J a c o b l a v i s h e d praises u p o n J o s e p h , b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f G - d (Ant. 2.195). W h e r e J o s e p h u s d o e s i n t r o d u c e G - d w h e n the H e b r e w text lacks r e f e r e n c e t o H i m , it is b e c a u s e h e seeks to free J a c o b f r o m t h e serious c h a r g e o f c o n d o n i n g i d o l a t r y : thus, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e p u t s into J a c o b ' s m o u t h t h e instruction to g e t rid o f t h e s t r a n g e g o d s , w h i c h w o u l d m a k e it s e e m t h a t h e a l r e a d y k n e w o f their p r e s e n c e in his h o u s e h o l d ( G e n . 35:2), in J o s e p h u s , it is G - d w h o b i d s J a c o b u n d e r t a k e t h e p u r i f i c a t i o n o f his tents (Ant. 1.341). Finally, w h e n h e d o e s refer to G - d , as w e h a v e s e e n , h e s o m e t i m e s e m p l o y s n e u t r a l t e r m s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l to his h e l l e n i z e d a u d i e n c e , s u c h as T O Oelov (Ant. 2.8) o r p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoia, I s a a c ' s b l e s s i n g o f J a c o b , Ant. 1.272) L - r d o f all e t e r n i t y (TTOLVTOS alwvos, m i l i a r t o us f r o m P l a t o ' s Timaeus 3 7 D ) a n d c r e a t o r (Srjpuovpyos,
ibid.) o r (in a t e r m fa
a t e r m f a m i l i a r to
us l i k e w i s e f r o m P l a t o ' s Timaeus 4 0 C ) o f u n i v e r s a l b e i n g (rrjs oXrjs ovoias,
a Stoic
0 0
p h r a s e ) (see W o l f s o n 1947, 1:277, 3 ? 3 2 0 - 2 1 ; 2:106). W h e n it c o m e s to m i r a c l e s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e speaks o f a n g e l s a s c e n d i n g a n d d e s c e n d i n g in J a c o b ' s d r e a m ( G e n . 28:12), J o s e p h u s , r a t i o n a l i z i n g , d e c l a r e s t h a t J a c o b thought t h a t h e s a w a l a d d e r r e a c h i n g f r o m e a r t h to h e a v e n ; a n d i n s t e a d o f a n g e l s , h e speaks o f p h a n t o m s (oi/jeis, " a p p e a r a n c e s , visions, a p p a r i t i o n s " ) o f n a ture (Ant. 1.279). T h e s e p h a n t o m s a r e c o m p a r e d to m o r t a l s , b u t are said t o b e m o r e
328
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a u g u s t (oeyLvoTepov). W h e n J a c o b , o n his r e t u r n to C a n a a n after his r e c o n c i l i a t i o n with L a b a n , meets
a n g e l s ( G e n . 32:2), J o s e p h u s
says t h a t h e
had
visions
(^avTaajLtara, "spectres, a p p a r i t i o n s , p h a n t o m s " ) t h a t i n s p i r e d h i m w i t h g o o d h o p e s (Ant. 1.325). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e e x p l a i n s t h e e t y m o l o g y o f t h e n a m e o f t h e p l a c e , P e n u e l , w h e r e J a c o b h a d w r e s d e d w i t h t h e a n g e l , as d u e to t h e fact t h a t h e h a d s e e n G - d f a c e to f a c e t h e r e ( G e n . 32:31), J o s e p h u s gives its m e a n i n g as "the f a c e o f G - d " w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g the r e a s o n for t h e n a m e , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w i s h e d to a v o i d r e f e r e n c e to the a n g e l a n d b e c a u s e h e s o u g h t to a v o i d the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m
o f s e e i n g G - d f a c e to face (Ant. 1.334). J o s e p h u s
(Ant.
2.195) also e l i m i n a t e s t h e r e f e r e n c e t o a n g e l s i n J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h ( G e n . 48:16). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e m e n t o f G e n . 32:25, t h a t a m a n w r e s d e d w i t h J a c o b , a n d t h a t o f G e n . 32:29, t h a t J a c o b h a d w r e s d e d w i t h G - d a n d w i t h m a n , a n d J a c o b ' s a f f i r m a t i o n ( G e n . 32:31) t h a t h e h a s s e e n G - d face to face, J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t J a c o b h a d d e f e a t e d a n a n g e l (the w o r d ayyeXos,
meaning both "angel" and "mes
senger," retains t h e a m b i g u i t y ) o f G - d (Ant. 1.332). J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.309), a p p a r e n d y b e c a u s e , like C i c e r o in his De Divinatione,
he
w a s s k e p t i c a l o f s u c h t e c h n i q u e s , h a s e l i m i n a t e d the r e f e r e n c e to t h e d i v i n a t i o n b y w h i c h L a b a n has supposedly learned that he has b e e n blessed because o f J a c o b ( G e n . 30:27). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e i n t r o d u c e s t h e c o n c e p t o f S h e o l ( w h i c h the S e p t u a g i n t h a s t r a n s l a t e d as t h e p a g a n " H a d e s " ) , in h a v i n g J a c o b s a y t h a t h e m u s t g o m o u r n i n g i n t o t h e g r a v e ( G e n . 37:35), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e r e f e r e n c e a n d states s i m p l y t h a t J a c o b sat in s a c k c l o t h , h e a v y w i t h g r i e f (Ant. 2.38). Finally, as n o t e d i n c h a p t e r 5, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y raise serious q u e s t i o n s as to the a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f t h e r e v e l a t i o n o f the T o r a h , J o s e p h u s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o m i t s t h e six p a s s a g e s (such as t h e last t w e l v e verses o f D e u t e r o n o m y ) c i t e d b y t h e m e d i e v a l c o m m e n t a t o r A b r a h a m I b n E z r a (on D e u t . 1:1), w h i c h p r e s e n t s u c h difficulties. A n a d d i t i o n a l s u c h p a s s a g e o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.343) in the c a s e o f the J a c o b p e r i c o p e is the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t "this is t h e pillar o f R a c h e l ' s g r a v e u n t o this d a y " ( G e n . 35:20), w h i c h i m p l i e s t h a t the p a s s a g e w a s w r i t t e n l o n g after t h e e v e n t , i n a s m u c h as t h e T o r a h is s u p p o s e d to b e v a l i d at all t i m e s . A n o t h e r s u c h p a s s a g e o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.6) is the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t , p r e s u m a b l y w r i t t e n f r o m a m u c h later v a n t a g e p o i n t , w h e n t h e Israelites d i d h a v e kings, t h a t "these a r e the k i n g s t h a t r e i g n e d in E d o m b e f o r e there r e i g n e d a n y k i n g o v e r the c h i l d r e n o f I s r a e l " ( G e n . 35:31).
D R A M A T I C AND R O M A N T I C
MOTIFS
J o s e p h u s h a s i n t r o d u c e d a n e l e m e n t o f suspense, w h i c h is a h a l l m a r k o f t h e G r e e k r o m a n c e s , i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e m e e t i n g o f J a c o b a n d R a c h e l (Ant. 1.286). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e s h e p h e r d s w o n d e r t h a t R a c h e l h a s n o t y e t a r r i v e d (Ant. 1.286), a n d thus t h e r e is, as V i l l a l b a (1986, 233) r e m a r k s , a n air o f m y s t e r y t h a t is n o t to b e f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( G e n . 2 9 : 1 - 1 4 ) . T h e r e is similar suspense in J a c o b ' s
JACOB
3 2
g
a n x i e t y w h e n his sons b e t a k e t h e m s e l v e s to S i k i m a ( S h e c h e m ) w i t h o u t p r e v i o u s l y a l e r t i n g h i m to their d e p a r t u r e thither, a n d h e c o n c e i v e s the g l o o m i e s t f o r e b o d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m (Ant. 2.19). T h i s , in t u r n , supplies a m u c h b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n for J a c o b ' s s e n d i n g o f J o s e p h to see w h a t h a d b e f a l l e n his b r o t h e r s t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e , w h i c h s i m p l y says t h a t J a c o b t o l d J o s e p h : " D o n o t t h y b r e t h r e n f e e d t h e flock in S h e c h e m ? C o m e , a n d I w i l l s e n d y o u to t h e m " ( G e n . 37:13). T h e r e is further sus p e n s e in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f J o s e p h ' s d i s a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 2 . 3 6 - 3 7 ) . A s J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e it, w h e n J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s h a d d i p p e d J o s e p h ' s t u n i c in g o a t ' s b l o o d , t h e y c a m e to their father, w h o h a d a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d n e w s o f his son's m i s a d v e n ture. J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s J a c o b c h e r i s h i n g t h e h o p e t h a t his s o n h a s b e e n k i d n a p p e d ; b u t t h e s u s p e n s e is e n d e d w h e n h e sees the t u n i c d i p p e d in b l o o d . I n t h e G r e e k novels, a l t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y this is a m o t i f f o u n d e l s e w h e r e as w e l l , w e f r e q u e n d y h e a r o f t h e h e r o e s a n d h e r o i n e s t h r e a t e n i n g t o take their o w n lives because of disgrace.
39
Similarly, w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , J u d a h tells his b r o t h e r
J o s e p h t h a t i f J a c o b w e r e t o see t h a t B e n j a m i n w a s n o t w i t h the b r o t h e r s u p o n their r e t u r n f r o m E g y p t , " t h y servants w o u l d thus b r i n g d o w n t h e g r a y h a i r s o f t h y s e r v a n t , o u r father, w i t h s o r r o w to the g r a v e , " i m p l y i n g t h a t h e w o u l d die o f g r i e f ( G e n . 44:31), i n J o s e p h u s , J u d a h says t h a t J a c o b w i l l h a s t e n to r e n d e r h i m s e l f in s e n s i b l e — t h a t is, h e w i l l kill h i m s e l f (Ant. 2.150). T o J o s e p h u s ' s p a g a n a u d i e n c e , s u c h a suicide w o u l d h a v e s e e m e d a p p r o p r i a t e , b u t f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f J e w ish law, it w o u l d h a v e b e e n d e e m e d m u r d e r .
40
T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d p a t h o s , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f b o t h G r e e k t r a g e d y a n d n o v e l s , i n L a b a n ' s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t J a c o b ' s i n g r a t i t u d e to h i m (Ant. 1.314-15). I n t h e B i b l e , L a b a n asks J a c o b w h y h e fled a w a y s e c r e d y a n d d i d n o t g i v e h i m a n o p p o r t u n i t y to kiss his c h i l d r e n g o o d - b y e ( G e n . 3 1 : 2 5 - 3 0 ) . I n J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c f e e l i n g in L a b a n ' s p a t h e t i c a p p e a l to J a c o b , in w h i c h h e r e m i n d s the latter t h a t h e g a v e his d a u g h t e r s i n m a r r i a g e to h i m in o r d e r to i n c r e a s e his affection for h i m a n d b e r a t e s h i m for his l a c k o f r e g a r d for his ( J a c o b ' s ) o w n m o t h e r " o r for t h e k i n s h i p t h a t unites t h e e t o m e o r for t h e w i v e s w h o m t h o u h a s t w e d , w i t h o u t a t h o u g h t for t h e c h i l d r e n o f w h o m I a m the g r a n d s i r e " (Ant. 1.314-15). T h e p a t h o s is further i n c r e a s e d b y L a b a n ' s a c c u s a t i o n t h a t J a c o b , his k i n s m a n , t h e s o n o f his sister, t h e h u s b a n d o f his d a u g h t e r s , a n d the g u e s t a n d s h a r e r o f his h e a r t h a n d h o m e , h a d d e a l t w i t h h i m a c c o r d i n g to the l a w s o f w a r f a r e , p l u n d e r i n g his p r o p erty, i n c i t i n g his d a u g h t e r s to flee f r o m their father, a n d m a k i n g o f f w i t h t h e s a c r e d o b j e c t s o f his family. T h e r e is l i k e w i s e h e i g h t e n e d p a t h o s in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e f u l s o m e w e e p i n g b o t h b y J a c o b a n d his sons o v e r t h e s o n s ' d e p a r t u r e , i n c l u d i n g his b e l o v e d B e n j a m i n , for E g y p t (Ant. 2 . 1 1 8 - 1 9 ) . O n t h e o n e h a n d , J a c o b is d e p i c t e d as w o n d e r i n g
39. Cf., e.g., the threat, in X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus's novel, Ephesiaca, b y A n t h e i a to c o m m i t suicide w h e n she is b o u g h t by a brothel master. 40. S e e the bibliography and m y discussion o f this with regard to the suicide o f the defenders o f M a s a d a in Feldman 1984b, 7 7 9 - 8 9 , 966.
330
JOSEPHUS'S
BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
w h e t h e r his sons w i l l e v e r r e t u r n t o h i m safely; a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , the sons are d e s c r i b e d as w o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e y will, u p o n their r e t u r n , find their father in g o o d h e a l t h a n d n o t , rather, stricken b y s o r r o w in their behalf. J o s e p h u s a d d s that t h e y s p e n t a n entire d a y in m o u r n i n g b e f o r e t h e y finally left, l e a v i n g their fa t h e r b e h i n d b r o k e n h e a r t e d . A l l this stands in c o n t r a s t to the fact t h a t in the bibli c a l text, t h e r e is n o t a single d i r e c t w o r d a c t u a l l y d e s c r i b i n g the e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n o f J a c o b a n d his sons u p o n their d e p a r t u r e ( G e n . 42:38). A s to r o m a n t i c motifs, w e m a y n o t e t h a t s u c h a t h e m e is a d d e d in J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d l i n g o f the story o f J a c o b b y h a v i n g J a c o b ' s m e e t i n g w i t h the s h e p h e r d s o c c u r in the s u b u r b s , w i t h y o u n g m e n a n d m a i d e n s s e a t e d b e s i d e a w e l l (Ant. 1.285), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e r e is m e n t i o n o n l y o f t h r e e flocks o f s h e e p l y i n g b e s i d e a w e l l , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the setting w a s s u b u r b a n o r t h a t y o u n g m e n
and
m a i d e n s c o n g r e g a t e d t h e r e ( G e n . 29:2). T h e m e e t i n g o f J a c o b a n d R a c h e l itself is m u c h m o r e r o m a n t i c . I n the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , R a c h e l d o e s n o t s p e a k a w o r d ( G e n . 29:12). I n J o s e p h u s , she speaks, w e e p s , a n d e m b r a c e s J a c o b (Ant. 1.286). T h e b i b l i c a l t e x t is v e r y brief, but, in c o n trast, J o s e p h u s presents the w h o l e s c e n e as a d i a l o g u e c o n s i s t i n g o f r e p o r t e d s p e e c h (Ant. 1.287), f o l l o w e d b y d i r e c t s p e e c h (Ant. 1.288-90), f o l l o w e d o n c e a g a i n b y r e p o r t e d s p e e c h (Ant. 1.291-92). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , R a c h e l acts w i t h childish (vrjTTioTTjTos)
d e l i g h t h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the r e a c t i o n o f N a u s i c a a
(Homer,
Odyssey, b k . 6) w h e n the s t r a n g e r tells h e r w h e n c e h e h a s c o m e a n d she offers to s u p p l y h i m w i t h his w a n t s . Just as O d y s s e u s , after first c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r h e s h o u l d t h r o w his a r m s a r o u n d N a u s i c a a ' s k n e e s , d e c i d e s t h a t she m i g h t t a k e offense at s u c h i m m o d e s t b e h a v i o r , so J a c o b , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , refrains f r o m kissing R a c h e l a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n m e e t i n g h e r (Ant. 1.287; cf. G e n . 29:11). A n d j u s t as the h e r o H a b r o c o m e s a n d the h e r o i n e A n t h i a fall in l o v e at first sight in X e n o p h o n o f E p h e s u s ' s n o v e l (1.3, 12), as d o a w e a l t h y m e r c h a n t
from
I n d i a n a m e d P s a m m i s (3. n ) a n d A n c h i a l u s (4.5), the m a n w h o is in c h a r g e o f guarding Anthia,
4 1
so J a c o b is said, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , t o h a v e b e e n
o v e r c o m e , n o t so m u c h b y t h e fact t h a t t h e y w e r e k i n ( G e n . 29:12), as b e c a u s e h e w a s in love (ejoam) w i t h R a c h e l (Ant. 1.288). T h a t this is a n erotic l o v e is c l e a r f r o m the use o f the w o r d e p a m .
4 2
T h e r o m a n t i c flavor o f the m e e t i n g s c e n e is further e n
h a n c e d b y a n u m b e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s to the b i b l i c a l text ( G e n . 2 9 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) , n a m e l y , t h a t R a c h e l , "as y o u n g p e o p l e a r e w o n t t o d o , " recalls w h a t she h a d p r e v i o u s l y h e a r d h e r father tell o f the story o f R e b e k a h ; t h a t she k n e w t h a t h e r p a r ents w e r e l o n g i n g to h a v e w o r d o f h e r ; t h a t o u t o f filial affection, she b u r s t i n t o
41. T h e theme o f love at first sight is c o m m o n in the G r e e k romances: see Parthenius 1.1, C h a r i t o n 1.1.6-7, Achilles Tatius 1.4.2-5, and Heliodorus 3.5.4-5. 42. A similar c h a n g e m a y be seen in Josephus's version o f the Esther story, where, in place o f the Bible's statement that "the king loved Esther above all the w o m e n " (Esther 2:17), w e read (Ant. 11.202) that the king fell in love with the m a i d e n (neocbv rrjs Kopr)s els
epcora).
JACOB
331
tears a n d flung h e r a r m s a r o u n d J a c o b ; t h a t after t e n d e r l y e m b r a c i n g h i m , she s a i d t h a t h e h a d b r o u g h t t h e m o s t c h e r i s h e d a n d k e e n e s t o f p l e a s u r e s t o h e r father a n d t o all h e r h o u s e h o l d , "for h e r father w a s d e v o t e d t o t h e m e m o r y o f J a c o b ' s m o t h e r a n d d w e l t o n l y u p o n it, a n d his c o m i n g w o u l d a p p e a r t o h i m w o r t h m o r e t h a n e v e r y b l e s s i n g in the w o r l d " (Ant. i . 2 9 1 - 9 2 ) . S h e t h e n b i d s h i m , like H o m e r ' s N a u s i c a a , " c o m e straight t o h e r father, f o l l o w i n g h e r l e a d , a n d to d e p r i v e h i m n o l o n g e r o f this p l e a s u r e b y d e l a y " — w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , R a c h e l is a b s o l u t e l y silent, a n d it is L a b a n w h o e m b r a c e s J a c o b a n d kisses h i m . T h e r o m a n t i c flavor is also e n h a n c e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t R a c h e l ' s b e a u t y w a s " s u c h as f e w w o m e n o f those d a y s c o u l d s h o w " (Ant. 1.288), in c o n t r a s t t o t h e B i b l e ' s r e m a r k t h a t she w a s m e r e l y " o f b e a u t i f u l f o r m a n d fair t o l o o k u p o n " ( G e n . 29:17). I n c o n t r a s t , L e a h , w h o in the B i b l e is d e s c r i b e d m e r e l y as h a v i n g w e a k eyes ( G e n . 29:17), e m e r g e s in J o s e p h u s as d e v o i d o f b e a u t y evTrpeirrj) (Ant. 1 . 3 0 1 ) .
(TTJV
oifnv
OVK
43
T h e r o m a n t i c e l e m e n t is further e n h a n c e d b y t h e p r o t r a c t i o n o f the n e g o t i a tions b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d L a b a n , thus e m p h a s i z i n g J a c o b ' s l o v e for R a c h e l (Ant. 1.298). T h e B i b l e s i m p l y d e c l a r e s t h a t J a c o b l o v e d R a c h e l a n d said t h a t h e w o u l d serve L a b a n for s e v e n y e a r s in o r d e r t o w i n h e r as his wife ( G e n . 29:18). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , J a c o b says t h a t h e w i l l g l a d l y (r)hea)s) t a r r y w i t h L a b a n a n d t h a t h e w i l l e n d u r e a n y l a b o r in o r d e r t o p l e a s e h i m , a s t a t e m e n t r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f G r e e c e ' s g r e a t n a t i o n a l h e r o H e r a c l e s to w r e s t l e w i t h the r i v e r suitor A c h e l o u s , w h o h a d t h e p o w e r o f c h a n g i n g h i m s e l f i n t o v a r i o u s s h a p e s , in o r d e r t o w i n t h e h a n d o f D e i a n i r a . J a c o b ' s l o v e for R a c h e l is, m o r e o v e r , a p h y s i c a l l o v e (epcjs)', a n d it is this, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , t h a t m o t i v a t e s h i m t o s p e a k thus. W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e s i m p l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t J a c o b s e r v e d L a b a n for s e v e n y e a r s for R a c h e l ( G e n . 29:18 a n d 20), J o s e p h u s g i v e s a r e a s o n for these y e a r s o f s e r v i c e , n a m e l y , so as t o g i v e p r o o f o f his w o r t h (aperrjs, " e x c e l l e n c e , v i r t u e " ) a n d so t h a t it m i g h t b e b e t t e r s e e n w h a t m a n n e r o f m a n h e is (Ant. 1.300). S u c h a m o t i v e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e s t o r y o f H e r a c l e s , w h o p e r f o r m e d t w e l v e l a b o r s for E u r y s t h e u s i n o r d e r t o p r o v e h i m s e l f d e s e r v i n g o f i m m o r t a l i t y J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n is m o r e r o m a n t i c t h a n t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t ( G e n . 29:27), i n a s m u c h as in J o s e p h u s , J a c o b w o r k s s e v e n y e a r s for R a c h e l b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g h e r (Ant. 1.302), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , h e d o e s so after r e c e i v i n g her. W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t " J a c o b d i d s o , " t h a t is, s e r v e d a n o t h e r s e v e n y e a r s for R a c h e l ( G e n . 29:28), J o s e p h u s is m o r e r o m a n t i c a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t J a c o b s e r v e d L a b a n for a n a d d i t i o n a l s e v e n y e a r s , i n a s m u c h as his l o v e for R a c h e l p e r m i t t e d n o o t h e r c o u r s e (Ant. 1.302). T h e r o m a n c e is further h e i g h t e n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i s o n L a b a n ' s d e c e i t
43. A similar transformation, we may comment, is found in the case of Vashti, who in the Bible (Esther 1.11) is described merely as "fair to look upon" (as is Rachel), but of whom Josephus (Ant. n. 190) states that she "surpassed all women in beauty."
332
JOSEPHUS'S
BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
in substituting L e a h for R a c h e l (Ant
1.301). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , J a c o b is c o m
p l e t e l y u n a w a r e b e f o r e h a n d (ovoev 77/0077
44
CT^/ACW*)
o f the d e c e i t b e i n g p r a c t i c e d
u p o n h i m b y L a b a n . T h e p a s s a g e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f a f a m o u s s c e n e f r o m G r e e k m y t h o l o g y , the relations b e t w e e n T h e i a s ( C i n y r a s ) , w h o is d r u n k , a n d his d a u g h ter
Myrrha,
which
resulted
in
the
birth
of Adonis
(Ovid,
Metamorphoses
10.298-518). J a c o b ' s l o v e for R a c h e l is further e m p h a s i z e d b y the fact t h a t after L e a h w i n s f r o m R a c h e l t h e r i g h t to s p e n d the n i g h t w i t h J a c o b , J a c o b a g r e e s to d o so in o r d e r to p l e a s e R a c h e l (Ant 1.308); in c o n t r a s t , t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t g i v e s n o r e a s o n w h y J a c o b a g r e e s ( G e n . 30:16). J o s e p h u s (Ant 1.318) h a s substituted l o v e for fear ( G e n . 31:31) as the m o t i v a t i n g force b e h i n d t h e d e c i s i o n o f J a c o b ' s w i v e s to a c c o m p a n y h i m o n his flight f r o m L a b a n . I n the b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , J a c o b says to L a b a n t h a t h e fled w i t h his w i v e s ( L a b a n ' s d a u g h t e r s ) b e c a u s e h e w a s afraid t h a t L a b a n w o u l d t a k e his d a u g h t e r s f r o m h i m b y force. T h i n g s a r e m u c h m o r e r o m a n t i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w h e r e it is n o t J a c o b ' s b u t his w i v e s ' d e c i s i o n , b a s e d o n their affection for h i m a n d p a r ticularly for their c h i l d r e n , t h a t l e a d s t h e m to a c c o m p a n y h i m . J o s e p h u s a p p e a l s t o the g e n e r a l state o f t h i n g s w h e n h e r e m a r k s , as a truism, t h a t s u c h affection is t h a t w h i c h w e d d e d w i v e s a r e w o n t t o h a v e for their h u s b a n d s . L a b a n ' s i m p o s i t i o n o f g r i e v o u s tasks u p o n J a c o b (Ant 1.319), a m o t i f t h a t is d e v e l o p e d b y J o s e p h u s b e y o n d the b r i e f b i b l i c a l details, is r e m i n i s c e n t o f the tasks i m p o s e d u p o n s e v e r a l f a m o u s m y t h o l o g i c a l h e r o e s , notably, H e r a c l e s , J a s o n , a n d B e l l e r o p h o n . J o s e p h u s a d d s t o this r o m a n t i c m o t i f b y h a v i n g J a c o b s w e a r to L a b a n t h a t h e w i l l l o v e his d a u g h t e r s as p a r t o f his p a c t w i t h h i m (Ant 1.323; t h e r e is n o c o u n t e r p a r t in G e n . 31:51—53).
45
SUMMARY I n his p o r t r a i t o f J a c o b , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h his g r e a t e s t c h a l l e n g e i n his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . O n the o n e h a n d , J a c o b , w h o s e v e r y n a m e w a s c h a n g e d t o Israel, w a s , t h r o u g h his t w e l v e sons, t h e d i r e c t a n c e s t o r o f the t w e l v e tribes o f Is rael; a n d h e n c e , in a w o r k t h a t w a s m a n i f e s d y a p o l o g e t i c a n d l a r g e l y d i r e c t e d t o G e n t i l e s , J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s to a n s w e r anti-Jewish c h a r g e s b y s e e k i n g to a g g r a n d i z e J a c o b ' s qualities o f c h a r a c t e r in t e r m s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l to this a u d i e n c e — his g e n e a l o g y , b e a u t y w e a l t h , a n d the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e ( i n c l u d i n g h u m a n i t y g e n e r o s i t y a n d h o n e s t y ) , as w e l l as
44. D i a m o n d (1984, 211-13) suggests that the reason w h y J a c o b w a s able to spend the entire night with L e a h before realizing that he h a d b e e n d u p e d w a s that he w a s drunk from the w e d d i n g b a n q u e t , as indicated, he says, by Josephus (Ant. 1.301), a n d declares that the same terms used for the older and y o u n g e r daughters here are employed in the case o f Lot's daughters in a similar scene. 45. Josephus subsequendy develops the same motif in his account o f David's speed in fulfilling Saul's d e m a n d for the heads o f six h u n d r e d Philistines in lieu o f a d o w r y (Ant. 6.203;
1
S a m . 18:27).
JACOB
333
t h e fifth q u a l i t y o f piety. T h e r e a r e l i k e w i s e a p p a r e n t defects in his c h a r a c t e r t h a t h a d t o b e e x p l a i n e d o r g l o s s e d over, n o t a b l y his d e c e i t in his d e a l i n g s w i t h his t w i n b r o t h e r E s a u a n d w i t h his f a t h e r - i n - l a w L a b a n . A n d y e t , i f J a c o b w a s t o b e d e f e n d e d , w h a t s h o u l d J o s e p h u s ' s attitude b e to J a c o b ' s b r o t h e r E s a u , w h o , it a p p e a r s , w a s a l r e a d y in J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e r e g a r d e d as t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e R o m a n s , w h o s e p r o t e g e J o s e p h u s w a s ? I n P h i l o ' s time, t w o g e n e r a t i o n s b e f o r e J o s e p h u s , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f E s a u w i t h R o m e w a s a p p a r e n d y n o t y e t w i d e s p r e a d , a n d so P h i l o h a d n o difficulty in p a i n t i n g E s a u in the b l a c k e s t o f t e r m s , in c o n t r a s t to his i d e a l ization o f Jacob. F o r J o s e p h u s , this p o s e d a r e a l d i l e m m a , w h i c h h e r e s o l v e d in a t h r e e f o l d w a y — b y d i m i n i s h i n g o r o m i t t i n g t h e a l l e g e d defects in J a c o b ' s c h a r a c t e r , b y d i m i n i s h i n g o r o m i t t i n g t h o s e o f E s a u , a n d b y d i m i n i s h i n g o r o m i t t i n g t h e conflict b e t w e e n t h e t w o b r o t h e r s . T h u s , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e first m e t h o d , h e o m i t s t h e e t y m o l o g y o f J a c o b as " s u p p l a n t e r , " w h i c h w o u l d h a v e i m p u t e d to h i m a n u n d e sirably a g g r e s s i v e c h a r a c t e r . I n t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J a c o b d e c e i v e s his f a t h e r i n t o g i v i n g h i m t h e blessing, h e o m i t s J a c o b ' s i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t , a n a b s o l u t e f a l s e h o o d , " I a m E s a u , t h y first-born," a n d transfers t h e b l a m e for t h e d e c e p t i o n e n t i r e l y to R e b e k a h , J a c o b ' s m o t h e r . J o s e p h u s disposes o f J a c o b ' s t r e a c h e r y w i t h L a b a n ' s a n i m a l s b y o m i t t i n g t h e a c c o u n t a n d , i n d e e d , b y shifting the c h a r g e o f d e c e i t to L a b a n himself. H e is l i k e w i s e careful to a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g his G e n t i l e r e a d e r s a n d h e n c e stresses t h a t S i m e o n a n d L e v i a c t e d w i t h o u t their father J a c o b ' s p e r m i s s i o n in m a s s a c r i n g t h e S h e c h e m i t e s . A n u m b e r o f t o u c h e s i n d i c a t e t h a t in this p e r i c o p e , J o s e p h u s , b y deft h a n d l i n g o f t h e figure o f E s a u , m o s d y i n v o l v i n g o m i s s i o n , w a s s e e k i n g t o a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g t h e R o m a n s a n d i n s t e a d to d i m i n i s h the a l l e g e d conflict b e t w e e n the t w o n a t i o n s , the J e w s a n d t h e R o m a n s , d e s c e n d e d f r o m the t w i n s J a c o b a n d E s a u . T h u s J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e s t r u g g l e o f t h e t w i n s w i t h i n their m o t h e r ' s w o m b . M o r e o v e r , t h e or a c l e p r e d i c t i n g t h a t E s a u w o u l d serve J a c o b is c h a n g e d to i n d i c a t e t h a t J a c o b w o u l d " e x c e l " E s a u . H e o m i t s E s a u ' s redness, w h i c h w a s a s s o c i a t e d in a n t i q u i t y w i t h slaves' hair. I n t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e sale o f the b i r t h r i g h t , m o r e s y m p a t h y is e v o k e d for E s a u , since, for e x a m p l e , h e is d e s c r i b e d as still a l a d . E s a u is m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y p o r t r a y e d , t o o , i n his t r e m e n d o u s d e v o t i o n to his father. D e s p i t e the fact that, i n g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s t e n d s to d i m i n i s h t h e role o f G - d in his history, w e a r e t o l d t h a t it is n o t I s a a c w h o w i l l bless E s a u b u t G - d H i m s e l f . T h e b l o o d thirstiness o f E s a u is o m i t t e d f r o m I s a a c ' s blessing, a n d i n s t e a d w e a r e t o l d t h a t h e w i l l b e r e n o w n e d for s t r e n g t h in a r m s a n d labor. E v e n w i t h r e g a r d t o E s a u ' s inter m a r r i a g e s , w h i c h , in t h e B i b l e , a r e a s o u r c e o f s u c h a g g r a v a t i o n t o I s a a c , J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t I s a a c r e s o l v e d to h o l d his p e a c e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e s c e n e i n w h i c h J a c o b a n d E s a u a r e r e c o n c i l e d b e c o m e s c e n t r a l in J o s e p h u s . P a r t i c u l a r l y in o m i t t i n g G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f l a n d to the Israelites, so d e a r to the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y a n d s u c h a n a t h e m a t o J o s e p h u s a n d to his R o m a n p a t r o n s , h e c l e a r l y seeks t o i n g r a t i a t e h i m s e l f w i t h the R o m a n s . I n d e e d , t h e simplest w a y t o e x p l a i n all o f these c h a n g e s is b y p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s identified E s a u w i t h t h e
334
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
R o m a n s a n d h e n c e w a s careful n o t t o offend t h e m t h r o u g h o u t his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e brothers. Finally, in a n effort to m a k e his w o r k m o r e interesting to his r e a d e r s , w h o w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e p u r p l e p a s s a g e s to relieve t h e m o n o t o n y o f t h e m a n y n a m e s a n d o t h e r details, a n d f o l l o w i n g i n t h e footsteps o f o n e o f his favorite a u t h o r s , H e r o d o t u s , J o s e p h u s presents t h e m e s f a m i l i a r t o his a u d i e n c e f r o m H o m e r , t h e G r e e k t r a g e dians, a n d H e l l e n i s t i c novels. T h u s h e i n c r e a s e s the suspense a n d r o m a n t i c e l e m e n t in his a c c o u n t o f t h e m e e t i n g o f J a c o b a n d R a c h e l , j u s t as h e h e i g h t e n s the p a t h o s in the a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h L a b a n . A s a result, w h e r e a s the B i b l e in t h e S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n o f J a c o b is h a r d l y i n v i t i n g in its style, in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e , w e h a v e a f a s c i n a t i n g n a r r a t i v e r i v a l i n g the n o v e l s t h a t w e r e to b e c o m e p o p u l a r in t h e c e n t u r y after h i m . I n short, J o s e p h u s , in his J a c o b p e r i c o p e , presents a m o s t r e a d a b l e a c c o u n t t h a t w o u l d b o t h d e f e n d t h e J e w s a n d a p p e a l to, r a t h e r t h a n offend, his R o m a n a u d i e n c e . W e m a y ask w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s ' s c h a n g e s arose f r o m his f o l l o w i n g t h e H e l l e n i s tic h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h d e l i g h t e d in d r a m a t i z i n g stories, o r w h e t h e r t h e y e m a n a t e d f r o m his a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n to r e c o n c i l e t h e J e w s w i t h their R o m a n o v e r l o r d s . T h e a n s w e r w o u l d s e e m to b e t h a t h e h a d b o t h e n d s in m i n d . I h a v e , in fact, c o u n t e d sixty-nine i n s t a n c e s (of c o u r s e , n o t all o f t h e m o f e q u a l i m p o r t a n c e ) w h e r e h e m o d i f i e s t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n o f the story o f J a c o b p r i m a r i l y for the former reason but n o fewer than seventy-two instances w h e r e he has m a d e c h a n g e s p r i m a r i l y for t h e latter r e a s o n .
C H A P T E R
NINE
Joseph
I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e , as n o t e d , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to v a r y g r e a d y his a p p r o a c h , in t h a t h e s o m e t i m e s e x p a n d s g r e a d y at t i m e s c o n t r a c t s c o n s i d e r a b l y , a n d at t i m e s c l o s e l y p a r a p h r a s e s his s o u r c e (see F r a n x m a n 1979, 2 8 5 - 8 8 ) . F o r r e a s o n s t h a t I shall e x a m i n e , t h e v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f his p o r t r a i t o f J o s e p h s h o w all t h r e e o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h a t t h e figure o f J o s e p h s h o u l d h a v e interested J o s e p h u s so g r e a d y as to t a k e u p h a l f o f the s e c o n d b o o k o f the Antiquities ( 2 . 9 - 1 6 7 , 1 8 9 - 9 3 , 198-200) s h o u l d n o t surprise us, b o t h b e c a u s e o f his p r o m i n e n c e i n t h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s itself a n d p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e is J o s e p h u s ' s n a m e s a k e . I n d e e d , t h e similar ities b e t w e e n t h e t r e m e n d o u s vicissitudes in J o s e p h ' s life a n d t h o s e o f J o s e p h u s a n d , in fact, o f t h e w h o l e J e w i s h p e o p l e , are striking. T h u s , t h e story o f t h e rise t o p o w e r o f t h e J e w u n d e r a f o r e i g n k i n g is f o u n d in several o t h e r b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s , notably D a n i e l , Esther,
1
a n d Z e r u b b a b e l . Likewise, the a n a l o g y b e t w e e n J o s e p h
a n d J o s e p h u s is r e m a r k a b l e : b o t h a r e d e p i c t e d as c h i l d p r o d i g i e s (Ant. 2.9; Life 8), b o t h s h o w e x t r a o r d i n a r y insight in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s (Ant. 2.63-90), b o t h a r e cast o u t b y j e a l o u s b r o t h e r s (fellow J e w s , in the c a s e o f J o s e p h u s ) to a f o r e i g n l a n d ( E g y p t a n d R o m e respectively), a n d b o t h a r e d e e p l y i n v o l v e d in politics. N o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s at v a r i o u s p o i n t s e n l a r g e u p o n a n d c o n t r a c t the b i b l i c a l J o s e p h n a r rative c o n s i d e r a b l y , h o w e v e r , b u t in this c a s e h e also a d d s g r e a d y t o its r h e t o r i c a l , d r a m a t i c , e m o t i o n a l , a n d i r o n i c features, so m u c h so t h a t it a l m o s t b e c o m e s a H e l lenistic p r o t o - n o v e l , a c e n t u r y b e f o r e t h e earliest c o m p l e t e e x t a n t G r e e k n o v e l .
2
It w i l l b e instructive at t h e outset to c o m p a r e t h e s h e e r l e n g t h o f t h e J o s e p h
1. On the relationship between Esther and Daniel and the story of Joseph, see Rosenthal 1895, 278-90; id. 1897, 125-28); and Gan 1 9 6 1 - 6 2 , 144-49.
2. The discovery of the Ninus romance, dating from no later than the first century C.E., and hence approximately contemporary with Josephus, shows that the typical motifs of these novels must go back to an earlier period. See Perry 1967, 153-54. 335
336
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
e p i s o d e ( G e n e s i s , c h s . 37, 3 9 - 4 8 , 5 0 ) i n t h e H e b r e w , S e p t u a g i n t , a n d J o s e p h a n v e r 3
s i o n s (Ant. 2 . 9 - 1 6 7 , 1 8 9 - 9 3 , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ) . I n t h e H e b r e w , it c o m p r i s e s 627 l i n e s ; i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t , 8 5 6 ; a n d i n J o s e p h u s , 1,025. T h i s g i v e s a r a t i o o f J o s e p h u s t o t h e H e b r e w o f 1.63 a n d o f J o s e p h u s t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f 1.20 (the r a t i o o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t t o t h e H e b r e w is 1.37). H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s h a s g r e a d y e x p a n d e d t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e narrative
dealing
with Joseph's
dreams
and
subsequent
enslavement
(Gen.
3 7 . 1 - 3 6 ; J o s e p h u s , Ant. 2 . 9 - 3 8 ) ; h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 57 l i n e s , t h e S e p t u a g i n t , 7 8 , a n d J o s e p h u s , 1 8 6 . T h i s g i v e s a r a t i o o f J o s e p h u s t o t h e H e b r e w o f 3.26 a n d t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f 2.38 (the r a t i o o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t t o t h e H e b r e w is 1.37). T h e e p i s o d e o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e ( G e n . 3 9 : 7 - 2 0 ) is o f s u p r e m e i n t e r e s t t o J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) ; h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 22 l i n e s , t h e S e p t u a g i n t , 3 2 , a n d J o s e p h u s , 120. T h i s g i v e s t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y r a t i o o f J o s e p h u s t o t h e H e b r e w o f 5.45 a n d t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f 3.75 (the r a t i o o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t t o t h e H e b r e w is 1.45). O f s i m i l a r i m p o r t a n c e t o J o s e p h u s is t h e p e r i c o p e c o m p r i s i n g t h e final test o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h -
3. T h a t Josephus k n e w the H e b r e w version for this episode m a y b e seen from his statement that Joseph left his cloak (Ifidnovj singular) in the hand o f Potiphar's wife (Ant. 2.54), agreeing with the H e b r e w (Gen. 39:13, 15, 16, 19), whereas the Septuagint says that he left his clothes (i/xaria, plural). Like wise, Josephus gives the n u m b e r o f Jacob's descendants w h o went d o w n to E g y p t as seventy (Ant. 2.176), in consonance with the Masoretic text (Gen. 46:27) a n d in contrast with the Septuagint, w h i c h mentions seventy-five; A n o t h e r instance where w e c a n see that Josephus consulted the H e b r e w text is his statement that under the law o f land tenure promulgated by Joseph, the Egyptians were transported from place to place (Ant. 2.190), in consonance with the Hebrew, which avers that Joseph removed t h e m into cities (Gen. 47:21), whereas the Septuagint says he brought the people into b o n d a g e (a misreading oVarim ["cities"] as 'avadim ["slaves"]). O n the other hand, there is ample evidence that Josephus also used the Septuagint for this peri cope: (1) whereas the H e b r e w version says that Joseph dreamed another d r e a m a n d told it to his brethren (Gen. 37:9), the Septuagint has h i m relate it to his father a n d to his brethren; Josephus, in agreement with the latter, says that he recounted the vision to his father in the presence o f his brethren (Ant. 2.14); (2) Josephus (Ant. 2.39,49) agrees with the Septuagint (Gen. 37:36, 39:1), as well as with Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.84.236, 3.85.238), Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 8.9), and Joseph andAsenath (1.5-6,12), in giv ing the n a m e o f Potiphar as Pentephres; (3) whereas the Masoretic Text declares that P h a r a o h called for all the magicians o f E g y p t a n d all o f its wise m e n (Gen. 41:8), the Septuagint substitutes "inter preters" (igr)yr)Tds) for magicians; Josephus omits the magicians as well, declaring that P h a r a o h sum m o n e d the sagest o f the Egyptians in his desire to learn the interpretation (Kplow) (Ant. 2.75); (4) in speaking to Pharaoh, the buder tells him, according to the H e b r e w version, that h e a n d the baker h a d d r e a m e d a d r e a m (Gen. 41:11), whereas Josephus, in agreement with the Septuagint, says that he a n d the baker h a d seen the d r e a m (Ant. 2.77); likewise P h a r a o h , according to the H e b r e w version, says that he h a d d r e a m e d a d r e a m (Gen. 41:15), whereas Josephus agrees with the Septuagint in declaring that he h a d seen a d r e a m (Ant. 2.80); (5) the Masoretic Text says that Joseph married the daughter o f Potiphera, priest o f O n (Gen. 41:45), whereas the Septuagint identifies Potiphera as the priest o f the city o f Helios, and Josephus similarly identifies h i m as the priest o f Heliopolis (Ant. 2.91); (6) the H e b r e w text states that P h a r a o h gave Joseph the n a m e o f Z a p h e n a t h - p a n e a h (Gen. 41:45), whereas Josephus agrees with the Septuagint in giving the n a m e as P s o n t h o m p h a n e c h (Ant. 2.91); (7) whereas in the Masoretic Text, J a c o b , w h e n addressed by G - d , answers, " H e r e a m I " (Gen. 46:2), in the Septuagint, he responds with a question, " W h a t is it?" a n d similarly in Josephus, h e asks w h o H e is (Ant. 2.172); a n d (8) whereas the H e b r e w states that Joseph met J a c o b in G o s h e n (Gen. 46:28), Josephus follows the Septuagint in giving the site o f their meeting as Heroonpolis (Ant. 2.184).
JOSEPH
ers, e n d i n g w i t h J u d a h ' s s p e e c h b e f o r e J o s e p h ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 - 3 4 ; J o s e p h u s ,
337
Ant.
2 . 1 2 4 - 5 9 ) ; h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 53 lines, the S e p t u a g i n t , 7 3 , a n d J o s e p h u s , 217. T h i s y i e l d s a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to the H e b r e w o f 4.09 a n d to the S e p t u a g i n t o f 2.97 (the ratio o f the S e p t u a g i n t to the H e b r e w is 1.38). O n the o t h e r h a n d , the a c c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f J a c o b a n d o f J o s e p h ( G e n . 4 7 : 2 8 - 5 0 : 2 6 , J o s e p h u s Ant. 2 . 1 9 4 - 9 8 ) is o b v i o u s l y o f m i n i m a l interest to J o s e p h u s ; h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 132 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t , 2 1 9 , a n d J o s e p h u s , 3 6 . T h i s gives a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to the H e b r e w o f .27 a n d to the S e p t u a g i n t o f . 1 6 (the ratio o f the S e p t u a g i n t to the H e b r e w is 1.66).
4
H e n c e , w e m a y see h o w i m p o r t a n t the J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e , a n d , in particular, t h e e p i s o d e s o f J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s , P o t i p h a r ' s wife, a n d the test o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s , a r e for J o s e p h u s . W e m a y also p e r c e i v e the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o s e p h for J o s e p h u s in s e v e r a l specific t o u c h e s o f his v e r s i o n . T h u s , e v e n i n t e r m s o f s h e e r m o n e t a r y v a l u e , J o s e p h is o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the B i b l e , h e is sold for t w e n t y shekels o f silver ( G e n . 37:28), w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to L e v i t i c u s (27:5) w a s the p r i c e o f a m a l e slave b e t w e e n the a g e s o f five a n d t w e n t y T h i s b e c o m e s t w e n t y p i e c e s o f g o l d i n the S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n , b u t in J o s e p h u s the s u m is t w e n t y m i n a s (Ant. 2.33), o r a 5
t h o u s a n d s h e k e l s . A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t J o s e p h f o u n d favor i n the eyes o f P o t i p h a r ( G e n . 39:4), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e a r e t o l d t h a t P o t i p h a r h e l d h i m in the h i g h e s t (aTracy, " c o m p l e t e , a b s o l u t e " ) e s t e e m (Ant. 2.39). W h e r e a s i n the B i b l e , P h a r a o h consults w i t h his servants before c h o o s i n g J o s e p h to a d m i n i s t e r the l a n d ( G e n . 41:38), in J o s e p h u s , h e d o e s so d i r e c d y (Ant. 2.89). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , o n c e the f a m i n e starts in E g y p t , J o s e p h , in selling g r a i n to the p e o p l e , p r o v e s h i m s e l f b y c o m m o n c o n s e n t to b e their savior (acorrip) (Ant. 2.94). A s t o his station, the B i b l e h a s P h a r a o h d e c l a r e t h a t w i t h o u t J o s e p h , n o o n e will so m u c h as lift u p his h a n d o r foot ( G e n . 41:44). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t to p a y c o u r t to the k i n g w a s profitable o n l y t o s u c h as t o o k c a r e t o p a y h o m a g e likewise to J o s e p h (Ant. 2.96). W e m a y , nevertheless, g u e s s t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s i n q u i t e a q u a n d a r y as to w h e t h e r to e m p h a s i z e the role o f J o s e p h as a J e w w h o h a d s a v e d the E g y p t i a n e c o n o m y o r to d e e m p h a s i z e it, i n a s m u c h as the S a m a r i t a n s , w h o m J o s e p h u s so 6
d e s p i s e d , identified J o s e p h as their ancestor. J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s h i m s e l f a priest a n d w h o c o n s e q u e n d y gives s u c h a t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n to the T e m p l e a n d to the p r i e s t h o o d in his Antiquities (3.102-257), l o o k e d u p o n the S a m a r i t a n s as a r c h - h e r e t i c s , w h o s e sacrificial c u l t c e n t e r e d o n M o u n t G e r i z i m r a t h e r t h a n o n
4. T h i s is due largely because the 83 lines o f Jacob's blessings are printed as poetry, with e a c h line b e i n g the equivalent o f approximately half a line. 5. See K i n d l e r 1971, 696, and Steinberg 1971, 383. In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph, he is sold for eighty pieces o f gold. 6. N o t e , e.g., Josephus's bitter remark, twice repeated (Ant. 9.291, n.341) that the Samaritans alter their attitude a c c o r d i n g to circumstances, so that w h e n they see the Jews prospering, they call t h e m their kinsmen, claiming (obviously falsely, from Josephus's point o f view) that they are descended from Joseph; but w h e n they observe the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing in c o m m o n with them a n d declare themselves to be o f a different race. See further Feldman 1992a, 23-45.
338
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
J e r u s a l e m ( F e l d m a n 1992a, 2 3 - 3 1 ) . W e m a y n o t e t h a t w h e r e a s the H e b r e w text a n d the S e p t u a g i n t g i v e the n a m e s o f the sons a n d g r a n d s o n s o f J o s e p h ' s sons, E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h ( G e n . 46:20), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this i n f o r m a t i o n (Ant. 2.180), p e r h a p s b e c a u s e the S a m a r i t a n s l o o k e d u p o n t h e m s e l v e s as d e s c e n d e d
from
E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h . T o this day, t h e S a m a r i t a n s are d i v i d e d into t h r e e c l a n s , b e a r i n g the n a m e s o f J o s e p h , E p h r a i m , a n d M a n a s s e h . L i k e w i s e , w e m a y d e d u c e t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s the blessings t h a t J a c o b confers u p o n E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h ( G e n . 4 8 : 1 2 - 2 0 v s . Ant. 2.195), b o t h b e c a u s e t h e y are c l a i m e d b y the S a m a r i t a n s as their a n c e s t o r s a n d b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d n o t to d e t r a c t f r o m the c e n trality o f J o s e p h himself. W e m a y also s u r m i s e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s in a q u a n d a r y as to w h a t attitude to t a k e t o w a r d J o s e p h , b e c a u s e t h e B i b l e itself, after J o s e p h ' s s e c o n d d r e a m , r e p o r t s t h a t his father r e b u k e d h i m , a s k i n g w h e t h e r h e a n d J o s e p h ' s m o t h e r a n d b r o t h e r s w e r e i n d e e d to b o w d o w n to h i m ( G e n . 37:10). I n this case, J o s e p h u s a v o i d s the p r o b l e m b y s i m p l y o m i t t i n g this p a s s a g e a n d instead gives t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e i m p r e s s i o n , n a m e l y , t h a t J a c o b w a s d e l i g h t e d (iiTeTLjxiqaev, " l a y a v a l u e o n , " " s h o w h o n o r to") w i t h the d r e a m , s a g e l y g r a s p i n g w h a t it p r e d i c t e d (Ant. 2.14). J o s e p h u s ' s g r e a t H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h p r e d e c e s s o r , P h i l o , in c o m m e n t i n g u p o n the P e n t a t e u c h , h a d a d o p t e d a n a m b i v a l e n t a p p r o a c h t o w a r d J o s e p h , p e r h a p s reflect 7
i n g P h i l o ' s o w n a m b i g u o u s attitude t o w a r d i n v o l v e m e n t in p o l i t i c s . G o o d e n o u g h r e m a r k s t h a t the p o r t r a y a l o f J o s e p h in P h i l o ' s essay De Josepho is so c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o e v e r y t h i n g t h a t P h i l o says in s e v e r a l o f his o t h e r essays t h a t h e w o n d e r s w h y n o o n e h a s y e t c l a i m e d t h a t it c o m e s f r o m a different a u t h o r ( G o o d e n o u g h 1 9 3 8 , 4 3 ) .
8
7. Cf. Philo, De Somniis 2.15.102, where, after praising Joseph's brothers for remaining steadfast in their allegiance to real values, he remarks, in a rare autobiographical m o m e n t , "Hitherto I have b e e n as a drunken m a n beset by constant uncertainty, and like the blind I need a staff and guiding hands, for had I a staff to lean on I might perhaps be saved from stumbling or slipping." Hilgert 1985, 5 - 2 1 , as serts that in order to explain the ambiguity o f Philo's portrait o f Joseph, w e must take into account the development o f traditions in A l e x a n d r i a n allegorical exegesis; a similar ambiguity, he insists, is to be found in H e b r e w a n d Jewish writings from the eighth century B.C.E. to the second century C.E. Hilgert (1986, 262-70) concludes that the trend o f recent scholarship is to regard the tensions between the De Josepho and Philo's allegorical c o m m e n t a r y as less irreconcilable than h a d previously been thought. Bassler 1985, 240-55, concludes that the discrepancies in Philo's portraits o f Joseph result from differ ent perspectives, namely, literal interpretation plus political allegory vs. allegory o f the soul, and that the two presentations are actually completely congruent. She insists as well that Philo is exegetically consistent in dealing with Joseph's dreams and with the scene involving Potiphar's wife on both the lit eral and allegorical levels. T o b i n 1986, 271-77, explains the discrepancies by asserting that at the literal level, the portrait o f Joseph is an e n c o m i u m drawn from Hellenistic Jewish sources, whereas at the nonliteral level, Philo uses material from G r e e k philosophical traditions on the superiority o f the sage over the unstable world o f sense-perception. Perhaps, however, Philo in fact shows his veiled hatred o f the R o m a n rulers in his negative portrait o f Joseph, whereas Josephus, w h o favored the R o m a n s , looked u p o n Joseph positively. 8. G o o d e n o u g h 1933, 116, criticizes the view that Philo's two seemingly contradictory portraits o f Joseph arise from a chronic vacillation in Philo's character and from his tendency to look at an issue from all sides.
JOSEPH
3
3
9
T h u s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , P h i l o r e m a r k s t h a t J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s o f the s h e a v e s a n d t h e stars r e v e a l t h e v a i n g l o r i o u s n a t u r e o f J o s e p h ' s c h a r a c t e r (De Somniis 6
2.1.5-7,
I0
4-3°-5-33> - 4 2 , 12.78, 1 4 . 9 3 - 9 9 . i 5 - 5 > 1 6 . 1 1 0 - 1 6 , 19.138; cf. De Agricultura 13.56) a n d m a k e s o t h e r d i s p a r a g i n g c o m m e n t s a b o u t those d r e a m s , w h e r e a s t h e s a m e d r e a m s a r e g i v e n a positive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in P h i l o ' s essay De Josepho ( 2 . 5 - 1 1 , 1 8 . 9 5 ) . It is J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s w h o a r e s p o k e n o f as v i r t u o u s , m o d e s t , a n d p i o u s , w h e r e a s J o s e p h h i m s e l f is t e r m e d ruthless (De Somniis 2.12.79). A g a i n , in t h e essay De Migra tione Abrahami (4.19), P h i l o gives J o s e p h c r e d i t for s a y i n g t h a t G - d is the a u t h o r o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f d r e a m s , w h e r e a s i n De Cherubim (35.128) the s a m e P h i l o b l a m e s J o s e p h for s a y i n g t h a t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e t h r o u g h G - d r a t h e r t h a n b y H i m . T o 9
P h i l o , w h o so a d m i r e d P l a t o , p a r t i c u l a r l y his p o r t r a i t o f the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in t h e Republic, J o s e p h w a s a p o l i t i c i a n in t h e w o r s t sense (Legum Allegoriae 3.63.179), a l w a y s p r e p a r e d t o c o m p r o m i s e (De Migratione Abrahami 29.158; De Somniis 2 . 2 . 1 4 - 1 5 ) a n d t o s u b o r d i n a t e t r u t h to e x p e d i e n c y a n d f a l s e h o o d (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 3.7; De Somniis 1.38.220), a c c o m m o d a t i n g h i m s e l f to b o t h b o d y a n d soul (De Migratione Abrahami
29.159). H e is t e r m e d t h e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e b o d y (Quis
Rerum LHvinarum Heres 5 1 . 2 5 6 ; De Somniis 1.14.78) as o p p o s e d to t h e m i n d . H i s asso c i a t i o n w i t h t h e sons o f J a c o b ' s c o n c u b i n e s ( G e n . 37:2) is d e e m e d fitting, i n a s m u c h as his c o n c e r n is w i t h l o w e r things (Quod D-us Immutabilis Sit 2 5 . 1 1 9 - 2 1 ) a n d w i t h t h o s e w h o h o n o r s p u r i o u s g o o d s (De Sobrietate 3 . 1 2 - 1 5 ) . H e is d e p i c t e d as a v e r i t a b l e sophist (De Somniis 2.2.11; De Confusione Linguarum 16.71), w i t h a k e e n desire for o u t w a r d , w o r l d l y things a n d w i t h a c o n s e q u e n t instability o f c h a r a c t e r . H i s c o a t o f m a n y c o l o r s r e p r e s e n t s t h e r o b e o f t h e v e r y antithesis o f the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g , since its v a r i e t y stands for f a l s e h o o d a n d s o p h i s t r y (De Somniis 1.38.219-39.225). H e is f u r t h e r m o r e d e p i c t e d as s e l f - o p i n i o n a t e d (Legum Allegoriae 3.63.179), p r e s u m p t u o u s (De Somniis 2.14.99), filled w i t h a r r o g a n c e (De Somniis 2.6.46), a n d s w o l l e n h e a d e d w i t h v a n i t y (De Confusione Linguarum 16.72). H i s v e r y n a m e , m e a n i n g " a d d i t i o n , " is e x p l a i n e d (De Somniis 2.6.47) as signifying t h a t e m p t y o p i n i o n is a l w a y s a d d i n g t h e s p u r i o u s to t h e g e n u i n e , t r u t h to f a l s e h o o d , a n d a r r o g a n c e to life. T h e v e r y fact t h a t E g y p t is the s c e n e o f his a c t i v i t y l e a d s P h i l o (De Somniis 1.14.78) to re m a r k t h a t his p o l i t i c a l s t a n c e is c o n n e c t e d w i t h the p h y s i c a l p r e o c c u p a t i o n s for w h i c h t h e a n c i e n t E g y p t i a n s w e r e n o t o r i o u s . H e is said to h a v e i n h e r i t e d f r o m his m o t h e r t h e i r r a t i o n a l strain o f s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n (De Somniis 2.2.16). It is m o s t re m a r k a b l e t h a t J o s e p h , w h o so s t e a d f a s d y w i t h s t a n d s the t e m p t a t i o n o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife, is n e v e r t h e l e s s d e p i c t e d in P h i l o as l o v i n g b o d i l y p l e a s u r e (De Somniis 2.2.16). I n P h i l o ' s essay De Josepho (8.37-21.124), h o w e v e r , w e h a v e a v e r y different a n d i n d e e d p o s i t i v e p o r t r a y a l , w i t h o n l y t h e m e r e h i n t o f a f l a w in his c h a r a c t e r (De Josepho 7 . 3 4 - 3 6 ) . H e is s e c o n d o n l y to his t h r e e g r e a t f o r e b e a r s in d i r e c t i n g his life t o w a r d t h e i d e a l g o o d (De Josepho 1.1). H e is t h e v e r y m o d e l o f self-control, d e c e n c y , a n d chastity, p a r t i c u l a r l y in resisting the a d v a n c e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife (De Josepho
9. Note, e.g., Philo's reference (Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 2.13) to Plato as "most sacred."
340
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
9.40-10.53). I n o t h e r essays as w e l l , P h i l o o c c a s i o n a l l y finds p o s i t i v e t h i n g s t o s a y a b o u t J o s e p h . T h u s , in De Somniis (2.15.106-7), h e praises h i m for his r e j e c t i o n o f b o d i l y p l e a s u r e s as r e p r e s e n t e d b y P o t i p h a r ' s wife a n d for his c o n t i n e n c e a n d z e a l for p i e t y w h i l e h e w a s in e x i l e in E g y p t . I n De Migratione Abrahami (4.17), h e speaks o f J o s e p h as a s o u l u n t o u c h e d b y c o r r u p t i o n a n d w o r t h y o f p e r p e t u a l m e m o r y I n particular, h e p r a i s e s J o s e p h for his c o n f i d e n c e that G - d w o u l d visit t h e r a c e t h a t h a s v i s i o n a n d n o t h a n d it o v e r to i g n o r a n c e , for his d i s c e r n m e n t b e t w e e n t h e m o r tal a n d i n c o r r u p t i b l e p o r t i o n s o f t h e soul, a n d for his a v o i d a n c e o f b o d i l y p l e a s u r e s a n d p a s s i o n s (De Migratione Abrahami 4 . 1 8 - 5 . 2 2 ) . G o o d e n o u g h e x p l a i n s t h e a p p a r e n d y b l a t a n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b y p o s t u l a t i n g t w o different a u d i e n c e s for P h i l o ' s trea tises ( G o o d e n o u g h 1938, 4 2 - 6 3 ) . T h e De Josepho, a c c o r d i n g to this view, is a d d r e s s e d to G e n t i l e r e a d e r s , p r a i s i n g J o s e p h as t h e i d e a l p o l i t i c i a n w h o h a d d o n e so m u c h for E g y p t , w h e r e a s in t h e o t h e r treatises, a d d r e s s e d to J e w s , h e is d e p i c t e d as t h e c h a m p i o n o f m a t e r i a l i s m to w h i c h t h e y w e r e so p r o n e . B u t t h e v e r y fact t h a t in s u c h a treatise as De Migratione Abrahami h e c a n h a v e b o t h p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e things t o s a y a b o u t J o s e p h calls s u c h a thesis i n t o q u e s t i o n . M o r e likely P h i l o truly felt a m b i v a l e n t a b o u t J o s e p h . U n l i k e m o s t o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e h a s elicited at least s o m e interest o n t h e p a r t o f scholars. T h u s R a p p a p o r t h a s n o t e d fifteen p o i n t s w h e r e J o s e p h u s p a r a l l e l s r a b b i n i c s o u r c e s ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, 2 2 - 2 4 , 1 0 9 - 2 3 ) ; but, aside f r o m his o m i s s i o n o f m a n y o t h e r r a b b i n i c parallels, R a p p a p o r t fails t o discuss t h e n a t u r e a n d signifi c a n c e o f this r e l a t i o n s h i p for the J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e in particular. B r a u n restricts h i m s e l f to t h e story o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s wife a n d t o the erotic-novelistic m o tifs i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s . H e c o m p a r e s it w i t h the Testament of Joseph i n t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h a a n d p o s t u l a t e s t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s o f b o t h o f these w o r k s t o t h e P h a e d r a m y t h as t r e a t e d b y E u r i p i d e s a n d to r h e t o r i c a l a n d erotic motifs f o u n d i n later G r e e k n o v e l s . B u t i n his c o n c e r n to d e m o n s t r a t e J o s e p h u s ' s h e l l e n i z a t i o n o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , B r a u n n e g l e c t s t o discuss the m a n y o t h e r c h a n g e s t h a t h e h a s m a d e a n d the r e a s o n s for t h e m ( B r a u n 1934, 1939). S p r o d o w s k y e x t e n d s B r a u n ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o t h e rest o f J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e o f J o s e p h ; b u t h e , t o o , re stricts h i m s e l f to h e l l e n i z a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e b u t o n e feature in J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t , a n d is c o n c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s d r a w n u p o n a n o l d e r s o u r c e , n a m e l y , the A l e x a n d r i a n - J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n ( S p r o d o w s k y 1937). F r a n x m a n s u m m a r i z e s the c h a n g e s m a d e b y J o s e p h u s in t h e J o s e p h p e r i c o p e b u t , in a d d i t i o n t o m i s s i n g m a n y s u c h c h a n g e s , falls s h o r t in his analysis o f these c h a n g e s 1 0
a n d o f t h e r e a s o n s for t h e m ( F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 2 2 1 - 8 4 ) . N i e h o f f ' s essay, w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f P h i l o , J o s e p h u s , a n d Midrash Genesis Rabbah in their r e -
10. T h e following additional treatments of Josephus's version o f Joseph, all t h e m extremely brief, m a y be noted: Priebatsch 1937, 3 3 - 3 5 , w h i c h focuses on the relationship o f the Joseph narrative to his account o f the Essenes; G o l d b e r g 1966, n—15, w h i c h , while devoting a single p a r a g r a p h to Josephus's treatment, mentions his rationalizing a n d rhetorical tendencies; and E . W. Smith 1975, 133-37, w h i c h
JOSEPH
341
s p e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f J o s e p h , h a s several s u g g e s t i v e insights; b u t I t a k e issue w i t h h e r c o n c l u s i o n ( N i e h o f f 1992, 89) t h a t in his d e g r e e o f i m p o r t a n c e a n d o f hell e n i z a t i o n , J o s e p h is a j u s t - a b o v e - a v e r a g e figure a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s b i o g r a p h i e s ( N i e h o f f 192, 8 4 - 1 1 0 ) .
J O S E P H ' S QUALITIES A S A LEADER D u r i n g the t w o c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e J o s e p h u s ' s day, J e w s h a d a t t a i n e d p o s i t i o n s o f h i g h p o l i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e . T h u s w e h e a r o f the three g e n e r a t i o n s o f t h e T o b i a d f a m i l y ( i n c l u d i n g o n e w i t h t h e s a m e n a m e as J o s e p h ) w h o w o n f a m e a n d f o r t u n e as t a x c o l l e c t o r s , as w e l l as f o u r J e w s — O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e o s ( J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.49), H e l k i a s a n d A n a n i a s ( J o s e p h u s , Ant. 1 3 . 3 4 9 ) — w h o a t t a i n e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f c o m m a n d e r in c h i e f o f t h e a r m i e s o f the P t o l e m i e s . T i b e r i u s Julius A l e x a n d e r , P h i l o ' s n e p h e w , w a s p r o c u r a t o r o f J u d a e a (Ant. 20.100) a n d g o v e r n o r o f t h e r i c h e s t a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r o v i n c e o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , E g y p t (War 4.616). A g r i p p a I, a l t h o u g h r u l e r o f w h a t w o u l d a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n a p e t t y principality, w a s a c t u ally a k i n g m a k e r , at least b y J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t (Ant. 1 9 . 2 3 6 - 4 5 ) , in t h a t h e , m o r e t h a n a n y o n e else, w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for C l a u d i u s ' s a c c e s s i o n to t h e i m p e r i a l R o m a n throne. J o s e p h , for his p a r t , w o u l d a p p e a r t o l a c k o n e o f t h e k e y attributes o f a g r e a t leader, n a m e l y , maturity, since, a t least at the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e c
( G e n . 37:2), h e is a l a d (na ar, S e p t u a g i n t veos, " y o u n g " ) , a m e r e s e v e n t e e n y e a r s old.
1 1
W h e n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , i n t r o d u c e s t h e figure o f J o s e p h to his r e a d e r (Ant.
2.11), h e c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w a s a m e r e l a d o f s e v e n t e e n . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e p r e s e n t s J o s e p h m o s t u n a t t r a c t i v e l y as a c h i l d i s h a n d i m m a t u r e tattletale o n his b r o t h e r s , r a t h e r t h a n , at t h a t p o i n t , as a m o d e s t i n d i v i d u a l d o i n g g o o d d e e d s ( G e n . 37:2), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h u s b r o u g h t a n evil r e p o r t o f his b r o t h e r s to their father (Ant. 2.10). T h e B i b l e states t h a t w h e n R e u b e n r e t u r n e d to his b r e t h r e n , h e says, " T h e c h i l d \ha-yekd\ t h e r e , " w h i c h t h e S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s as iraioapiov, irais
is n o t
"little b o y , " t h e d i m i n u t i v e o f
( G e n . 37:30). S u c h l a n g u a g e w o u l d c e r t a i n l y d e t r a c t f r o m the stature o f
J o s e p h , i n a s m u c h as t h e w o r d irais f r e q u e n t l y h a s t h e m e a n i n g o f " s l a v e " o r "ser vant,"
1 2
while the a b o v e diminutive w o u l d b e even m o r e d e g r a d i n g a n d d e h u
m a n i z i n g ; h e n c e J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e r e f e r e n c e altogether. W h e n t h e B i b l e tells us
finds very litde relationship between Josephus on the one hand and Joseph andAsenath and the Testament of Joseph on the other. 11. The midrashic tradition goes further and attributes Joseph's troubles to his immature and effeminate ways, such as painting his eyes, curling his hair, and walking with a mincing step (Genesis Rabbah 84.7, 87.3).
12. See Hug 1956, 374-400, esp. 374, which notes that the term irais occurs particularly with ref erence to domestic servants, and Gibbs and Feldman 1985-86, 295-96. Finley 1980,96, appositely cites the passage in which Aristophanes (Wasps 1297-98, 1307) invents an etymology for this term from the word 7rai€iv, "to beat," a joke pointing up harsh reality.
342
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h a t P o t i p h a r b r o u g h t in a H e b r e w s e r v a n t ('eved, S e p t u a g i n t nats) to w o r k for h i m (Gen. 39:17),
13
J o s e p h u s o m i t s the t e r m c o m p l e t e l y (Ant. 2.56). W h e r e a s in the
B i b l e , the b u t l e r r e m a r k s that t h e r e h a d b e e n w i t h h i m in p r i s o n a H e b r e w l a d c
c
(na ar, S e p t u a g i n t v e a v i W o s , " y o u n g m a n " ) , a s e r v a n t ( eved, S e p t u a g i n t 7rafc) o f the c a p t a i n o f the g u a r d ( G e n . 41:12), J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to a v o i d these d e g r a d i n g t e r m s , o m i t s t h e m c o m p l e t e l y . Finally, w h e n w e are i n f o r m e d t h a t the E g y p t i a n k i n g t o l d his d r e a m t o J o s e p h , the H e b r e w (and the S e p t u a g i n t ) d o e s n o t tell us h o w h e a d d r e s s e d h i m ( G e n . 41:15), b u t J o s e p h u s h a s P h a r a o h refer to h i m , n o t as a " c h i l d " o r " s l a v e , " b u t m o r e respectfully as a " y o u n g m a n " (veavia) (Ant. 2.80). T h e d e t r a c t o r s o f the J e w s , s u c h as C h a e r e m o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.290, 299), h a d r e a l i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o s e p h b y a s s o c i a t i n g h i m closely, u n d e r the n a m e o f P e n t e s e p h , w i t h M o s e s as a c o - l e a d e r o f the e x o d u s f r o m E g y p t , e v e n t h o u g h c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , as J o s e p h u s , in his refutation o f C h a e r e m o n , r e m a r k s , 14
J o s e p h h a d d i e d four g e n e r a t i o n s b e f o r e M o s e s (Ag. Ap. 1.299). J o s e p h ' s i m p o r t a n c e to s u c h J e w - b a i t e r s as M a n e t h o is c l e a r in t h a t the latter a s c r i b e s to h i m s u c h m a j o r tenets o f J u d a i s m as the p r o h i b i t i o n o f i d o l w o r s h i p , the p e r m i s s i o n to kill a n d e a t the a n i m a l s h e l d s a c r e d b y the E g y p t i a n s , a n d s e p a r a t i o n f r o m n o n Israelites (Ag Ap. 1.239).
15
J o s e p h u s felt a n e e d to a n s w e r J e w - b a i t e r s s u c h as
M a n e t h o (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.238-50), w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h a t O s a r s i p h ( w h o is a p p a r e n d y to b e identified w i t h J o s e p h ) h a d r u i n e d the l a n d o f E g y p t b y c o m m i t t i n g s u c h e g r e g i o u s s a c r i l e g e as p o l l u t i n g shrines a n d p e r s e c u t i n g p r a c t i t i o n e r s o f the E g y p t i a n r e l i g i o n . S u c h p r e d e c e s s o r s o f J o s e p h u s as A r t a p a n u s (ap. A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.23.2) h a d stressed h o w h a p h a z a r d l y the E g y p t i a n s h a d f a r m e d the l a n d p r i o r to the a d v e n t o f J o s e p h b e c a u s e the c o u n t r y s i d e h a d n o t b e e n d i v i d e d into a l l o t m e n t s , w i t h the c o n s e q u e n c e that the w e a k w e r e t r e a t e d u n fairly b y the strong. T h e y h a d e m p h a s i z e d h o w m u c h J o s e p h h a d d o n e for E g y p t as the first to s u b d i v i d e the l a n d , to fix these subdivisions w i t h b o u n d a r i e s , to r e n -
13. In G e n . 39:14, the H e b r e w has ''ish, " m a n , " whereas the Septuagint reads iralha, "servant." 14. T h e association o f Joseph with M o s e s is in line with the frequent attempts o f p a g a n authors to condense Jewish history, as w e see, e.g., in Apollonius M o l o n ' s statement (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.19.3) that M o s e s w a s the grandson o f Joseph, and in Pompeius Trogus's remark (ap. Justin Epitoma 2.11) that M o s e s was the son o f Joseph. T h e origin o f this association m a y be the biblical statement (Exod. 13:19) that w h e n the Israelites left Egypt, they took with them the bones o f Joseph, in accordance with the lat ter's request. 15. M a n e t h o states (ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.238-39, 250, 265, 286) that the leader o f the lepers, w h o m M a n e t h o identifies with the Israelites o f the exodus, w a s a priest o f Heliopolis n a m e d Osarsiph. R e i n a c h 1895, 33, n. 1, followed by Tcherikover 1959, 363, conjectures that the n a m e Osarsiph is an Egyptian form o f Joseph, in w h i c h O s a r - (=Osiris) replaces the H e b r e w divine n a m e (Jo=Iao). W e m a y suggest that a factor contributing to this equation was the Septuagint's identification (Gen. 41:45), adopted by Josephus (Ant. 2.91), o f Joseph's father-in-law as a priest o f Heliopolis, as well as the tradi tion, found in Josephus, that it w a s there that P h a r a o h permitted J a c o b and his family to live w h e n they arrived in E g y p t (Ant. 2.188). Josephus rightiy finds M a n e t h o ' s attempt to identify M o s e s and Osarsiph unconvincing (Ag. Ap. 1.286); but the very fact that M a n e t h o makes such an attempt to identify M o s e s with Joseph indicates h o w large Joseph l o o m e d in the minds o f the Egyptians.
JOSEPH
343
d e r m u c h o f t h e w a s t e l a n d tillable, a n d to assign s o m e o f t h e a r a b l e l a n d to t h e p r i e s t s — a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e w a s n o t g u i l t y o f sacrilege. T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f J o s e p h ' s l a n d r e f o r m s b e c o m e s c l e a r w h e n w e r e a l i z e t h a t similar p i o n e e r i n g l a n d r e f o r m s a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l "firsts" w e r e a t t r i b u t e d to Sesostris ( H e r o d o t u s 2.107; D i o d o r u s 1.54.3, 6), Isis ( D i o d o r u s 1.14.1, 2 7 . 3 - 4 ) ,
a
n
d O s i r i s ( D i o d o r u s 1.15.6, 8;
17.3, 18.4). J o s e p h ' s role as a n effective l e a d e r a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r is a g g r a n d i z e d b y J o s e p h u s in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k in w h i c h J o s e p h , i n t e r p r e t i n g P h a r a o h ' s d r e a m , i n f o r m s h i m t h a t t h e task o f p r o v i d i n g r e l i e f d u r i n g the y e a r s o f f a m i n e w i l l p r o v e to b e o f e x c e e d i n g difficulty (o6opa bvoKaropOwTos)
(Ant. 2.85). J o s e p h ' s r o l e is all
the m o r e i m p o r t a n t in that, w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , h e a d v i s e s P h a r a o h to a p p o i n t o v e r s e e r s t o m a n a g e t h e E g y p t i a n e c o n o m y d u r i n g the successive p e r i o d s o f p l e n t y a n d f a m i n e ( G e n . 41:34), t h e r e is n o s u c h m e n t i o n in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.85). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , P h a r a o h s u b s e q u e n t l y consults his servants as to the c h o i c e o f o v e r seers ( G e n . 41:38), t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h o v e r s e e r s in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.88), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s s u b s c r i b e d to t h e v i e w f o u n d in H e r o d o t u s (3.82), as w e l l as in P l a t o ' s Republic ( 6 . 5 0 o E i - 4 ) , t h a t the rule o f t h e o n e best m a n is t h e h i g h est i d e a l .
1 6
P h a r a o h , w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g a n y o n e , c h o o s e s J o s e p h to a d m i n i s t e r t h e
e c o n o m y A g a i n , in his b r i e f s u m m a r y o f J o s e p h ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s , J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y a l l u d i n g to t h e qualities that, in his o p i n i o n , m a k e for a n o u t s t a n d i n g a d m i n i s t r a tor, states t h a t J o s e p h ' s g r e a t p r o s p e r i t y a m o n g the E g y p t i a n s w a s b e c a u s e h e h a d m a d e b u t s p a r i n g use o f his t r e m e n d o u s a u t h o r i t y (Ant. 2.198). I n his c o n c e r n to b u i l d u p J o s e p h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y further, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s his p o w e r . T h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n d e s c r i b e s t h e s h e a v e s o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s as b o w i n g d o w n to his s h e a f ( G e n . 37.7), b u t J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e is m u c h stronger, in t h a t t h e s h e a v e s b o w d o w n like slaves b e f o r e their m a s t e r s (Ant. 2.11). T h a t J o s e p h , the p r o t o t y p e o f the J e w i s h p u b l i c s e r v a n t , t u r n s o u t to b e a n i d e a l administrator, o n t h e o n e h a n d l o y a l to his s o v e r e i g n a n d o n t h e o t h e r h a n d c o n c e r n e d for t h e w e l fare o f t h e E g y p t i a n p e o p l e , is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . I n t h e H e b r e w , P h a r a o h tells J o s e p h : " T h o u shalt b e o v e r m y h o u s e , a n d a c c o r d i n g u n t o t h y w o r d shall all m y p e o p l e b e r u l e d " ( G e n . 41:40). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t P h a r a o h g a v e J o s e p h t h e p o w e r to a c t as h e t h o u g h t fit " b o t h for the p e o p l e o f E g y p t a n d for t h e i r s o v e r e i g n " (Ant. 2.89). W h e r e a s the B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t P h a r a o h set J o s e p h o v e r all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 41:43), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s o n this p i c t u r e b y n o t i n g t h e s y m b o l s o f J o s e p h ' s authority, n a m e l y , his seal a n d r o b e s o f p u r p l e , as w e l l as t h e c h a r i o t in w h i c h h e d r o v e t h r o u g h o u t t h e l a n d (Ant. 2 . 9 0 ) .
17
That
J o s e p h w a s , n o n e t h e l e s s , o b e d i e n t to his s o v e r e i g n m a y b e d e d u c e d f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s the B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h , as P h a r a o h ' s vizier, c a m e h o m e
16. Josephus adapts this concept of the excellence of monarchy when he refers to the Jewish polity as a theocracy, the rule of one G-d (Ag. Ap. 2.165). 17. Similarly, Philo mentions that Pharaoh bestowed upon Joseph the royal seal and a sacred robe (De Josepho 21.120).
344
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
a n d g r e e t e d his b r o t h e r s , w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g w h e r e h e w a s c o m i n g f r o m ( G e n . 43:26), J o s e p h u s , e a g e r to stress J o s e p h ' s l o y a l t y to P h a r a o h , fills this l a c u n a b y stating t h a t h e c a m e f r o m his a t t e n d a n c e
(Oepairelas,
"service,"
"attention,"
" h o m a g e , " " a l l e g i a n c e , " " c o n c e r n " ) u p o n t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.121). J o s e p h u s strives t o m a k e emphatically clear that Joseph h a d n o design o f supplanting P h a r a o h a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t o f J u d a h to J o s e p h : " T h o u art e v e n as 18
P h a r a o h " ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 8 v s . Ant. 2 . 1 4 0 ) . J o s e p h u s is careful to a v o i d r e p e a t i n g the s c r i p t u r a l s t a t e m e n t o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s to J a c o b t h a t J o s e p h w a s t h e r u l e r o f all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 45:26); i n s t e a d , i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e r e a d t h a t J a c o b w a s t o l d t h a t J o s e p h w a s s h a r i n g (ovvSienajv,
"administering something with
someone") the g o v e r n m e n t o f E g y p t w i t h the king a n d h a d almost the w h o l e c h a r g e o f it in his h a n d s (Ant. 2.168). W h e n G - d d e s c r i b e s J o s e p h ' s status in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E g y p t , H e says t h a t H e h a d m a d e h i m l o r d o f E g y p t a n d t h a t h e differed o n l y s l i g h d y (
19
J O S E P H ' S V I R T U E S : G O O D BIRTH AND H A N D S O M E N E S S A m a j o r q u a l i t y for t h e g r e a t h e r o is t h a t h e b e w e l l - b o r n . I n t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s , at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t , n o t e s his g o o d b i r t h f r o m R a c h e l (Ant. 2 . 9 ) .
20
(evyeveiav)
M o r e o v e r , it is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective t h a t J o s e p h ' s h i g h
b i r t h is a c k n o w l e d g e d , n o t b y a fellow H e b r e w , b u t b y a n E g y p t i a n , P h a r a o h ' s b u t ler, w h o , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , r e m a r k s that J o s e p h r a n k e d , alike b y b i r t h a n d b y his father's f a m e , a m o n g the f o r e m o s t o f t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 2.78). T h e g e n e a l o g y o f the h e r o ' s w i f e is l i k e w i s e o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e , as w e c a n see f r o m T a c i t u s ' s r e m a r k s a b o u t the illustrious b i r t h o f his m o t h e r - i n - l a w (Agricola 6). S u c h a m a r r i a g e , h e says, w a s o n e t h a t g a v e distinction a n d s u p p o r t to a m a n a m -
18. T h e rabbinic tradition actually speaks of Joseph as having been appointed "king in E g y p t " (Sifre Deuteronomy 334.3). T h e Septuagint resolves this delicate problem by reading ^terd <Papaa), which m a y m e a n "after Pharaoh" or "with Pharaoh," but which the Vulgate renders as "after Pharaoh." 19. Philo, in a fragment from the fourth book o f his Legum Allegoriae (Harris 1886, 8), similarly de fends the right of the statesman to conceal the truth from the populace, "for the reason that the hearer is often aroused to opposition b y hearing what is not flattering, and flady refuses to obey the truth, so that n o improvement is accomplished." 20. Philo also notes that J a c o b observed in Joseph the wisdom ((frpovrjiia) that resulted from his good birth (evyeves) (De Josepho 1.4). T h e Testament of Joseph (14:3) likewise refers to Joseph as well-born (evyevrjs).
JOSEPH
3
4
5
bitious o f a d v a n c e m e n t . L i k e w i s e , in the c a s e o f J o s e p h , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s v e r y s i m p l y t h a t P h a r a o h g a v e h i m A s e n a t h , the d a u g h t e r o f P o t i p h e r a , the priest o f O n (so t h e H e b r e w ; the S e p t u a g i n t h a s priest o f H e l i o p o l i s ) , for a wife ( G e n . 41:45), J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s t h r e e c h a n g e s in this o n e s t a t e m e n t (Ant. 2.91). I n t h e first p l a c e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t it w a s a m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d (d^LoXoyayrarov,
"most wor
t h y o f m e n t i o n , " " m o s t r e m a r k a b l e " ) m a r r i a g e . S e c o n d l y , the father o f P o t i p h e r a is r e f e r r e d to, n o t as the priest o f O n ( t h o u g h , as w e h a v e s e e n , t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d t h e H e b r e w as w e l l as the G r e e k text o f the B i b l e available), a p l a c e o t h e r w i s e u n k n o w n , b u t rather, as in the S e p t u a g i n t , as priest o f H e l i o p o l i s , a w e l l - k n o w n c o m m u n i t y , w h e r e O n i a s h a d built his t e m p l e ( J o s e p h u s , War 1.33, 7.426; Ant. 12.388, 13.65, 70, 285; 14.40; 20.236), a n d w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to M a n e t h o (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.250), M o s e s w a s b o r n a n d w h o s e priests, a c c o r d i n g t o H e r o d o t u s (2.3), w e r e the m o s t l e a r n e d o f the E g y p t i a n s w h e n it c a m e to his t o r i c a l r e c o r d s . A c c o r d i n g to S t r a b o , H e l i o p o l i s w a s l o n g the u n i v e r s i t y o f t h e E g y p t i a n s , the c h i e f c e n t e r o f their l e a r n i n g (17.1.29.806). T h e
philosophers
P y t h a g o r a s a n d P l a t o , the r e n o w n e d l a w g i v e r S o l o n , a n d the d i s t i n g u i s h e d as t r o n o m e r E u d o x u s w e r e all said to h a v e studied there. T h i r d l y , w e are i n f o r m e d t h a t A s e n a t h w a s y e t a v i r g i n , a p o i n t o f o b v i o u s i m p o r t a n c e to J o s e p h u s , as w e c a n see f r o m his a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e t h a t S a u l ' s d a u g h t e r M i c h a l , w h o s e h e a r t D a v i d w o n , w a s still a v i r g i n (1 S a m . 18:20; Ant. 6.196) a n d f r o m the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s takes c a r e to m e n t i o n that his first wife w a s a v i r g i n (Life 414). I n e m p h a s i z i n g the h a n d s o m e n e s s o f J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s is c l e a r l y a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s (see S p r o d o w s k y 1937, 17). T h e B i b l e states t h a t J a c o b f a v o r e d J o s e p h o v e r all his o t h e r sons b e c a u s e h e w a s the son o f his o l d a g e ( G e n . 37:3); J o s e p h u s , m o s t significantly, says, rather, t h a t h e w a s b e l o v e d o f his father b o t h for t h e b e a u t y o f his p e r s o n (awpbaros) a n d for v i r t u o u s qualities o f soul, since h e w a s e n d o w e d w i t h e x c e p t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g (cfrpovrjaei) (Ant. 2.9). J o s e p h u s
further
tells us t h a t J o s e p h o w e d his b e a u t y to his b e i n g t h e s o n o f R a c h e l (Ant. 2.9), w h o w a s similarly k n o w n for h e r e x c e p t i o n a l beauty, w h i c h , as J o s e p h u s , a d d i n g to the b i b l i c a l r e m a r k ( G e n . 29:17), avers, w a s s u c h as f e w w o m e n o f those d a y s c o u l d s h o w ( ^ . 1.288).
21
J o s e p h u s ' s possession o f b o t h p h y s i c a l b e a u t y a n d m e n t a l c l e v e r n e s s is w h a t s e e m s to h a v e a t t r a c t e d the a t t e n t i o n o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife. W h e r e a s the B i b l e s p e a k s o f J o s e p h ' s p h y s i c a l b e a u t y a l o n e ( G e n . 39:6), J o s e p h u s says t h a t P o t i p h a r ' s wife b e c a m e e n a m o r e d o f h i m b e c a u s e o f b o t h his c o m e l y a p p e a r a n c e (evpiopcfriav) a n d
21. A similar link of Joseph's features with Rachel's appears in Midrash Genesis Rabbah. A s Niehoff 1992, 85-86, observes, however, the midrashic comment is cited in connection with the attraction o f Joseph's beauty for Potiphar's wife, whereas Josephus mentions the similarity with Rachel in order to explain w h y J a c o b so favors Joseph. In any case, as she notes, in Palestinian exegesis, notably the Tes tament of Joseph 18:4 a n d Tanhuma B (p. 179), Joseph's beauty is likened more to that of Jacob rather than to Rachel's, thus lessening its erotic dimension, which so characterizes Josephus's version.
346
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
his d e x t e r i t y (Se^LorrjTa,
PORTRAITS
" s h a r p n e s s , c l e v e r n e s s " ) (Ant. 2.41). It w a s a s i m i l a r j u x t a
p o s i t i o n o f h a n d s o m e n e s s , as s e e n in t h e d i g n i t y o f his features (d^lcopia
rrjs
fjLop
w i t h w h i c h h e c a r r i e d o u t t h e tasks a s s i g n e d to h i m , that, a c c o r d i n g to
J o s e p h u s , a t t r a c t e d h i m t o the k e e p e r o f t h e p r i s o n w h e r e J o s e p h w a s c o n f i n e d b y P o t i p h a r (Ant. 2. 6 1 ) .
22
W e m a y n o t e , o n t h e c o n t r a r y t h a t t h e r a b b i s d o n o t thus
j u x t a p o s e t h e b e a u t y a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e o f J o s e p h ; for t h e m h e is t h e v e r y p a r a g o n o f beauty, so t h a t i f s o m e o n e offers as a n e x c u s e for n o t s t u d y i n g t h e T o r a h the fact t h a t h e is h a n d s o m e a n d d i s t r a c t e d b y s e n s u a l p a s s i o n , their a n s w e r is: " W e r e y o u p e r c h a n c e m o r e b e a u t i f u l t h a n J o s e p h ? " (Yoma 3 5 b ) .
2 3
J O S E P H ' S FIVE C A R D I N A L V I R T U E S Wisdom P l a t o , as is w e l l k n o w n , p l a c e s g r e a t stress in t h e Republic o n t h e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e rulers. J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( G e n . 39:1) t h a t P o t i p h a r h e l d Joseph in the highest esteem a n d that h e gave h i m a liberal education
(iraibelav
24
. . . iXevOepiov), p r e s u m a b l y in t h e s e v e n l i b e r a l arts (Ant. 2 . 3 9 ) . J o s e p h thus re c e i v e s a n e d u c a t i o n that, in J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n , is s u p e r i o r e v e n to t h a t o f M o s e s , i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s is c o n t e n t w i t h the briefest o f c o m m e n t s a b o u t M o s e s ' u p b r i n g i n g (he d o e s n o t specify e d u c a t i o n ) , n a m e l y , t h a t M o s e s w a s b r o u g h t u p (iTp€(/)€To)
w i t h the u t m o s t c a r e (eTTipieXelas), so t h a t t h e H e b r e w s re
p o s e d their h i g h e s t h o p e s for t h e future in h i m , w h i l e the E g y p t i a n s v i e w e d his p r o g r e s s w i t h m i s g i v i n g (Ant. 2.236). A s h a s b e e n n o t e d , o p p o n e n t s s u c h as A p i o n h a d m a l i g n e d the J e w s for n o t p r o d u c i n g a n y illustrious m e n d i s t i n g u i s h e d in w i s d o m (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.135). C o n s e q u e n d y w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t P h a r a o h g a v e J o s e p h t h e n a m e Z a p h e n a t h - p a n e a h w i t h o u t g i v i n g a n i n d i c a t i o n o f its s i g n i f i c a n c e ( G e n . 4 i : 4 5 ) ,
25
J o s e p h u s m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f e x p l a i n i n g t h a t the n a m e m e a n s " D i s c o v e r e r o f
22. T h i s same juxtaposidon of handsomeness of body and intellectual ability appears in the p a g a n Pompeius Trogus (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 36, Epitoma 2.11), w h o remarks that Moses, w h o m he terms Joseph's son, inherited from his father knowledge and comeliness (pukhritudo). 23. T h e rabbis note that one of the factors that led J a c o b to favor Joseph was the latter's beauty o f person (Genesis Rabbah 84.8). 24. A s Niehoff (1992, 103) notes, this addition reflects contemporary circumstances, inasmuch as, in R o m a n times, it was not u n c o m m o n for a talented slave to be educated by his master. Here again Josephus, w h o enjoyed a similar education, is portraying Joseph as his forerunner. Philo likewise says that while in Potiphar's house Joseph received the training that was to stand h i m in good stead w h e n he would b e c o m e a statesman, namely, in household management, since a house is, in effect, a minia ture city (De Josepho 8.38). 25. Philo states that Pharaoh gave this name to Joseph because o f his ability to interpret dreams (De Josepho 21.121).
JOSEPH
S e c r e t s , " a n d t h a t it w a s g i v e n t o J o s e p h i n v i e w o f his a m a z i n g (irapdho^ov) l i g e n c e (ovveaecDs) (Ant. 2 . 9 1 ) .
3
4
7
intel
26
I n f a c t , t h e first i n d i s p e n s a b l e q u a l i t y o f a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g is w i s d o m ; a n d J o s e p h u s , like t h e H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n s a n d P h i l o b e f o r e h i m ,
2 7
emphasizes
J o s e p h u s ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f this q u a l i t y i n n u m e r o u s a d d i t i o n s t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f J o s e p h . E v e n t h o s e m o s t a n t a g o n i s t i c t o t h e J e w s , s u c h as C h a e r e m o n (ap. Ag. Ap.
1.290), s p o k e o f J o s e p h as a s a c r e d s c r i b e (UpoypapLpLarea), a p o s i t i o n t h a t , o f
course, p r e s u p p o s e d a great deal o f sacred a n d esoteric k n o w l e d g e . A s w e have seen, in paraphrasing the biblical observation that J a c o b loved Joseph m o r e than all h i s o t h e r c h i l d r e n ( G e n . 37:3), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t o n o t e t h a t J o s e p h w a s t h e s o n o f Jacob's o l d age, a n d that consequently J a c o b m a d e h i m a coat o f m a n y colors (Ant. 2.9). I n s t e a d , h e says t h a t J a c o b f a v o r e d J o s e p h b e c a u s e o f his b e a u t y a n d b e c a u s e o f his v i r t u o u s q u a l i t i e s (dperrjv) o f s o u l , " f o r h e w a s e n d o w e d w i t h e x c e p tional understanding
(c^oovTyaei)."
2 8
It is s u r e l y s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n h i s e m p h a s i s o n
J o s e p h ' s w i s d o m , J o s e p h u s uses n o f e w e r t h a n six different synonyms—aota, ovveois,
Se^LorrjSy cfrpovrjais, (frpovrjpia, a n d Xoyiapuos—in
referring to it.
2 9
I t is t h e
q u a l i t y o f cfrpovrjois, w i t h its c o n n o t a t i o n s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , s a g a c i t y , p r a c t i c a l w i s d o m , a n d understanding, that Josephus ascribes to J o s e p h over a n d over a g a i n (Ant. 2 . 9 , 4 6 , 87) (so P a u l 1 9 8 1 , 4 1 - 4 7 ) a n d t h a t , c o u p l e d w i t h h i s u s e o f (frpovrjpia (Ant. 2.40) ( " r e a s o n , " " i n t e l l i g e n c e , " " i n t e l l e c t , " " t h i n k i n g " ) a n d Xoyiopios
26.
("skillful
I n this explanation, Josephus is in close accord with T a r g u m O n k e l o s a n d with T a r g u m
Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as with the Peshitta, o n this verse: "And P h a r a o h called the n a m e of Joseph 'the m a n to w h o m mysteries are revealed,' "as well as with the Midrash Genesis Rabbah 90.4: " T h e n a m e connotes 'he reveals things that are hidden a n d easily declares t h e m . ' " 27.
Cf. Artapanus (ap. A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.23.1): "Because h e [Joseph] e x
celled all the other sons of J a c o b in w i s d o m [avveoei]
a n d understanding [povr)oei],
his brothers plot
ted against h i m . " Cf. Philo, De Josepho 44.269: " H e showed his g o o d sense [auvcaiv] b y the equanimity that h e displayed amid the numberless inequalities o f his life." A m o n g the qualities that his brothers praise in Joseph after he reveals his identity, according to Philo, is precisely sagacity
(ovveois)
(De Josepho
41.246). 28.
T h e rabbinic tradition is troubled b y the biblical statement that Joseph was the son of Jacob's
old age w h e n this tide should have been ascribed, rather, to Benjamin, w h o was younger than Joseph (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). T h e solution that the rabbis propose is that the phrase refers to the future time w h e n , in Jacob's old age, Joseph w o u l d b e the savior o f the family from famine. T a r g u m O n k e l o s (on Gen.
37:3) interprets the phrase as referring to Joseph's wisdom, based o n the Talmud's statement that
the term zaqen ("old") is an abbreviation for zfk qana hokema ("this one has acquired wisdom") (Qiddushin 32b).
A c c o r d i n g to the second-century R a b b i N e h e m i a h , as cited in the Midrash, the reference is to the
halakhic w i s d o m that J a c o b h a d imbibed from his studies with S h e m a n d Eber, a n d that he, in turn, transmitted to Joseph (Genesis Rabbah 84.8). See R a p p a p o r t 1930, 22 a n d 109, n. n o , for other rabbinic parallels. 29.
In his brief comparison o f the Testament of Joseph with Josephus's account o f Joseph, E . W.
Smith (1975, 136) states that while it is true that both the Testament of Joseph a n d Josephus mention Joseph's virtue, in the former the term most frequendy used is ouxfrpoovvr},
while in the latter this term
does not o c c u r (actually, it occurs three times [2.48, 59 (ironically o f Potiphar's wife), a n d 69]); a n d in stead Josephus uses more varied terminology in referring to Joseph's wisdom.
348
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
c a l c u l a t i o n , " " c o o l a n d sensible r e f l e c t i o n , " " r e a s o n a b l e a n d d e l i b e r a t e t h o u g h t " ) , w o u l d l e a d his G r e e k r e a d e r s t o v i e w J o s e p h as r e p r e s e n t i n g G r e e k c u l t u r e a n d concepts.
3 0
I n his b r i e f e x t r a b i b l i c a l e u l o g y o f J o s e p h , t h e first o f his q u a l i t i e s t h a t
J o s e p h u s singles o u t , after m a k i n g t h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h w a s a m a n o f a d m i r a b l e v i r t u e , is t h a t h e d i r e c t e d all affairs b y t h e d i c t a t e s o f r e a s o n (Aoy107x0*) (Ant. 2.198). It is significant t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is J o s e p h ' s b e a u t y a l o n e ( u n d e r s c o r e d w i t h t h e d u p l i c a t e phrase,yefat
to'ar [ " o f b e a u t i f u l f o r m " ] a n d vtfeh mare'eh
["fair t o l o o k u p o n " ] ) t h a t attracts P o t i p h a r ' s wife ( G e n . 3 9 : 6 - 7 ) , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r sion it is n o t o n l y his c o m e l y a p p e a r a n c e b u t also his d e x t e r i t y (Se^Lorrjra,
"sharp
ness, c l e v e r n e s s " ) t h a t l e a d s h e r t o b e c o m e e n a m o r e d o f h i m (Ant. 2.41). A n o t h e r attribute c o n n e c t e d w i t h w i s d o m , as w e m a y see in T h u c y d i d e s ' (2.60) p o r t r a i t o f t h e i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , Pericles, is t h e ability t o p e r s u a d e . J o s e p h ' s s p e a k i n g ability is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d r e s s t h a t h e m a k e s t o P o t i p h a r ' s wife in r e s p o n s e t o h e r a d v a n c e s . W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , J o s e p h ' s a r g u m e n t s in refusing t h e a d v a n c e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife a r e t h a t h e c a n n o t b e d i s l o y a l to his m a s t e r a n d v i o l a t e t h e dictates o f p i e t y ( G e n . 3 9 : 8 - 9 ) , t h e J o s e p h a n J o s e p h uses r a t i o n a l a r g u m e n t s (Ant. 2.43, 5 1 - 5 2 )
3 1
in his a t t e m p t , as
J o s e p h u s p u t s it, t o t u r n h e r p a s s i o n (opfjof/v) i n t o t h e p a t h o f r e a s o n (Aoy 107x0V) (Ant. 2.53).
32
It is e x t r e m e l y effective t h a t t h e w o r d " r e a s o n s " (Aoy 107x01s) is u s e d b y n o n e
o t h e r t h a n P o t i p h a r ' s wife in r e f e r e n c e t o h e r first o v e r t u r e s t o J o s e p h , w h i c h h e h a d r e j e c t e d (Ant. 2 . 4 7 ) .
33
A g a i n , w h e n J o s e p h interprets t h e b a k e r ' s d r e a m , h e
d o e s so o n t h e basis o f r e a s o n (Aoy 107x0)) (Ant. 2.72); likewise, it is w i t h d i s c e r n m e n t a n d w i s d o m t h a t h e e x p l a i n s P h a r a o h ' s d r e a m s (Ant. 2.84-87). J u d a h a s s u m e s t h a t J o s e p h ( a l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t r e a l i z e at t h a t p o i n t t h a t it is J o s e p h t o w h o m h e is s p e a k i n g ) is a l o g i c a l p e r s o n , since it is t o this f a c u l t y t h a t h e a p p e a l s in his a r g u m e n t s (Ant. 2.143 a n d 151). W e see J o s e p h ' s ability at p e r s u a s i o n e s p e c i a l l y w h e n h e suggests
(vTrertdero,
" p r o p o s e d , " " e n j o i n e d , " " i n s t r u c t e d , " " d e m o n s t r a t e d , " " a d v i s e d , " "inspired") a n d c o u n s e l s (oweftovXeve)
P h a r a o h h o w t o p r e p a r e for t h e y e a r s o f f a m i n e a n d w h e n
30. It is this use o f >p6vr)ixa a n d Aoyiofxos that m a y help to account for Josephus's alleged author ship o f 4 M a c c a b e e s , with its theme that pious reason masters passion. 31. S o also Philo represents Joseph as speaking to Potiphar's wife long a n d wisely (>i\oooovvTos, "loving wisdom, pursuing knowledge") w h e n she approaches h i m (De Josepho 10.49). Likewise, in the Testament of Joseph 7:5, J o s e p h argues that if she kills herself, as she threatens to do, her husband's con cubine will beat her children. 32. W e find a similar appeal to logic in the arguments o f R e u b e n to his brothers (Ant. 2.23). Like wise, it is rational reflection that leads J a c o b to a b a n d o n the thought that Joseph h a d b e e n kidnapped (Ant. 2.37). It is also rational reflection (Xoyiofxov) that J a c o b revolves in his m i n d as he sinks into sleep in Beer-sheba prior to his departure for Egypt. 33. Similarly, Philo, in his s u m m a r y o f Joseph's abilities, stresses his p o w e r o f language, as shown in his interpretations o f dreams, in the fluency o f his addresses, a n d in the persuasiveness a c c o m p a n y ing them, which secured the voluntary obedience o f all his subjects (De Josepho 44.269).
JOSEPH
349
h e u r g e s (-naprivei) h i m to t a k e the g r a i n a n d store it. Finally, J o s e p h ' s p e r s u a s i v e ability a p p e a r s in his success in e x h o r t i n g the i n h a b i t a n t s o f E g y p t , after the c e s sation o f the f a m i n e , to cultivate their l a n d assiduously, p a y i n g a fifth o f their p r o d u c e to the k i n g in r e t u r n for the l a n d t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e m (Ant. 2.192). J o s e p h thus e m e r g e s as the i d e a l r u l e r a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r (cf. C i c e r o , De Legibus 3.2, a n d G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 88 ff.). W i s d o m , as w e h a v e n o t e d , w a s t h o u g h t to b e d e m o n s t r a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s . A s J o s e p h u s states in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h ' s ability to i n t e r p r e t P h a r a o h ' s d r e a m s , d r e a m s are, in effect, a c h a l l e n g e g i v e n to m e n t o use their s a g a c i t y (avveaei)
to alleviate the dire c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t t h e y p r e d i c t (Ant.
2.86). T h a t J o s e p h w a s f a m o u s for his ability to i n t e r p r e t d r e a m s m a y b e s e e n i n the s t a t e m e n t o f P h i l o the e p i c p o e t , w h o refers t o J o s e p h as a n
interpreter
(deoTTioTrjs, " p r o p h e t " ) o f d r e a m s (ap. A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.24.1). It m a y likewise b e d i s c e r n e d in the c o m m e n t s o f the first-century P o m p e i u s T r o g u s in his b r i e f h i s t o r y o f the J e w s (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitoma 2 . 6 - 1 0 ) . P o m p e i u s c o n n e c t s J o s e p h ' s e x t r a o r d i n a r y ability (excellens ingenium), his s h r e w d n a t u r e (sollerti ingenio), his m a s t e r y o f the art o f m a g i c , a n d his e x t r e m e s a g a c i t y (sagacissimus) in p r o d i g i e s w i t h the fact t h a t h e w a s first to establish the sci e n c e (intellegentiam) o f i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s ,
3 4
so t h a t n o t h i n g o f d i v i n e o r h u m a n
l a w s e e m s to h a v e b e e n u n k n o w n to h i m . H e a p p e n d s the r e m a r k a b l e s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h ' s a d m o n i t i o n s s e e m e d to p r o c e e d n o t f r o m a m o r t a l b u t f r o m a g o d . It is this skill in d r e a m i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t h e l p s to e x p l a i n the identification o f J o s e p h w i t h t h e H e l l e n i s t i c E g y p t i a n g o d S e r a p i s , so p r o m i n e n t d u r i n g this p e r i o d , in w h o s e cult the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d r e a m s w a s d e v e l o p e d into a fixed t e c h n i q u e .
35
T h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s o f J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s a n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the d r e a m s
34. It w a s perhaps because o f this that Jews generally achieved the reputation o f b e i n g skilled in in terpreting dreams. T h u s w e find the first-century Antonius Diogenes (ap. Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae 11) declaring that it was from the H e b r e w s that the famed philosopher Pythagoras learned the exact knowledge o f dreams. T h a t Jews were k n o w n as interpreters o f dreams m a y be seen as well from Ju venal's bitter c o m m e n t (Satires 6.546-47) that "a J e w will tell y o u dreams o f any kind y o u please for the minutest o f coins." T h e fourth-century Julian (Contra Galilaeos 340A) observes h o w ancient the practice was a m o n g the Jews o f sleeping a m o n g tombs in order to obtain dream visions, w h i c h he castigates as witchcraft. 35. A n a n o n y m o u s rabbi in the T a l m u d also knows this identification o f Joseph with Serapis, de l
ducing this from the fact that Joseph b e c a m e a prince (sar) w h o appeased (hefis) the whole world ( Avodah £arah 43a). T h i s identification is also found in Tertullian, AdNationes 2.8 and Specilegium Syriacum 89; Melito, Apology (ed. de Otto) 5; Firmicus Maternus, De Errore Profanarum Religionum 13.2 (who derives the n a m e Serapis from Udppas
nais, i.e., "son [actually great-grandson] o f Sarah"); Paulinus Nolanus,
Carmina 19.100 ff.; a n d Suidas, s.v. "Serapis" (ed. A . Adler, 4 [Leipzig: Teubner, 1938], p. 325). W e m a y suggest that this strange identification o f Joseph with Serapis arose both from their close association with the interpretation o f dreams and from the similarity o f sound between Serapis and Osarsiph, the alternate n a m e o f Joseph, according to M a n e t h o (ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.238-50, 265, 286). See Sachs 1854, 2:99; Drexler 1886, 2.1:433; K r a u s s 1898-99, 2:412; Blaufuss 1910, 19; L i e b e r m a n 1950, 137-38, esp. 137, n. 87; G u t m a n 1958-63, 2:109-10; and H e n g e l 1974, 2:139, nn. 647 and 648.
350
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o f o t h e r s are n o t a b l y e x p a n d e d b y J o s e p h u s , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y g a v e J o s e p h u s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e m o n s t r a t e his h e r o ' s v i r t u o s i t y as a n i n t e r p r e t e r o f d r e a m s ( F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 285). It is J o s e p h ' s skill in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s t h a t l e a d s P h a r a o h to c o m m e n t t h a t t h e r e is n o n e so discreet a n d w i s e as h e ( G e n . 41:39). T h a t it is p r e c i s e l y his ability at i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s t h a t w a s the s o u r c e o f his r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m m a y b e s e e n i n t h e fact that, a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , it w a s after J o s e p h interprets P h a r a o h ' s d r e a m s t h a t P h a r a o h m a r v e l s at his dis c e r n m e n t (cf)p6vr]oiv) a n d w i s d o m (ao^iav) (Ant. 2 . 8 7 ) .
36
It is in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d r e a m s o f t h e butler, the baker, a n d P h a r a o h t h a t J o s e p h m o s t c l e a r l y s h o w s his s a g a c i t y T h u s w e are told, in a n a d d i t i o n t o the b i b lical n a r r a t i v e , t h a t the butler, h a v i n g f o r m e d a h i g h o p i n i o n o f t h e s a g a c i t y o f his fellow prisoner, J o s e p h , r e c o u n t e d his d r e a m to h i m (Ant. 2.63). H e t h e n asks J o s e p h , i f h e is gifted w i t h a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g (avveaecjs),
to e x p l a i n t h e signifi
c a n c e o f his d r e a m (Ant. 2.65). H e r e w e see t h a t t h e b u d e r a s s u m e s t h a t a w i s e m a n will ipso f a c t o b e a d e p t in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s . T h a t t h e r e is a n i n n a t e l o g i c i n d r e a m s is c l e a r f r o m J a c o b ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e m e a n i n g o f J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s (Ant. 2.16). H e e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e m o o n a n d t h e s u n represent, respectively, J o s e p h ' s m o t h e r a n d father a n d a d d s , in a n e x p l a n a t o r y re m a r k , t h a t t h e f o r m e r (the f e m i n i n e p r i n c i p l e ) gives i n c r e a s e a n d n o u r i s h m e n t t o all things, w h i l e t h e latter (the m a s c u l i n e principle) m o l d s their f o r m a n d i m p l a n t s their stores o f strength in t h e m ; t h e stars r e p r e s e n t J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s , w h o b o r r o w their strength f r o m the s u n a n d m o o n . It is p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e J o s e p h is h i g h l y r a t i o n a l t h a t h e is a b l e t o e x p l a i n the sig n i f i c a n c e o f b o t h the b u d e r ' s a n d b a k e r ' s d r e a m s , as w e l l as o f P h a r a o h ' s . T h e r e a d e r o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e will u n d o u b t e d l y w o n d e r h o w J o s e p h w a s a b l e t o c o m e to the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t h e d i d in i n t e r p r e t i n g the t w o f o r m e r d r e a m s . T h e a n s w e r is n o t f o r t h c o m i n g i n the B i b l e itself ( G e n . 40:11); b u t J o s e p h u s gives us the c l u e w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t in t h e d r e a m , t h e b u d e r s a w the k i n g r e c e i v e t h e w i n e g r a c i o u s l y (Kexo-p^opuevoys) (Ant. 2.64). W i n e , h e e x p l a i n s , b e t o k e n s
fidelity
and
friendship a n d h e n c e is a f a v o r a b l e o m e n (Ant. 2.66). W h e n h e c o m e s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e d r e a m o f the baker, it is t h r o u g h r a t i o n a l refl e c t i o n (XoyLGfico) t h a t J o s e p h is a b l e t o a n a l y z e its i m p o r t (Ant. 2.72). H e r e , t o o , the r e a d e r w o u l d w o n d e r h o w J o s e p h w a s a b l e t o c o m e t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e r e a c h e d , a n d the B i b l e is o f litde h e l p ( G e n . 40:17). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , w e are g i v e n t h e c l u e t h a t e n a b l e d J o s e p h t o a n a l y z e the i m p o r t o f the d r e a m , n a m e l y , t h a t w h e n t h e birds flew d o w n a n d d e v o u r e d the baskets o f b r e a d a n d dainties, t h e y w e r e h e e d l e s s o f t h e b a k e r ' s efforts t o s c a r e t h e m a w a y (Ant. 2.71).
36. Philo, too, connects the interpretation o f dreams with w i s d o m w h e n he has J a c o b say: " M y soul has a prophetic inkling that m y dreams will not forever remain veiled in obscurity, for in this youth [i.e., Joseph] there are signs and indications o f w i s d o m [cro^ia?]" (De Josepho 20.106). It is this charac teristic o f Joseph's w i s d o m that is stressed by both Philo and Josephus, in contrast to the Testament of Joseph, as Hollander 1981, 6 0 - 6 1 , notes.
JOSEPH
3 5
i
W h e n P h a r a o h calls for J o s e p h t o a n a l y z e his d r e a m s , h e is i m p r e s s e d w i t h J o s e p h ' s e x t r e m e s a g a c i t y (avveaiv
LKavcoraros) (Ant. 2.80), attested t o b y t h e b u d e r ,
w h i c h l e d to t h e r e c a l l o f J o s e p h f r o m p r i s o n . T h e fact t h a t P h a r a o h
assures
J o s e p h at this p o i n t t h a t h e s h o u l d suppress n o t h i n g t h r o u g h fear a n d t h a t h e n e e d n o t flatter h i m is so c l e a r l y p a t t e r n e d o n t h e p a r a l l e l s c e n e i n H o m e r (Iliad 1.84-91) i n w h i c h A c h i l l e s gives v e r y similar a s s u r a n c e s t o G a l c h a s t h a t t h e e d u c a t e d r e a d e r in a n t i q u i t y w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e s e e n a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n C a l c h a s a n d J o s e p h as prophets. It is significant t h a t w h e r e a s o t h e r s (for e x a m p l e , P o m p e i u s T r o g u s , ap. J u s t i n , Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitoma 2.7) h a d d e p i c t e d J o s e p h as p r o f i c i e n t i n t h e art o f m a g i c , w h e r e b y h e g a i n e d g r e a t f a v o r w i t h P h a r a o h , J o s e p h u s carefully o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h P h a r a o h is said t o h a v e c o n s u l t e d t h e E g y p t i a n m a g i c i a n s i n o r d e r t o h a v e t h e m i n t e r p r e t his d r e a m s ( G e n . 4 1 : 2 4 v s . Ant. 2.83). I n s t e a d , w e a r e g i v e n a c o n t e s t o f w i s e m e n , since, w e a r e told, P h a r a o h s u m m o n e d t h e sagest (XoyLwrdrovs,
" m o s t l e a r n e d , m o s t erudite, m o s t skilled in w o r d s " ) o f t h e
E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.75). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h surpasses t h e m is e v i d e n c e t h a t h e w a s m o r e e r u d i t e t h a n they. W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 41:33), it is J o s e p h w h o v o l u n t e e r s t h e a d v i c e t o P h a r a o h as to h o w t o c o p e w i t h t h e f o r t h c o m i n g f a m i n e — n a m e l y , b y a p p o i n t i n g a d i s c r e e t a n d w i s e m a n t o rule o v e r t h e l a n d o f E g y p t — i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is P h a r a o h h i m s e l f w h o takes t h e initiative in a s k i n g J o s e p h h o w t o m a k e p r o v i s i o n for t h e f a m i n e , w h e r e u p o n J o s e p h suggests c o n s e r v i n g g r a i n d u r i n g t h e y e a r s o f p l e n t y a n d c o u n s e l s h i m o n h o w t o d o so (Ant. 2.87). J o s e p h t h e n s h o w s his c l e v e r ness as a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r in t h a t w h e n h e g o e s t h r o u g h E g y p t c o l l e c t i n g g r a i n f r o m t h e f a r m e r s d u r i n g t h e y e a r s o f plenty, h e d o e s n o t r e v e a l t o t h e m w h y h e is a c t i n g thus (Ant. 2.90), w h e r e a s this detail is a b s e n t in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( G e n . 41:43). Courage J o s e p h u s ' s J o s e p h s h o w s t h e q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e t h r o u g h his e n d u r a n c e (vTTOjxovrj, " p a t i e n c e " ) i n distress. T h u s , w h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , J o s e p h p l e a d s w i t h his b r o t h e r s for his life w h e n t h e y seek t o kill h i m ( G e n . 42:21), J o s e p h u s c a r e f u l l y o m i t s this d e t a i l (Ant. 2.107) b e c a u s e h e w i s h e s t o p r e s e n t a stoical J o s e p h w h o is silent i n a d v e r s i t y A g a i n , w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife a p p r o a c h e s h i m , h e r e s p o n d s , in a manner
reminiscent
o f a Jewish or Christian martyr,
that he will
endure
(v7Topu€V€Lv) a n y t h i n g r a t h e r t h a n b e o b e d i e n t t o h e r i m m o r a l b e h e s t (Ant. 2.43). R a t h e r t h a n y i e l d t o h e r threats, h e c h o o s e s , like t h e p r o v e r b i a l S t o i c , t o w h o m J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l b e a p p e a l i n g h e r e , t o s u b m i t s i l e n d y t o suffer u n j u s d y a n d t o e n d u r e e v e n t h e m o s t s e v e r e p e n a l t y (Ant. 2.60); a n d h e is c o n s e q u e n d y c o n d e m n e d t o u n d e r g o (V7TOJJL€V€LV) a m a l e f a c t o r ' s f a t e .
37
E n d u r a n c e (virovoyb't]) is also
37. Wefinda similar motif in the Testament of Joseph (2:7,10:1-2,10:6,17:1-2,18:3), as well as in Philo (De Josepho 41.246-50).
352
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the attitude o f t h e C y n i c - S t o i c w i s e m a n in his s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e p a s s i o n s ( H o l l a n d e r a n d d e J o n g e 1985, 363). Temperance The
o u t s t a n d i n g i n c i d e n t in w h i c h J o s e p h displays self-control is in refusing the 38
a d v a n c e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife (Ant. 2 . 4 2 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d m e r e l y that "it c a m e to pass after these t h i n g s t h a t his m a s t e r ' s wife cast h e r eyes u p o n J o s e p h " ( G e n . 39:7); b u t t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n o f J o s e p h ' s s t r e n g t h o f c h a r a c t e r p r i o r t o this e p i s o d e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , in J o s e p h u s , w e a r e t o l d that e v e n w h e n his f o r t u n e c h a n g e d for the b e t t e r d u r i n g his e n s l a v e m e n t to Potiphar, a n d h e w a s g i v e n a l i b e r a l e d u c a t i o n a n d p l a c e d in c h a r g e o f P o t i p h a r ' s h o u s e h o l d , J o s e p h d i d n o t a b a n d o n his v i r t u e b u t " d i s p l a y e d h o w a n o b l e spirit [fipovrjpLa] c a n s u r m o u n t t h e trials o f life, w h e r e it is g e n u i n e a n d d o e s n o t s i m p l y a c c o m m o d a t e itself to p a s s i n g p r o s p e r i t y " (Ant. 2.40). T h u s , w h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , J o s e p h ' s g o o d l o o k s a r e e m p h a s i z e d t w i c e ("Joseph w a s h a n d s o m e a n d g o o d - l o o k i n g " ) ( G e n . 39:6) j u s t b e fore P o t i p h a r ' s wife m a k e s h e r a d v a n c e s , it is J o s e p h ' s v i r t u e t h a t J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s to stress h e r e .
3 9
I n t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d that w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife m a k e s h e r a d v a n c e s , J o s e p h re fuses (vayema^en), w h i c h the S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s as " h e w a s u n w i l l i n g " (OVK (Gen.
rjdeXev)
39:8); J o s e p h u s uses s t r o n g e r l a n g u a g e a n d h a s J o s e p h t u r n a d e a f e a r
(7ra/0€7T€/x7r€, " d i s m i s s , " " d i s r e g a r d " )
40
to h e r entreaties (Ant. 2 . 4 2 ) .
41
But Joseph
g o e s still further in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , h e e x p l a i n s w h y h e m u s t refuse h e r r e q u e s t ( G e n . 3 9 : 8 - 9 ) , in J o s e p h u s , h e tries to p e r s u a d e h e r to g o v e r n h e r p a s s i o n (Kparetv TOV irddovs) (Ant. 2.43). T h e k e y w o r d h e r e is nddos, w h i c h o c c u r s t h r e e t i m e s in this p a s s a g e a n d h a s t h e d o u b l e m e a n i n g o f " p a s s i o n " a n d "suffering."
42
It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective for J o s e p h u s to h a v e P o t i p h a r ' s wife e n
d e a v o r to p e r s u a d e J o s e p h t o y i e l d to h e r b e c a u s e o f t h e excess o f p a s s i o n (irdQovs) that she feels for h i m (Ant. 2.46); J o s e p h ' s r e s p o n s e , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , is,
38. S o also in Philo, Legum Allegoriae 3.84.237-86.242; De Migratione Abrahami 4.19,
21; and De Somniis
2.15.106. In v i e w o f Philo's generally unfavorable evaluation of Joseph, his stress on his self-control in the incident with Potiphar's wife (De Josepho 9.40) a n d during his stay in prison (De Josepho 16.87) i
s
^
the more remarkable. 39. Joseph's moderation is likewise stressed b y the Testament of Joseph 4 : 1 - 2 , 6:7, 9:2,10:2—3; 4 M a c e . 2:2-3; Joseph and Asenath 2:48, 50, 69; 4:9; a n d Philo, De Josepho 9.40, 11.57, 16.87. 40. Cf. A p o l l o d o r u s 1.9.28, w h o uses the verb TTapaTrefXTra)
in the sense of putting a w a y one's wife.
41. Josephus thus emphatically (if implicidy) rejects the v i e w o f those rabbis (Jerusalem T a l m u d , Horayot 2-546d; Genesis Rabbah 87.7, 98.20) w h o assert that Joseph was actually at the point of yielding to temptation a n d that only the appearance o f his father a n d / o r his mother in a vision cooled his pas sion and prevented h i m from sinning. 42.
T h i s double m e a n i n g continues throughout Josephus's Joseph pericope. T h u s the term IRDDOS
has the m e a n i n g "suffering" in Joseph's statement to the buder that wine banishes sufferings (IRDDIN) (Ant. 2.66). It signifies rather passion or emotion in those passages where Joseph bursts into tears o f emotion (IRDDOVS) (Ant. 2.109, 2.123, 2.160).
JOSEPH
3
5
3
h o w e v e r , t o seek t o t u r n h e r p a s s i o n (irddos) i n t o the p a t h o f r e a s o n (Aoy 107x0V) (Ant. 2.53). W h e r e a s a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , J o s e p h , in his self-defense to t h e b u d e r , says m e r e l y t h a t h e h a s d o n e n o t h i n g t h a t w o u l d justify his b e i n g cast i n t o the d u n g e o n ( G e n . 40:15), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , h e e x p l i c i d y states t h a t it w a s for v i r t u e ' s sake a n d for self-control (aw^poavvys)
t h a t h e w a s c o n d e m n e d (Ant. 2 . 6 8 - 6 9 ) .
C o n n e c t e d w i t h self-control is m o d e s t y , t h e s u p r e m e q u a l i t y o f t h e g r e a t e s t o f all l e a d e r s , M o s e s ( N u m . 12:3). It is this s a m e q u a l i t y t h a t J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e stresses i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h (Ant. 2.56). T h u s J o s e p h u s o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h is w e a r i n g his b e a u t i f u l c o a t o f m a n y c o l o r s at the t i m e w h e n t h e b r o t h e r s p l o t a g a i n s t h i m ( G e n . 37:4 v s . Ant. 2.10), since, p r e s u m a b l y , i f J o s e p h w e r e d e p i c t e d as w e a r i n g s u c h a c o a t , h e w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t a u n t i n g t h e m .
4 3
To
b e sure, P o t i p h a r ' s wife, in h e r s p e e c h to h e r h u s b a n d falsely a c c u s i n g J o s e p h , as serts t h a t J o s e p h m e r e l y gives t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f b e i n g m o d e s t (/xer/nos), w h e r e a s a c t u a l l y it is f e a r o f his m a s t e r r a t h e r t h a n a v i r t u o u s disposition t h a t restrains h i m . A n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e reality o f J o s e p h ' s m o d e s t y m a y , h o w e v e r , b e g l e a n e d f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e d e c l a r e s t h a t w h e n t h e b r o t h e r s c o m e to h i m in E g y p t , J o s e p h r e m e m b e r s the d r e a m s t h a t h e h a d h a d in w h i c h t h e y h a d b o w e d d o w n to h i m ( G e n . 42:9), J o s e p h u s ' s J o s e p h o m i t s this h i n t o f g l o a t i n g (Ant. 2.97). T o b e sure, i n J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s t h e s h e a v e s b o w d o w n to h i m like slaves b e f o r e their m a s t e r s (Ant. 2.11); a n d t h o s e d r e a m s in w h i c h the sun, t h e m o o n , a n d the stars m a k e o b e i s a n c e to h i m (Ant. 2.13) a r e i n t e r p r e t e d b y J a c o b to m e a n t h a t a t i m e w o u l d c o m e w h e n J o s e p h w o u l d b e h e l d w o r t h y o f v e n e r a t i o n b y his p a r e n t s a n d b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.15). A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s all i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a n y o n e b o w s d o w n to J o s e p h . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t P h a r a o h m a d e J o s e p h r i d e in t h e s e c o n d c h a r i o t b e h i n d h i m , a n d t h a t the c r y w a s u t t e r e d b e f o r e h i m " A b r e c h , " t h a t is, " B o w t h e k n e e " ( G e n . 41:43), J o s e p h u s follows t h e S e p t u a g i n t in o m i t t i n g " A b r e c h " a n d its e x p l a n a t i o n (Ant. 2.90). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s b o w e d d o w n b e f o r e J o s e p h ( G e n . 42:6, 43:26, 50:18), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b o w i n g d o w n (Ant. 2.96, 120, 1 9 7 ) ;
44
i n d e e d , it is J o s e p h w h o
d o e s s e r v i c e to t h e king. W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t J o s e p h b o w e d d o w n b e fore J a c o b ( G e n . 48:12), a n d w h e r e a s the S e p t u a g i n t d e c l a r e s t h a t E p h r a i m a n d M a n a s s e h d i d so (7rpoG€Kvvrjaav), t h e r e is n o proskynesis e i t h e r b y J o s e p h o r b y his
43. Another factor that may have influenced Josephus to omit mention of the coat of many colors here is that, for Philo, at least, such a coat symbolizes the variability and falseness of the politician and the combination ofa very tiny portion of truth with many and large amounts of lies, probabilities, plau sibilities, and conjectures, "out of which spring up all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers, proficients in decoying, charming, and bewitching, whose insidious artifices it is no easy task to escape" (De Somniis 1.38.219-23). Goodenough 1928, 48, n. 20, notes that the association of the variegated coat with tyranny was probably a proverbial element in the current philosophy of kingship. See Dio Chrysostom, Oration 1.70, 81. 44. So also Philo, De Somniis 2.14.99: "To G-d alone should be given the real prostrating and honor."
354
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
sons in J o s e p h u s
(Ant
PORTRAITS
2.195). T h e
reason
for this is t h a t s u c h
obeisance
(7rpooKvvrjois) w a s a q u a s i - d i v i n e h o n o r c u s t o m a r y a m o n g the Persians, w h i c h A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t h a d o b t a i n e d ( A r r i a n 4 . 1 0 . 5 - 1 2 . 5 ) , b u t t h a t w a s r e g a r d e d b y the G r e e k s as the v e r y antithesis o f l i b e r t y in politics a n d r e l i g i o n (see H o r s t 1932, 1 1 2 - 1 6 , 1 2 6 - 2 7 ; a n d G r e e v e n 1 9 5 9 , 6:763). T o b e sure, proskynesis d i d n o t a c t u a l l y i m p l y t h a t t h e p e r s o n so h o n o r e d w a s r e g a r d e d as a g o d (Austin 1 9 8 1 , 2 2 - 2 3 ) ; b u t the G r e e k s often m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e d this t o b e the case. A t a n y rate, in J o s e p h u s , the t e r m u s u a l l y i m p l i e s w o r s h i p o f G - d o r o f a O r i e n t a l k i n g a n d f r e q u e n d y h a s a p e j o r a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n , as w i t h the p r o s t r a t i o n d e m a n d e d b y H a m a n
(Ant
11.209, 210, 230, 277). I n the c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n J o s e p h a n d his b r o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s , o n the o n e h a n d , is careful t o s h o w J o s e p h ' s h u m a n i t y b y h a v i n g h i m b u r s t i n t o tears f r o m e m o t i o n (Ant 2.109, 2.123, 2.160); b u t lest J o s e p h a p p e a r to l a c k self-control, J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r t h a t w h i l e h e w a s h u m a n e n o u g h t o e x h i b i t the e m o t i o n (iradelv) o f d e l i g h t w h e n h e w a s r e u n i t e d w i t h his father, h e w a s , n o n e t h e l e s s , careful to s h o w e n o u g h self-control so t h a t h e w a s n o t o v e r c o m e b y it (Ant 2.184).
Justice I n t e g r a l l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is the e n o r m o u s responsibility to b e h o n e s t a n d t o tell the truth. J o s e p h , in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l , is n o t o n l y c o m p l e t e l y h o n e s t b u t e v e n i n r e c o u n t i n g his d r e a m s to his b r o t h e r s suspects n o m a l i c e o n their p a r t (Ant 2 . 1 4 ) .
45
W h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text d e c l a r e s t h a t his b r o t h e r s h a t e d
J o s e p h b o t h b e c a u s e o f his d r e a m s a n d b e c a u s e o f the evil r e p o r t o f t h e m t h a t h e h a d c o n v e y e d to t h e i r father ( G e n . 37:8), J o s e p h u s , w h o is e a g e r to e l i m i n a t e J o s e p h ' s b o a s t i n g , o m i t s the w o r d s "for his d r e a m s a n d for his w o r d s " (Ant 2.12). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , J o s e p h tells his b r o t h e r s t o i n f o r m their father o f all his g l o r y in E g y p t a n d o f all t h a t t h e y h a d s e e n ( G e n . 45:13), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , this a p p a r e n t boastfulness is o m i t t e d (Ant 2.165). C o u p l e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the v i r t u e o f h u m a n i t y (<^iAav0pamia), as w e h a v e n o t e d . J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f J o s e p h is p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e n d e d to a n s w e r the c h a r g e o f J e w ish misanthropy. T h u s , in the B i b l e , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f the fact t h a t w h e n J o s e p h w a s a d m i n i s t e r i n g the distribution o f g r a i n d u r i n g the y e a r s o f f a m i n e , the m a r k e t w a s o p e n t o foreigners ( G e n . 42:2), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e selling g r a i n to outsiders u n d e r s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a s n o t the n o r m a l a n d e x p e c t e d p r a c t i c e . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , i n t r o d u c e s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k t h a t J o s e p h o p e n e d the m a r k e t n o t o n l y t o his o w n n a t i o n b u t also to strangers, since, w e are told, h e — a n d , b y e x t e n s i o n , the J e w i s h p e o p l e w h o m h e c l e a r l y r e p r e s e n t s — b e l i e v e d t h a t
45. T h e r e is a striking resemblance between Josephus's version, according to w h i c h Joseph re counted his dream to his father in the presence o f his brethren, naively suspecting n o malice on their part (Ant. 2.14), a n d the c o m m e n t o f R a s h i (on G e n . 37:10), w h o is here, as so often elsewhere, reflect ing midrashic tradition, that Joseph repeated the d r e a m to his father in the presence o f his brethren.
JOSEPH
3
5
5
all m e n , b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r k i n s h i p , s h o u l d r e c e i v e a i d f r o m t h o s e in p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 2.94). H e t h u s e x e m p l i f i e s t h e i d e a l , m a d e so f a m o u s b y A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t , t h a t all m e n a r e b r e t h r e n b y v i r t u e o f h a v i n g a c o m m o n f a t h e r ( P l u t a r c h , Alexander 27). F r a n x m a n e x p r e s s e s surprise that, w i t h all t h e c a r e t h a t J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y t a k e s t o m a k e his s t o r y a series o f c r e d i b l e a n d e x p l i c a b l e i n c i d e n t s , h e d i d n o t b e g i n t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f J o s e p h a n d his b r o t h e r s in E g y p t (Ant. 2.97) w i t h a q u e s t i o n b y J o s e p h as t o t h e v i s i t o r s ' p r o v e n a n c e ( F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 251). T h e r e a s o n , w e m a y s u g g e s t , is t h a t J o s e p h u s w i s h e s t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t so g r e a t w a s J o s e p h ' s l a c k o f prejudice against foreigners that such a question did not even o c c u r to h i m . W h e n R e u b e n , h a v i n g c o m e t o E g y p t for g r a i n , a d d r e s s e s J o s e p h , h e states t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s h a d c o m e t o E g y p t b e c a u s e t h e y h a d h e a r d t h a t h e , in his h u m a n i t y ((/>i\av0pci)7rlav), in his r e s o l v e t o p r o v i d e m e a n s o f s u b s i s t e n c e t o all in n e e d , h a d t h r o w n o p e n his g r a n a r y n o t o n l y t o fellow c i t i z e n s b u t also t o f o r e i g n e r s (Ant. 2.101). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b i b l i c a l text, s e p a r a t e t a b l e s w e r e set for J o s e p h a n d for t h e b r o t h e r s a n d for t h e E g y p t i a n s , b e c a u s e , w e a r e t o l d , t h e E g y p t i a n s w e r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o e a t b r e a d w i t h t h e H e b r e w s ( G e n . 43:32), J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g a b o u t s u c h s e p a r a t e tables (Ant. 2.123), p r e s u m a b l y t o e m p h a s i z e his t h e m e o f u n i v e r s a l b r o t h e r h o o d . J o s e p h u s m a y p e r h a p s h e r e b e t r y i n g t o c o u n t e r a c t t h e v i o l e n t hostility t h a t p r e v a i l e d b e t w e e n t h e J e w s a n d t h e E g y p t i a n s d u r i n g his l i f e t i m e .
46
A l l i e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is t h e q u a l i t y o f g e n e r o s i t y
4 7
I n this r e g a r d , J o s e
p h u s d e v e l o p s t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n J o s e p h , w h o is full o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d for g i v e n e s s , a n d his b r o t h e r s , w h o e n v y h i m , as t h o u g h h e w e r e a s t r a n g e r a n d n o t a b r o t h e r (Ant. 2 . 1 7 ) .
48
W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 3 7 : 2 - 1 1 ) cites t h r e e r e a s o n s for his
b r o t h e r s ' e n m i t y t o J o s e p h — n a m e l y , t h e evil r e p o r t s t h a t h e h a d m a d e c o n c e r n i n g t h e m ; t h e i r father's f a v o r i t i s m in g i v i n g h i m t h e c o a t o f m a n y c o l o r s ; a n d Joseph's t w o dreams, w h i c h w e r e interpreted b y J a c o b to m e a n that the brothers w o u l d s o m e d a y b e s u b s e r v i e n t t o h i m ) — J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e first t w o o f these r e a sons (Ant. 2.12). P r e s u m a b l y , h e d o e s so b e c a u s e h e is e a g e r n o t t o c a s t J o s e p h in a b a d l i g h t as a tattletale, a n d n e i t h e r d o e s h e w i s h t o p o r t r a y J a c o b , t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e Israelite n a t i o n , u n f a v o r a b l y b y h a v i n g h i m s h o w favoritism t o w a r d o n e s o n o v e r t h e o t h e r s . O n e m i g h t also w o n d e r at J o s e p h ' s o w n favoritism t o w a r d his y o u n g e r b r o t h e r B e n j a m i n in g i v i n g h i m t h r e e h u n d r e d shekels o f silver (the S e p t u a g i n t i n c r e a s e s this figure t o t h r e e h u n d r e d p i e c e s o f g o l d ) a n d five c h a n g e s o f
46. Indeed, in the rabbinic tradition, the confrontation between Joseph a n d his brothers is de picted as a veritable w a r between superpowers, in which Judah especially represents the Jewish people (Genesis Rabbah 91.6, 92.8, 93.6-8). 47. W e find that Philo, in the panegyric of Joseph which he assigns to Joseph's brothers, stresses his readiness to forgive, his family affection, fairness, and kindness, as well his total lack of the haughtiness and crudity characteristic of other rulers (De Josepho 41.246-49). 48. Likewise, Philo (De Josepho 2.5) a n d Testament of Joseph 2:10 emphasize the brothers' envy and ha tred of Joseph.
356
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
c l o t h i n g , w h e r e a s h e g i v e s the o t h e r b r o t h e r s o n l y a single c h a n g e ( G e n . 45:22). J o s e p h u s r e d u c e s this d i s p a r i t y h o w e v e r , s a y i n g m e r e l y {Ant. 2.167) t h a t J o s e p h fa v o r e d B e n j a m i n w i t h m o r e t h a n the rest. I n this c o n n e c t i o n , w e m a y w o n d e r , t o o , w h y J o s e p h u s , w h o o m i t s s u c h e m b a r r a s s i n g e p i s o d e s as t h o s e o f J u d a h a n d T a m a r a n d the m a k i n g o f the G o l d e n C a l f , d o e s n o t s i m p l y o m i t the j e a l o u s y t h a t J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s felt t o w a r d h i m , i n a s m u c h as this w o u l d h a v e reflected b a d l y o n the J e w i s h p e o p l e , the d i r e c t d e s c e n d a n t s o f those b r o t h e r s . T h e a n s w e r is p e r h a p s t h a t the story o f J u d a h a n d T a m a r a n d the e p i s o d e o f the G o l d e n C a l f w e r e inter n a l m a t t e r s , affecting o n l y the J e w i s h p e o p l e , w h e r e a s the e n v y o f the b r o t h e r s h a d i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e p e r c u s s i o n s , in t h a t it l e d to J o s e p h ' s b e i n g sold into slavery in E g y p t , the e v e n t u a l slavery o f the Israelites t h e m s e l v e s , a n d the c o n t e s t b e t w e e n the Israelites a n d the E g y p t i a n s . I n d e e d , it is t o J o s e p h ' s g e n e r o s i t y (xprjoTOTrjTos), in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o c o u n t e r p a r t in the B i b l e ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 8 - 3 4 ) , t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s J u d a h , d e s p a i r i n g , as h e d o e s , o f B e n j a m i n ' s s a l v a t i o n o n his o w n merits, a p p e a l s after J o s e p h ' s g o b l e t is f o u n d in B e n j a m i n ' s s a c k (Ant. 2 . 1 4 0 - 4 1 ) . I n m a k i n g this a p p e a l , J u d a h asks J o s e p h to l o o k at his o w n n a t u r e
(VOLV)
a n d to m a k e v i r t u e (dpenqv)^ t h a t is the q u a l i t y o f
generosity, his c o u n s e l o r . H e recalls as w e l l J o s e p h ' s p a s t g e n e r o s i t y in g r a n t i n g the b r o t h e r s a n a b u n d a n c e o f p r o v i s i o n s w h e n t h e y w e r e a b o u t to die o f h u n g e r (Ant. 2.142). H e i n v o k e s J o s e p h ' s m a g n a n i m i t y (pueyaXocfrpcov), r e c a l l i n g the b o u n t i e s (Scopeais) b y w h i c h h e h a d p r e s e r v e d t h e m (Ant. 2.144). J u d a h e v e n g o e s so far as to d e c l a r e t h a t G - d h a d b r o u g h t the b r o t h e r s to this d e p t h o f m i s e r y so t h a t it w o u l d g i v e J o s e p h a n o p p o r t u n i t y to e x e r c i s e this q u a l i t y o f h u m a n i t y (i\avdpwTria) (Ant. 2.145). I n fact, w e are t o l d t h a t it is a c t u a l l y a g o d l i k e attribute to refrain f r o m w r a t h in the c a s e o f c r i m e s t h a t e x p o s e t h e culprit's life to his v i c t i m ' s v e n g e a n c e (Ant. 2.146). It is J o s e p h ' s n a t u r a l a n d h o n o r a b l e instinct for c l e m e n c y to w h i c h J u d a h a p p e a l s (Ant. 2 . 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 ) . H e cites J o s e p h ' s o b v i o u s r e g a r d for the p r i n c i p l e o f imitatio D-i,
w i t h its c a l l to d i s p l a y acts o f g e n e r o s i t y ( a l t h o u g h J o s e p h w a s at l i b
e r t y to d e s t r o y t h e m ) , in the b e l i e f t h a t t h e m o r e n u m e r o u s the p e r s o n s t o w h o m o n e e x t e n d s s u c h favor, the g r e a t e r the distinction t h a t h e c o n f e r s u p o n h i m s e l f (Ant. 2.153). L i k e a defense a t t o r n e y p l e a d i n g for m i t i g a t i o n o f the penalty, J u d a h a p p e a l s to J o s e p h ' s kindness, stressing t h a t c l e m e n c y is h u m a n in s u c h cases, e s p e cially in v i e w o f B e n j a m i n ' s y o u t h (Ant. 2.156). It is J o s e p h ' s g r a c i o u s (xprjaroTrjTL) a n d e n l i g h t e n e d g r a s p o f these a r g u m e n t s t h a t J u d a h c o n f i d e n d y h o p e s will b r i n g a b o u t B e n j a m i n ' s release (Ant. 2.157). I n his reply, J o s e p h , in a c o m m e n t t h a t h a s n o b i b l i c a l p a r a l l e l ( G e n . 4 5 : 3 - 1 3 ) , d o e s , i n d e e d , s h o w his m a g n a n i m i t y b y c o m m e n d i n g his b r o t h e r s for the affection t h a t t h e y h a d s h o w n to their b r o t h e r B e n j a m i n (Ant. 2.161). L e s t the r e a d e r t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h h a d s h o w n c r u e l t y t o w a r d his b r o t h e r s b y s u b j e c t i n g t h e m to this or d e a l , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t it w a s m e r e l y to test their b r o t h e r l y l o v e t h a t h e h a d d o n e so (Ant. 2.161). J o s e p h t h e n i m m e d i a t e l y , in a n a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a tive, d e c l a r e s t h a t h e r e m e m b e r s t h e i r sins a g a i n s t h i m n o m o r e (Ant. 2.162) a n d asks t h e m to forget the p a s t (Ant. 2.163); o n the contrary, h e m a g n a n i m o u s l y tells
JOSEPH
3
5
7
t h e m t h a t t h e y w e r e a c t u a l l y G—d's assistants in b r i n g i n g H i s p u r p o s e s to pass, a n d t h a t h e c o n s e q u e n d y is grateful to t h e m . A t this p o i n t , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y says t h a t his b r e t h r e n t a l k e d w i t h h i m ( G e n . 45:15), J o s e p h u s h a s J o s e p h d e m o n strate his g e n e r o s i t y m o r e o p e n l y b y m e n t i o n o f festivity (eucn^ta, " g o o d c h e e r , " " f e a s t i n g , " " f a r i n g s u m p t u o u s l y , " " f e e d i n g w e l l " ) (Ant. 2.166). T h i s m a g n a n i m i t y o n the p a r t o f J o s e p h is, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , r e m i n i s c e n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s b e n e v o l e n t d e a l i n g w i t h his g r e a t rival, J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (Life 82). J o s e p h u s a l s o e m p h a s i z e s t h e g e n e r o s i t y t h a t J o s e p h as a n
administrator
s h o w s t o t h e E g y p t i a n f a r m e r s , a d d i n g the d e t a i l , n o t f o u n d in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 47:23), t h a t after t h e f a m i n e h a d s u b s i d e d , J o s e p h w e n t t o e a c h c i t y a n d b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e i n h a b i t a n t s in p e r p e t u i t y t h e l a n d t h a t t h e y h a d c e d e d t o t h e k i n g , w h i c h h e m i g h t a c t u a l l y h a v e r e s e r v e d for his o w n b e n e f i t (Ant. 2 . 1 9 1 - 9 3 ) . T h e n e t result o f this m a g n a n i m o u s a c t , J o s e p h u s tells us, is t h a t J o s e p h in c r e a s e d b o t h his o w n r e p u t a t i o n a m o n g the E g y p t i a n s a n d t h e i r l o y a l t y to t h e king. O n e a s p e c t o f J o s e p h ' s c h a r a c t e r t h a t m i g h t w e l l s e e m to call for r e p r o o f is his failure t o visit his father m o r e f r e q u e n d y d u r i n g the s e v e n t e e n y e a r s t h a t J a c o b s p e n t in E g y p t . A c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , J o s e p h h a d to b e i n f o r m e d t h a t his father w a s ill ( G e n . 4 8 : 1 ) .
49
C l e a r l y s u c h n e g l e c t w o u l d n o t r e d o u n d to J o s e p h ' s credit;
a n d so it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s this v e r s e c o m p l e t e l y a n d i n s t e a d m e r e l y states t h a t J a c o b fell sick a n d d i e d (Ant. 2.194). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , in J a c o b ' s blessing o f J o s e p h , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f J a c o b ' s p r a i s i n g J o s e p h b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t h a r b o r e d m a l i c e t o w a r d his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 4 9 : 2 2 - 2 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , J a c o b praises J o s e p h for this v e r y r e a s o n a n d s p e c i aT
fically c o m m e n d s h i m for b e i n g g e n e r o u s (xPV ^)
in l o a d i n g t h e m w i t h p r e s e n t s
s u c h as s o m e w o u l d n o t h a v e g i v e n e v e n to r e q u i t e their b e n e f a c t o r s (Ant. 2.195). J o s e p h u s likewise g o e s b e y o n d the B i b l e in e m p h a s i z i n g J o s e p h ' s g e n e r o s i t y t o w a r d his b r o t h e r s e v e n after J a c o b ' s d e a t h b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e y w e r e r e l u c t a n t t o r e t u r n w i t h h i m after the b u r i a l o f J a c o b , b e c a u s e t h e y f e a r e d t h a t J o s e p h w o u l d n o w feel less r e l u c t a n t to seek v e n g e a n c e for their m i s t r e a t m e n t o f him,
5 0
J o s e p h , in fact, g r a n t e d t h e m g r e a t possessions a n d n e v e r c e a s e d t o h o l d
t h e m in t h e h i g h e s t r e g a r d (Ant. 2.197). It is this k i n d n e s s a n d t h o u g h t f u l n e s s o f J o s e p h t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses in a n u m b e r o f e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t s . T h u s , w h e n J o s e p h interprets the b a k e r ' s d r e a m , h e b e g i n s b y s a y i n g t h a t h e w i s h e s h e c o u l d h a v e g i v e n h i m g o o d n e w s (so also P h i l o , De Josepho 18.94) b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y c a n n o t d o so (Ant. 2.72). T h e r e is n o s u c h t h o u g h t f u l a n d s y m p a t h e t i c p r e f a c e i n the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( G e n . 40:18). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t J o s e p h
spoke roughly (Septuagint
GKXrjpd,
49. T h e r e is a rabbinic tradition that the reason w h y Joseph had to be told this was that he visited
his father so infrequendy (Pesiqta Rabbati 3.10b). 50. Joseph is similarly praised in the Testament of Joseph 17:5 for his generous treatment o f his broth ers even after Jacob's death. S o also Philo, De Josepho 43.264.
358
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
" h a r s h l y " ) to his b r o t h e r s w h e n t h e y first c a m e to E g y p t ( G e n . 42:7, 42:30), J o s e p h u s o m i t s the r o u g h s p e e c h a n d says m e r e l y that J o s e p h p r o c e e d e d to test their feelings o n affairs in g e n e r a l (Ant. 2.97), thus g i v i n g a m o t i v e , l a c k i n g in the B i b l e , for J o s e p h ' s s e e m i n g l y s t r a n g e a c t i o n s . J o s e p h u s t h e n further e x p l a i n s J o s e p h ' s a c tions b y n o t i n g , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , that h e p r o c e e d e d thus in o r d e r to d i s c o v e r n e w s o f his father a n d in o r d e r to l e a r n the fate o f his y o u n g e r b r o t h e r B e n j a m i n , b e c a u s e h e f e a r e d t h a t the b r o t h e r s m i g h t h a v e c o n s p i r e d a g a i n s t B e n j a m i n as t h e y h a d a g a i n s t h i m . J o s e p h u s offers a n a d d i t i o n a l defense o f J o s e p h ' s s e e m i n g l y c a p r i c i o u s a c t i o n in c a s t i n g his b r o t h e r s into p r i s o n ( G e n . 42:17), n a m e l y , t h a t h e d i d so in o r d e r to i n t e r r o g a t e t h e m at leisure, o n c e h e h a d l e a r n e d t h a t his father w a s still alive a n d t h a t B e n j a m i n h a d n o t p e r i s h e d (Ant. 2.105). J o s e p h u s further d e f e n d s J o s e p h ' s a c t i o n s b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t h e d e p o s i t e d his favorite d r i n k i n g c u p in B e n j a m i n ' s s a c k in o r d e r to see w h e t h e r the b r o t h e r s h a d l e a r n e d their lesson a n d w o u l d s t a n d b y B e n j a m i n (Ant. 2.125) (a similar m o t i v e o c c u r s in Jubilees 42:25 a n d in P h i l o , De Josepho 8.39). T h e r e a d e r o f the b i b l i c a l t e x t m i g h t w e l l b e critical o f J o s e p h for d e m a n d i n g t h a t the b r o t h e r s l e a v e o n e o f their n u m b e r as a h o s t a g e ( G e n . 42:19). I n the H e b r e w text, J o s e p h s e e m s utterly u n f e e l i n g w h e n h e takes his b r o t h e r S i m e o n a n d b i n d s h i m b e f o r e the eyes o f the o t h e r b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 42:24). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , this a p p a r e n t c r u e l t y is m i t i g a t e d b y J o s e p h ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l a s s u r a n c e to the b r o t h ers that n o v i o l e n c e will b e d o n e to S i m e o n (Ant. 2.106). J o s e p h u s m a k e s n o m e n tion o f J o s e p h ' s b i n d i n g S i m e o n b e f o r e t h e i r v e r y eyes; w e a r e t o l d s i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h d e t a i n e d S i m e o n as a h o s t a g e (Ant. 2 . n o ) . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t J o s e p h r e l e a s e d S i m e o n a n d m a d e h i m p r e s e n t a b l e to rejoin his b r o t h e r s 2.121).
(Ant.
51
T h e r e is further e m p h a s i s o n J o s e p h ' s g e n e r o s i t y in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h J o s e p h b e r a t e s his b r o t h e r s a n d e x c l a i m s : " K n o w y e n o t t h a t s u c h a m a n as I will i n d e e d d i v i n e ? " ( G e n . 44:15). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , J o s e p h asks w h a t t h e y t h o u g h t o f his g e n e r o s i t y (c/>i\avOpeon las) o r o f G - d ' s w a t c h ful eye (irpovolas) in d a r i n g to a c t thus t o w a r d their b e n e f a c t o r (Ant. 2.136). J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s o n J o s e p h ' s j u s t i c e a n d m a g n a n i m i t y in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h J o s e p h states t h a t o n l y the b r o t h e r i n w h o s e s a c k the g o b let w a s f o u n d will b e d e t a i n e d ( G e n . 44:17). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , J o s e p h ' s j u s t i c e is m u c h m o r e explicit. I n the first p l a c e , w e are told, as i f the s c e n e w e r e a c o u r t o f j u s t i c e , t h a t J o s e p h a c q u i t t e d (d-rroXvovros) t h e m o n the g r o u n d t h a t t h e y w e r e guildess. H e t h e n e x p l a i n s v e r y r e a s o n a b l y the m o t i v e s t h a t g o v e r n J o s e p h ' s sense o f j u s t i c e , n a m e l y , t h a t it w o u l d b e n o m o r e r e a s o n a b l e to release B e n j a m i n for the sake o f his i n n o c e n t c o m r a d e s t h a n to ask t h e m to share the p e n a l t y o f the g u i l t y t h i e f (Ant. 2.138).
51. T h e rabbinic tradition likewise stresses the kindness that Joseph showed to S i m e o n . See Genesis
Rabbah 9 1 7 - 8 , 92.4, and the other passages cited in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:348, n. 220.
JOSEPH
3
5
9
C o n n e c t e d w i t h the q u a l i t y o f i\avdpa)Tr[a is the v i r t u e o f s h o w i n g g r a t i t u d e . T h u s w e find t h a t J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , states t h a t J o s e p h refused the o v e r t u r e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife n o t m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f the i m m o r a l i t y o f h e r re q u e s t b u t also b e c a u s e it w o u l d b e a n o u t r a g e to the h o s t w h o h a d h o n o r e d h i m so h i g h l y (Ant. 2.42). I n d e e d , ironically, w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife a c c u s e s J o s e p h to h e r h u s b a n d , she c h a r g e s h i m w i t h i n g r a t i t u d e , s a y i n g h e h a d f o r g o t t e n the benefits t h a t h e h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m P o t i p h a r (Ant. 2.56).
Piety T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y in J o s e p h u s ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f J o s e p h m a y b e s e e n in his v e r s i o n o f J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , w e are t o l d m e r e l y t h a t J o s e p h d r e a m e d y e t a n o t h e r d r e a m ( G e n . 37:9), J o s e p h u s says that it w a s G - d , c o u n t e r a c t i n g the j e a l o u s y o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s , w h o sent a s e c o n d v i s i o n to J o s e p h , far m o r e m a r v e l o u s t h a n the first (Ant. 2.13). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n , w h e n J a c o b e v a l u a t e s J o s e p h ' s d r e a m , o f G - d ' s role in fulfilling its m e s s a g e ( G e n . 37:10), in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.15), J a c o b affirms t h a t G - d is u s i n g the d r e a m to p r o m i s e t h a t the t i m e will c o m e w h e n J o s e p h will b e h o n o r e d b y his p a r ents a n d b r e t h r e n . J o s e p h u s m a y h e r e b e a p p e a l i n g to his R o m a n intellectual a u d i e n c e , w h i c h , at least a m o n g the S t o i c s (see C i c e r o , De Divinatione 1.70-71), re g a r d e d d r e a m s as h a v i n g a d i v i n e o r i g i n .
52
W h e n J o s e p h is cast into p r i s o n b e c a u s e o f the false a c c u s a t i o n b y P o t i p h a r ' s wife, w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l t e x t states t h a t t h e L - r d w a s w i t h J o s e p h ( G e n . 39:21), J o s e p h u s represents J o s e p h as t a k i n g the initiative in c o m m i t t i n g his c a u s e entirely to G - d
5 3
a n d e x p r e s s i n g c o n f i d e n c e that G - d , w h o k n e w the c a u s e o f his calamity,
w o u l d p r o v e s t r o n g e r t h a n those w h o h a d i n c a r c e r a t e d h i m (Ant. 2.60). T h e role o f G - d is a g a i n h e i g h t e n e d in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the release o f J o s e p h
from
p r i s o n . I n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e r e a d o n l y that at the e n d o f t w o full y e a r s , P h a r a o h h a d a d r e a m ( G e n . 41:1). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , ascribes the initiative to G - d , w h o devises a m e a n s for b r i n g i n g a b o u t J o s e p h ' s release f r o m
prison
(Ant. 2.74). T h i s a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t G - d directs all h u m a n events is likewise to b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h g r e e t s his y o u n g e r b r o t h e r B e n j a m i n . I n the B i b l e , w h e n J o s e p h sees B e n j a m i n h e says, " G - d b e g r a c i o u s u n t o thee, m y s o n " ( G e n . 43:29), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , their e m o t i o n a l m e e t i n g e v o k e s the t h e o l o g i c a l a c k n o w l e d g m e n t that G - d presides o v e r all (Ant. 2.122). A similar a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f G - d ' s u n i v e r s a l c o n c e r n is to b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the i n c i d e n t in w h i c h J o s e p h sends his m e n to r e c o v e r the c u p t h a t
52. See D o d d s 1951, 120. T h i s v i e w was accepted even by such Peripatetics as Cratippus, despite Aristode's o w n denial (De Divinatione per Somnum 463B15 ff., 464A20 ff.) that dreams are o f divine origin. 53. Philo, De Josepho 41.247, on the other hand, makes no mention o f Joseph's entrusting his cause to G - d while he was in prison, stressing rather his self-restraint and silence.
360
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
h a d b e e n t a k e n b y t h e b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.129). I n t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d o n l y t h a t J o s e p h g a v e o r d e r s to his s t e w a r d t o o v e r t a k e t h e b r o t h e r s a n d to a c c u s e t h e m ( G e n . 4 4 : 4 - 5 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s G - d i n t o t h e p i c t u r e , i n a s m u c h as the m e n tell t h e b r o t h e r s t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t e s c a p e d the eye o f G - d e v e n t h o u g h t h e y h a v e e l u d e d t h e m i n i s t e r i n g a t t e n d a n t (Ant. 2.129). T h a t G - d ' s role is c e n t r a l in all e v e n t s c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h is c l e a r also f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e n J u d a h a p p e a l s to J o s e p h , h e a d m i t s — c l e a r l y e x p e c t i n g J o s e p h to a p p r e c i a t e s u c h a n a d m i s s i o n — t h a t it w a s G - d w h o h a d b r o u g h t t h e b r o t h e r s to s u c h a d e p t h o f m i s e r y (Ant. 2.145). J o s e p h , in t u r n , far f r o m a c c u s i n g his b r o t h e r s w h e n h e finally m a k e s h i m s e l f k n o w n t o t h e m , says t h a t it w a s n o t t h r o u g h their o w n n a t u r e t h a t t h e y h a d a t t e m p t e d to h a r m h i m , b u t r a t h e r t h a t it w a s b y t h e w i l l o f G - d t h a t all h a d o c c u r r e d , c u l m i n a t i n g in their p r e s e n t h a p p i n e s s (Ant. 2.161). I n d e e d , h e e v e n g o e s so far as to t h a n k t h e m (Ant. 2.162) for a c t i n g as assistants in b r i n g i n g G - d ' s p u r p o s e s to their c u r r e n t issue. O n the o t h e r h a n d , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to stress t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s b y d e e m p h a s i z i n g t h e role o f G - d in their a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h u s , w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e d e c l a r e s t h a t Potiphar, J o s e p h ' s master, s a w t h a t t h e L - r d w a s w i t h h i m ( G e n . 39:3), J o s e p h u s o m i t s G - d ' s role a n d s i m p l y states t h a t P o t i p h a r h e l d J o s e p h in t h e h i g h e s t e s t e e m (Ant. 2.39), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f his efficiency a n d fidelity. A g a i n , w h e n J o s e p h refuses t h e a d v a n c e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife, w h e r e a s i n the B i b l e , h e e x c l a i m s t h a t s u c h w i c k e d n e s s w o u l d b e a sin a g a i n s t G - d ( G e n . 39:9), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , as w e h a v e n o t e d , J o s e p h resorts to r a t i o n a l a r g u m e n t in t r y i n g to p e r s u a d e h e r to desist f r o m h e r a d v a n c e s (Ant. 2 . 5 1 - 5 2 ) . L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g to the b i b l i c a l text, it is G - d w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e for J o s e p h ' s f a v o r e d p o s i t i o n in t h e p r i s o n ( G e n . 39:21), J o s e p h u s attributes J o s e p h ' s m e t e o r i c rise in t h e eyes o f t h e k e e p e r o f t h e p r i s o n to his o w n d i l i g e n c e (emju,e'Aeiav) a n d fidelity (TTIOTLV) to the tasks e n t r u s t e d to h i m , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e d i g n i t y o f his features (Ant. 2.61). A g a i n , w h e n J o s e p h in terprets P h a r a o h ' s d r e a m s , i n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , h e says t h a t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o m e s f r o m G - d ( G e n . 41:16); b u t J o s e p h u s , w h o is interested in b u i l d i n g u p t h e c h a r a c t e r o f J o s e p h a n d i n h i g h l i g h t i n g his w i s d o m , totally o m i t s the role o f G - d a n d p r e s e n t s t h e e x p l a n a t i o n as J o s e p h ' s o w n (Ant. 2 . 8 4 ) .
54
Likewise, whereas the
b i b l i c a l t e x t stresses t h a t G - d h a d u s e d the v e h i c l e o f a d r e a m in o r d e r to tell P h a r a o h w h a t H e w a s a b o u t to d o ( G e n . 41:25, 28), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this r e f e r e n c e t o G - d ' s role (Ant. 2.84-86). A n d e v e n w h e n J o s e p h d o e s s u b s e q u e n t i y m e n t i o n
54. O n the other hand, in the biblical text, it is to G - d that D a n i e l ascribes the explanation o f N e b uchadnezzar's d r e a m (Dan. 2:28); a n d G - d plays the same role in Josephus's version (Ant. 10.203). T h e explanation for this apparent inconsistency with Josephus's treatment o f Joseph's interpretation o f Pharaoh's d r e a m is, it w o u l d seem, that Josephus is eager to build u p his political figure, namely, Joseph, especially in answer to those critics, particularly those from E g y p t , o f w h i c h Joseph h a d been viceroy (see, e.g., the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs), w h o h a d bitterly attacked Jewish influence in high places, whereas D a n i e l did not attain any such position.
JOSEPH
361
G - d , it is n o t t o state t h a t G - d uses the v e h i c l e o f t h e d r e a m to p r e d i c t w h a t H e will d o , b u t r a t h e r to f o r e w a r n m e n so t h a t t h e y m a y use their h u m a n s a g a c i t y (ovveoei) t o a l l e v i a t e t h e trials t h a t w i l l befall t h e m (Ant. 2.86). T o d o this is p r e c i s e l y t h e role o f t h e i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , as w e see n o t a b l y in T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Peri cles ( 2 . 6 4 . 1 - 2 ) , n a m e l y , to h a v e t h e foresight to p r e d i c t a n d t h e w i s d o m t o c o p e with the unpredictable. W h e n P h a r a o h d e c i d e s to entrust t o J o s e p h t h e task o f p r e p a r i n g for t h e y e a r s o f f a m i n e , the b i b l i c a l text stresses t h a t the f a c t o r t h a t l e a d s P h a r a o h to his d e c i sion is t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e spirit o f G - d is in J o s e p h ( G e n . 41:38) a n d t h a t G - d h a s c a u s e d h i m to k n o w w h a t is t o c o m e t o pass ( G e n . 41:39). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r sion, b y c o n t r a s t , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f G - d , a n d P h a r a o h expresses, rather, his a d m i r a t i o n for J o s e p h ' s w i s d o m i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d r e a m a n d for his c o u n s e l (Ant. 2.89). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e n o t e s the role o f G - d in t h e n a m e s g i v e n to J o s e p h ' s sons M a n a s s e h ("for G - d h a s m a d e m e forget all m y toil a n d all m y fa ther's h o u s e " ) a n d E p h r a i m ("for G - d h a s m a d e m e fruitful in t h e l a n d o f m y af fliction") ( G e n . 4 1 : 5 1 - 5 2 ) , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the role o f G - d a n d says t h a t the n a m e M a n a s s e h signifies " c a u s e o f forgetfulness," b e c a u s e J o s e p h , in his prosperity, h a d f o u n d o b l i v i o n o f his misfortunes, a n d t h a t the n a m e E p h r a i m m e a n s "restorer," b e c a u s e J o s e p h h a d b e e n r e s t o r e d to t h e l i b e r t y o f his forefathers (Ant. 2.92).
APOLOGETICS N o t o n l y i n t h e treatise Against Apion b u t also in his Antiquities, J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y seeks to a n s w e r anti-Jewish c a n a r d s . T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y n e c e s s a r y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h , i n a s m u c h as the s c e n e o f J o s e p h ' s activities w a s E g y p t , w h i c h h a d o n c e b e e n o v e r r u n b y t h e H y k s o s , a n d w h i c h w a s the h o t b e d o f attacks b y intel lectuals s u c h as M a n e t h o , C h a e r e m o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d A p i o n . T h u s , in the B i b l e , J o s e p h instructs his b r o t h e r s t h a t w h e n a s k e d b y P h a r a o h a b o u t their o c c u p a t i o n , t h e y s h o u l d reply, n o t t h a t t h e y w e r e s h e p h e r d s (as i n d e e d t h e y w e r e ) — since s h e p h e r d s w e r e a n a b o m i n a t i o n t o t h e E g y p t i a n s ( G e n . 4 6 : 3 4 ) — b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e y w e r e cattle o w n e r s ( G e n . 4 6 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h a s J o s e p h h i m s e l f tell P h a r a o h d i r e c d y a n d a p o l o g e t i c a l l y t h a t his b r o t h e r s a r e good s h e p h e r d s a n d t h a t t h e y f o l l o w this c a l l i n g so t h a t t h e y m a y n o t b e s e p a r a t e d f r o m e a c h o t h e r a n d m a y l o o k after their father (Ant. 2 . 1 8 5 - 8 6 ) . H i s J o s e p h l i k e w i s e p r e sents the n o v e l e c o n o m i c f a c t o r t h a t t h e y e n g a g e d in this o c c u p a t i o n i n o r d e r t o i n gratiate
55
t h e m s e l v e s to the E g y p t i a n s b y n o t c o m p e t i n g w i t h t h e m , since E g y p
tians w e r e f o r b i d d e n to o c c u p y t h e m s e l v e s w i t h the p a s t u r i n g o f livestock. H e t h u s
55. N i e h o f f (1992, 109) says that J a c o b advises his sons to integrate themselves with the Egyptians, but the w o r d that Josephus (Ant. 2.186) here uses, 7rpoa<£iAefs, m e a n s to be dear to, that is, to ingratiate themselves to the Egyptians. T h e fact that P h a r a o h permits J a c o b and his sons to live in Heliopolis a n d to seek their o w n pasturage is an indication that he accepted their wish not to be integrated into E g y p t ian society.
362
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
answers the charge o f those opponents o f the J e w s w h o apparently c l a i m e d that J e w s c o n s t i t u t e d a t h r e a t to t h e E g y p t i a n s ' l i v e l i h o o d .
56
H e also h e r e offers a d e
fense o f the c l i q u i s h n e s s o f t h e H e b r e w s i n l i v i n g together, a p a r t f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e s — n a m e l y t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s w i s h e d t o l o o k after their a g e d father. A i n o t h e r c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e J e w s w a s t h a t o f d u a l loyalty. T h a t J e w s are, i n d e e d , l o y a l to their m a s t e r s is t h e t h e m e , for e x a m p l e , o f J o s e p h ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n in his s t a t e m e n t to t h e b u d e r t h a t e v e n t h e lure o f his o w n p l e a s u r e w o u l d n o t in d u c e h i m to d i s h o n o r his master, P o t i p h a r (Ant. 2 . 6 8 - 6 9 ) . J o s e p h u s is careful t o stress J o s e p h ' s l o y a l t y t o t h e P h a r a o h e v e n w h e n , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f his t r e m e n d o u s a c h i e v e m e n t in s a v i n g t h e c o u n t r y f r o m s t a r v a t i o n , h e m i g h t h a v e r u l e d himself, a n d h a d , in fact, b e e n r o b e d in p u r p l e b y t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.90). J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e uses t h e e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h ' s fidelity to P h a r a o h t o a n s w e r t h e dis l o y a l t y c h a r g e , n o t i n g t h a t w h e n t h e f a m i n e h a d a b a t e d , J o s e p h r e p a i r e d to e a c h city a n d b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e E g y p t i a n s in p e r p e t u i t y the l a n d t h a t t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y c e d e d to the k i n g , w h i c h h e m i g h t h a v e t a k e n for himself. C o n s e q u e n d y J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s , J o s e p h b o t h i n c r e a s e d his o w n r e p u t a t i o n w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d their l o y a l t y to their s o v e r e i g n (Ant. 2 . 1 9 1 - 9 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , L y s i m a c h u s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.305-6) h a d d e p i c t e d a f a m i n e in E g y p t as the o c c a s i o n for t h e e x o d u s , in that, a c c o r d i n g t o h i m , t h e f a m i n e w a s o w i n g to a s h o r t a g e o f w o r k e r s r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n e p i d e m i c . T h e r e u p o n t h e k i n g h a d sent to a n o r a c l e to i n q u i r e a b o u t t h e failure o f the c r o p s a n d h a d b e e n told to p u r g e the E g y p t i a n t e m p l e s o f i m p u r e a n d i m p i o u s p e r s o n s , n a m e l y , the Israelites. J o s e p h u s , in effect, replies t h a t the E g y p t i a n f a m i n e , far f r o m b e i n g c a u s e d b y t h e Israelites, w a s a c t u a l l y a l l e v i a t e d b y a n Israelite, J o s e p h . A n o t h e r c h a r g e , f r e q u e n d y m a d e a g a i n s t the J e w s , w a s selfishness in b e i n g c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h fellow J e w s .
5 7
In Josephus's version, w e are told that J o s e p h
o p e n e d his g r a n a r i e s t o e v e r y o n e b e c a u s e h e h e l d t h a t all m e n a r e a single f a m i l y a n d h e n c e s h o u l d b e a i d e d (Ant. 2.94).
A P P E A L T O P H I L O S O P H I C AND M O R A L I Z I N G I N T E R E S T A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his n a r r a t i v e o f J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , g e n e r a l i z e s , f r o m t h e e n v y t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s felt t o w a r d J o s e p h , t h a t m e n a r e thus j e a l o u s o f the successes e v e n o f their n e a r e s t relatives (Ant. 2.10). J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i s h e r e o n t h e t h e m e o f e n v y is u n d o u b t e d l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h a t e n v y w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s so f r e q u e n d y c h a r g e s his rival d u r i n g his c o m m a n d in G a l i l e e , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (e.g., Life 122, 189-203) ( N i e h o f f 1992, 9 1 - 9 3 ) . I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s p o i n t s to J o s e p h as a n e x a m p l e o f
56. I have argued that economics was a major factor in the hatred exhibited by non-Jews toward Jews in A l e x a n d r i a in the popular attack on the Jews in 38 C.E. See Feldman 1988a, 23; 1993a, 113-17. 57. A c c o r d i n g to the Midrash, Joseph refused to sell grain to those Egyptians w h o w o u l d not be
circumcised {Genesis Rabbah 85.2, 90.6, 91.5).
JOSEPH
363
h o w a n o b l e spirit c a n s u r m o u n t t h e trials o f life, despite t h e t e m p t a t i o n to a c c o m m o d a t e o n e s e l f to p a s s i n g p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 2.40). I n d e e d , o n e o f the leitmotifs o f J o s e p h u s , t h r o u g h o u t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , is t h e effect o f c h a n g e o f for t u n e u p o n c h a r a c t e r ; h e n c e , J o s e p h is p r e s e n t e d as t h e e x a m p l e p a r e x c e l l e n c e o f o n e w h o r e m a i n e d steadfast, despite the vicissitudes o f his life (Ant. 2.42). I n p a r ticular, in r e s p o n s e to t h e a d v a n c e s o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t J o s e p h c h o s e to suffer u n j u s d y a n d t o e n d u r e e v e n t h e m o s t severe p e n a l t y r a t h e r t h a n t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e m o m e n t to s u c c u m b t o i m m o r a l i t y (Ant. 2.50). T h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife c a u g h t h i m b y his g a r m e n t a n d in v i t e d h i m to h a v e relations w i t h her, J o s e p h left his g a r m e n t in h e r h a n d a n d fled w i t h o u t s a y i n g a w o r d ( G e n . 39:12); in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h takes a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e a c h a s e r m o n to P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e — a n d t o t h e r e a d e r — a b o u t t h e transient p l e a s u r e o f lust a n d the s u b s e q u e n t r e m o r s e t h a t she w o u l d feel (Ant. 2.51), a n d to m o r a l i z e t h a t it is far b e t t e r t o p u t faith in a k n o w n r e p u t a t i o n for a w e l l - s p e n t life t h a n in t h e s e c r e c y o f c r i m e (Ant. 2.52). I n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m o r a l i z i n g ; rather, the p o i n t m a d e b y J o s e p h is t h a t his p a r t i c u l a r a c t , if h e w e r e to s u c c u m b to h e r a d v a n c e s , w o u l d b e a sin a g a i n s t G - d a n d w o u l d s h o w i n g r a t i t u d e to his m a s t e r ( G e n . 39:9).
EXPLANATION
OF DIFFICULTIES IN THE BIBLICAL T E X T
I n a d d i t i o n to d e f e n d i n g the J e w s a g a i n s t attacks b y non-Jews, J o s e p h u s also felt t h e n e e d to a n s w e r c h a r g e s b y J e w s t h e m s e l v e s t h a t b i b l i c a l figures h a d c o m p r o m i s e d t h e l a w s o f J u d a i s m . T h u s t h e B i b l e states t h a t w h e n P h a r a o h sent for J o s e p h f r o m t h e d u n g e o n w h e r e h e h a d b e e n c o n f i n e d b y Potiphar, J o s e p h s h a v e d h i m s e l f ( G e n . 41:14). J o s e p h u s , a w a r e t h a t s h a v i n g w a s a g a i n s t J e w i s h tradition (Leviticus 19:27, 21:5), m i g h t h a v e justified the a c t i o n b y s a y i n g t h a t h e d i d so t o h o n o r t h e s o v e r e i g n (so also the M i d r a s h Genesis Rabbah 89.9). J o s e p h u s w a r i l y a v o i d s the issue, h o w e v e r , b y s a y i n g n o t h i n g a b o u t J o s e p h s h a v i n g himself, a n d h e m a k e s t w o m a j o r c h a n g e s in t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t . I n the first p l a c e , it is n o t J o s e p h w h o takes t h e initiative in p r e p a r i n g h i m s e l f b u t r a t h e r P h a r a o h ' s officers; a n d s e c o n d l y J o s e p h u s o m i t s e x p l i c i t m e n t i o n o f s h a v i n g a l t o g e t h e r a n d r a t h e r restricts h i m s e l f t o a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t the officers g a v e their " a t t e n t i o n s " (TrjfjLeXrjaavres, " l o o k after," " t a k e c a r e " ) to J o s e p h in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e k i n g ' s o r d e r s (Ant. 2.79). T h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t after J a c o b ' s d e a t h , it w a s J o s e p h w h o c o m m a n d e d his servants t o e m b a l m his father ( G e n . 50:2), w h e r e a s J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , c e r t a i n l y i n J o s e p h u s ' s day, i f w e a r e to j u d g e f r o m the findings o f a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , e s p e c i a l l y in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t e m b a l m i n g w a s a n E g y p t i a n p r a c t i c e , w a s o p p o s e d t o s u c h t a m p e r i n g with the d e a d .
5 8
J o s e p h u s resolves this p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g all m e n t i o n
58. To be sure, some rabbis justified the embalming of Jacob as having been done in accordance with Jacob's own instructions (Genesis Rabbah 100.3); Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah at the end of the second century, criticized it. D u t
364
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o f J a c o b ' s e m b a l m i n g a n d b y stating m e r e l y t h a t J o s e p h c o n v e y e d his father's c o r p s e t o H e b r o n a n d t h e r e g a v e it s u m p t u o u s b u r i a l , w i t h o u t further specification (Ant. 2 . 1 9 6 ) .
59
T h e r e are, m o r e o v e r , a n u m b e r o f o t h e r difficulties in t h e b i b l i c a l text t h a t J o s e p h u s tries to resolve. T h u s , t h e r e a d e r m a y w e l l w o n d e r h o w J o s e p h , w h o a p p a r e n d y h a d n o e x p e r i e n c e as a n a g r i c u l t u r a l administrator, c o u l d h a v e m a n a g e d to o v e r s e e the c r o p s o f so v a s t a c o u n t r y as E g y p t . I n t h e B i b l e , w e d o r e a d t h a t in his y o u t h , J o s e p h w a s f e e d i n g t h e flock w i t h his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 37:2), b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f his l e a r n i n g a b o u t c r o p s . J o s e p h u s v e r y s u b d y c h a n g e s the focus f r o m flocks to c r o p s , h o w e v e r , stating t h a t J o s e p h h a d b e e n sent o u t w i t h his b r o t h ers to g a t h e r in t h e c r o p s at m i d s u m m e r (Ant. 2. n ) . A n o t h e r difficulty is t o b e s e e n in t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e sale o f J o s e p h b y his b r o t h ers. First, w e h e a r o f t h e b r o t h e r s ' p r o p o s a l to sell h i m to t h e I s h m a e l i t e s ( G e n . 37:27); b u t in t h e n e x t v e r s e , w e r e a d t h a t t h e M i d i a n i t e s sold J o s e p h to t h e 60
I s h a m e l i t e s . J o s e p h u s resolves this a w k w a r d d i l e m m a b y o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f the M i d i a n i t e s a l t o g e t h e r (Ant. 2 . 3 4 ) .
61
J o s e p h u s is also c o n c e r n e d w i t h c l a r i f y i n g the m o t i v a t i o n o f e v e n t s that, in the B i b l e , a r e s o m e t i m e s left u n e x p l a i n e d . T h u s w e r e a d t h a t J o s e p h c a m e to the b u t ler a n d t h e b a k e r after t h e y h a d h a d their d r e a m s , w i t h o u t a n y i n d i c a t i o n as to h o w J o s e p h h a d e s t a b l i s h e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m ( G e n . 40:6). J o s e p h u s , a w a r e o f this p r o b l e m , e x p l a i n s t h a t s i n c e t h e y w e r e fellow p r i s o n e r s , t h e y w o u l d fall i n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n d u r i n g a n y c e s s a t i o n o f their h a r d l a b o r s a n d discuss t h e r e a s o n s w h y t h e y h a d b e e n i n c a r c e r a t e d (Ant. 2 . 6 2 - 6 3 ) . I n particular, h e a d d s t h a t t h e b u d e r w o r e the s a m e fetters as J o s e p h a n d t h a t h e h a d b e e n i m p r e s s e d w i t h J o s e p h ' s sagacity. A n o t h e r q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e r e a d e r o f the B i b l e m a y w e l l ask is h o w P h a r a o h w a s a b l e to d e t e r m i n e t h a t J o s e p h h a d i n t e r p r e t e d his d r e a m c o r r e c d y . T h e r e is n o h i n t i n t h e B i b l e itself o n this p o i n t ( G e n . 4 1 : 1 - 7 ) , b u t J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t P h a r a o h d r e a m e d n o t o n l y t h e d r e a m s b u t also their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ( w h i c h h e h a d t e m p o r a r i l y forgotten) a n d h e n c e w a s a b l e to c o n f i r m J o s e p h ' s e x p l a n a t i o n as c o r r e c t (Ant. 2 - 7 5 ) .
62
59. T h e r e is a similar difference o f opinion with regard to Joseph's e m b a l m m e n t , carried out, ac cording to one opinion, by Egyptian physicians, but, according to another, by his brothers (Genesis Rab bah 100.11). H e r e , too, Josephus resolves the matter by omitting, as does the Septuagint (Gen. 50:26), all mention of Joseph's e m b a l m m e n t . 60. T h e rabbis resolve this apparent discrepancy by remarking that the brothers first sold Joseph to the Midianites, w h o , in turn, sold him to the Ishmaelites (Tashar Vayeshev 82b). 61. Artapanus (ap. A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.23.1) likewise omits mention o f the Midianites; but in Artapanus, Joseph anticipates his brother's plot and asks the A r a b s (Ishmaelites) to transport him to E g y p t . Josephus m a y here be following the Septuagint, w h i c h uses the definite article for the Midianites, thus apparendy identifying the Midianites and the Ishamaelites. 62. S o also the midrashic tradition (Midrash Hagadol [ed. Schechter, p. 625]; Midrash Aggada [ed. Buber, 1.96]).
JOSEPH
3
6
5
T h e s t u d e n t o f the B i b l e is c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a r e a l p r o b l e m w h e n h e r e a d s t h a t J o s e p h p r o p o s e d t h a t d u r i n g the s e v e n y e a r s o f p l e n t y e a c h f a r m e r b e r e q u i r e d to g i v e a fifth o f his p r o d u c e ( G e n . 41:34). T h e q u e s t i o n arises h o w seven-fifths w o u l d b e sufficient for the s e v e n l e a n y e a r s t h a t w e r e y e t to c o m e ; a m o r e l o g i c a l re q u i r e m e n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n t h a t e a c h b e r e q u i r e d to g i v e h a l f o f his p r o d u c e . T h e t a r g u m o n this p a s s a g e interprets the w o r d himesh ("a fifth") as " i n h a s t e , " as in E x o d . 13:18. J o s e p h u s n e a d y resolves the p r o b l e m b y h a v i n g J o s e p h a d v i s e t h a t the E g y p t i a n s reserve all their surplus for e m e r g e n c i e s , w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g the a c t u a l a m o u n t (Ant. 2.88). T h e B i b l e w o u l d also s e e m to b e e x a g g e r a t i n g w h e n it states t h a t the f a m i n e t h a t afflicted E g y p t a c t u a l l y e x t e n d e d o v e r all the face o f the e a r t h ( G e n . 41:56). J o s e p h u s r e d u c e s the e x p a n s e o f the s c o u r g e to the w h o l e c o n t i n e n t (Ant. 2.95). S i n c e the r e a d e r o f the B i b l e is t o l d t h a t w h e n the b r o t h e r s c a m e t o E g y p t , J o s e p h r e c o g n i z e d t h e m , b u t t h a t t h e y d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e h i m ( G e n . 42:8), h e m a y well w o n d e r w h y there w a s n o reciprocal recognition. Josephus v e r y reasonably e x p l a i n s t h a t w h e n h e left t h e m , J o s e p h w a s b u t a l a d , a n d t h a t now, y e a r s later, his features h a d c h a n g e d c o n s i d e r a b l y ;
63
a n d h e a d d s t h a t his e x a l t e d r a n k p r e v e n t e d
a n y possibility o f their r e c o g n i z i n g h i m f r o m e v e n e n t e r i n g their m i n d s (Ant. 2.97). T h e r e a d e r m a y w e l l b e p u z z l e d as to w h y J o s e p h p u t his c u p into the s a c k o f his b r o t h e r B e n j a m i n , s e e i n g t h a t the B i b l e gives n o e x p l a n a t i o n ( G e n . 44:2). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , v e r y r e a s o n a b l y states t h a t h e d i d so to test his b r o t h e r s a n d t o see w h e t h e r t h e y w o u l d assist B e n j a m i n w h e n h e w a s a r r e s t e d o r w h e t h e r t h e y w o u l d a b a n d o n h i m , as t h e y h a d o n c e d o n e to J o s e p h himself, as s o o n as their o w n in n o c e n c e w a s e s t a b l i s h e d (Ant. 2 . 1 2 5 ) .
64
S o m e t i m e s the r e a d e r o f the B i b l e is c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c tion. T h u s , w e are t o l d that J o s e p h sent w a g o n s in w h i c h to c o n v e y J a c o b ( G e n . 45:27); b u t a f e w verses later w e h e a r t h a t it w a s P h a r a o h w h o h a d sent the w a g o n s ( G e n . 46:5). T h e S e p t u a g i n t resolves this p r o b l e m b y stating in the latter p a s s a g e t h a t it w a s J o s e p h w h o h a d sent the w a g o n s ; J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y s i m p l y o m i t t i n g b o t h p a s s a g e s (Ant. 2 . 1 6 9 , 174). T h e B i b l e , i n d e s c r i b i n g the f a m i n e that b e s e t E g y p t , m e r e l y states t h a t t h e r e w a s n o b r e a d in all the l a n d , a n d t h a t E g y p t a n d C a n a a n l a n g u i s h e d b e c a u s e o f the f a m i n e ( G e n . 47:13). J o s e p h u s is m u c h m o r e e x p l i c i t in d e s c r i b i n g w h a t c a u s e d the f a m i n e — n a m e l y , b o t h n a t u r a l c a u s e s (the N i l e R i v e r n o l o n g e r w a t e r e d the
63. A similar point is m a d e in the rabbinic tradition, w h i c h declares that the reason w h y the broth ers did not recognize Joseph was that w h e n they h a d sold him he was beardless, whereas n o w he h a d a beard (Baba Mezia 39b; Tevamot 88a; Ketubot 27b; Genesis Rabbah 91.7; Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 42:8; Tashar Mikkez 100b). T h e statement that his exalted role prevented their recognizing him is unique to Josephus, although it recurs in the later Book of Tashar (51.20). 64. A similar explanation o f Joseph's motive is found in Philo (De Josepho 39. 232), w h o adds that Joseph feared that the brothers might have fallen into that natural estrangement that the children o f a stepmother often show to the offspring o f another wife w h o was n o less esteemed than their o w n mother.
366
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
l a n d , i n a s m u c h as it h a d c e a s e d to rise, a n d there w a s n o rain) a n d h u m a n c a u s e s (the E g y p t i a n s h a d t a k e n n o p r e c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t the possibility o f f a m i n e ) (Ant. 2.189).
D R A M A T I C M O T I F S AND L A N G U A G E T h e a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n w a s c o n s t a n d y c o n c e r n e d t h a t his a c c o u n t s h o u l d b e at tractive to his r e a d e r s . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says v e r y s i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h d r e a m e d y e t a n o t h e r d r e a m ( G e n . 37:9), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s in t w o respects, first b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t it w a s G - d w h o sent t h e s e c o n d d r e a m in o r d e r to c o u n t e r a c t t h e j e a l o u s y o f t h e b r o t h e r s , a n d s e c o n d l y b y asserting t h a t the s e c o n d v i s i o n w a s far m o r e m a r v e l o u s t h a n t h e first (Ant. 2.13). T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d s u s p e n s e in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the b r o t h e r s ' r e a c t i o n to J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s (Ant. 2.12). I n t h e B i b l e , w e l e a r n m e r e l y t h a t the b r o t h e r s e n v i e d J o s e p h ( G e n . 37:11); J o s e p h u s says, m o r e portentously, t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t the v i s i o n p r e d i c t e d t h a t J o s e p h w o u l d e x e r c i s e p o w e r a n d m a j e s t y a n d s u p r e m a c y o v e r t h e m , b u t t h a t t h e y re v e a l e d n o t h i n g o f this to J o s e p h , p r e t e n d i n g t h a t the d r e a m s w e r e u n i n t e l l i g i b l e t o t h e m (Ant. 2.12). T h e r e is a similar e l a b o r a t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f P h a r a o h ' s
dreams.
W h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t P h a r a o h a w o k e after the first d r e a m ( G e n . 41:21), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s t h a t w h e n h e a w o k e , h e w a s d i s q u i e t e d a n d w a s p o n d e r i n g in his m i n d w h a t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the d r e a m m i g h t b e (Ant. 2.82). H e t h e n a d d s to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( G e n . 41:22) t h a t the s e c o n d d r e a m (like J o s e p h ' s sec o n d d r e a m ) w a s far m o r e m a r v e l o u s t h a n the first, a n d t h a t this d r e a m terrified a n d d i s q u i e t e d h i m y e t m o r e . W h e r e a s t h e s e v e n g o o d e a r s o f c o r n in t h e d r e a m are d e s c r i b e d in t h e B i b l e as full a n d g o o d ( G e n . 41:22), J o s e p h u s is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e v i v i d , d e s c r i b i n g their h e a d s as a l r e a d y t o p p l i n g a n d b e n t b e n e a t h the l o a d o f g r a i n a n d its r i p e n e s s for h a r v e s t (Ant. 2.83). T h e r e is also g r e a t e r e x c i t e m e n t in J o s e p h u s in t h a t the o n s e t o f t h e f a m i n e is s u d d e n (Ant. 2.93), a detail m i s s i n g in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 41:54) (so also in t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n [Genesis Rabbah 90.6]), t h u s l e a d i n g to i n c r e a s e d d r a m a , i n a s m u c h as c o n s e q u e n t l y the f a r m e r s felt t h e f a m i n e m o r e h e a v i l y a n d all f l o c k e d to the k i n g ' s gates. T h e r e is b o t h b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n a n d a d d e d d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f w h y J o s e p h w e n t t o visit his b r o t h e r s w h e n t h e y w e r e f e e d i n g their father's flocks ( G e n . 3 7 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , J a c o b b i d s J o s e p h , in v e r y v a g u e t e r m s , t o see w h e t h e r all is w e l l w i t h his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 37:14); in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is a v e r y g o o d a n d c o n c r e t e r e a s o n w h y J a c o b sends J o s e p h , n a m e l y , t h a t h e is v e r y w o r r i e d b e c a u s e n o o n e h a s c o m e t o h i m f r o m t h e flocks w h o c a n g i v e h i m c e r t a i n n e w s o f his sons (Ant. 2.19). T h e d r a m a is c e r t a i n l y i n c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t J a c o b h a s the g l o o m i e s t f o r e b o d i n g s a b o u t t h e m as a result. T h e d r a m a is h e i g h t e n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y i n g a d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n J o s e p h a n d his b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.20) a n d b y his o m i t t i n g the n a m e l e s s m a n w h o f o u n d J o s e p h a n d
JOSEPH
367
w h o a s k e d h i m w h o m h e w a s s e e k i n g ( G e n . 37:15). T h e d r a m a o f the b r o t h e r s ' p l o t a g a i n s t J o s e p h is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e , as M a r e n N i e h o f f (1992, 96) h a s r e marked, Josephus creates a discrepancy b e t w e e n the reader's a n d the characters' k n o w l e d g e , since t h e p r o t a g o n i s t s o f t h e story a r e i g n o r a n t o f t h e i m m i n e n t t h r e a t t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s j u s t o u d i n e d t o t h e reader. T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s first c o m e d o w n t o E g y p t a n d a r e a c c u s e d b y J o s e p h o f b e i n g spies ( G e n . 42:9). T h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n m e n t i o n s n o t h i n g e x p l i c i d y a b o u t their a p p r e h e n s i o n
at this
point,
w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i z e s t h e s c e n e c o n s i d e r a b l y , r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e in t r e p i d a t i o n a n d a l a r m , b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e g r a v e s t d a n g e r w a s h a n g i n g o v e r their h e a d s (Ant. 2.100). T h e r e is a d d e d p a t h o s in t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h , n o t w i s h i n g at first t o r e v e a l h i m s e l f to his b r o t h e r s , t u r n s a w a y f r o m t h e m a n d w e e p s ( G e n . 42:24, 43:30). J o s e p h u s a c t u a l l y h a s J o s e p h b r e a k (TrpoviriirTe) into tears f r o m e m o t i o n
(VTTO
TOV
irddovs) (Ant. 2.109; cf. G e n . 42:24). T h e p a t h o s is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e , a s N i e h o f f (1992, 99) h a s n o t e d , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s J o s e p h as so o v e r c o m e b y e m o t i o n t h a t h e bursts i n t o tears e v e n b e f o r e h e b e c o m e s self-aware a n d t u r n s a w a y f r o m his b r o t h ers (Ant. 2.109). W e find t h e w o r d " e m o t i o n " in J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t J o s e p h w a s r e d u c e d b y his e m o t i o n (iradovs) t o tears (Ant. 2.123). L i k e w i s e , t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s a r e s u r r o u n d e d b y h o r s e m e n is m u c h m o r e p i c t u r e s q u e in J o s e p h u s t h a n in t h e B i b l e , w h e r e w e a r e t o l d s i m p l y t h a t t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f J o s e p h ' s h o u s e o v e r t o o k t h e m ( G e n . 44:6). I n J o s e phus's version, the brothers are suddenly surrounded b y a troop o f horsemen, they a r e c o n f o u n d e d b y this u n e x p e c t e d attack, a n d t h e y ask w h y they, w h o h a d b u t n o w e n j o y e d t h e h o s p i t a l i t y o f their master, s h o u l d b e assailed (Ant. 2 . 1 2 6 - 2 8 ) . T h e r e follows a n a s t y s c e n e , n o t p a r a l l e l e d in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , in w h i c h t h e p u r s u e r s call t h e b r o t h e r s s c o u n d r e l s
(KOLKLOTOVS,
"worst men"). W h e r e a s the Bible
says m e r e l y t h a t J o s e p h ' s s t e w a r d o v e r t o o k t h e m a n d s p o k e t o t h e m ( G e n . 44:6), i n Josephus's version, Joseph elaborates the pursuers' sarcasm: " A n d n o w y o u ask . . . w h y w e a r e h e r e , as t h o u g h y o u d i d n o t k n o w ; w e l l , c h a s t i s e m e n t w i l l s o o n t e a c h y o u " (Ant. 2.129). J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s , " W i t h s u c h t a u n t s a n d y e t m o r e d i d t h e s e r v a n t t o o assail t h e m " (Ant. 2.129) T h e s c e n e c o n t i n u e s d r a m a t i c a l l y w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s m o c k e d at these s p e e c h e s a n d e x p r e s s e d t h e i r a s t o n i s h m e n t at t h e l e v i t y w i t h w h i c h this s e r v a n t d a r e d t o a c c u s e t h e m (Ant. 2.130). T h e b i b l i c a l text h a s n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h m o c k e r y ( G e n . 44:7). T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e b u i l d u p o f suspense in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s e a r c h for J o s e p h ' s c u p in t h e sacks o f his b r o t h e r s . I n t h e B i b l e , e a c h o f t h e b r o t h e r s , w e a r e told, o p e n e d his sack, a n d t h e s e a r c h p r o c e e d e d f r o m t h e oldest t o t h e y o u n g e s t ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s e m b e l l i s h e s this n a r r a t i v e b y d e s c r i b i n g t h e f e e l i n g o f re l i e f t h a t e a c h felt w h e n t h e c u p w a s n o t f o u n d i n his sack. H e e v e n n o t e s i r o n i c a l l y t h e c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e y felt t h a t t h e g o b l e t w o u l d n o t b e f o u n d in B e n j a m i n ' s sack, a n d c o n c l u d e s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the a b u s e t h e y p o u r e d u p o n their p u r s u e r s for i m p e d i n g t h e i r j o u r n e y (Ant. 2.133).
368
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
T h e r e is a d d e d p a t h o s i n the s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h ' s g o b l e t is f o u n d in B e n j a m i n ' s sack. T h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t the b r o t h e r s r e n t t h e i r c l o t h e s , l o a d e d their asses, a n d r e t u r n e d t o t h e c i t y ( G e n . 44:13). J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s a m o r e v i v i d scene, n o t i n g that t h e y forthwith g a v e w a y to g r o a n s a n d l a m e n t a t i o n s a n d m o u r n e d b o t h for their b r o t h e r a n d the i m p e n d i n g p u n i s h m e n t for his theft a n d for t h e m selves as likely to p r o v e d e c e i v e r s o f their father, since t h e y h a d p r o m i s e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b r i n g B e n j a m i n b a c k safely (Ant. 2.134). T h e h e i g h t o f d r a m a is r e a c h e d i n J u d a h ' s a p p e a l t o J o s e p h (Ant. 2.159). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s i n c l u d e d s u c h a n a p p e a l is a n i n d i c a t i o n that, i n his eyes, J o s e p h w a s the k i n d o f p e r s o n w h o w o u l d b e m o v e d t o p i t y b y s u c h w o r d s . It is at this p o i n t t h a t the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t J o s e p h c o u l d n o t restrain h i m s e l f ( G e n . 45:1). J o s e p h u s g o e s further in r e m a r k i n g t h a t J o s e p h w a s n o w b e t r a y e d (iXeyxofjuevos) b y his e m o t i o n (ndQovs) (Ant. 2.160). T h e d r a m a is further i n c r e a s e d b y t h e e x t r a b i b lical d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e m o r s e t h a t the b r o t h e r s felt w h e n J o s e p h e m b r a c e d t h e m ; t h e y w e r e p l u n g e d into tears a n d g r i e f for their plottings (Ant. 2 . 1 6 6 ; cf. G e n . 45:15). O n e o f the d e v i c e s o f w h i c h J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y f o n d in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e is irony. T h u s , it is surely i r o n i c that, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s d e c i d e u p o n their s c h e m e to kill J o s e p h w h i l e t h e y are harvest ing ( w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e [ G e n . 37:12] t h e y are f e e d i n g their father's flock), since it is p r e c i s e l y t h r o u g h o v e r s e e i n g harvests o f g r a i n t h a t J o s e p h is t o b e c o m e t h e m i g h t y v i z i e r o f E g y p t (Ant. 2.18; cf. G e n . 3 7 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) . T h e r e is further i r o n y in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k s o f J u d a h w h e n h e tries to p e r s u a d e his b r o t h e r s n o t to kill J o s e p h b u t to sell h i m into s l a v e r y I n the B i b l e , h e asks h o w t h e y w o u l d profit f r o m s l a y i n g h i m , a n d says t h a t h e is, after all, their b r o t h e r ( G e n . 3 7 : 2 6 - 2 7 ) . J o s e p h u s h a s J u d a h u r g e t h e m to sell J o s e p h t o the Ish m a e l i t e s , since thus, b a n i s h e d t o r e m o t e exile, h e w o u l d die a m o n g strangers, w h i l e their o w n c o n s c i e n c e s w o u l d b e c l e a r (Ant. 2.33). T h e i r o n y h e r e , o f c o u r s e , is t h a t n o t o n l y J o s e p h b u t also t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w e r e d e s t i n e d to die a m o n g strangers, a n d that, like O e d i p u s , n o n e o f t h e m c o u l d e s c a p e t h e i r fate. T h e r e is a d d e d i r o n y in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k that after c a s t i n g J o s e p h into p r i s o n , P o t i p h a r w a s p r o u d e r t h a n e v e r o f his wife, testifying t o h e r d e c o r u m (/co 07x10x77x0:) a n d self-control (ooj^poovvrjv)
(Ant. 2.59). O f c o u r s e , as the r e a d e r k n o w s , it is h e r
v e r y l a c k o f these qualities t h a t l e d h e r to m a k e a d v a n c e s to J o s e p h a n d u l t i m a t e l y t o a c c u s e h i m so u n j u s d y o f a t t e m p t i n g to r a p e her. T h e s e qualities are p r e c i s e l y t h o s e t h a t are m o r e j u s d y a p p l i e d to J o s e p h , as, i n d e e d , w e find in P h i l o (De Josepho 9.40). T h e r e is likewise i r o n y in the e x t r a b i b l i c a l c h a r g e t h a t the l o v i n g c u p t h a t J o s e p h uses for d i v i n i n g in the b i b l i c a l t e x t a n d t h a t the b r o t h e r s are a c c u s e d o f c a r r y i n g o f f ( G e n . 44:5) b e c o m e s the v e r y o n e in w h i c h J o s e p h h a s p l e d g e d their h e a l t h (Ant. 2.128) (so also P h i l o , De Josepho 36.213). T h e i r o n y c o m e s to the fore in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t w h a t a g g r a v a t e d t h e m i s e r y o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s after the c u p h a d b e e n f o u n d in B e n j a m i n ' s s a c k w a s that t h e y h a d b e e n b a l k e d b y j e a l o u s
JOSEPH
3
6
9
f o r t u n e j u s t at t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e y s e e m e d to b e free o f their t r a g e d i e s (Ant. 2.135)-
ROMANTIC
MOTIFS
J o s e p h u s m a k e s his n a r r a t i v e m o r e a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s b y i n t r o d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs. O f c o u r s e , the s u p r e m e e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t i o n o f s u c h motifs is in the e p i s o d e o f J o s e p h a n d P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e .
6 5
T h e very beginning
o f this e p i s o d e is m o r e r o m a n t i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r sion w e a r e t o l d t h a t P o t i p h a r ' s wife cast h e r eyes u p o n J o s e p h a n d said, " L i e w i t h m e " ( G e n . 39:7), in J o s e p h u s she b e c o m e s e n a m o r e d o f h i m (epam/cco?), d e c l a r e s h e r p a s s i o n (eTriBvyilav)^ a n d p r o p o s e s a n illicit u n i o n (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 4 2 ) .
66
Josephus
l i k e w i s e e x p a n d s o n h e r p l a n s , n a m e l y , h e r t h o u g h t t h a t i f she d i s c l o s e d h e r p a s sion to h i m , she c o u l d easily p e r s u a d e h i m t o h a v e i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h her, since h e w o u l d d e e m it a stroke o f f o r t u n e to b e solicited b y his mistress (Ant. 2.41). T h e r e is a striking similarity b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife's initiative in a p p r o a c h i n g J o s e p h a n d P h a e d r a ' s initiative, in t h e earlier v e r s i o n o f E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus,
in soliciting H i p p o l y t u s ( H a d a s 1 9 5 9 , 152). A p p a r e n d y t h e
P h a e d r a - H i p p o l y t u s t h e m e w a s v e r y p o p u l a r , as w e c a n g a t h e r f r o m t h e r e m a r k o f P a u s a n i a s (1.22.1) t h a t " e v e r y b o d y e v e n a f o r e i g n e r w h o h a s l e a r n t t h e G r e e k t o n g u e , k n o w s a b o u t t h e l o v e o f P h a e d r a , " a n d so w e m a y a s s u m e t h a t J o s e p h u s a n d m a n y o f his r e a d e r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h it as w e l l . T h e t h e m e r e c u r s in a n u m b e r o f m y t h s — S t h e n o b o e a (Antea) a n d B e l l e r o p h o n , A s t y d a m i a a n d Peleus, D e m o d i c e a n d P h r i x u s , P h i l o n o m e a n d C y e n u s , a n d D a m a s i p p e a n d H e b r u s . T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f this m o t i f m a y b e s e e n in its f r e q u e n t a p p e a r a n c e in t h e l a t e r H e l l e n i s t i c novels, s u c h as H e l i o d o r u s ' s Aethiopica, w h e r e w e h a v e the s t o r y o f D e m a e n e t e a n d C n e m o n . T h e fact, as w e h a v e n o t e d a b o v e , t h a t J o s e p h u s
(Ant.
2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) h a s e x p a n d e d a n a r r a t i v e o f 22 lines in t h e H e b r e w ( G e n . 39:7-20) (32 lines in the S e p t u a g i n t ) to 120 s h o w s the g r e a t interest a n d i m p o r t a n c e t h a t this e p i s o d e h e l d for h i m .
6 7
I n d e e d , this p e r i c o p e is the m o s t h i g h l y e x p a n d e d o f all t h e
e p i s o d e s in J o s e p h u s p e r t a i n i n g to J o s e p h a n d , actually, o f a l m o s t all the b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s p a r a p h r a s e d b y J o s e p h u s . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s h a s g i v e n the e p i s o d e t h e
65. D a u b e 1980, 27-28, suggests that Josephus's treatment o f the episode of Joseph and Potiphar's wife was influenced b y the parallel of his o w n life; but, as Niehoff 1992,101, remarks, while the parallel (Life 424) cited by D a u b e does mention slanders based on envy of his career, there is n o reference in this latter passage to charges o f sexual harassment; and hence the parallel, although suggestive, is rather tenuous. 66. Josephus's phraseology here (Xoyovs 7rpoo(f>€povar)s nept /xifeco?) (Ant. 2.42) is almost identical with that o f Philo (De Josepho 9.40: nepl /xifeco? Aoyovs
npooefepev).
67. H a d a s (1959, 155) exaggerates w h e n he claims that Josephus has e x p a n d e d five verses into five pages. M o r e precisely, he has e x p a n d e d fourteen verses into four and a half pages.
370
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
style a n d p s y c h o l o g y o f a G r e e k n o v e l , s t r i p p i n g it o f all specifically J e w i s h features ( B r a u n 1938, 9 2 ) .
68
W e c a n see the h e i g h t e n e d erotic interest in the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h d i d n o t listen to h e r d a i l y solicitations ( G e n . 39:10) a n d J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n t h a t the w o m a n ' s l o v e w a s o n l y the further m a g n i f i e d b y his u n e x p e c t e d o p p o s i t i o n (Ant. 2.44). T h e r o m a n t i c e l e m e n t is i n c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d dition t h a t at a t i m e w h e n it w a s c u s t o m a r y for w o m e n to j o i n the
general
a s s e m b l y d u r i n g the c e l e b r a t i o n o f a festival, P o t i p h a r ' s wife w a s so m u c h in l o v e w i t h J o s e p h t h a t she d i s d a i n e d j o i n i n g in the c e l e b r a t i o n , m a k i n g illness a n e x c u s e , a n d i n s t e a d s o u g h t a n o p p o r t u n i t y , w h e n all the o t h e r s w e r e g o n e , to solicit J o s e p h 69
(Ant. 2 . 4 5 ) . W h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l t e x t states s i m p l y t h a t she c a u g h t h i m b y his g a r m e n t , s a y i n g , " L i e w i t h m e " ( G e n . 39:12), J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s h e r a d d r e s s i n g J o s e p h e v e n m o r e i m p o r t u n a t e l y a n d e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n b e f o r e (Ant. 2 . 4 5 - 4 9 ) . I n particular, she p r o c e e d s to a r g u e t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e a c c e d e d to h e r first r e q u e s t for t w o r e a sons, b e c a u s e o f his r e s p e c t for h e r as his mistress a n d b e c a u s e o f the e x c e s s o f p a s sion t h a t h a d f o r c e d h e r to a b a s e h e r s e l f to h i m , w h i c h w a s b e n e a t h h e r dignity. H e r s e c o n d invitation, she insists, is b e i n g m a d e w i t h e v e n g r e a t e r a r d o r t h a n the first, as e v i d e n c e d b y the fact t h a t she (like P h a e d r a in E u r i p i d e s ' [271-310.])
70
Hippolytus
h a s f e i g n e d illness a n d w o u l d r a t h e r b e w i t h h i m t h a n a t t e n d the fes
tival t h e n g o i n g o n . T h e fact t h a t she h a s persisted in h e r solicitation s h o u l d , she says, dispel a n y mistrust t h a t J o s e p h m i g h t h a v e h a d w h e n she first a p p r o a c h e d h i m . O n the o n e h a n d , she p r o m i s e s h i m g r e a t e r p r i v i l e g e s i f h e a c c e d e s to h e r so licitation, a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , she t h r e a t e n s t h a t she will w r e a k v e n g e a n c e u p o n h i m i f h e refuses, since h e r h u s b a n d will b e l i e v e h e r s h o u l d she a c c u s e h i m o f h a v i n g a t t e m p t e d to r a p e her. S u c h a m e d l e y o f p a s s i o n a n d r e a s o n , p r o m i s e s a n d threats is p r e c i s e l y the k i n d o f s p e e c h t h a t w e find b e i n g d e l i v e r e d b y P h a e d r a a n d h e r n u r s e in E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus ( 1 7 6 - 5 2 4 ) .
71
A further r o m a n t i c e x t r a b i b l i c a l
t o u c h o c c u r s in the w e e p i n g o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife after she s p e a k s t o J o s e p h , n o t w i t h -
68. B y contrast, as Braun 1938 notes, the Testament of Joseph does preserve the Jewish character o f the narrative, despite all the alien subject matter that it has introduced. 69. A c c o r d i n g to the opening o f Musaeus's Hero and Leander, a festival is also the occasion for a b o y to fall in love with a girl. S o also the rabbinic tradition cites the details o f the festival and the pretended illness o f Potiphar's wife (Sotah 30b). T h e occurrence o f the festival is likewise noted in Genesis Rabbah I . I . I and the Tanhuma Vayeshev 9. It is interesting to observe that Josephus also elsewhere adds to the bib lical account the detail o f a festival in order to increase the erotic element, notably in connection with the seduction o f D i n a h (Ant. 1.337) and the riddle o f Samson (Ant. 5.289). 70. S o also Testament of Joseph 7.2, as well as Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.2. See Braun 1938, 73. 71. T h e motif o f a threat o f death, on the one hand, and a promise o f greater authority, on the other hand, is found also in the story o f G y g e s (Herodotus 1.11). A s B r a u n 1938, 48, notes, similar promises and threats occur in the variants o f the Phaedra legend, namely, in the novels o f X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus (1.16.4, 2.52.2), Heliodorus (1.10,7.20, 25), and Achilles Tatius (5.11.6,5.14.2). A similar c o m bination o f promises and threats is found in the Testament of Joseph (3.1-2). Likewise, in O v i d ' s Heroides (4.163-64), Phaedra promises that her whole court will be slaves to Hippolytus. W e find an echo o f such feminine psychology in the depiction o f D i d o in Virgil's Aeneid, bk. 4.
JOSEPH
3 7
i
s t a n d i n g w h i c h , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , J o s e p h s u c c u m b e d n e i t h e r t o p i t y n o r t o fear (Ant. 2.50). I n p r e s e n t i n g J o s e p h as n o t o n l y t h e o p p o n e n t o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife b u t also, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , as o n e w h o a d m o n i s h e s h e r (Ant. 2 . 5 1 - 5 2 ) , J o s e p h u s is, in effect, t r a n s f e r r i n g t o h i m t h e role o f t h e n u r s e in E u r i p i d e s ' play, w h o is P h a e d r a ' s c o n f i d a n t e ( B r a u n 1938, 77). W h e n J o s e p h t u r n s d o w n P o t i p h a r ' s wife a s e c o n d t i m e , t h e s c e n e in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.53) is m u c h m o r e p a s s i o n a t e t h a n it is in t h e B i b l e . W h e r e a s i n t h e latter, w e d o not read o f her immediate reaction to Joseph's rejection o f her proposal ( G e n . 39:12), J o s e p h u s states t h a t she d i s p l a y e d a m o r e v i o l e n t a r d o r a n d , a r m s a b o u t h i m , w o u l d even have resorted to f o r c e .
7 2
flinging
her
A t t e m p t i n g a n analysis o f
f e m i n i n e p s y c h o l o g y , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t this m e t h o d o f a v e n g i n g h e r s e l f for so g r i e v o u s a slight a n d o f a c c u s i n g J o s e p h in a d v a n c e s e e m e d t o P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e t o b e alike w i s e a n d w o m a n l y
(yvvaiKelov).
T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d r o m a n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e i n f o r m s h e r h u s b a n d o f J o s e p h ' s a t t e m p t t o s e d u c e her. I n t h e b i b lical v e r s i o n , she first calls t h e m e n o f h e r h o u s e t o tell t h e m o f t h e a t t e m p t e d se d u c t i o n a n d o n l y thereafter i n f o r m s h e r h u s b a n d ( G e n . 3 9 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) . J o s e p h u s o m i t s h e r i n f o r m i n g the m e n o f her house, thus e n h a n c i n g the d r a m a b y h a v i n g a n i m m e d i a t e a n d d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n h u s b a n d a n d wife. W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e a r e n o t t o l d o f t h e state o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife w h e n h e r h u s b a n d a r r i v e s o n t h e s c e n e ( G e n . 39:17), J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s h e r d e s p o n d e n c y , n o t i n g t h a t she sat w i t h d o w n c a s t e y e s (Karrjris,
"dejected," " a s h a m e d " ) , angry, a n d
confused
(avyKexvfJLevrj, " f a l l e n i n t o d i s o r d e r , " " f a l l e n i n t o c o n s t e r n a t i o n , " " p u t o u t o f c o u n t e n a n c e , " " o v e r t h r o w n , " " d e s t r o y e d " ) (Ant. 2.55). T h e B i b l e tells us n o t h i n g o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s r e a c t i o n t o h e r c o n d i t i o n , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e p a t h o s b y re marking
t h a t his c o n f u s i o n
(rapaxdevTL,
"disturbed,"
matched
hers,
"confounded,"
inasmuch
"bewildered,"
as h e
was
"dismayed,"
distressed "fright
e n e d , " " s h o c k e d , " " p u t t o c o n f u s i o n , " " p u t i n t o unrest") at h e r a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 2.55). W h e r e a s , in h e r s t a t e m e n t t o t h e m e n o f h e r h o u s e , P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e m a k e s a s n i d e r e m a r k a b o u t J o s e p h ' s J e w i s h n e s s ("he h a s b r o u g h t in u n t o us a H e b r e w m a n t o h a v e his s p o r t w i t h us") ( G e n . 39:14), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this p r e j u d i c i a l c o m m e n t a n d instead concentrates o n the romantic aspect. In the H e b r e w version, P o t i p h a r ' s wife s i m p l y p r e s e n t s , w i t h o u t a n y p r e f a c e , h e r v e r s i o n o f w h a t J o s e p h has attempted to d o to her; Josephus, o n the other h a n d , has h e r b e g i n v e r y dra m a t i c a l l y w i t h a n i m p r e c a t i o n t o h e r h u s b a n d , " M a y e s t t h o u die, m y h u s b a n d , o r
72. Philo likewise has a more passionate scene, noting, like Josephus, that Potiphar's wife was ready to employ violence (De Josepho 9.41). T h e Testament of Joseph (8:2) states that she forcibly drew Joseph to have relations with her. Support for the view that Josephus h a d the Testament of Joseph before him w h e n he rewrote the biblical account o f Joseph m a y be found in the fact that Josephus (Ant. 2.61), like the Tes tament (2:3), uses heaixo(j>vXa^ for "keeper o f the prison," whereas the Septuagint (Gen. 39:21, 40:3) has dpx^eafjio^vXa^, as does Philo (Quod D-us Immutabilis Sit 24.111, 25.116, etc.).
372
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
else chastise this w i c k e d slave w h o w o u l d fain h a v e defiled t h y b e d " (Ant 2.55). F i n a l l y J o s e p h u s h a s c o n s i d e r a b l y e l a b o r a t e d the b r i e f t w o lines o f t h e H e b r e w t e x t o f t h e s p e e c h o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife to h e r h u s b a n d ( G e n . 3 9 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , h a v i n g h e r e m p h a s i z e , i n particular, J o s e p h ' s i n g r a t i t u d e a n d hypocrisy, in h e r c l a i m t h a t h e h a d a t t e m p t e d to s e d u c e h e r e v e n o n a festival, n o less (Ant. 2 . 5 5 - 5 7 ) . W h e r e a s the B i b l e fails to e x p l a i n w h y P o t i p h a r m a k e s s u c h a h a s t y d e c i s i o n to p u n i s h J o s e p h , w i t h o u t e v e n g i v i n g h i m a n o p p o r t u n i t y to a n s w e r ( G e n . 39:19), J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t after she h a d c e a s e d t o s p e a k , she s h o w e d P o t i p h a r t h e c l o a k t h a t J o s e p h h a d left b e h i n d (Ant. 2.58). H e a d d s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l r o m a n t i c t o u c h t h a t P o t i p h a r w a s m o v e d b y his wife's tears, as w e l l as b y h e r story a n d b y w h a t h e h i m s e l f saw. R e a l i z i n g t h a t the r e a d e r m i g h t still w o n d e r at P o t i p h a r ' s unfairness, h e e x p l a i n s t h a t P o t i p h a r w a s u n d u l y i n f l u e n c e d b y his l o v e for her, a n d h e n c e w a s n o t careful to investigate t h e t r u t h .
SUMMARY J o s e p h u s s h o w s e x t r a o r d i n a r y interest i n the c h a r a c t e r o f J o s e p h , p a r d y b e c a u s e h e b o r e his o w n n a m e , b u t also, m o r e particularly, b e c a u s e b o t h w e r e c h i l d p r o d i gies, b o t h s h o w e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y skill in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s , b o t h w e r e d e e p l y in v o l v e d in politics at a h i g h level o f responsibility, b o t h w e r e cast o u t b y fellow J e w s , a n d b o t h w e r e e x i l e d to a f o r e i g n l a n d . I n the c a s e o f J o s e p h , this interest is s h o w n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e t r e m e n d o u s e x p a n s i o n o f t h r e e p e r i c o p e s — J o s e p h ' s
dreams
a n d s u b s e q u e n t e n s l a v e m e n t , the e p i s o d e o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife, a n d the final test o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s . J o s e p h u s ' s c o n s i s t e n t l y p o s i t i v e a p p r o a c h t o J o s e p h is in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o P h i l o ' s a m b i v a l e n t attitude. H i s p o r t r a y a l is, in l a r g e p a r t , i n t e n d e d to a n s w e r the e n e m i e s o f t h e J e w s , w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h b e i n g u n p a t r i o t i c a n d w i t h n o t p r o d u c i n g l e a d e r s d i s t i n g u i s h e d for w i s d o m . T h i s r e b u t t a l w a s e s p e c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y a n d effective b e c a u s e J o s e p h h a d b e e n a c t i v e in E g y p t , a c o u n t r y t h a t w a s a h o t b e d o f anti-Jewish p r o p a g a n d a . I n particular, J o s e p h u s ' s stress t h a t J o s e p h o p e n e d his g r a n a r i e s to all b e c a u s e h e h e l d all m e n to c o n s t i t u t e a single f a m i l y w a s i n t e n d e d t o refute the c a n a r d t h a t J e w s h a t e d n o n J e w s , as w e l l as t h e c l a i m t h a t J e w s w e r e a g g r e s s i v e m i s s i o n a r i e s . J o s e p h u s also, t h r o u g h r a t i o n a l i z a tions a n d o m i s s i o n s , s o u g h t to r e s o l v e a n u m b e r o f difficulties in the b i b l i c a l t e x t t h a t J e w s t h e m s e l v e s h a d raised. T o J o s e p h u s , his n a m e s a k e h a d t h e qualities o f the i d e a l l e a d e r ; a n d his p o r t r a y a l o f h i m is, in m a n y respects, p a r a l l e l to t h a t o f o t h e r m a j o r b i b l i c a l figures. H e e m e r g e s as a m o d e l s t a t e s m a n , e x e m p l i f y i n g Plato's p o r t r a y a l o f the p h i l o s o p h e r k i n g a n d T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a y a l o f his favorite leader, Pericles. W h e r e t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e suggests s h o r t c o m i n g s o n J o s e p h ' s p a r t , as, for e x a m p l e , his i m m a t u r i t y in his y o u t h , J o s e p h u s carefully a n d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o m i t s s u c h details. I n particular, J o s e p h u s , in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s , e m p h a s i z e s J o s e p h ' s g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e n e s s , qualities so i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d n o n - J e w i s h i n t e l l e c t u a l a u d i e n c e . H e stresses, g o i n g b e y o n d t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s e p h ' s p o s s e s -
JOSEPH
373
sion o f t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m (including, especially, t h e ability to in t e r p r e t d r e a m s ) , c o u r a g e (specifically, e n d u r a n c e in distress), t e m p e r a n c e (includ ing, particularly, m o d e s t y a n d t h e ability to resist s e x u a l t e m p t a t i o n s ) , a n d j u s t i c e ( a b o v e all, t h e qualities o f h u m a n i t y a n d g e n e r o s i t y ) — t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f piety, w h i c h is c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these. I n the c a s e o f this last v i r t u e , J o s e p h u s treads a fine line b e t w e e n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , e m p h a s i z i n g t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f G - d in all e v e n t s c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e e m p h a s i z i n g t h e role o f G - d in J o s e p h ' s a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s , in line w i t h t h e p a t h s w o r k e d o u t b y p r e v i o u s historians in antiquity, uses t h e J o s e p h e p i s o d e to t e a c h c e r t a i n lessons, n o t a b l y h o w a n o b l e spirit c a n s u r m o u n t t h e trials o f life, despite t h e t e m p t a t i o n to a c c o m m o d a t e itself t o p a s s i n g p r o s p e r i t y — a t h e m e t h a t m u s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e fallen o n r e c e p t i v e e a r s a m o n g t h e S t o i c s so p r o m i n e n t in i n t e l l e c t u a l circles in J o s e p h u s ' s day. Finally, as h e d o e s in a n u m b e r o f his o t h e r p a r a p h r a s e s o f b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e o f S a m s o n a n d Esther, J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n for a n d a d d e d d r a m a to events. T h e r e is, for e x a m p l e , a c o n s i d e r a b l e b u i l d u p o f sus p e n s e , p a t h o s , a n d i r o n y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e visit o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s t o E g y p t . T h e r o m a n t i c m o t i f is m u c h e l a b o r a t e d , a n d t h e r e is h e i g h t e n e d erotic in terest, e s p e c i a l l y in t h e e p i s o d e w i t h P o t i p h a r ' s wife, w h i c h is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus. T h e a c c o u n t ' s m i s o g y n i s t i c i n n u e n d o e s , in particular, w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d t o a n a u d i e n c e a c c u s t o m e d to similar r e m a r k s in H o m e r , P l a t o , a n d Aristode.
C H A P T E R
T E N
Moses
T h e o n e figure i n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w h o w a s w e l l k n o w n to the p a g a n w o r l d w a s M o s e s (see G a g e r 1972). H i s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E g y p t u n d o u b t e d l y g a v e h i m a c e r tain notoriety, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d . P h i l o , w r i t i n g w i t h i n the A l e x a n d r i a n m i l i e u , asserts t h a t a l t h o u g h the f a m e o f M o s e s ' l a w s h a d
spread
t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d , n o t m a n y k n e w h i m as h e really w a s , since G r e e k a u t h o r s h a d n o t w a n t e d t o a c c o r d h i m h o n o r , in p a r t o u t o f e n v y a n d in p a r t b e c a u s e the o r d i n a n c e s o f l o c a l l a w g i v e r s w e r e often o p p o s e d to his (De Vita Mosis 1 . 1 . 1 - 2 ) . J o s e phus declares that A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d others, partly from igno r a n c e a n d p a r d y f r o m ill will, h a d cast a s p e r s i o n s u p o n M o s e s a n d his c o d e , m a l i g n i n g h i m as a c h a r l a t a n (yorjra) a n d as a n i m p o s t o r (airareojva)
(Ag. Ap. 2.145).
T h e o p p o n e n t s o f t h e J e w s , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , h a d a p p a r e n d y also r e v i l e d M o s e s as utterly u n i m p o r t a n t (avXoTaTos) (Ag. Ap. 2.290). B r a u n (1938, 68) h a s p o i n t e d o u t the significance o f t h e o m i s s i o n o f M o s e s ' n a m e f r o m t h e list o f O r i e n t a l n a t i o n a l h e r o e s c i t e d b y P l u t a r c h (Isis and Osiris 24.360B), o t h e r w i s e a rela tively i m p a r t i a l authority. W e m a y see a s a m p l e o f this a t t e m p t t o d e n i g r a t e M o s e s in t h e r e m a r k a b l e c o m m e n t o f A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r (ap. S u i d a s , s.u AXegavSpos
6
MiX-qaios) t h a t the l a w s o f the H e b r e w s h a d b e e n c o m p o s e d b y a H e b r e w w o m a n , 1
M o s o . In an age a n d place w h e r e g r a m m a r i a n s and H o m e r i c scholars w e r e lead ers o f the i n t e l l e c t u a l c o m m u n i t y , o n e o f the i m p o r t a n t figures o f the intellectual s c e n e in A l e x a n d r i a in the first h a l f o f the first c e n t u r y C.E., A p i o n , k n o w n for his glosses o n H o m e r ,
2
a n d P h i l o ' s c o u n t e r p a r t as a l e a d e r o f the A l e x a n d r i a n anti-
1. Heinemann 1935, 360, describes the tradition as malevolent and cites as parallels the transfor mation of the name Cleomenes to Cleomene in Aristophanes (Clouds 680) and Chrysippus to Chrysippa in Cicero (De Natura Deorum 1.34.93). 2. Some of Apion's glosses on Homer have been found in a papyrus fragment (P. Rylands 1.26) dat ing from the first century C.E.; moreover, a few first-century scholia on Homer's Odyssey (P. Lit. London 374
MOSES
375
J e w i s h d e l e g a t i o n to the e m p e r o r G a i u s C a l i g u l a , w a s a m a j o r a d v o c a t e o f s u c h re visionist v i e w s o f M o s e s . And
y e t , i f w e m a y p u t a n y stock in the a d m i t t e d l y q u e s t i o n a b l e r e f e r e n c e to
M o s e s in Pseudo-Justin (Cohortatio ad Gentiles 9), the p a g a n historians H e l l a n i c u s in the fifth c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d P h i l o c h o r u s in the third c e n t u r y B.C.E. m e n t i o n e d M o s e s as a v e r y a n c i e n t l e a d e r o f the J e w s . H e c a t a e u s (ca. 300 B.C.E.) (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) i n t r o d u c e s M o s e s as o u t s t a n d i n g for his p r a c t i c a l w i s d o m (povr)o is, a distinctively political virtue) a n d for his c o u r a g e (dvSpela), t w o o f the four c a r d i n a l virtues. H i s d o i n g so h e l p s to g i v e M o s e s a r a n k a m o n g s t the greatest l a w g i v e r s , since similar p h r a s e o l o g y is u s e d b y D i o d o r u s (1.94.1-5) to d e s c r i b e three E g y p t i a n legislators. T h e v e r y E g y p t i a n s w h o m a l i g n e d M o s e s a p p a r e n d y r e g a r d e d h i m as r e m a r k a b l e (davpiaoTov)
a n d e v e n d i v i n e (Oeiov) a n d as o n e o f their v e r y o w n priests (Ag. Ap.
1.279), w h o , to b e sure, h a d b e e n e x p e l l e d b e c a u s e o f his a l l e g e d leprosy. T h e fact t h a t in the earliest e x t e n d e d m e n t i o n o f M o s e s , that b y H e c a t a e u s , h e is r e p r e s e n t e d as r e s p o n s i b l e for all the m a j o r institutions o f the J e w s , i n c l u d i n g e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e t h a t set t h e m a p a r t f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e , indicates that a tradition h a d d e v e l o p e d , a p p a r e n d y in A l e x a n d r i a , o f u p h o l d i n g the r e p u t a t i o n o f M o s e s ' greatness. A p p a r e n d y M o s e s w a s so w e l l k n o w n t h a t p s e u d o - L o n g i n u s (On the Sublime 9.9), in t h e first h a l f o f the first c e n t u r y C.E., refers to h i m as the l a w g i v e r (OeapboSeTrjs) o f the J e w s , n o c h a n c e p e r s o n (ovx 6 rvxoov dvrjp)—a p h r a s e also u s e d o f h i m in S t r a b o ( 1 6 . 2 . 3 6 . 7 6 1 ) — , s i n c e h e u n d e r s t o o d a n d g a v e e x p r e s s i o n t o the p o w e r o f the d i v i n i t y as it d e s e r v e d . It w o u l d s e e m t h a t " L o n g i n u s " felt t h a t M o s e s w a s suffic i e n d y w e l l k n o w n for h i m n o t e v e n to h a v e to refer to h i m b y n a m e h e r e . A t the e n d o f the century, J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y Q u i n t i l i a n (3.7.21), like " L o n g i n u s , " d e e m e d it u n n e c e s s a r y to n a m e M o s e s b u t r a t h e r refers to h i m m e r e l y as " t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e J e w i s h s u p e r s t i t i o n . " L i k e w i s e , the Historia Augusta,
Vita
Claudii
2 5 . 2 . 4 - 5 , m e n t i o n s M o s e s b y n a m e as h a v i n g l i v e d 125 y e a r s , w i t h o u t b o t h e r i n g t o i n t r o d u c e h i m further to the reader, as i f h e w e r e w e l l k n o w n . A n d y e t , in his o w n p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s w a s f a c e d w i t h a n u m b e r o f p r o b l e m s . O n the o n e h a n d , the B i b l e itself indicates t h a t since his t i m e , t h e r e h a d 3
n o t arisen a p r o p h e t e q u a l to h i m ( D e u t . 34:10). N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s , like the
30; British M u s e u m inv. 271) mention his n a m e a m o n g other commentators. It is not surprising, there fore, that A p i o n w a s apparendy Philo's counterpart as a leader o f the A l e x a n d r i a n non-Jews, since he was a m e m b e r o f the three-man delegation sent by the Alexandrians to the emperor G a i u s C a l i g u l a (Josephus, Ant. 18.257). See further Feldman 1987-88, 238-39. 3. In the twelfth century, in his classic formulation o f the thirteen principles of Jewish faith (Com mentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, introduction to ch. 10), M a i m o n i d e s includes the belief that M o s e s w a s the greatest o f the prophets as one o f those fundamentals. Nevertheless, the rabbis themselves debated whether the patriarchs A b r a h a m , Isaac, and J a c o b , the founders o f the Jewish people, m a y not have surpassed him in meekness (Sifie Numbers 101 vs. Hullin 89a), the greatest of M o s e s ' qualities (Num. 12:3). Moreover, they found it possible to relate the entire story o f the exodus in the lengthy narrative c o m piled for the Passover seder while mentioning the name o f M o s e s only once, and that only because his n a m e is included in a biblical verse they quote there.
376
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
r a b b i s , w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d t h a t the figure o f M o s e s s h o u l d n o t b e a g g r a n d i z e d to the p o i n t o f deification. J o s e p h u s w a s , w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y c a r e ful to d o so b e c a u s e the S a m a r i t a n s , the bitter e n e m i e s o f the J e w s in his t i m e , h a d built u p the figure o f M o s e s to the p o i n t w h e r e their r e l i g i o n w a s a l m o s t a M o s a i s m ( M a c D o n a l d i 9 6 0 , 1 4 9 - 6 2 ) . W e m a y also g u e s s t h a t h e w a s r e a c t i n g a g a i n s t P h i l o ' s n e a r deification o f M o s e s as a " m a n o f G - d " a n d as the m o s t p e r f e c t o f m e n (De Vita Mosis I . I . I ) .
4
O n the o t h e r h a n d , b e c a u s e M o s e s w a s so f i r m l y identified as t h e f o u n d e r a n d l a w g i v e r o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n , J o s e p h u s felt it n e c e s s a r y to d e f e n d his c h a r a c t e r a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h e r e w e r e a n u m b e r o f e v e n t s in M o s e s ' life a n d aspects o f his c h a r a c t e r t h a t c h a l l e n g e a n y a p o l o g i s t : his m u r d e r o f a n E g y p t i a n o v e r s e e r ( E x o d . 2:12), his m a r r i a g e t o a n o n - J e w i s h w o m a n , Z i p p o r a h ( E x o d . 2:21), his l o w l y o c c u p a t i o n as a s h e p h e r d ( E x o d . 3:1), his s p e e c h defect ( E x o d . 4:10), his failure to cir c u m c i s e his sons a n d G - d ' s s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t to kill h i m ( E x o d . 4:24), his a b a n d o n m e n t o f Z i p p o r a h ( E x o d . 18:2), his n e e d to t u r n to his father-in-law J e t h r o for a d v i c e o n h o w to g o v e r n his p e o p l e ( E x o d . 18:13-27), his a n g e r in s m a s h i n g t h e first set o f tablets t h a t h e b r o u g h t d o w n f r o m M o u n t S i n a i ( E x o d . 3 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) , his m a r r i a g e t o a n E t h i o p i a n w o m a n ( N u m . 12:1), his d i s o b e d i e n c e o f G - d in striking r a t h e r t h a n s p e a k i n g to the r o c k ( N u m . 20:11), a n d his inability to a n s w e r the c o m p l a i n t b y the d a u g h t e r s o f Z e l o p h e h a d ( N u m . 2 7 : 1 - 1 1 ) . I n a s m u c h as the c a r e e r o f M o s e s is so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the c o n s t i t u t i o n h e g a v e to the J e w i s h n a t i o n , J o s e p h u s n a t u r a l l y takes a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y afforded b y his retelling o f M o s e s ' life to d e f e n d his p e o p l e a g a i n s t the c a n a r d s that h a d s p r e a d a b o u t their laws a n d customs. A l t h o u g h the p e r s o n a l i t y o f M o s e s is c l e a r l y d o m i n a n t in t h r e e b o o k s o f the An tiquities (2-4), n o t h o r o u g h a n d s y s t e m a t i c a t t e m p t h a s b e e n m a d e to a n a l y z e J o s e phus's a c c o u n t there.
5
A c c o r d i n g l y , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e h e r e t o e x a m i n e J o s e
p h u s ' s v e r s i o n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y to see h o w h e v i e w e d the v a r i o u s c l a i m s t h a t h a d
4. Similarly one current o f rabbinic tradition spoke o f M o s e s as "very m u c h above all the m e n that were u p o n the face o f the earth" (Sifre Numbers Behaaloteka on N u m . 12:3). Cf. Midrash Tannaim 186 (ed. D. Hoffmann) on D e u t . 32:3: " M o s e s , than w h o m there has not been one greater in the world." See also the citations given b y G i n z b e r g (1909—38, 5:398, n. 47), w h o remarks that rabbinic tradition de clared that the angels h a d conversed with G - d about the fate o f Moses. 5. T h e following books a n d articles deal with individual aspects o f Josephus's portrait o f M o s e s : Attridge 1976a; Bieler 1935; B r a u n 1938, esp. 2 6 - 3 1 , 97-102; Brock 1982, 237-55; C h u r g i n 1949; J. C o h e n 1993, 4 6 - 5 9 ; D a n i e l 1981; D o w n i n g 1980, 8:46-65; 9:29-48; Edersheim 1882; Flusser 1971a, 48-79; Fornaro 1979, 4 3 1 - 4 6 ; Gaster 1927, 6 1 - 8 0 , 178-82; G r a f 1976; Grufydd 1928, 260-70; H a a c k e r and Schafer 1974, 147-74; H a l e v y 1927, 82-83, 103-17; Harrington 1973, 5 9 - 7 0 ; H a t a 1987, 180-97; H e i n e m a n n 1935, 372-75; H e i n e m a n n 1939-40, 180-203; Holladay 1977; L e D e a u t 1964b, 198-219; L e v y 1907, 201-11; L o e w e n s t a m m i960; 1965; M a l i n a 1968; M e e k s 1967; Mirsky 1948, 282-87; Perrot 1967, 4 8 1 - 5 1 8 ; Petit 1976, 137-42; Rajak 1974; 1978, 111-22; v o n R a n k e 1883, 12-33; Runnalls 1983, 135-56; Shinan 1978, 6 6 - 7 8 ; Silver 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 , 1 2 3 - 5 3 ; 1982; Smolar and A b e r b a c h 1968, 91—116; Talbert 1975, 4 1 9 - 3 6 ; 1980, 129-41; T i e d e 1972; v a n U n n i k 1974, 241-61; V e r m e s 1955, 86-92; 1975; and Y a m a u c h i 1980, 4 2 - 6 3 .
MOSES
377
b e e n m a d e for M o s e s — h i s status as l a w g i v e r , p r o p h e t , priest, k i n g , a n d e v e n G-d—,
t o a s c e r t a i n w h a t factors g o v e r n e d J o s e p h u s ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l
n a r r a t i v e , a n d t o see w h e t h e r t h e resultant p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s is consistent w i t h t h o s e o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l c h a r a c t e r s in J o s e p h u s .
MOSES' PERSONAL
QUALITIES
I n g e n e r a l , t h e H e l l e n i s t i c h e r o h a d to b e a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in t h e P l a t o n i c style, a h i g h priest, a p r o p h e t , a n d a v e r i t a b l e Pericles as d e s c r i b e d b y T h u c y d i d e s . I n t h e c a s e o f a n o u t s t a n d i n g h e r o s u c h as M o s e s , his v e r y b i r t h h a d to b e a t t e n d e d b y e x t r a o r d i n a r y signs. M o r e o v e r , since J o s e p h u s w a s a d d r e s s i n g a p r e d o m i n a n d y n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , his M o s e s h a d to h a v e a life like t h a t a s c r i b e d b y T a c i t u s to his r e v e r e d father-in-law, A g r i c o l a (Tacitus, Agricola 4 4 - 4 5 ) : o n e r i c h in glory, at t a i n m e n t o f t h e t r u e blessings o f v i r t u e , c o n s u l a r a n d t r i u m p h a l h o n o r s , w e a l t h sufficient for his desires, i n t e g r i t y o f p o s i t i o n a n d r e p u t a t i o n , u n s e v e r e d links o f r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d friendship, a n d t h a t e n d e d in its p r i m e , b o t h b e f o r e t h e d e a t h s o f his wife a n d c h i l d a n d in t i m e to a v o i d e n s u i n g slaughter. J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f M o s e s is a v e r i t a b l e a r e t a l o g y s u c h as w o u l d h a v e b e e n appreciated especially b y a R o m a n society that a d m i r e d the Stoic portrait o f the i d e a l s a g e . I n fact, h e uses t h e w o r d dperrj o n n o f e w e r t h a n t w e n t y - o n e o c c a s i o n s 6
w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o M o s e s . W h a t is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective is t h a t at t h e v e r y b e g i n 7
n i n g o f his l o n g a c c o u n t o f M o s e s , it is o n e o f the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d s c r i b e s , a n o n J e w , w h o , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , p o s s e s s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e skill in a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t i n g t h e future, foretells t h e b i r t h o f a c h i l d w h o w i l l surpass all m e n in v i r t u e
(apcrfj)
a n d w h o w i l l w i n e v e r l a s t i n g r e n o w n (Ant. 2.205). J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t his s u b j e c t , the h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , w i l l afford h i m f r e q u e n t a n d a m p l e o c c a s i o n t o d i s c o u r s e u p o n t h e m e r i t s (aper^v) o f the l a w g i v e r M o s e s (Ant. 3.187). I n a n in troductory editorial statement a b o u t M o s e s ' sojourn in M i d i a n , Josephus declares t h a t t h e r e M o s e s w a s d e s t i n e d t o p l a y a p a r t t h a t e x h i b i t e d his m e r i t s (dperrjv)
(Ant.
2.257). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h e v o i c e f r o m the b u r n i n g b u s h p r e d i c t s t h e g l o r y (86£av) a n d h o n o r (rt/x^v) t h a t M o s e s w i l l w i n f r o m m e n u n d e r G - d ' s a u s p i c e s (Ant. 2.268). It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective t h a t w h e n the Israelites a r r i v e at M o u n t S i n a i , R a g u e l (Jethro), M o s e s ' father-in-law, a n o t h e r non-Jew, praises M o s e s , since h e ( R a g u e l )
6. Ant. 2.205, 238, 243, 257, 262; 3.12, 65, 67, 69, 74, 9 7 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 2 , 317, 322; 4.196, 320, 321, 326, 1
33 7. It is significant that Josephus here refers to the Egyptian prophet as a "sacred scribe" (UpoypaiAfiarevs) rather than as a soothsayer (p,dvTis) (Ant. 2.205). Josephus, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1990, 386-422), like the Septuagint, uses the word /xavris and its cognates when referring to heathen soothsayers. The fidvns, as Rose 1914 remarks, is not an inspired prophet but rather a crafts man (Srjfxiovpyos), coupled with physicians and carpenters by Homer (Odyssey 17.384). Thus Josephus uses the term ndvris with reference to Balaam (Ant. 4.104 [bis], 112, 157) and to Egyptian seers in gen eral (Ant. 2.241; Ag. Ap. 1.236, 256, 257, 258 [bis], 267, 306).
378
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
k n o w s t h a t the Israelites' w h o l e s a l v a t i o n h a d b e e n d u e to M o s e s ' dperrj (Ant. 3.65). S o o u t s t a n d i n g w a s M o s e s i n his v i r t u e , w e are told, t h a t w h e n h e d i d n o t r e t u r n f r o m his a s c e n t o f M o u n t S i n a i , e v e n t h e s o b e r - m i n d e d o f t h e Israelites c o n s i d e r e d the possibility t h a t h e h a d r e t u r n e d t o G - d b e c a u s e o f his i n h e r e n t v i r t u e (Ant. 3 . 9 6 - 9 7 ) . It is t h r o u g h the a g e n c y o f M o s e s a n d o f his m e r i t (dpeTrjs) t h a t t h e c o n stitution o f the Israelites is e s t a b l i s h e d b y G - d (Ant. 3.322). Finally, w e m a y n o t e t h a t in d e s c r i b i n g the i m p a c t o f M o s e s ' d e a t h , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t his p a s s i n g w a s l a m e n t e d n o t o n l y b y t h o s e w h o h a d k n o w n h i m d i r e c d y b u t also b y later r e a d e r s o f his l a w s w h o d e d u c e d f r o m these the superla tive q u a l i t y o f his v i r t u e (dperrj) (Ant. 4.331). Genealogy W h e n J o s e p h u s first i n t r o d u c e s us t o M o s e s ' father, A m r a m , his initial r e m a r k is t h a t h e w a s a H e b r e w " o f n o b l e b i r t h " (ed yeyovorwv)
8
(Ant. 2.210). L i k e D e m e t r i u s
(ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.29.2), P h i l o (De Vita Mosis 1.2.7),
a
n
d
m
e
r a b b i s (Genesis Rab
bah 19.7, Song of Songs Rabbah 5 . 1 , Pesiqta de-Rao Kahana 2.343-44), J o s e p h u s presents 9
the e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n t h a t M o s e s w a s the s e v e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after A b r a h a m (Ant. 2 . 2 2 9 ) .
10
I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t the fire at the b u r n i n g b u s h a d m o n i s h e d M o s e s t o w i t h d r a w f r o m the flame as far as p o s s i b l e ; to b e c o n t e n t w i t h w h a t h e , as a m a n o f v i r t u e , s p r u n g f r o m illustrious a n c e s t o r s , h a d s e e n a n d to p r y n o further. W h e n J o s e p h u s attacks L y s i m a c h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the e x o d u s , h e m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h a t L y s i m a c h u s s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n t e n t w i t h m e n t i o n i n g M o s e s b y n a m e b u t s h o u l d h a v e i n d i c a t e d his d e s c e n t a n d his p a r e n t a g e as w e l l (Ag Ap. 1.316). W h e n K o r a h protests a g a i n s t the a u t h o r i t y o f M o s e s , his r e b e l l i o n a s s u m e s g r e a t e r seriousness in t h a t J o s e p h u s at t h r e e p o i n t s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e a r e f e r e n c e to K o r a h ' s o w n lofty g e n e a l o g y (Ant. 4 . 1 4 , 4 . 1 9 , 4 . 2 6 ) . The Birth of the Hero I n o r d e r to h e i g h t e n r e a d e r s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d to M o s e s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e ( E x o d . 1:22) m e r e l y n o t e s P h a r a o h ' s d e c r e e o r d e r i n g t h a t e v e r y n e w b o r n Israelite s o n b e cast into the N i l e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t A m r a m w a s afraid t h a t the w h o l e r a c e o f the Israelites w o u l d b e e x t i n g u i s h e d b e c a u s e o f the l a c k o f a s u c c e e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n a n d w a s in g r i e v o u s p e r p l e x i t y b e c a u s e his wife w a s p r e g n a n t
(Ant.
8. S o also in rabbinic tradition (Si/re Numbers 67; Exodus Rabbah 1.8). 9. T h a c k e r a y (1926-34, 4:264, n. a) remarks that the sentence stating that M o s e s w a s the seventh generation after A b r a h a m and enumerating these seven generations has b e e n rejected b y some editors as an interruption o f the narrative and suggests that it m a y be a postscript o f the author's; but in v i e w o f Josephus's emphasis elsewhere on genealogy, the greater likelihood is that it is authentic. 10. M . Gaster (1927, 74) notes that the fact o f M o s e s ' b e i n g in the seventh generation from A b r a h a m is a distinct feature o f Samaritan chronology.
MOSES
379
2.2IO—16). J o s e p h u s t h e n r e c o u n t s A m r a m ' s p r a y e r t o G - d b e s e e c h i n g H i m t o g r a n t d e l i v e r a n c e t o t h e Israelites f r o m t h e i r t r i b u l a t i o n s , a n d G - d ' s r e s p o n s e t o h i m i n a d r e a m t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t despair, a n d t h a t j u s t a s H e h a d a i d e d h i s f o r e f a t h e r s A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b , s o H e w o u l d e n a b l e this c h i l d t o d e l i v e r t h e Israelites f r o m b o n d a g e i n E g y p t . G - d f u r t h e r p r e d i c t s t h a t this c h i l d w i l l b e r e m e m b e r e d so l o n g a s t h e u n i v e r s e s h a l l e n d u r e (rd avfjuravra b r e w s b u t a l s o b y a l i e n n a t i o n s (Ant. 2 . 2 1 6 ) .
11
rev^erai),
not only by H e
12
I n J o s e p h u s , it is a n E g y p t i a n s a c r e d s c r i b e , s u r e l y a m o s t i m p r e s s i v e figure t o his a u d i e n c e , w h o p r e d i c t s M o s e s ' future g r e a t n e s s (Ant. 2.205); a n d it is t o A m r a m in a d r e a m — a n e l e m e n t u n i q u e to J o s e p h u s — t h a t G - d a p p e a r s w i t h the promise t h a t t h e c h i l d t o b e b o r n w i l l d e l i v e r t h e H e b r e w s f r o m b o n d a g e (Ant. 2 . 2 1 2 - 1 6 ) . I n P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities (9.10), w h i c h so often p a r a l l e l s J o s e p h u s , t h e b i r t h o f M o s e s is p r e d i c t e d i n M i r i a m ' s d r e a m . reasons,
1 4
1 3
A p p a r e n d y J o s e p h u s , for m i s o g y n i s t i c
preferred to build u p the character o f M o s e s ' father rather than that o f
his sister. It is A m r a m ,
1 5
r a t h e r t h a n his w i f e J o c h e b e d ( E x o d . 2:2), a c c o r d i n g t o
J o s e p h u s , w h o hides the infant M o s e s , thus taking u p o n h i m s e l f the
tremendous
risk o f i n c u r r i n g t h e w r a t h o f P h a r a o h w h i l e a l s o w i n n i n g for h i m s e l f t h e r e p u t a t i o n for c o u r a g e t h a t t h e B i b l e itself a t t r i b u t e s t o J o c h e b e d (Ant. 2.219). I n a n e x trabiblical detail, Josephus explains w h y A m r a m (again, rather than J o c h e b e d ) chose to p u t the b a b y in a basket u p o n the river—namely, to c o m m i t the salvation o f the child to G - d a n d thus not b r i n g to n o u g h t the promise that G - d h a d given h i m i n a d r e a m (Ant. 2.219). T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, i n a s m u c h as g e n e r a l l y , a s w e have noted, J o s e p h u s d e e m p h a s i z e s the role o f G - d , p r e s u m a b l y in order to w i n t h e f a v o r o f his r a t i o n a l i s t i c r e a d e r s .
1 6
11. Cf. Virgil, Aeneid 1.607-9, where A e n e a s expresses his gratitude to Q u e e n D i d o o f C a r t h a g e for her hospitality: " S o l o n g as rivers r u n into seas, so long as shadows traverse the slopes o f mountains, so l o n g as the sky feeds the stars, always will your honor a n d n a m e a n d praises remain." 12. It is significant that although Josephus, as h e does in so m a n y other respects, closely parallels the rabbinic tradition with regard to the predictions o f M o s e s ' birth, he does not have a parallel to the astrological prediction m a d e b y K i n g N i m r o d that the c o m i n g child, A b r a h a m , w o u l d overthrow the thrones o f powerful princes a n d take possession o f their lands (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 26; Sefer ha-Yashar, Seder Eliyahu %uta 25). N o r does he offer a parallel to the rabbinic story that A b r a h a m ' s father, T e r a h , hid him until the third or the tenth year o f his life w h e n N i m r o d sought to kill him. See O b b i n k 1966, p
252-53; e r r o t 1967, 497-504. 13. See Feldman 1971, lviii-lxvi. In rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.22; cf. Megillah 14a, Sotah 12b, and Mekilta Beshalah 10), it is likewise M o s e s ' sister M i r i a m w h o has the prophetic d r e a m pre dicting that M o s e s will b e cast into the waters, a n d that through him the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds, as well as other miracles, will be accomplished. 14. S e e Feldman 1986b, 115-20. Pace Rajak 1974, 267, w h o avers that Josephus w o u l d probably have h a d nothing to gain b y altering the story. 15. A s J. C o h e n 1993, 49, a p d y puts it, the nameless m a n o f the house o f Levi (Exod. 2:1) b e c o m e s A m r a m , a major figure, whereas his wife, Jochebed, becomes a marginal character. Similarly, as C o h e n also notes, the figure o f the father b e c o m e s m o r e dominant in the rabbinic midrash. 16. A l t h o u g h , as noted, he often closely parallels the rabbinic midrashic tradition, Josephus does not have the tradition (Sotah i 2 a - b ; Tanhuma B 2.122; Tanhuma Vayaqhel 4; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.18)
j8o
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A m o n g t h e w o n d r o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e b i r t h o f t h e g r e a t h e r o is the painlessness o f the p r e g n a n c y that p r e c e d e s i t .
17
Josephus declares that J o c h e b e d
g a v e b i r t h " w i t h g e n t l e n e s s " (emeiKeiav) a n d w i t h o u t a n y v i o l e n t t h r o e s (Ant. 2 . 2 1 8 ) .
18
O n c e t h e b a b y is b o r n , J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d b e a w a r e o f t h e m a n y c a s e s i n m y t h o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y w h e r e t h e fates c o u l d n o t b e
thwarted,
g o e s o n t o e d i t o r i a l i z e : " T h e n o n c e a g a i n [i.e., p r e s u m a b l y i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c a s e s o f Perseus, O e d i p u s , R o m u l u s , C y r u s , a n d other such instances] did G - d plainly s h o w t h a t h u m a n i n t e l l i g e n c e is n o t h i n g w o r t h , b u t t h a t all t h a t H e w i l l s t o a c c o m p l i s h r e a c h e s its p e r f e c t e n d , a n d t h a t t h e y w h o , t o s a v e t h e m s e l v e s , c o n d e m n
that the astrologers told P h a r a o h the exact d a y w h e n the redeemer o f Israel w o u l d b e b o r n , even though they could not say whether he w o u l d b e a n E g y p t i a n or a Hebrew. T h e Samaritan tradition (see M a c D o n a l d 1964,151), w h i c h often parallels that o f Josephus a n d o f the rabbis in midrashic details, has a passage in the Book ofAsatir that, in almost the very words o f Josephus (Ant. 2.207), cites an Egyptian scribe w h o foretells that from the loins o f Levi "will c o m e one w h o will b e mighty in faith a n d in knowl edge, that the heaven a n d the earth will hearken to his word, a n d that b y his hands will c o m e the d e struction o f E g y p t . " T h e Samaritans also have a tradition, which, although preserved only in a four teenth-century p o e m , is most likely based o n a m u c h earlier source, according to M . Gaster 1927, 73, and M a c D o n a l d 1964, 160, that w h e n G - d h a d decided that M o s e s w a s to b e b o r n , H e sent a n angel to A m r a m a n d that during A m r a m ' s intercourse with his wife, the L - r d (that is, the angel) w a s with him. In a c c o r d with the divine will, A m r a m ' s wife gave birth to a son called " T h e M a n " (i.e., " S o n o f M a n " ) . W h e n h e w a s born, m e n joyfully gathered together proclaiming that the " L - r d o f the world," "the faithful one o f the G - d h e a d , " "the M a n o f G - d " h a d come, of w h o m G - d says, " T h i s is the o n e w h o m I have chosen." Josephus, o n theological grounds, clearly could not hold such a v i e w o f Moses, which is almost Christological in its language. Moreover, Josephus, as always, has apologetic aims; the key phrase in his divine prediction about M o s e s , w h i c h is conspicuously absent from the m u c h embell ished Samaritan account, is that M o s e s will b e r e m e m b e r e d even by foreign peoples; and, indeed, in his essay Against Apion, M o s e s is the great e x a m p l e o f the cultured J e w w h o h a d profound influence u p o n the statesmen a n d philosophers o f other nations. 17. T h e talmudic tradition (Sotah 12a; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.20) goes so far as to say that Jochebed, M o s e s ' mother, gave birth without a n y p a i n — a proof, according to the second-century R a b b i J u d a h b a r Ilai, that righteous w o m e n are not included in the decree p r o n o u n c e d u p o n E v e (Gen. 3:16). V o n R a n k e 1883, 30 ff., theorizes that it was from Josephus that the rabbis derived their tradition that J o c h e b e d gave birth without labor pains; but, aside from the fact, noted above, that Jose phus avoids exaggeration a n d rationalizes for his non-Jewish audience, the rabbis never mention Jose phus, a n d there is n o indication that they k n e w his works. 18. Moreover, there is a rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.19; Baba Batra 120a) that J o c h e b e d was 130 years old w h e n she gave birth to Moses, "that the marks o f youth c a m e b a c k to her, her flesh was again smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, a n d h e r beauty returned." T h e r e are also traditions (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 11.20; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10) that w h e n h e c a m e out o f his mother's w o m b , M o s e s was already circumcised; that w h e n h e was only three days old he not only walked but even talked with his parents; a n d that h e actually refused to drink milk from his mother's breasts until she h a d received h e r p a y m e n t from Pharaoh's daughter. Likewise, presumably because his readers w o u l d find such a miracle hard to believe, Josephus has n o equivalent to the tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.20) that at the m o m e n t o f the child's appearance, the w h o l e house was flooded with light, i.e., the light that G - d h a d created at the beginning o f Creation but h a d kept hidden, anticipat ing the wickedness o f the generation o f the D e l u g e a n d o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , w h o were unworthy o f it.
MOSES
381
o t h e r s t o d e s t r u c t i o n u t t e r l y fail, w h a t e v e r d i l i g e n c e t h e y m a y e m p l o y , w h i l e t h o s e are saved b y a m i r a c l e a n d attain success almost from the v e r y j a w s o f disaster w h o h a z a r d all b y d i v i n e d e c r e e " (Ant 2.222). N o r m a l l y , J o s e p h u s h a s h i g h r e g a r d for i n t e l l i g e n c e ( a i W a i s " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " ) , as w e c a n see, for e x a m p l e , i n his e u l o g y o f M o s e s as h a v i n g s u r p a s s e d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (ovveois) (Ant
all m e n w h o h a v e e v e r l i v e d
4.328); b u t t h a t n o t e v e n s u c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g c a n s t a n d i n t h e w a y o f fate
seems to b e Josephus's m e s s a g e h e r e . The
1 9
Bible declares that Pharaoh's daughter immediately recognized that the
b a b y w a s a H e b r e w a n d t o o k p i t y o n it ( E x o d . 2:7), b u t s a y s n o t h i n g o f a n y a t t e m p t t o g e t h i m t o n u r s e f r o m a n E g y p t i a n w o m a n . It t h e n d e c l a r e s t h a t M i r i a m a s k e d h e r w h e t h e r she m i g h t g o a n d s u m m o n o n e o f the H e b r e w w o m e n to nurse h i m . J o s e p h u s a v o i d s e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d states t h a t P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r , w h o m J o s e p h u s identifies as T h e r m u t h i s , o r d e r e d a w o m a n t o b e b r o u g h t t o s u c k l e t h e i n f a n t a n d t h a t w h e n it s p u r n e d t h e w o m a n ' s b r e a s t , s h e r e p e a t e d t h e a t t e m p t w i t h m a n y w o m e n , w h e r e u p o n M i r i a m offered to s u m m o n o n e o f the H e b r e w w o m e n to n u r s e t h e c h i l d (Ant 2 . 2 2 5 - 2 6 ) .
2 0
The Upbringing of the Hero I n M o s e s ' t h i r d y e a r , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , p r e s u m a b l y after h e h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e s t a n d a r d n u r s i n g p e r i o d o f t w o y e a r s (cf. M i s h n a h , Nedarim 2:1 a n d Ketubot 60a), G-d
g a v e w o n d r o u s i n c r e a s e t o his s t a t u r e (Ant
2.230).
21
J o s e p h u s states t h a t his
19. T h e rabbis have a tradition (Sotah 12b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.24) that w h e n M o s e s w a s e x posed in the basket o n the river, the angels appeared before G - d a n d asked h o w H e could allow M o s e s to die in the sea w h e n he w a s destined to sing a song o f praise to G - d because o f the miracle o f the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds. 20. Philo adds merely that Pharaoh's daughter, after opening the basket, realized that it w o u l d not be safe to take the infant to the palace a n d w o n d e r e d w h a t to do, w h e r e u p o n M i r i a m guessed her diffi culty a n d offered to find a H e b r e w nurse (De Vita Mosis 1.4.15-16). T h e rabbinic tradition, o n the other hand, seems to strain credibility w h e n it declares that although Pharaoh's daughter, T her m ut hi s, h a n d e d the infant M o s e s to all the Egyptian w o m e n , he w o u l d not take their breasts (Sotah 12b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.25). T h e rabbinic tradition here has the infant M o s e s exclaim: "Shall a m o u t h that will speak with the Shechinah suck w h a t is unclean?" (The text reads " H e said," a n d some commentators identify the speaker as G - d ; but the nearest noun in the previous sentence is Moses; and, indeed, G - d is not mentioned at all.) A similar remarkable utterance is found in the Samaritan Book ofAsatir (9.13), w h i c h declares that M o s e s w o u l d drink only o f undefiled milk, the implication being that he h a d re fused the milk o f Egyptian nurses. In Josephus, it is M i r i a m w h o tells Thermuthis, "It is lost labor to s u m m o n to feed the child these w o m e n w h o have n o ties o f kinship with it" (Ant. 2.226). 21. S u c h a wondrous increase, far from m a k i n g the whole story o f M o s e s less credible, might well have b e e n viewed b y Josephus's audience as a fulfillment o f the advice given b y Aristode (Rhetoric 3.14.7.1415A-B), that o n e should (presumably, u p to a point) include the marvelous in one's discourse, inasmuch as this will d r a w attention to one's subject. O n the other hand, the rabbinic tradition indulges in exaggeration that stretches the bounds o f credibility: thus, w e are told that since the biblical text says not that the infant but that the l a d was crying (Exod. 2:6), the child, although an infant, h a d a lad's voice (Tanhuma Exodus 8.9). Furthermore, w e hear that w h e n he was only three months old, h e proph esied a n d declared that he w a s destined to receive the law amid flames o f fire (Midrash Deuteronomy Rab-
382
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
g r o w t h i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g far o u t r a n t h e m e a s u r e o f his y e a r s , a n d its m a t u r e r e x c e l l e n c e w a s d i s p l a y e d i n his v e r y g a m e s ; " a n d his a c t i o n s t h e n g a v e p r o m i s e o f t h e g r e a t e r d e e d s t o b e w r o u g h t b y h i m o n r e a c h i n g m a n h o o d " (Ant. 2 . 2 3 0 ) .
22
T h e de
tail t h a t t h e c h i l d s h o w e d his e x c e l l e n c e i n his g a m e s is p a r a l l e l e d b y t h e a n e c d o t e o f C y r u s , the k i n g o f Persia, w h o as a m e r e child p l a y e d at b e i n g k i n g a n d w h o or d e r e d o n e o f t h e v i l l a g e b o y s t o b e b e a t e n b e c a u s e h e h a d d i s o b e y e d his c o m m a n d ( H e r o d o t u s 1.114). J o s e p h u s recounts the tale, w h i c h h a s a clear parallel in the r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i c tradition,
2 3
o f t h e i n f a n t M o s e s b e i n g b r o u g h t t o P h a r a o h a n d t r a m p l i n g u p o n his
c r o w n (Ant. 2 . 2 3 2 - 3 6 ) .
2 4
B u t the differences b e t w e e n the J o s e p h a n a n d
rabbinic
v e r s i o n s h e r e a r e i n s t r u c t i v e . I n t h e m i d r a s h , it is M o s e s w h o t a k e s t h e c r o w n f r o m P h a r a o h ' s h e a d a n d p l a c e s it u p o n his o w n a s a c l e a r i n t i m a t i o n t h a t h e w o u l d s o m e d a y displace P h a r a o h . J o s e p h u s has P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r take the initiative o f b r i n g i n g t h e i n f a n t M o s e s t o h i m b e c a u s e s h e is m i n d f u l o f t h e s u c c e s s i o n a n d b e c a u s e , i n a s m u c h as s h e h a s n o c h i l d o f h e r o w n , s h e s e e k s t o a d o p t M o s e s as h e i r a p p a r e n t (Ant. 2.232). F a r f r o m h a v i n g M o s e s s e i z e t h e c r o w n a n d p l a c e it u p o n his o w n h e a d , as i n t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , it is P h a r a o h h i m s e l f w h o t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p l a c e t h e c r o w n u p o n M o s e s ' h e a d . It is o n l y a t this p o i n t t h a t w e h a v e J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a l l e l t o M o s e s ' a c t o f flinging t h e c r o w n t o t h e g r o u n d a n d t r a m p l i n g u p o n i t .
2 5
H a d Josephus r e p r o d u c e d the tradition o f M o s e s ' seizing Pharaoh's c r o w n , the p a r a l l e l t r a d i t i o n o f Z a g r e u s — t h a t is, D i o n y s u s — w h o , s o o n after his b i r t h , a s -
bah 11.10). A g a i n , w e are informed that w h e n M o s e s w a s five, h e looked eleven {Tanhuma Vaera 171; cf. Talqut 1.166). 22. Philo discourses at even greater length than does Josephus o n the physical a n d mental p r e c o ciousness o f the child M o s e s (De Vita Mosis 1.5.18-24). Philo is more eager to present M o s e s as the pro totype o f the philosopher-king, a n d hence stresses that even as a n infant, h e did not e n g a g e in fun, frolic, a n d sport but rather applied himself to learning a n d seeing w h a t was sure to profit the soul. T h e rabbis have a tradition o f M o s e s ' remarkable growth, indeed to a height o f ten cubits, that is, fifteen feet (Bekorot 44a). 23. Tanhuma Exodus 8; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.26; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10; Tashar Exodus 131D-132D. 24. Flusser 1971a, 4 8 - 7 9 , notes a similar narrative in a Byzantine work dating from not before the ninth century (in Vassiliev 1893, 227-28). T h e r e it is M o s e s w h o takes Pharaoh's c r o w n (as in the rab binic tradition) a n d tramples u p o n it. T h e r e u p o n o n e o f the noblemen w h o advise P h a r a o h suggests that gold a n d a burning torch (rather than a n o n y x stone a n d a burning coal, as in the rabbinic tradi tion) b e p l a c e d before Moses, w h e r e u p o n M o s e s chooses the torch a n d puts it into his m o u t h (there is n o mention o f the role o f the angel G a b r i e l in saving M o s e s , as in the rabbinic tradition). 25. In Tashar Exodus I3ib-i32b, M o s e s is p u t to the test to see w h e t h e r h e is truly a threat to the Egyptian throne b y having a burning coal a n d a n o n y x stone placed before h i m to see w h i c h h e will choose. If Josephus h a d included such a n incident, it w o u l d have reinforced the v i e w that the Jews are aggressive, since, according to the M i d r a s h , while M o s e s actually stretched forth his litde h a n d toward the o n y x stone, it was redirected by the angel G a b r i e l toward the live coal. T h e r e u p o n M o s e s burnt his hand, lifted it to his m o u t h , a n d burnt part o f his lips a n d tongue, thereby incurring the speech imped iment that the Bible ascribes to h i m (Exod. 4:10).
MOSES
383
c e n d e d t h e t h r o n e o f his father Z e u s a n d m i m i c k e d h i m b y b r a n d i s h i n g l i g h t n i n g i n his little h a n d , m i g h t w e l l h a v e s u g g e s t e d itself to his p a g a n a u d i e n c e ( N o n n u s , Dionysiaea 6.269, 27.228). J o s e p h u s , w e m a y guess, w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive t o t h e c h a r g e o f Jewish aggressiveness that such a presentation w o u l d suggest: the J e w s h a d b e e n t w i c e e x p e l l e d f r o m R o m e b e c a u s e o f their b o l d m i s s i o n a r y tactics, first in 139 B.C.E. ( V a l e r i u s M a x i m u s 1.3.3)
a
n
d n e x t in 19 C.E. (Ant. 1 8 . 8 1 - 8 4 ; T a c i t u s ,
Annals 2.85.4; S u e t o n i u s , Tiberius 3 6 . 1 ; D i o C a s s i u s 57.18.5a). H e n c e , e v e n w h e n M o s e s r e m o v e s f r o m his h e a d t h e c r o w n t h a t P h a r a o h h a s p l a c e d u p o n it, J o s e p h u s is careful t o a d d t h a t h e d o e s so o u t o f m e r e childishness (vqTnorrjTa).
When
t h e s a c r e d scribe w h o h a d f o r e t o l d t h a t t h e child's b i r t h w o u l d l e a d t o t h e a b a s e m e n t o f t h e E g y p t i a n e m p i r e r u s h e s f o r w a r d to kill M o s e s after h e t r a m p l e s u p o n t h e c r o w n , t h e k i n g , w e a r e i n f o r m e d , p u t s off s l a y i n g h i m , i n d u c e d b y G - d , w h o s e p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoia)—a
k e y S t o i c t e r m t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a p p r e c i a t e d b y his
a u d i e n c e — w a t c h e d o v e r M o s e s ' life (Ant. 2.236). The
B i b l e is e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y b r i e f a b o u t M o s e s ' e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g his y o u t h ,
c o n t e n t i n g itself w i t h stating m e r e l y t h a t "the c h i l d g r e w u p " ( E x o d . 2:10). B y c o n trast, P h i l o , c l e a r l y c o n c e r n e d to p o r t r a y t h e legislator o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e as a k i n d o f p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in t h e P l a t o n i c tradition, d e c l a r e s t h a t to e d u c a t e M o s e s , t e a c h e r s , s o m e u n b i d d e n , a r r i v e d f r o m v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s a n d f r o m the p r o v i n c e s of E g y p t , while others were s u m m o n e d from G r e e c e o n promise o f high reward (De Vita Mosis 1.5.21). M o s e s s o o n a d v a n c e d b e y o n d t h e i r c a p a c i t y to t e a c h h i m , w e a r e told, a n d J o s e p h u s a d d s that, in t r u e P l a t o n i c fashion, h e e x e m p l i f i e d t h e p r i n ciple o f
avdfjLvrjGLs,
as d e s c r i b e d i n P l a t o ' s Meno, i n a s m u c h as his s e e m e d a c a s e
r a t h e r o f r e c o l l e c t i o n (dvafjuvrjoiv)
than of learning; and, indeed, he himself devised
a n d p r o p o u n d e d p r o b l e m s t h a t his t e a c h e r s c o u l d n o t easily solve. P h i l o t h e n p r o c e e d s to e n u m e r a t e t h e s u b j e c t s — a r i t h m e t i c , g e o m e t r y , a n d m u s i c , as w e l l as h i e r o g l y p h i c s a n d r e l i g i o n ( n o t a b l y their r e v e r e n c e for a n i m a l s , t o w h i c h t h e y p a i d divine honors)—that the E g y p t i a n teachers taught M o s e s , a n d informs the reader t h a t t h e G r e e k s t a u g h t h i m t h e rest o f t h e l i b e r a l arts, w h i l e still o t h e r s i n s t r u c t e d h i m in A s s y r i a n letters ( p r e s u m a b l y A r a m a i c ) a n d t h e C h a l d a e a n s c i e n c e o f as t r o n o m y (De Vita Mosis 1.5.23). A l t h o u g h h e s p e a k s o f P h i l o as " n o n o v i c e in p h i l o s o p h y " a n d as the h e a d o f t h e J e w i s h d e l e g a t i o n to the e m p e r o r G a i u s C a l i g u l a (Ant. 1 8 . 2 5 9 - 6 0 ) , a n d a l t h o u g h t h e r e is r e a s o n to think, as w e h a v e s u g g e s t e d , t h a t h e k n e w P h i l o ' s w o r k s , J o s e p h u s is, n e v e r t h e l e s s , c o n t e n t w i t h the briefest o f c o m m e n t s a b o u t M o s e s ' u p b r i n g i n g (he d o e s n o t s p e a k o f his e d u c a t i o n ) ,
26
namely, that he w a s raised
26. To be sure, Nodet 1990, 1.91, on Ant. 2.230, reads -n-aiSciais with several manuscripts in place of 7raiSiafs, the reading of a single manuscript, which has been adopted by all other editors, including Niese, Naber, and Thackeray. If so, the meaning would be that Moses showed his maturer excellence in his educational activities rather than in his childish games. But the sixth-century Latin version as cribed to Cassidorus, reading infantia, clearly favors the reading adopted by the other editors, as does the context, which speaks of Moses' extraordinary precociousness in his early years.
384
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
(irp€(f)€ro) w i t h t h e u t m o s t c a r e (cm/LicAcias), so t h a t the H e b r e w s v e s t e d their h i g h est h o p e s for the future in h i m , w h i l e t h e E g y p t i a n s v i e w e d his u p b r i n g i n g w i t h m i s g i v i n g (Ant. 2.236). O n e m i g h t w e l l a s s u m e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e r e c o r d e d w i t h p r i d e the l i b e r a l e d u c a t i o n t h a t M o s e s r e c e i v e d ; b u t w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t h e f o u n d it e m b a r r a s s i n g to state, as d o e s P h i l o , that M o s e s , w h o insisted o n a m o n o t h e i s m w i t h n o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the D i v i n e , h a d b e e n t a u g h t h i e r o g l y p h i c s a n d the details o f the E g y p t i a n w o r s h i p o f a n i m a l s .
27
Handsomeness J u s t as h e d o e s in the c a s e o f a n u m b e r o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , so also in the in stance o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his beauty. A l m o s t at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f 5
his portrait, M o s e s b e a u t y p l a y s a k e y role. W h e r e a s P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r saves the b a b y in the f l o a t i n g a r k b e c a u s e it is c r y i n g in the B i b l e ( E x o d . 2:6), in J o s e p h u s , h e r m o t i v e is t h a t she is e n c h a n t e d b y his size (jieyedovs)
and beauty
(KOLXXOVS)
(Ant.
2.224). W h e n she b r i n g s the c h i l d M o s e s t o h e r father w i t h the i n t e n t i o n o f a d o p t i n g h i m a n d o f m a k i n g h i m h e i r to t h e k i n g d o m , she d e s c r i b e s h i m as b e i n g o f di v i n e b e a u t y (p>op(f>f} . . . Oeiov) (Ant. 2.232). T h i s is all the m o r e effective c o m i n g as it d o e s f r o m a non-Jew, i n a s m u c h as in t h e B i b l e , it is M o s e s ' m o t h e r , J o c h e b e d , w h o is said t o h a v e s e e n t h a t h e r c h i l d w a s g o o d l y (tov)—a w o r d t h a t the S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s as darelov
( " t o w n b r e d , " " p o l i t e , " , " g o o d , " "pretty," " g r a c e f u l , " " c h a r m
ing") ( E x o d . 2:2). A p p a r e n d y , this t r a d i t i o n o f M o s e s ' b e a u t y h a d e v e n r e a c h e d the n o n - J e w i s h w o r l d , i n a s m u c h w e find P o m p e i u s T r o g u s (ap. Justin, Historiae
Philippi-
cae 36, Epitome 2.11), w h o l i v e d at the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d at the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., stating t h a t M o s e s ' b e a u t y o f a p p e a r a n c e (formae pulchritudo) r e c o m m e n d e d h i m . W e a r e t o l d t h a t n o n e w a s so indifferent to b e a u t y
(KOLXXOS)
as n o t , o n s e e i n g
h i m , to b e a m a z e d at M o s e s ' c o m e l i n e s s (evpLopfaas) (Ant. 2.231). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t it often h a p p e n e d t h a t p e r s o n s m e e t i n g h i m as h e w a s b o r n e a l o n g the h i g h w a y n e g l e c t e d their serious affairs to g a z e at h i m ; " i n d e e d , c h i l d i s h c h a r m so p e r fect a n d p u r e as his h e l d the b e h o l d e r s s p e l l b o u n d . "
28
J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e
n o u n s (p,op<j)r) a n d (frpovrjpua) in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the infant M o s e s b y P h a r a o h ' s
27. W e m a y presume that this might have prompted Josephus's silence about such Hellenistic Jew ish historians as Artapanus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.4), w h o proudly boasts o f the fact that Moses in vented hieroglyphic writing and taught religion to the Egyptians, assigning as their gods cats, dogs, and ibises. 28. Similarly, the Midrash states that because Moses was so beautiful everyone wished to look upon him, and whoever saw him could not turn away from h i m (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.26 on 2.10, Tanhuma Exodus 8.9; cf. Ecclus. 44:22-45:1). Philo stresses his beauty in several contexts (De Vita Mosis 1.2.9, - 4 5 J 1.4.18). Rabbinic tradition has a similar remark in connection with Joseph, to the effect that when Joseph traveled through Egypt as viceroy, maidens threw gifts at him to make h i m turn his eyes in their direction so as to give them an opportunity to gaze upon his beauty (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). Josephus, however, in his appeal to his rationalistic readers, avoids the exaggeration of the rabbis, w h o compare Moses' beauty to that of an angel (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 48.21). i
i
MOSES
385
d a u g h t e r (Ant. 2.232) t h a t a r e u s e d b y D i o n y s i u s in d e s c r i b i n g R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s (Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). F i n a l l y M o s e s ' stature a n d b e a u t y a p p e a r all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s these s a m e qualities in his g r e a t o p p o n e n t O g (Ant. 4-98). A leader, t o b e effective, m u s t also i m p r e s s his p e o p l e w i t h his a p p e a r a n c e . T h i s q u a l i t y is illustrated in J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n M o s e s d e s c e n d e d f r o m M o u n t S i n a i , his r a d i a n t (yavpos
"exulting," "splendid") a n d high-hearted ap
p e a r a n c e s e r v e d t o dispel t h e Israelites' d i s m a y e d a n d dispirited m o o d (Ant. 3.83). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s w e n t d o w n u n t o t h e p e o p l e a n d s p o k e t o t h e m ( E x o d . 19:25), J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e , d e c l a r i n g , as h e d o e s , t h a t t h e m e r e sight o f M o s e s rid t h e m o f their terrors a n d instilled in t h e m b r i g h t e r h o p e s for t h e future (Ant. 3.83). T h e v e r y air, h e says, b e c a m e s e r e n e a n d p u r g e d o f its r e c e n t d i s t u r b a n c e o n c e M o s e s a r r i v e d . J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y e a g e r t o a n s w e r t h e c a n a r d , c i r c u l a t e d b y M a n e t h o (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.279), a m o n g o t h e r s ,
29
that M o s e s ' appearance w a s m a r r e d by leprosy a n d
t h a t h e w a s , in fact, e x p e l l e d f r o m E g y p t b e c a u s e o f t h e disease. J o s e p h u s , i n his e l a b o r a t i o n , m a y h a v e s o u g h t to c o u n t e r M a n e t h o ' s s t a t e m e n t (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.279) t h a t M o s e s w a s a leper, as w e l l as L y s i m a c h u s ' s c l a i m (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.305-11) t h a t t h e ancestors o f the J e w s w e r e lepers a n d diseased people w h o h a d b e e n banished f r o m E g y p t for t h a t r e a s o n (see H a t a 1 9 8 7 , 1 8 3 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to this c h a r g e is c l e a r f r o m his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e p a s s a g e in w h i c h G - d tells M o s e s , as a sign to h e l p c o n v i n c e t h e Israelites t h a t H e h a d i n d e e d a p p e a r e d to h i m , to p u t his h a n d i n t o his b o s o m ( E x o d . 4:6). T h e r e u p o n his h a n d b e c o m e s l e p r o u s , b u t w h e n h e p u t s it b a c k i n t o his b o s o m a n d takes it o u t a g a i n , it is r e s t o r e d a n d like t h e rest o f his flesh. I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f l e p r o s y ; i n s t e a d , w e a r e t o l d t h a t w h e n M o s e s d r e w forth his h a n d , it w a s " w h i t e , o f a c o l o r r e s e m b l i n g 30
c h a l k " (Ant. 2 . 2 7 3 ) . J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t the i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f t h e anti-Jewish E g y p t i a n w r i t e r s in, o n t h e o n e h a n d , p r e s e n t i n g M o s e s as a n E g y p t i a n priest a n d asserting t h a t h e w a s r e m a r k a b l e (davpuaarov) a n d e v e n d i v i n e (deiov), a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , c l a i m i n g t h a t h e w a s e x p e l l e d b e c a u s e o f l e p r o s y (Ag. Ap. 1.279). J o s e p h u s , r e c a l l i n g this c h a r g e o f l e p r o s y (Ant. 3.265), refutes it b y re m a r k i n g t h a t h a d it b e e n true, M o s e s w o u l d n o t , to his o w n h u m i l i a t i o n , h a v e is s u e d statutes b a n i s h i n g l e p e r s , e s p e c i a l l y since there a r e n a t i o n s t h a t h o n o r l e p e r s
29. This canard is repeated by Nicarchus, ap. Photius, Lexicon, s.v. a\>a, in the first century C.E.; by Ptolemy Ghennos, ap. Photius, Lexicon 190, in the early second century C.E.; and by Helladius, ap. Photius, Lexicon 190, in the early fourth century C.E. There we learn that Moses the legislator was called a\a by the Jews because he had much dull white leprosy (a\ovs) on his body. Inasmuch as Moses is nowhere else called a\<j>a in the extant literature, Heinemann 1935, 361, has suggested that the source of this tradition is the Alexandrian anti-Jewish version of the exodus. 30. Similarly, the Septuagint avoids the mention of leprosy and declares that his hand became as snow. Philo abstains from mentioning that Moses' hand became leprous, and instead asserts that the hand appeared whiter than snow (De Vita Mosis 1.14.79).
386
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
(Ant. 3 . 2 6 6 - 6 8 ) . I n fact, in a significant c h a n g e , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , M o s e s b a n i s h e d l e p e r s , n o t m e r e l y f r o m t h e c a m p , as t h e B i b l e h a s it (Lev. 13:46, 14:3), b u t also f r o m t h e c i t y (Ant. 3.261, Ag. Ap. 1.281), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o l e p e r s in J e r u s a l e m in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y (see H a t a 1987, 190). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s d e l i b e r a t e l y o m i t s t h e l e n g t h y discussion o f the s y m p t o m s o f l e p r o s y f o u n d in the B i b l e , i n a s m u c h as this w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y i n d i c a t e t o t h e r e a d e r t h a t the m a l a d y w a s c o m m o n a m o n g Jews. Ultimately, Josephus graciously but con fidently
leaves the d e c i s i o n t o t h e r e a d e r (Ant. 3.268). H o w e v e r , j u s t as P l a t o h a d
d e c l a r e d t h a t a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s h o u l d , i f at all possible, b e h a n d s o m e
(Republic
7 . 5 3 5 A 1 1 - 1 2 ) , so J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s legislated t h a t e v e n t h e slightest m u tilation w a s r e a s o n e n o u g h for disqualification f r o m the p r i e s t h o o d , a n d t h a t a priest w h o d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f his s e r v i c e m e t w i t h s u c h a n a c c i d e n t w a s to b e d e p r i v e d o f his p o s i t i o n (Ag. Ap. 1.284). J o s e p h u s t h e n asks w h e t h e r it is likely t h a t M o s e s w o u l d h a v e e n a c t e d s u c h a stringent l a w if h e h i m s e l f h a d b e e n a l e p e r (Ag Ap. 1.285). Qualities of Leadership J o s e p h u s is e a g e r at e v e r y p o i n t t o u n d e r l i n e M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e as a leader, e s p e cially since the r a c e o f m a n k i n d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , is b y n a t u r e m o r o s e (Svaapearov,
" d i s c o n t e n t , " " g r u m b l i n g , " "irritable") a n d c e n s o r i o u s (i\aiTiov,
" f o n d o f h a v i n g r e p r o a c h e s at h a n d " ) (Ant. 3.23).
31
H e stresses this i m p o r t a n c e o f
M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p b y n o t i n g t h a t the Israelites h a d e n d u r e d h a r d s h i p s in E g y p t for f o u r h u n d r e d y e a r s , a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s a c o n t e s t o n b e t w e e n t h e E g y p t i a n s , striv i n g to kill o f f the Israelites w i t h d r u d g e r y a n d the Israelites, e v e r e a g e r to s h o w t h e m s e l v e s s u p e r i o r t o their tasks (Ant. 2.204). T h e details t h a t J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f the h a r d l a b o r i m p o s e d b y the E g y p t i a n s u p o n the Israelites ( E x o d . 1:11) likewise serve to e m p h a s i z e the c r u c i a l role p l a y e d b y M o s e s in l e a d i n g his p e o p l e o u t o f s l a v e r y (Ant. 2.203). I n particular, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d t o l d A a r o n to m e e t M o s e s o n his w a y b a c k f r o m M i d i a n t o E g y p t , a n d w h e r e a s M o s e s a n d A a r o n t h e n g a t h e r t o g e t h e r all o f the elders o f the c h i l d r e n o f Israel ( E x o d . 4:27), J o s e p h u s , in his z e a l to e m p h a s i z e M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e , a r r a n g e s to h a v e h i m m e t b y a d e l e g a t i o n o f the m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d o f the Israelites (Ant. 2.279).
31. W e m a y note that even Tacitus, despite his bitter attack upon the Jews, stresses, more than any o f his predecessors, the role o f M o s e s in inspiring the Israelites in the desert (Histories 5.3.1). H e adds that M o s e s urged t h e m to rely on themselves rather than on m e n and gods, perhaps an allusion to the biblical statement o f G - d to M o s e s w h e n the Israelites complain while b e i n g pursued b y the Egyptian troops: " W h y d o y o u cry to me? Tell the people o f Israel to go forward" (Exod. 14:15). A g a i n , in T a c i tus, M o s e s is the leader w h o frees the Israelites from their misery by finding water for them (Histories 5.3.2). R a g l a n 1934, 212-31, in listing twenty-two characteristic features o f the hero in folklore, remarks that the Moses o f the Bible evidences more o f these (twenty-one) than any other hero. W e m a y note that in Josephus, these twenty-one features are emphasized even further.
MOSES
387
I n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s d o w n g r a d e s t h e role o f A a r o n as M o s e s ' s p o k e s m a n .
3 2
T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t A a r o n p e r
f o r m e d t h e m i r a c l e s in t h e p r e s e n c e o f the p e o p l e in o r d e r to c o n v i n c e t h e m ( E x o d . 4:30), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o , after at first failing t o c o n v i n c e t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d o f t h e Israelites b y a m e r e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m i r a c l e s , t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p e r f o r m t h e m b e f o r e their eyes (Ant. 2.280). L i k e w i s e , w h e n , at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his m i s s i o n , M o s e s first c o n s o l i d a t e s his b a c k i n g a m o n g his o w n p e o p l e (Ant. 2.281), t h e B i b l e states t h a t h e a n d A a r o n t h e n w e n t to see P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.281); in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.281), M o s e s b e t a k e s h i m s e l f a l o n e after h e is a s s u r e d o f t h e a l l e g i a n c e o f t h e Israelites, o f their a g r e e m e n t t o f o l l o w his o r d e r s , a n d o f their l o v e o f liberty. It is M o s e s , r a t h e r t h a n A a r o n , w h o p e r f o r m s m i r a c l e s w i t h his r o d in t h e p r e s e n c e o f P h a r a o h ( E x o d . 7:10 v s . Ant. 2.284, 287); a n d M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t is all t h e m o r e i m p r e s s i v e b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , the k i n g h a d r i d i c u l e d h i m . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t it w a s A a r o n w h o w i t h his staff p r o d u c e d t h e p l a g u e o f b l o o d ( E x o d . 7:19), J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s i m p u t i n g m i r a c l e s t o G - d , says t h a t t h e p l a g u e w a s p r o d u c e d at G - d ' s c o m m a n d a n d l e a v e s t h e h u m a n a g e n t u n i d e n t i f i e d (Ant. 2.294). L i k e w i s e , in E x o d u s (8:2, 8:13), it is A a r o n w h o b r i n g s o n t h e p l a g u e s o f frogs a n d lice, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , it is G - d w h o p r o d u c e s t h e m (Ant. 2.296, 300). Similarly, w h e r e a s the B i b l e s e e m s t o g i v e n o r e a s o n for the c h o i c e b y G - d o f A a r o n as h i g h priest ( E x o d . 28:1; L e v . 8:1), in J o s e p h u s , t h e s e l e c t i o n , far f r o m b e i n g arbitrary, is o w i n g n o t o n l y t o A a r o n ' s v i r t u e s b u t also to t h e e x c e l l e n c e (dperrjv) o f M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 3.192). Finally, w h e n G - d instructs M o s e s to inscribe e a c h man's n a m e u p o n a rod a n d to write the n a m e o f A a r o n u p o n t h e r o d o f L e v i in o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e w h o s e r o d , b y d i v i n e i n d i c a t i o n , w i l l s p r o u t ( N u m . 1 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z i n g t h a t this p r e s e n t a t i o n g i v e s m o r e p r o m i n e n c e to A a r o n t h a n to M o s e s , w h o l i k e w i s e c a m e f r o m t h e tribe o f L e v i , states t h a t t h e w o r d " L e v i t e " w a s i n s c r i b e d u p o n A a r o n ' s staff (Ant. 4.64). T h e c h o i c e o f A a r o n t o b e h i g h priest e x p o s e d M o s e s to t h e c h a r g e o f n e p o tism, as w e see in t h e i m p l i e d o b j e c t i o n o f K o r a h (Ant. 4 . 1 8 - 1 9 ) . T h e B i b l e g i v e s n o r e a s o n for G - d ' s c h o i c e o f A a r o n ( E x o d . 28:1). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , e x p l a i n s t h a t G - d i n s t r u c t e d M o s e s t o c o n f e r t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d u p o n A a r o n as t h e
man
w h o s e v i r t u e s r e n d e r e d h i m m o r e d e s e r v i n g o f t h a t office t h a n a n y o n e else (Ant. 3.188-90).
33
32. J. C o h e n 1993,54, asserts that Josephus takes pains to m a k e A a r o n a y o u n g e r brother o f Moses, one b o r n later; but the passage to w h i c h he refers, namely, G - d ' s promise to A m r a m , predicts that M o s e s will have a brother w h o will hold the priesthood, that is, the prediction is that A a r o n will some day b e c o m e high priest, not that A a r o n will be b o r n later (Ant. 2.216). T h a t Josephus is aware that A a r o n was, in fact, older than M o s e s is clear from his statement that A a r o n was three years older than M o s e s (Ant. 2.319). 33. Philo, like Josephus, stresses that M o s e s chose A a r o n to be high priest on his merits rather than because he w a s his brother (De Vita Mosis 2.28.142). H e then adds, in order to emphasize that M o s e s w a s not guilty o f nepotism, that M o s e s did not a d v a n c e his o w n sons to positions o f p o w e r (cf. also De Vita Mosis 1.27.150). It is interesting that Josephus does not make this point (Ant. 2.277-78), perhaps because
388
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
E v e n w h e n it c o m e s to t h e f o o d sent b y G - d , w h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , M o s e s tells t h e Israelites t h a t this is the b r e a d t h a t G - d h a s sent t h e m to e a t ( E x o d . 16:15), J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t p e o p l e w o u l d b e r e l u c t a n t to e a t a f o o d t h a t t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y n e v e r s e e n , h a s M o s e s t a k e t h e role o f l e a d e r in t a s t i n g it first (Ant. 3.26). A g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a p s y c h o l o g i s t ; a n d M o s e s , in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t , e x c e l s in this r e s p e c t . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states m e r e l y t h a t t h e Israelites d e f e a t e d the A m o r i t e s ( N u m . 21:24), J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s finds a g o o d r e a s o n , b e s i d e s the hostile attitude o f t h e A m o r i t e s , for i n c i t i n g t h e Israelites to a t t a c k — n a m e l y , to d e l i v e r t h e m f r o m t h e i n a c t i v i t y (aTrpa^ias) a n d c o n s e q u e n t i n d i g e n c e
(diropias)
t h a t h a d p r o d u c e d their p r e v i o u s m u t i n y a n d their p r e s e n t d i s c o n t e n t (Ant. 4.87). A n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e to t h e Israelites as a l e a d e r m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k , u n p a r a l l e l e d in t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( E x o d . 32:1), t h a t w h i l e M o s e s w a s a b s e n t for forty d a y s o n M o u n t S i n a i , t h e p e o p l e , in t h e i r d e e p distress, i m a g i n e d t h e m s e l v e s bereft o f a p a t r o n (irpooTaTov,
" o n e w h o stands o u t in front
as a c h a m p i o n , " " l e a d e r , " " c h i e f , " "ruler," " g u a r d i a n " ) a n d p r o t e c t o r (KrjSepiovos, " g u a r d i a n " ) , t h e like o f w h o m t h e y w o u l d n e v e r m e e t a g a i n (Ant. 3.98). J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t a d m i r a t i o n for M o s e s ' m a r v e l o u s p o w e r o f i n s p i r i n g faith in all his u t t e r a n c e s w a s n o t c o n f i n e d t o his lifetime (Ant. 3 . 3 1 7 - 1 8 ) . E v e n in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day, h e r e m a r k s , " T h e r e is n o t a H e b r e w w h o d o e s n o t , j u s t as if h e w e r e still t h e r e a n d r e a d y to p u n i s h h i m for a n y b r e a c h o f discipline, o b e y the l a w s l a i d d o w n b y M o s e s , e v e n t h o u g h in v i o l a t i n g t h e m h e w o u l d e s c a p e d e t e c t i o n . " H e n o t e s t h a t o n l y r e c e n d y w h e n c e r t a i n n o n - J e w s f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a , after a j o u r n e y o f several months, c a m e to venerate the T e m p l e in Jerusalem, they c o u l d n o t p a r t a k e o f t h e sacrifices t h a t t h e y h a d offered b e c a u s e M o s e s h a d f o r b i d d e n this to t h o s e n o t g o v e r n e d b y the l a w s o f t h e T o r a h . E v e n m o r e t h a n Pericles, h o w e v e r , M o s e s , d u r i n g the s o j o u r n in the desert, stands u n d e r c o n s t a n t c r i t i c i s m a n d t h e t h r e a t o f r e b e l l i o n . T h u s , after t h e spies c o m e b a c k w i t h t h e i r pessimistic r e p o r t a b o u t t h e possibility o f c o n q u e r i n g C a n a a n , the p e o p l e b l a m e M o s e s a n d l o a d h i m a n d A a r o n with abuse, p o u r i n g vi t u p e r a t i o n s (pXaa>r]piLOJv) u p o n t h e m a n d p l o t t i n g t o stone t h e m a n d t o r e t u r n to E g y p t (Ant. 3.307). T h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t all the c o n g r e g a t i o n e x p r e s s e d the desire t o s t o n e t h e m ( N u m . 14:10). D e s p i t e this u g l y m o o d , M o s e s a n d A a r o n , w e a r e told, i n s t e a d o f p a n i c k i n g , s h o w their c o m p a s s i o n for the p e o p l e , t h e i r a b i l i t y to a n a l y z e t h e c a u s e o f this d e p r e s s i o n , a n d t h e i r o w n true l e a d e r s h i p b y s u p p l i c a t i n g G - d to r i d t h e m o f their i g n o r a n c e a n d t o c a l m t h e i r spirits (Ant. 3.310). H e r e a g a i n t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s p r a y e d t h a t G - d s h o u l d p a r d o n t h e m for c o m p l a i n i n g a g a i n s t H i m ( N u m . 14:19). W h e n M o s e s tells t h e m n o t to fight the C a n a a n i t e s , the Israelites p r o c e e d to a c -
it could have b e e n regarded as a criticism o f the R o m a n e m p e r o r Vespasian for choosing his son Titus as his successor.
MOSES
389
c u s e a n d s u s p e c t h i m o f s c h e m i n g t o k e e p t h e m w i t h o u t r e s o u r c e s in o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y a l w a y s s t a n d in n e e d o f his a i d (Ant. 4.1). T h e y refer t o M o s e s as a t y r a n t (rvpavvov) a n d d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y a r e s t r o n g e n o u g h b y t h e m s e l v e s to defeat t h e C a n a a n i t e s e v e n if M o s e s s h o u l d desire to alienate G - d f r o m t h e m (Ant. 4.3). T h e y insist t h a t n o t o n l y M o s e s b u t all o f t h e m 21s w e l l a r e o f t h e s t o c k o f A b r a h a m a n d s c o r n w h a t t h e y t e r m t h e a r r o g a n c e (d\a£ov€ias)
o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.4). T h e y a s s e m
b l e in d i s o r d e r l y f a s h i o n (d/cd ap,a)s) a n d w i t h t u m u l t a n d u p r o a r ; a n d , i n a g r e a t e l a b o r a t i o n o n the b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e ( N u m . 16:3),
t
n
e
v
s h o u t , " A w a y w i t h the t y r a n t ,
a n d let t h e p e o p l e b e rid o f t h e i r b o n d a g e ! " (Ant. 4 . 2 2 - 2 3 ) . T h e fickle m o b , in a s c e n e h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n in T h u c y d i d e s o f t h e attitude o f t h e A t h e n i a n s t o w a r d Pericles after t h e p l a g u e , in a t u m u l t u o u s (dopvpw&rj) assembly, e x h i b i t t h e i r " i n n a t e d e l i g h t in d e c r y i n g t h o s e in a u t h o r i t y " a n d , in their s h a l l o w ness, s w a y e d b y w h a t a n y o n e said, are in f e r m e n t (Ant. 4.36). O n e is r e m i n d e d o f t h e w a y in w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to T h u c y d i d e s (3.36, 6.19), t h e A t h e n i a n m a s s e s w e r e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s s u c h as C l e o n a n d A l c i b i a d e s , as w e l l as o f t h e t e c h n i q u e b y w h i c h t h e gullible c a p t a i n o f t h e ship, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m a s s e s , i n P l a t o ' s p a r a b l e (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 7 - 8 9 A 2 ) , i n s t e a d o f listening t o t h e t r u e n a v i g a t o r , is w o n o v e r b y t h e f a w n i n g sailors. E v e n after M o s e s is a p p a r e n d y v i n d i c a t e d in his d i s p u t e w i t h K o r a h b y t h e s w a l l o w i n g u p o f t h e rebels b y t h e e a r t h , t h e s k e p t i c a l m o b c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e severity o f the p u n i s h m e n t inflicted u p o n t h e r e b e l s is d u e n o t so m u c h t o t h e i n i q u i t y o f those w h o p e r i s h e d as t o t h e m a c h i n a tions o f M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 6 0 - 6 2 ) . T h e r e a f t e r Z a m b r i a s (Zimri), t h e Israelite w h o h a s relations w i t h a M i d i a n i t e w o m a n , a c c u s e s M o s e s o f t y r a n n y b e c a u s e h e a t t e m p t s to interfere w i t h his free c h o i c e (Ant. 4.149). A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s is careful to p o i n t o u t t h a t M o s e s d i d n o t , like s u c h G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s as P y t h a g o r a s , A n a x a g o r a s , a n d P l a t o , s h o w d i s d a i n for t h e m a s s e s , b u t r a t h e r a d d r e s s e d his t e a c h i n g s t o t h e m a n y , a n d i n d e e d so firmly i m p l a n t e d his t h e o l o g y in their d e s c e n d a n t s t h a t it c a n n o t b e m o v e d (Ag. Ap. 2.169). I n his first e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t a b o u t M o s e s , J o s e p h u s , after d e s c r i b i n g the res c u e o f M o s e s b y P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r , r e m a r k s t h a t there is g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e r e w e r e t w o respects in w h i c h M o s e s e x c e l l e d a l l — n a m e l y , in g r a n d e u r o f in tellect a n d in c o n t e m p t o f toils (rrdvcov Kara
390
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
stresses the selflessness o f M o s e s , in t h a t h e n e v e r t o o k a d v a n t a g e o f his p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y t o p l a y the d e s p o t b u t s o u g h t r a t h e r t o live piously, since h e b e l i e v e d t h a t this w a s the m o s t effective w a y t o p r o v i d e for the lasting w e l f a r e o f those w h o h a d m a d e h i m their l e a d e r (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 5 9 ) .
34
A n d yet, despite this c o m p l e t e a l t r u i s m , M o s e s , like Pericles, is u n a p p r e c i a t e d b y his p e o p l e (Ant. 4 . 4 2 - 4 3 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e y o w e their lives t o his e x e r t i o n s (/ca/xdrojv,
" f a t i g u e , " " e x h a u s t i o n , " " l a b o r , " "effort"), t h e y nevertheless suspect h i m
o f k n a v e r y W h e n M o s e s selects J o s h u a as his successor, the qualities i n h i m t h a t h e singles o u t i n c l u d e v a l o r in e n d u r i n g toils (TTOVOIS) (Ant. 3.49). I n d e e d , o n e o f the a c h i e v e m e n t s o f a g r e a t l e a d e r is his ability to i n c u l c a t e into o t h e r s a readiness t o u n d e r g o toil, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n the assiduousness in toil (irovelv) t h a t the H e b r e w s felt after t h e y d e f e a t e d A m a l e k , c o n v i n c e d t h a t all t h i n g s w e r e a t t a i n a b l e b y it (Ant. 3.58). Finally, w h e n M o s e s a n n o u n c e s t h a t h e m u s t die, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e h a s d e e m e d it r i g h t n o t t o r e n o u n c e his z e a l for the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e b u t t o l a b o r to s e c u r e for the p e o p l e the e v e r l a s t i n g e n j o y m e n t o f g o o d t h i n g s (Ant. 4.178). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , M o s e s p r a y s t h a t G - d m a y m u l t i p l y the p e o p l e a n d bless t h e m ( D e u t . 1:11), in J o s e p h u s , M o s e s is n o t satisfied to resort t o m e r e p r a y e r b u t r a t h e r takes the initiative i n p l a n n i n g w a y s so t h a t the p e o p l e m a y attain p r o s p e r ity (Ant. 4.179). T h e g r e a t e s t test o f l e a d e r s h i p c o m e s w h e n sedition arises. It is p r e c i s e l y h e r e , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the g r e a t sedition (araaid^eLv)
o f K o r a h , that M o s e s shows
his true foresight (irpoevorjae) (Ant. 4.13). I n d e e d , civil strife (ardoLs), as T h u c y d i d e s (3.82-84) stresses, is the g r e a t e n e m y o f stability; a n d J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n t l y c o m m e n t s o n this. W e m a y r e m a r k t h a t a g o o d p o r t i o n o f b o o k 4 ( 1 1 - 6 6 , 1 4 1 - 5 5 ) o f the Antiquities is d e v o t e d t o a c c o u n t s t h a t illustrate the d e g r e e t o w h i c h ardais mortal e n e m y o f political states.
35
is the
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this t h e m e for J o s e p h u s m a y
b e s e e n in t h e fact t h a t the t w o revolts, o f K o r a h a n d o f Z a m b r i a s , c o m p r i s e , b e t w e e n t h e m , m o r e t h a n h a l f o f the n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l in b o o k 4 (see A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 128). M o s e s ' stature is i n c r e a s e d in J o s e p h u s b e c a u s e the latter d r a m a t i z e s , t o a m u c h g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n d o e s the B i b l e , the m u r m u r i n g a g a i n s t h i m . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , the p e o p l e c r y t o M o s e s a b o u t their misfortunes in the d e s e r t ( N u m . 11:2), in J o s e p h u s , this l a m e n t h a s b e c o m e a t o r r e n t o f a b u s e , w h e r e u p o n a n u n n a m e d in d i v i d u a l a d m o n i s h e s t h e m n o t to b e u n m i n d f u l o f w h a t M o s e s h a s suffered for t h e s a l v a t i o n o f all (Ant. 3.297). T h e r e a f t e r , w e a r e told, in a n o t h e r u n s c r i p t u r a l a d d i -
34. S o also Philo stresses that M o s e s ' constant aim was to benefit his subjects, "and, in all that he said or did, to further their interests and neglect n o opportunity that w o u l d forward the c o m m o n wellb e i n g " (De Vita Mosis 1.27.151) 35. W e m a y also note that w h e n discussing the biblical prohibition o f removing one's neighbor's landmark (Deut. 19:14 and 27:17), Josephus adds that the reason for this prohibition was to preclude wars and seditions (cTaaccov) (Ant. 4.225).
MOSES
391
tion, t h a t t h e m u l t i t u d e w a s a r o u s e d o n l y t h e m o r e u p r o a r i o u s l y a n d i n v e i g h e d e v e n m o r e fiercely a g a i n s t M o s e s . A g a i n , at R e p h i d i m , w h e n the Israelites find t h e m s e l v e s in a n a b s o l u t e l y w a terless r e g i o n a n d v e n t their w r a t h o n their leader, it is M o s e s , a c c o r d i n g to the b i b lical v e r s i o n , w h o cries t o G - d fearfully telling H i m t h a t t h e y a r e o n t h e v e r g e o f s t o n i n g h i m ( E x o d . 17:4), w h e r e u p o n G - d i r e c t s M o s e s to t a k e w i t h h i m s o m e o f t h e e l d e r s a n d to pass b e f o r e the p e o p l e ( E x o d . 17:5). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s s h u n s the press o f t h e c r o w d a n d i n s t e a d t u r n s t o G - d in prayer, b e s e e c h i n g t h a t H e afford t h e m d r i n k (Ant. 3.34). G - d t h e n p r o m i s e s t h a t H e w i l l p r o v i d e water, a n d so M o s e s fearlessly a n d a l o n e , w i t h o u t t h e c o m p a n y o f the elders, a p p r o a c h e s t h e p e o p l e a n d tells t h e m t h a t G - d w i l l d e l i v e r t h e m f r o m their distress. I m m e d i a t e l y thereafter, in t h e m o s t d r a m a t i c f a s h i o n , M o s e s strikes t h e r o c k a n d w a t e r g u s h e s forth. A g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e t o e n c o u r a g e his p e o p l e . T h u s , M o s e s is d e s c r i b e d as c h e e r i n g u p (irapoppLcovra " s p e e d i n g o n , " " s t i m u l a t i n g , " " e n c o u r a g i n g " ) t h e Is raelites a n d p r o m i s i n g t h e m s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 2.327). L i k e w i s e , h e m u s t b e a b l e t o c o n s o l e his p e o p l e . W h e n t h e i n f a m o u s A m a l e k is a p p r o a c h i n g to a t t a c k t h e m , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is J o s h u a w h o m M o s e s a p p r o a c h e s , b i d d i n g h i m to g o o u t t o fight A m a l e k ( E x o d . 17:9), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o e x h o r t s t h e j u n i o r s t o o b e y their elders a n d t h e latter to h e a r k e n to h i m , their g e n e r a l , w h e r e u p o n t h e y u r g e M o s e s to l e a d t h e m i n s t a n d y a g a i n s t t h e e n e m y (Ant. 3.47). W h e n t h e Israelites a r e suffering f r o m thirst d u r i n g their m a r c h t h r o u g h t h e desert, M o s e s , t h e t r u e leader, e m p a t h i z e s to s u c h a d e g r e e w i t h his p e o p l e t h a t h e m a k e s t h e sufferings o f all the Israelites his o w n (Ant. 3.5). A l l l o o k t o h i m as their leader, a n d it is to h i m a l o n e t h a t t h e y flock in their d e s p o n d e n c y w h e n t h e y h a v e n o w a t e r in t h e d e s e r t (Ant. 3.6). Finally, in J o s e p h u s , M o s e s a p p r o a c h e s all t h e p e o p l e , c o n s o l e s t h e m , a n d b i d s t h e m t o t a k e c o u r a g e a n d to trust in G - d , re m e m b e r i n g t h e p a s t (Ant. 3 . 4 4 - 4 6 ) . T h i s last s c e n e is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e o n e in w h i c h A e n e a s c o n s o l e s his m e n after t h e y l a n d o n t h e c o a s t o f A f r i c a , r e m i n d ing t h e m that they have endured m o r e grievous obstacles a n d bidding t h e m to p e r s e v e r e ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 1.198-207). Similarly, after M o s e s h a s t o l d t h e Israelites t h a t h e is to die a n d t h e y a r e all in tears, h e c o n s o l e s t h e m a n d , d i v e r t i n g their m i n d s f r o m his i m p e n d i n g d e a t h , e x h o r t s t h e m to p u t their c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t o p r a c tice (Ant. 4.195). I n his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t it w a s a sedi tion
(OTOLOIS)
"for w h i c h w e k n o w o f n o p a r a l l e l , w h e t h e r a m o n g G r e e k s o r b a r
b a r i a n s " (Ant. 4.12), c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t seditions w a s f a m i l i a r t o his r e a d e r s , as it surely w a s to r e a d e r s o f T h u c y d i d e s . B e i n g o f t h e s a m e tribe as M o s e s (he w a s , in fact, his k i n s m a n ) , richer, a n d v e r y effective in a d d r e s s i n g a c r o w d , K o r a h w a s a truly f o r m i d a b l e o p p o n e n t for M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 1 4 - 1 5 ) . M o s e s s h o w s his m e t t l e b y n o t s c o r n i n g to take t h e initiative in g o i n g to t h e r e b e l s D a t h a n a n d A b i r a m . I n J o s e p h u s , M o s e s i m p l o r e s K o r a h to c e a s e f r o m
392
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
sedition
(GTOLG€COS)
PORTRAITS
a n d t h e t u r b u l e n c e (rapaxrjs)
a r i s i n g t h e r e f r o m (Ant. 4.32). I n
fact, M o s e s g o e s so far i n s e e k i n g to a v o i d civil strife t h a t w h e n K o r a h c h a r g e s t h a t M o s e s is g u i l t y o f n e p o t i s m in s e l e c t i n g his b r o t h e r A a r o n to b e h i g h priest, h e states t h a t A a r o n is r e a d y to l a y d o w n his h i g h p r i e s t h o o d as a n o p e n p r i z e t o b e s u e d for b y a n y w h o w i l l (Ant. 4.29). E v e n after t h e e a r t h q u a k e h a s s w a l l o w e d u p K o r a h a n d his f o l l o w e r s , t h e s e d i t i o n d o e s n o t e n d . B u t w h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t t h e w h o l e Israelite c o m m u n i t y r a i l e d a g a i n s t M o s e s a n d A a r o n , c h a r g i n g t h e m w i t h h a v i n g c a u s e d t h e d e a t h s o f so m a n y ( N u m . 17:6), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e seditiousness o f t h e p e o p l e b y stating t h a t t h e r e v o l t a s s u m e d far l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s a n d g r e w m o r e g r i e v o u s ; " i n d e e d , " h e a d d s , "it f o u n d a n o c c a s i o n for p r o c e e d i n g f r o m b a d t o w o r s e , s u c h t h a t t h e t r o u b l e s e e m e d l i k e l y n e v e r to c e a s e b u t to b e c o m e c h r o n i c " (Ant. 4.59). B y t h u s e x a g g e r a t i n g t h e seditiousness o f t h e p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y i n c r e a s e s the stature o f M o s e s in c o n t r o l l i n g t h e m , j u s t as T h u c y d i d e s d o e s i n t h e c a s e o f Pericles. Finally, in s u m m i n g u p his l e n g t h y a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n , M o s e s d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d in his m e r c y w i l l k e e p its s h a p e l y o r d e r
(KOGPLOV)
u n m a r r e d b y strife (daraortaarov) (Ant. 4.292).
J o s e p h u s t h e n p u t s a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p r a y e r i n t o t h e m o u t h o f M o s e s , in w h i c h h e asks t h a t t h e Israelites, o n c e t h e y h a v e c o n q u e r e d t h e l a n d o f Israel, n o t b e o v e r c o m e b y civil strife
(GTOLG€COS
e/x0t>Atot>), " w h e r e b y y e shall b e l e d to a c t i o n s c o n
t r a r y to t h o s e o f y o u r fathers a n d d e s t r o y t h e institutions t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d " (Ant. 4 . 2 9 4 - 9 5 ) . M o s e s ' effectiveness as a l e a d e r is e s p e c i a l l y w e l l illustrated in his tactics in h a n d l i n g t h e u n r u l y m o b w h e n t h e Israelite y o u t h s c o n s o r t w i t h t h e
Midianite
w o m e n . I n t h e B i b l e , M o s e s s t e r n l y instructs t h e j u d g e s o f Israel: " E v e r y o n e o f c
c
y o u , slay his m e n w h o h a v e y o k e d t h e m s e l v e s to B a a l P e o r [the m a j o r d e i t y o f t h e M i d i a n i t e s ] " ( N u m . 25:5). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s , far f r o m c o m m a n d i n g t h a t the tres passers b e killed, first s h o w s his d e m o c r a t i c i m p u l s e a n d his h i g h r e g a r d for t h e p e o p l e b y c o n v e n i n g t h e m in a s s e m b l y (Ant. 4 . 1 4 2 ) .
36
H e then very considerately
a v o i d s a c c u s i n g a n y o n e b y n a m e , since h e d o e s n o t w i s h t o r e d u c e t o d e s p e r a t i o n a n y w h o m i g h t b e b r o u g h t t o r e p e n t a n c e t h r o u g h g e n t l e r m e a n s , b u t seeks r a t h e r t h r o u g h m i l d w o r d s to w i n b a c k t h e transgressors. H i s p a t i e n c e in t r y i n g to p e r s u a d e t h e m to m e n d their w a y s is i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y b y J o s e p h u s ' s use o f t h e i m p e r f e c t tense, eireipdro
("he k e p t o n t r y i n g " ) (Ant. 4.144).
A n d y e t , d e s p i t e all t h e difficulties c a u s e d h i m b y t h e c r o w d , M o s e s d o e s n o t c o m p l a i n . A c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , M o s e s , in despair, cries o u t to his p e o p l e , " H o w c a n I a l o n e b e a r the w e i g h t a n d b u r d e n o f y o u a n d y o u r strife?" ( D e u t . 1:12.) T h i s c o m p l a i n t is n o t to b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 4.179). M o s e s s h o w s his effectiveness in h a n d l i n g a n a n g r y c r o w d in his t r e a t m e n t o f Z a m b r i a s ( Z i m r i ) , w h o w a s c o n s o r t i n g w i t h a M i d i a n i t e w o m a n (Ant. 4 . 1 5 0 - 5 1 ) .
36. V a n U n n i k 1974, 252-53, notes that such a tactic is often found in the works o f G r e e k histori
ans, notably Dionysius o f Halicarnassus in his Antiquitates Romanae, w h o remarks that w h e n civil strife arises a m o n g the R o m a n s , they are called into assembly, w h e r e the matter is discussed.
MOSES
393
H e r e M o s e s a d o p t s t h e tactic o f n o t p r o v o k i n g Z a m b r i a s ' f r e n z y b y d i r e c t c o n t r o v e r s y i n a s m u c h as h e realizes t h a t to d o so m i g h t w e l l e s c a l a t e the d i s o b e d i e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y h e dissolves t h e m e e t i n g . A l e a d e r m u s t b e d e c i s i v e . H e c a n n o t b e d e p i c t e d as l a c k i n g self-confidence. I n t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , w h e n G - d c o m m i s s i o n s M o s e s t o l e a d t h e Israelites o u t o f E g y p t i a n b o n d a g e , M o s e s t i m i d l y tells G - d t h a t w h e n h e i n f o r m s t h e Israelites t h a t G - d h a s sent h i m to t h e m , t h e y w i l l ask h i m w h a t G - d ' s n a m e is, a n d so h e n o w t u r n s to G - d to seek a n a n s w e r to t h a t q u e s t i o n ( E x o d . 3:13). I n J o s e p h u s , M o s e s l i k e w i s e asks G - d for H i s n a m e , b u t the q u e s t i o n s h o w s n o l a c k o f selfc o n f i d e n c e ; rather, t h e r e a s o n M o s e s asks for G - d ' s n a m e is so t h a t h e m a y a d dress H i m p r o p e r l y w h e n sacrificing t o H i m (Ant. 2.275). A n o t h e r e m b a r r a s s i n g p a s s a g e is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e s t o r y o f the d a u g h t e r s o f Z e l o p h e h a d , w h o ask for t h e i n h e r i t a n c e o f their father, i n a s m u c h as h e h a s d i e d w i t h o u t sons ( N u m . 2 7 : 1 - 1 1 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , M o s e s is u n a b l e t o d e c i d e their c a s e a n d p r e s e n t s it to G - d , w h o d e c i d e s i n their f a v o r ( N u m . 27:5). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s d o e s n o t hesitate t o g i v e his a n s w e r a n d d o e s n o t h a v e to c o n s u l t G - d ; h e tells t h e m t h a t i f t h e y m a r r y w i t h i n their tribe, t h e y w i l l c a r r y t h e i n h e r i t a n c e w i t h t h e m , b u t i f t h e y d o n o t , t h e i n h e r i t a n c e is t o r e m a i n i n their father's tribe (Ant. 4-I74-75)-
37
^
T h e d i g n i t y o f a l e a d e r is c r u c i a l to his success. H e n c e , w e find t h a t t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 4:20) a v o i d s stating, as d o e s the H e b r e w , t h a t M o s e s p u t his w i f e a n d his sons u p o n a n ass a n d sent t h e m b a c k to the l a n d o f E g y p t , a n d instead, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e ass w a s r e g a r d e d as s u c h a l o w l y a n i m a l ,
3 8
declares that
M o s e s m o u n t e d t h e m u p o n "beasts" without indicating the identity o f these.
39
J o s e p h u s g o e s o n e step further a n d says t h a t M o s e s t o o k his wife a n d sons a n d h a s t e n e d a w a y , w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g t h e m e a n s (Ant. 2.277). W e see a similar a v o i d a n c e o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f M o s e s w i t h asses i n J o s e p h u s ' s r e n d e r i n g o f the p a s s a g e w h e r e M o s e s protests t h a t h e h a s n o t t a k e n a single ass f r o m the a s s e m b l a g e ( N u m . 16:15). H e r e the Septuagint has M o s e s say that he has not taken a w a y the (i7n6viJLrjfia, " d e a r possession") o f a n y o f t h e I s r a e l i t e s ;
40
desire
a n d likewise Josephus
m a k e s M o s e s d e c l a r e t h a t h e h a s n o t a c c e p t e d a p r e s e n t f r o m a single H e b r e w t o p e r v e r t j u s t i c e (Ant. 4.46). P e r h a p s a further r e a s o n for these c h a n g e s is t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w s k e p t a n ass's h e a d in t h e T e m p l e a n d w o r s h i p p e d t h a t a n i m a l (Ag. Ap. 2.80-88).
37. Philo's Moses follows the biblical text in having Moses refer the case to G-d (De Vita Mosis 243-237).
38. Cf., e.g., the clear disdain for the ass implicit in the fact that when Midas is punished for chal lenging the verdict of Tmolus that Apollo was superior to Pan as a musician, his ears are lengthened to resemble those of an ass (Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.172-93). 39. This is one of the changes noted by the Talmud as introduced by the translators under divine inspiration (Megillah 9a). 40. The rabbinic version concerning the change indicates that the translators read hemed (valuable) for hamor (ass) (Megillah 9a).
394
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n t l y felt a p o l o g e t i c a b o u t the fact t h a t M o s e s w a s a s h e p h e r d , seemingly a lowly occupation.
4 1
H e n c e , w h e r e the B i b l e states t h a t M o s e s k e p t the
flock o f J e t h r o , his father-in-law ( E x o d . 3:1), J o s e p h u s a d d s a n e x p l a n a t i o n — n a m e l y , t h a t in those d a y s the w e a l t h (KTrjois) o f b a r b a r i a n r a c e s c o n s i s t e d o f s h e e p (Ant. 2.263). A n o t h e r o f the qualities o f the g r e a t s t a t e s m a n , as w e see i n T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r trait o f Pericles (2.60.6), is his refusal t o a c c e p t b r i b e s . I n the B i b l e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the revolt o f K o r a h , D a t h a n , a n d A b i r a m , M o s e s bitterly protests t o G - d t h a t h e h a s n e i t h e r t a k e n the ass o f a n y o f t h e m n o r w r o n g e d a n y o n e ( N u m . 16:15). I n J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t i o n , M o s e s avers t h a t the c h a r g e a g a i n s t h i m is t h a t h e h a s a c c e p t e d b r i b e s to p e r v e r t j u s t i c e , a n d h e calls G - d H i m s e l f t o w i t n e s s t h a t this is n o t true (Ant. 4.46). T h e g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t also e x c e l as a n e d u c a t o r , as w e c a n see f r o m t h e t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n g i v e n b y the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s i n Plato's Republic to the e d u c a t i o n o f the i n h a b i t a n t s o f the i d e a l state. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the Antiquities (1.6), w h e n M o s e s is first referred to, w e find h i m b e i n g c a l l e d the g r e a t l a w g i v e r (vo/jLoOerrj) u n d e r w h o m the J e w s w e r e e d u c a t e d (TraibevQivres) i n p i e t y a n d the e x e r c i s e o f t h e o t h e r virtues. T h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f legislation a n d TraiSela is distinctively G r e e k (see M e e k s 1967, 133). W h a t m a r k s the s u p e r i o r i t y o f M o s e s ' legislation o v e r o t h e r systems o f l a w is t h a t his e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m c o m b i n e d p r e c e p t a n d p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 7 1 - 7 4 ) . P l a t o h a d a r g u e d r e p e a t e d l y in his d i a l o g u e s t h a t n o o n e errs k n o w i n g l y , a n d t h a t h e n c e the f u n c t i o n o f the ruler is to t e a c h the citizens. B y this s t a n d a r d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , M o s e s w a s s u p r e m e , since h e left n o p r e t e x t for i g n o r a n c e , b e i n g u n i q u e i n o r d a i n i n g , as h e d i d , the r e a d i n g o f the l a w e v e r y w e e k — a p r a c t i c e t h a t o t h e r legislators h a d n e g l e c t e d (Ag Ap. 2.175). C o n s e q u e n d y , J o s e p h u s is a b l e t o b o a s t t h a t i f a n y J e w is q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t the l a w s , h e k n o w s t h e m m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n his o w n n a m e (Ag Ap. 2.178). I n d e e d , the r e a s o n for M o s e s ' success in o r d e r i n g his o w n life a r i g h t a n d also in l e g i s l a t i n g for others, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s in his p r o e m , w a s t h a t h e w a s , i n effect, a p h i l o s o p h e r w h o s t u d i e d the n a t u r e o f G - d a n d c o n t e m p l a t e d H i s w o r k s w i t h the eye o f r e a s o n (va>, " m i n d " ) (Ant. 1.19). T i m e , says J o s e p h u s , w h i c h is the m o s t truthful j u d g e o f w o r t h , h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d the v i r t u e o f M o s e s ' p h i l o s o p h y — t h a t is, his a c c o u n t o f G - d (Ag Ap. 2.279). A g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e t o c h o o s e a n d train a s u c c e s s o r w h o will c a r r y o n his w o r k . I n the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o takes the initiative in telling M o s e s to c h o o s e J o s h u a as his s u c c e s s o r ( N u m . 27:18). I n J o s e p h u s , w e are t o l d t h a t b e f o r e c h o o s i n g J o s h u a , M o s e s h a d a l r e a d y i n d o c t r i n a t e d h i m w i t h a t h o r o u g h t r a i n i n g in the l a w s a n d in d i v i n e l o r e (Ant. 4.165). A n d y e t , g r e a t as M o s e s w a s as a leader, J o s e p h u s takes g r e a t p a i n s to m a k e sure
41. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbis, shepherds were disqualified as j u d g e s or witnesses in Palestine, pre
sumably because they sometimes appropriated the sheep o f others ( Sanhedrin 25b).
MOSES
395
t h a t h e w i l l n o t b e w o r s h i p p e d as a g o d . T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y n e c e s s a r y i n v i e w o f the
frequent
apotheosis
o f h e r o e s , s u c h as D i o n y s u s , H e r a c l e s (cf.
4.38.3-5, 39.1-2), a n d Asclepius, a m o n g the G r e e k s .
4 2
Diodorus
J o s e p h u s m a y also b e react
i n g t o S o p h o c l e s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e m y s t e r i o u s d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f O e d i p u s i n Oedipus at Colonus, w h i c h b e a r s a s t r i k i n g r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h a t o f M o s e s in his p r e s e n t a tion.
4 3
E v e n after d e a t h , t h e h e r o w a s t h o u g h t t o h a v e p o w e r t o b r i n g g o o d for
t u n e . F o u n d e r s o f cities w e r e o b j e c t s o f r e l i g i o u s d e v o t i o n , as w e see in P a u s a n i a s (10.4.10) (see W e l l e s 1 9 5 5 , 157; T a l b e r t 1 9 7 5 , 4 2 8 ) .
4 4
M o r e o v e r , stories w e r e t o l d o f
A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t ' s a t t e m p t t o t h r o w h i m s e l f i n t o t h e E u p h r a t e s R i v e r s o t h a t it w o u l d b e t h o u g h t that he h a d passed d i r e c d y to the gods. T o b e sure, in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' a s c e n t o f M o u n t S i n a i , h e h i n t s t h a t M o s e s a t e h e a v e n l y f o o d (Ant. 3.99), i n a s m u c h as, w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e states t h a t M o s e s n e i t h e r a t e b r e a d n o r d r a n k w a t e r d u r i n g t h e forty d a y s t h a t h e w a s o n t h e m o u n t a i n ( E x o d . 34:28), J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e t a s t e d n o f o o d o f t h e k i n d s d e s i g n a t e d for m e n (Ant. 3.99). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t M o s e s p a r t o o k o f h e a v e n l y f o o d — t h a t is, d r a n k n e c t a r a n d a t e a m b r o s i a (see M e e k s 1 9 6 7 , 141). J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f n o t e s t h a t M o s e s w a s h e l d i n s u c h g r e a t a d m i r a t i o n for his v i r t u e s a n d h i s c h a r i s m a t i c a b i l i t y t o i n s p i r e faith i n all his u t t e r a n c e s t h a t his w o r d s a r e a l i v e t o this d a y (Ant. 3.317). H e r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' l e g i s l a t i o n , b e i n g b e l i e v e d t o c o m e f r o m G - d , h a s c a u s e d h i m t o b e r a n k e d h i g h e r t h a n his o w n h u m a n n a t u r e (Ant. 3.320). E v e n a p a g a n s u c h as C e l s u s (ap. O r i g e n , Contra Celsum
42. See L u c i a n , Cynic 13, where Heracles is called a divine m a n (Oeiov dvSpa). Cf. Pfister 1909-12; Farnell 1921. 43. T h i s is particularly significant, inasmuch as Josephus is definitely indebted to Sophocles else where. It is also just possible that Josephus is reacting against the Christian tradition o f the apotheosis o f Jesus (Luke 24; A c t s 1). S e e Fornaro 1979, 431-60; Paul 1975, 473-80. In the play by Ezekiel the T r a g e d i a n (verses 68-89), M o s e s says that he dreamt about a great throne o n top o f M o u n t Sinai o n w h i c h a noble m a n (i.e., G - d ) was seated with a crown a n d a scepter, w h i c h he gave to Moses. J a c o b son 1983, 89-97, interprets this scene as a polemic against the notion o f the apotheosis o f Moses, inas m u c h as Ezekiel chose to portray his ascension as an imaginary event. However, inasmuch as even the Epicureans gave credence to dreams, the import o f such a dream w o u l d intimate the divinization o f Moses. If this were really a polemic against the apotheosis o f Moses, Ezekiel should have h a d the noble m a n explicidy declare that while M o s e s is destined to b e recognized as a king, he should realize that h e is mortal. 44. Likewise, it w a s told o f the philosopher Empedocles that after a n evening party, h e disappeared and w a s nowhere to b e found, a n d that one o f those present at the party claimed to have heard a voice from heaven declaring that h e w a s n o w a g o d (Heraclides o f Pontus, ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius [8.68]). Apollonius o f T y a n a is depicted as a godlike m a n
(deios
dvrjp), whose divinity is manifest in his w i s d o m
and virtue (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.2, 2.17, 2.40,5.24,7.21,7.38, 8.5, 8.7). A g a i n , w h e n speaking o f the death o f Apollonius, Philostratus adds (8.29), "if he did actually die," a n d then declares that n o o n e ventured to dispute that he w a s immortal. Furthermore, a certain senator n a m e d N u merius Atticus swore that h e h a d seen Augustus after his death ascend to heaven like Romulus a n d Proculus (ap. Suetonius, Augustus 94.4). Indeed, the motif o f the apotheosis o f rulers a n d philosophers b e c a m e so widespread that it b e c a m e the subject o f satire in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis a n d in Lucian's De orum Concilium a n d De Morte Peregrini.
396
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
1.21) says t h a t M o s e s a c q u i r e d a r e p u t a t i o n for d i v i n e p o w e r , p r e s u m a b l y t h r o u g h his abilities as a m a g i c i a n . B u t in the v e r y p a s s a g e s w h e r e J o s e p h u s refers t o M o s e s as so i n s p i r i n g a n d as r a n k i n g h i g h e r t h a n his o w n n a t u r e , h e is careful to refer to h i m as a m a n (avrjp) (Ant. 3.317, 320). H e o m i t s G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t s t h a t M o s e s w a s to b e t o A a r o n as G - d ( E x o d . 4:16) a n d t h a t G - d w a s m a k i n g h i m as G - d to P h a r a o h ( E x o d . 7:1). H e is careful to dispel the v i e w h e l d b y s o m e t h a t w h e n M o s e s t a r r i e d o n M o u n t S i n a i for forty d a y s , it w a s b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n t a k e n b a c k to the D i v i n i t y (Ant. 3 . 9 5 - 9 6 ) . I f h e refers to M o s e s , as h e d o e s , as a " m a n o f G - d " (Oeiov dvhpa) (Ant. 3.180), it is n o t t o assert M o s e s ' d i v i n i t y b u t r a t h e r to refute those e n e m i e s o f the J e w s w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h slighting the d i v i n i t y w h o m t h e y t h e m s e l v e s professed t o v e n e r a t e (Ant. 3.179). T h a t J o s e p h u s h a s n o i n t e n t i o n o f as serting h e r e t h a t M o s e s w a s a c t u a l l y d i v i n e is c l e a r f r o m the p r o o f t h a t h e g i v e s o f M o s e s b e i n g a " m a n o f G - d " — n a m e l y , t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the t a b e r n a c l e a n d the a p p e a r a n c e o f the v e s t m e n t s a n d vessels o f the priests s h o w his c o n c e r n for piety. J o s e p h u s is e x p l i c i t in stressing t h a t M o s e s d i e d a n d in refuting the n o t i o n t h a t h e w a s s o m e h o w e l e v a t e d to d i v i n e status (Ant. 4.326). T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s d i e d in the l a n d o f M o a b ( D e u t . 34:5), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s w h y S c r i p t u r e m e n t i o n s this, stressing t h a t M o s e s " h a s w r i t t e n o f h i m s e l f in the s a c r e d b o o k s t h a t h e d i e d , for fear lest t h e y s h o u l d v e n t u r e to say t h a t b y r e a s o n o f his sur p a s s i n g v i r t u e h e h a d g o n e b a c k to the D - i t y " (Ant. 4 . 3 2 6 ) .
45
It is h i g h l y significant
t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t i n c l u d e the b i b l i c a l statements t h a t G - d H i m s e l f b u r i e d M o s e s a n d t h a t n o o n e k n o w s to this d a y w h e r e h e is b u r i e d ( D e u t . 34:6), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t his s k e p t i c a l r e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e diffi c u l t y a c c e p t i n g t h e m (see T a b o r 1 9 8 9 , 237). H e also a t t e m p t s , m o r e o r less n a t u ralistically to g i v e further details o f M o s e s ' d i s a p p e a r a n c e , n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e M o s e s w a s b i d d i n g f a r e w e l l to E l e a z a r the h i g h priest a n d J o s h u a his successor, a c l o u d s u d d e n l y d e s c e n d e d u p o n h i m a n d h e d i s a p p e a r e d into a r a v i n e . S u c h a n a c c o u n t m i g h t w e l l h a v e r e m i n d e d G e n t i l e r e a d e r s o f the t r a d i t i o n a l v e r s i o n o f the d e a t h s o f the t w o f o u n d e r s o f the R o m a n s , A e n e a s a n d R o m u l u s , as d e s c r i b e d b y D i o n y sius o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , for e x a m p l e ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 57). I n the c a s e o f A e n e a s , D i o n y s i u s says t h a t his b o d y c o u l d n o w h e r e b e f o u n d , a n d s o m e c o n j e c t u r e d t h a t h e h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d to the g o d s (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4). A s t h a t "the m o r e m y t h i c a l w r i t e r s
46
t
o
Romulus, he remarks
say t h a t as h e w a s h o l d i n g a n a s s e m b l y in the
c a m p , d a r k n e s s d e s c e n d e d u p o n h i m f r o m a c l e a r sky a n d h e d i s a p p e a r e d ,
and
t h e y b e l i e v e t h a t h e w a s c a u g h t u p b y his father A r e s " (Ant. Rom. 2.56.2). J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h u s s e e m t o b e u n d e r s c o r i n g the difference, to s o m e d e g r e e , b e t w e e n M o s e s a n d these R o m a n forefathers in the w a y their lives e n d e d .
45. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities (19.16), and the Assumption of Moses (1.15) affirm that M o s e s ' death took place in public and that G - d buried him. 46. O n e o f these is O v i d , w h o describes a scene in which Jupiter fulfills his promise to lift u p R o m
ulus to heaven (Metamorphoses 14.805-85). Cf. O v i d , Fasti 2.481-509, and L i v y 1.16.
MOSES
397
B y c o n t r a s t , t h e e l e v a t i o n o f M o s e s t o d i v i n e status s e e m s t o b e i m p l i e d i n P h i l o , w h o r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' a s s o c i a t e s , s t r u c k b y his t o t a l a s c e t i c i s m a n d b y t h e f a c t that h e w a s so utterly unlike o t h e r m e n , p o n d e r e d w h e t h e r h e w a s h u m a n o r di v i n e o r a m i x t u r e o f b o t h (De Vita Mosis 1.6.27;
2
I
2
1
- 5 - 9 ) - Q u i t e clearly, J o s e p h u s
w i s h e d t o h a v e it b o t h w a y s (see T a b o r 1 9 8 9 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 ) : o n t h e o n e h a n d , h e s t r o n g l y r e s i s t e d c o n t e m p o r a r y t e n d e n c i e s t o deify M o s e s o r J e s u s o r A e n e a s o r R o m u l u s ; but, o n the other h a n d , the actual scene that h e describes—the tears a n d
the
w e e p i n g , t h e w i t h d r a w a l , t h e c l o u d d e s c e n d i n g u p o n M o s e s a n d his d i s a p p e a r a n c e , w i t h n o t h i n g s a i d o f t h e b u r i a l itself—is s t r i k i n g l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e p a r a l lels c i t e d a b o v e r e g a r d i n g t h e s e f i g u r e s ' d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e e a r t h .
4 7
THE V I R T U E S O F M O S E S Wisdom I n his final e n c o m i u m o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s states t h a t h e s u r p a s s e d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (avveaei)
all m e n w h o h a d e v e r l i v e d a n d t h a t h e h a d p u t t o n o b l e s t u s e t h e fruit
47. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbinic tradition, M o s e s did not die but rather continued to guide the p e o ple from above (Sotah 13b; Sifie Deuteronomy 357; Midrash Tannaim 224). See G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:163-64, 2
_
n. 452. T h e Palaea Historica (Vassiliev 1893, 5 7 5 ^ ; see Flusser 1971a, 72) recounts a tradition that w h e n M o s e s died alone o n the mountain, S a m a e l the devil tried to bring his b o d y d o w n to the people so that they might worship h i m as a god. G - d then c o m m a n d e d the archangel M i c h a e l to take M o s e s ' b o d y away. S a m a e l objected a n d they quarreled, w h e r e u p o n M i c h a e l w a s vexed a n d rebuked the devil. T h e Samaritans looked u p o n M o s e s as the most perfect o f m e n , without any blemish at all, whether physical or moral, a priest a m o n g angels, one for whose sake the very world h a d b e e n created. See M . Gaster 1927, 75. Far from b e i n g the amanuensis that he seems to b e in the rabbinic tradition, M o s e s is termed b y the Samaritans the light o f knowledge a n d understanding, whose ascent to M o u n t Sinai is said to have taken him to the very heart o f heaven (see M a c D o n a l d i960, 153-54). In addition to the laws intended for ordinary mankind, h e received esoteric knowledge to b e transmitted solely to m e n o f d e e p spiritual insight. It is M o s e s w h o , o n G - d ' s behalf or acting as spokesman for G - d , pro n o u n c e d the creative words " L e t there b e light." H e , unlike all other creatures, is said to have b e e n in existence prior to the initial creation process; and, indeed, like the Jesus o f the Fourth G o s p e l , h e w a s created in order to function as G - d ' s creative agent. H e is the great intercessor, a n d only through h i m c a n prayer b e accepted. Moreover, for the Samaritans, M o s e s is the T a h e b ("Restorer"), the expected messiah-like eschatological figure w h o will bring about a golden age and will pray for the guilty a n d save them. T h e S a m a r itans alone give prominence to the tide " m a n o f G - d " for Moses; and, indeed, their depiction o f M o s e s is highly reminiscent o f the N e w Testament's description o f Jesus as the first begotten being, whose preexistent bodiless state subsequendy takes o n matter. Moses is a second G - d , G - d ' s vice-regent u p o n earth (Memar Marqah 1.2), whose very n a m e includes the tide " E l o k i m " ( G - d ) (Memar Marqah 5.4), so that h e w h o believes in h i m believes in his L - r d (Memar Marqah 4.7). S e e H o l l a d a y 1977, 101, n. 344, w h i c h cites the Samaritan Memar Marqah 6.6. S o prominent is M o s e s for the Samaritans that w e hear that a n u n n a m e d m a n was able to gather a large following by promising that he w o u l d show them the sacred implements buried o n M o u n t G e r i z i m by Moses (Ant. 18.85). W h a t is particularly striking in this connection is that M o s e s could not possibly have buried the vessels there, inasmuch as h e never entered the L a n d o f Israel, as M e e k s 1967, 248, remarks. Indeed, this exaltation o f Moses, as M a c D o n a l d i960, 149-62, has remarked, is a unique Samaritan doctrine, without parallel in Jewish, Christian, or M o s l e m belief.
398
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
of his reflections (vorjdeioiv)
PORTRAITS
(Ant. 4.328). M o s e s e x h i b i t s i n g e n u i t y p a r t i c u l a r l y in
his m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n s , as w e c a n d i s c e r n f r o m t h e a d m i r a t i o n t h a t t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s s h o w s at the s a g a c i t y (imvolas
"conception," "thought," "in
sight," " i n v e n t i v e n e s s , " "craftiness," "artifice") o f his m a n e u v e r s (Ant.
2.252).
W h e n t h e Israelites c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t M o s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e i r l a c k o f w a t e r a n d s t a n d r e a d y t o stone h i m , J o s e p h u s , in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , singles o u t M o s e s ' v i r t u e (dpeTrjs) a n d s a g a c i t y (ovveoews) c o m p l e t e l y f o r g o t t e n (Ant. 3 . 1 2 ) . The
as the t w o qualities o f his t h a t t h e y h a d
48
g r e a t e s t c o m p l i m e n t t h a t c o u l d b e g i v e n to a p e r s o n so far as w i s d o m w a s
c o n c e r n e d w a s to call h i m a p h i l o s o p h e r , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in A r i s t o d e ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r a n d w h o l e d h i m to g e n e r a l i z e t h a t the J e w s w e r e d e s c e n d e d f r o m I n d i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s (Ag. Ap. 1.179). T h a t J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n M o s e s as a p r o f o u n d p h i l o s o p h e r is to b e i n f e r r e d f r o m his s t a t e m e n t t h a t a n y o n e w h o e x a m i n e d t h e r e a s o n s for e v e r y article in t h e c r e e d t r a n s m i t t e d by M o s e s w o u l d find the i n q u i r y p r o f o u n d a n d h i g h l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l (iX6ao
49
P l a t o , in particular, h e
notes, i m i t a t e d M o s e s in o r d a i n i n g t h a t citizens s h o u l d s t u d y t h e i r l a w s a n d in p r o h i b i t i n g f o r e i g n e r s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h citizens (Ag. Ap. 2.257). A s w e c a n see f r o m P l a t o ' s Republic a n d Laws, w h o e v e r is t o b e t h e b e s t l a w g i v e r m u s t possess all t h e v i r t u e s in t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e (so also P h i l o , De Vita Mosis 2.1.3). The
e x c e l l e n c e of t h e l a w s is m e a s u r e d b y w i s d o m , as a p p e a r s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s e d
itorial r e m a r k t h a t the l a w s o f t h e T o r a h are e x c e l l e n t b e y o n d t h e s t a n d a r d o f h u m a n w i s d o m (Ant. 3.223). Pericles in his F u n e r a l O r a t i o n ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.37.3) praises the A t h e n i a n s for t h e i r o b e d i e n c e to the l a w s ; a n d S o c r a t e s in P l a t o ' s Crito refuses t o e s c a p e f r o m p r i s o n b e c a u s e h e r e g a r d s o b e d i e n c e to t h e l a w s o f t h e state as b e i n g f u n d a m e n t a l t o its e x i s t e n c e . B u t , as T h u c y d i d e s (2.53.4) notes, d u r i n g the p l a g u e , t h e A t h e n i a n s w e r e r e s t r a i n e d n e i t h e r b y fear of the g o d s n o r b y t h e l a w o f m e n . B y contrast, the H e b r e w s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , h a d t r a n s g r e s s e d n o n e o f M o s e s ' l a w s in p e a c e , t h r o u g h luxury, o r in w a r , t h r o u g h c o n s t r a i n t (Ant. 3.223). The
v e r y fact, w e m a y suggest, t h a t J o s e p h u s s u m m a r i z e s t h e M o s a i c c o d e at s u c h
l e n g t h in a w o r k t h a t is ostensibly a h i s t o r y s h o w s h o w i m p o r t a n t l a w w a s for h i m . I n l a r g e p a r t , J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i s u p o n M o s e s as a l a w g i v e r is a r e p l y (Ag. Ap.
48.
Likewise, M o s e s ' hand-picked successor, Joshua, is described as highly gifted in intellect
(vorjoai)
(Ant. 3.49); and again, in his final appraisal of Joshua, Josephus remarks that he was not want
ing in intelligence (avveaecos) 49. 4.10.61).
(Ant. 5.118).
Philo also asserts that G r e e k legislators copied from the laws o f M o s e s (De Specialibus Legibus
MOSES
399
2.101, 145) to those o p p o n e n t s o f the J e w s , s u c h as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n a n d L y s i m a c h u s , w h o , w h e t h e r f r o m i g n o r a n c e o r ill will, h a d m a l i g n e d M o s e s the l a w g i v e r as a c h a r l a t a n a n d impostor. J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t M o s e s e x h i b i t e d his w i s d o m p a r t i c u l a r l y as a l a w g i v e r , j u s t as the c o n s t i t u t i o n t h a t h e g a v e the Israelites w a s c o n s o n a n t w i t h his r e p u t a t i o n for v i r t u e (dperrj) (Ag. Ap. 2.147). W e are t o l d as w e l l t h a t M o s e s g a v e his p e o p l e a n a b u n d a n c e o f g o o d l a w s , in the b e l i e f t h a t this w a s the best m e a n s o f d i s p l a y i n g his o w n v i r t u e a n d o f e n s u r i n g the l a s t i n g w e l f a r e o f t h o s e w h o h a d m a d e h i m their l e a d e r (Ag Ap. 2.159). T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s 50
uses the t e r m l a w g i v e r " (vopiodeTrjs) tiquities w i t h r e g a r d to M o s e s ,
5 1
without explicidy naming h i m ,
sixteen t i m e s in the first four b o o k s o f the An
r e f e r r i n g to h i m u s u a l l y m e r e l y as " t h e l a w g i v e r , " 5 2
is a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t to J o s e p h u s , M o s e s w a s the
w i s e m a n p a r e x c e l l e n c e , in the s a m e c a t e g o r y as the r e v e r e d S p a r t a n L y c u r g u s , the A t h e n i a n S o l o n , a n d the R o m a n N u m a P o m p i l i u s , e v e n t h o u g h , stricdy s p e a k 53
ing, it is G - d a l o n e w h o is the l a w g i v e r . O n o n l y five o c c a s i o n s d o w e h e a r o f the l a w s g i v e n b y G - d t h r o u g h M o s e s , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s speaks o f the l a w s o f M o s e s t w e n t y - t h r e e times. It w a s his legislation, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , t h a t c a u s e d M o s e s to b e r a n k e d h i g h e r t h a n his o w n h u m a n n a t u r e (Ant. 3.320). M o s e s is said, h o w e v e r , t o h a v e g i v e n the Israelites m o r e t h a n l a w s : h e also b e q u e a t h e d t h e m a 7roAiTeta, a c o n s t i t u t i o n c o m p a r a b l e to those o f the G r e e k noXeis (Ant. 4 . 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 , 302). I n d e e d , t h e J e w i s h k i n g , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , m u s t c o n c e d e to the l a w s the p o s session o f s u p e r i o r w i s d o m (rd irXeiova rov poveiv) (Ant. 4.224). I n a w o r l d in w h i c h the a n t i q u i t y o f a n a t i o n o r a p e r s o n m e a n t so m u c h ,
5 4
M o s e s , J o s e p h u s c o n t e n d s , w a s the m o s t a n c i e n t o f all the legislators w h o h a d e v e r l i v e d (Ag Ap. 2.154) (so also E u p o l e m u s , ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.26.1), b e s i d e w h o m
50.
S o also in Philo the most c o m m o n tide for M o s e s is "the lawgiver." See C o l s o n and W h i t a k e r
1929-62, 10:386. O n the usage o f this term in p a g a n and Hellenistic Jewish literature, see G u t b r o d 1942, 4:1089. Philo speaks o f M o s e s as the "reasonable and living impersonation o f l a w " (De Vita Mosis 1.28.162), but Josephus avoids such conceptions. 51. In addition, M o s e s is the subject o f the verb vofxodereoj three times (Ant. 3.266, 268, 317); and the n o u n vo^odcaia is applied to h i m twice (Ant. 3.287, 320). 52. " L o n g i n u s , " as G a g e r 1972, 59, remarks, is the first author, whether p a g a n , Jewish, or Christ ian, k n o w n to us to use the archaic term OeafModcrrjs. Perhaps Josephus did not use the term deafiodcTrjs because it w o u l d have served to underline M o s e s ' theological preeminence, w h i c h Jose phus did not wish to emphasize. Cf. Philo, w h o declares that he proposes to write the life o f Moses, " w h o m some describe as the legislator [vojjLodcTrjs] o f the Jews, others as interpreter o f the holy l a w s " (De Vita Mosis 1.1.1). 53. T h e rabbis, as B l o c h 1879,139-40, correcdy points out, d o not refer to Moses as "lawgiver" but rather as "our teacher." Josephus himself is careful ultimately to state that the constitution o f the Jews was established by G - d Himself, through the a g e n c y o f Moses (Ant. 3.322). 54. T h e importance that the R o m a n s attached to establishing their antiquity m a y be seen from the determined attempt o f Virgil in his Aeneid to trace the ancestry o f the R o m a n s back to the famed T r o j a n s and specifically to A e n e a s , the son of Venus, the daughter o f Jupiter. Likewise, w e m a y recall Livy's famous c o m m e n t in his preface (7) that if any nation deserves the privilege o f claiming a divine ances try, that nation is R o m e . See Feldman 1987-88, 199-206.
400
JOSEPHUS'S
BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
s u c h f a m o u s l a w g i v e r s as L y c u r g u s o f S p a r t a , S o l o n o f A t h e n s , a n d Z a l e u c u s o f L o c r i s h a d , as it w e r e , b e e n b o r n y e s t e r d a y ; i n d e e d , the v e r y w o r d " l a w " (VOJJLOS) is not, h e notes, t o b e f o u n d in H o m e r o r in o t h e r e a r l y G r e e k literature. C o n n e c t e d w i t h w i s d o m , as w e m a y see in T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , Peri cles (2.60), is the ability to p e r s u a d e the m a s s e s .
55
I n the c a s e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s
w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n o b v i o u s p r o b l e m , i n a s m u c h as the B i b l e n o t e s t h a t M o s e s h a d a s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t ( E x o d . 4:10, 6:12). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s b o t h o f the b i b l i c a l references to this h a n d i c a p . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , M o s e s a n d A a r o n g o j o i n d y to P h a r a o h , w i t h A a r o n p r e s u m a b l y as the s p o k e s m a n , to ask h i m to free the Israelites ( E x o d . 5:1), in J o s e p h u s , M o s e s g o e s a l o n e , r e m i n d s h i m o f the services t h a t h e r e n d e r e d to t h e E g y p t i a n s in the c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t E t h i o p i a , a n d requests t h e d e l i v e r a n c e o f his p e o p l e (Ant 2.281). I n his final e n c o m i u m o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y t o d e c l a r e t h a t M o s e s f o u n d f a v o r in e v e r y w a y in s p e e c h (eiVefv) a n d in addresses (6fjLi\rjoai) to a c r o w d (Ant 4.328). M o s e s s h o w s his p a r t i c u l a r skill in s p e e c h in his h a n d l i n g o f the Israelite masses. T h u s , w h e n the p e o p l e a r e e x c i t e d a n d e m b i t t e r e d a g a i n s t M o s e s at E l i m b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f w a t e r a n d are r e a d y to stone h i m , M o s e s fearlessly a d v a n c e s i n t o their m i d s t a n d b y s h e e r c h a r i s m a , d e r i v i n g f r o m his w i n n i n g p r e s e n c e a n d his e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n f l u e n c e in a d d r e s s i n g a c r o w d , s u c c e e d s , after d e l i v e r i n g a l o n g s p e e c h , in p a c i f y i n g their w r a t h (Ant 3.13). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , M o s e s a n d A a r o n m e r e l y p r o m i s e the Israelites f o o d ( E x o d . 16:6), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s a l o n e w h o confronts the u n r u l y m o b a n d e x h o r t s t h e m n o t to b e o b s e s s e d b y their p r e s e n t d i s c o m f o r t s a n d to h a v e c o n f i d e n c e in G - d ' s solicitude (Ant
3.14-15). H e thus
c a l m s t h e m , r e s t r a i n i n g their i m p u l s e t o stone h i m (Ant 3.22). T h e s c e n e is a g a i n r e m i n i s c e n t o f the p a s s a g e in V i r g i l in w h i c h N e p t u n e c a l m s the seas t h a t h a v e b e e n m a d e t u r b u l e n t b y A e o l u s (Aeneid 1.124-47), w h i c h V i r g i l presents as a simile o f the effect u p o n a t u r b u l e n t c r o w d o f a g r e a t l e a d e r ( V i r g i l p r o b a b l y intends to h a v e his r e a d e r s t h i n k o f A u g u s t u s ) w h o a s s u a g e s their feelings (Aeneid 1.148-56). H e n c e , w e should not b e surprised that Josephus makes a point o f mentioning, in r e f e r r i n g to M o s e s ' s o n g u p o n c r o s s i n g the S e a o f R e e d s ( E x o d . 1 5 : 1 - 2 1 ) , t h a t M o s e s h i m s e l f c o m p o s e d a h y m n to G - d " t o e n s h r i n e H i s p r a i s e " a n d to t h a n k 56
H i m for H i s g r a c i o u s favor (Ant 2 . 3 4 6 ) . J o s e p h u s , m o r e o v e r , r e a l i z i n g the i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d to p o e t r y b y the G r e e k s , a d d s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e in o r d e r to m a k e m o r e o f a n i m p r e s s i o n u p o n his n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e . T h u s , h e a s s e r t s — w i t h o u t a n y b i b l i c a l b a s i s — t h a t M o s e s c o m p o s e d his s o n g in h e x a m e t e r v e r s e — ,
55. W e m a y note that K o r a h also is singled out as a capable speaker (Uavos . . . elireiv) and very effective in addressing a c r o w d (Sr/fiois 6[Ai\eiv 7ndava)Taros)
(Ant. 4.14).
56. T h a t Josephus does not quote or paraphrase the song itself is in line with his similar omission o f the S o n g o f M i r i a m (Exod. 15:21) a n d the S o n g o f D e b o r a h (Judg. 5), the reason being, presumably, because Josephus is writing a history a n d not a collection of poetry, although the fact that the latter two songs are not even referred to m a y reflect Josephus's misogyny. See Feldman 1986b, 1 1 5 - 2 8 ; A m a r u 1988, 143-70.
MOSES
401
t h a t is, in t h e s a m e e p i c m e t e r u s e d b y H o m e r h i m s e l f (Ant. 2.346). Similarly, in re f e r r i n g t o M o s e s ' final m e s s a g e t o t h e Israelites, h e asserts t h a t M o s e s r e c i t e d a p o e m to t h e m in h e x a m e t e r v e r s e (Ant. 4 . 3 0 3 ) .
57
B u t M o s e s is n o t m e r e l y a p o e t
a n d s i n g e r i n J o s e p h u s : h e is also t h e inventor, o n his o w n initiative, o f a m u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t , a silver t r u m p e t (fivKavrj), thus m a k i n g h i m c o m p a r a b l e t o H e r m e s a n d A t h e n a , w h o l i k e w i s e i n v e n t e d m u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s (Ant. 3.291). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s to g i v e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f M o s e s ' t r u m p e t in detail, n o t i n g its l e n g t h , its m o u t h p i e c e , a n d its extremity. I n c o n t r a s t , w e m a y n o t e , t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is G—d w h o b i d s M o s e s to m a k e t w o silver t r u m p e t s , a n d t h e r e is n o further d e scription o f t h e m ( N u m . 10:1-2).
Courage It is striking t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e S e p t u a g i n t , M o s e s is n e v e r c a l l e d arpanqyos
(gen
eral) o r e v e n r)yepi(x)v (leader), in J o s e p h u s , h e is r e f e r r e d t o fifteen t i m e s in t h e An tiquities (2.241, 268; 3.2, 1 1 , 12, 28, 47, 6 5 , 67, 7 8 , 102, 105; 4.82, 194, 329) a n d o n c e in t h e Against Apion (2.158) b y t h e f o r m e r t e r m ; in a d d i t i o n , t h e v e r b ar/oar^yeoj, " t o b e a field c o m m a n d e r , " " t o l e a d a n a r m y , " is u s e d o f h i m o n c e (Ant. 2.243); n o u n arparrjy1a
a
n
d the
" a r m y c o m m a n d , " "office o f s u p r e m e c o m m a n d e r , " t w i c e (Ant.
2.255, 282). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e n o u n rjyepucov is a p p l i e d t o h i m six t i m e s (Ant. 2.268, 4 . 1 1 ; Ag. Ap. 1.238, 2 6 1 ; 2.156, 1 5 9 ) .
58
I n d e e d , it w a s n o t as t e a c h e r o r l e g i s l a t o r t h a t
t h e v o i c e f r o m the b u r n i n g b u s h b i d s M o s e s to a c t b u t r a t h e r (arparrjyov)
as g e n e r a l
a n d l e a d e r (rjyepLova) (Ant. 2.268).
It is significant t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s e n u m e r a t e s the m a i n t o p i c s o f t h e B i b l e , h e lists " a l l sorts o f s u r p r i s i n g reverses, m a n y fortunes o f w a r , h e r o i c e x p l o i t s o f g e n erals, a n d p o l i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n s " (Ant. 1.13). O n e is struck b y this e m p h a s i s o n m i l i t a r y m a t t e r s . I n his final e n c o m i u m o f M o s e s , h e r e m a r k s t h a t as a g e n e r a l , h e h a d f e w to e q u a l h i m , a n d t h a t as a p r o p h e t , h e h a d n o rivals (Ant. 4.329). J o s e p h u s ' s listing o f M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t s as a g e n e r a l b e f o r e his role as a p r o p h e t w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r relative i m p o r t a n c e for h i m ; a n d , in a n y c a s e , J o s e p h u s ' s attitude c l e a r l y c o n t r a s t s w i t h t h a t o f t h e B i b l e , w h i c h speaks o n l y o f M o s e s ' s u p r e m a c y as a p r o p h e t ( D e u t . 3 4 : 7 - 1 2 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , in his a p o l o g e t i c treatise Against
Apion
( 2 . 1 5 7 - 6 3 ) , in s u m m a r i z i n g M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t s , the first p o i n t t h a t J o s e p h u s m a k e s is t h a t h e t o o k c o m m a n d o f the m u l t i t u d e s w h o left E g y p t a n d g u i d e d t h e m safely t h r o u g h a h u g e desert a n d d e f e a t e d their e n e m i e s . I n so d o i n g , says J o s e p h u s , h e p r o v e d t h e b e s t o f g e n e r a l s . T h e offices in w h i c h J o s h u a s u c c e e d s M o s e s a r e t h o s e o f p r o p h e t a n d g e n e r a l (Ant. 4.165), w h e r e a s in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , J o s h u a is d e s c r i b e d as a m a n in w h o m t h e r e is spirit, b u t t h e r e is n o
57. Cf. Josephus's addition to the Bible (2 Sam. 22:1 and 1 Chron. 16:7) that David composed songs and hymns to G-d in various meters, some in trimeters and others in pentameters (Ant. 7.305). 58. We should also note, as Meeks 1967, 134, remarks, that in the Hellenistic and Roman world, r)yefMa)v also designated a provincial governor.
"Avot
402
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m e n t i o n o f his m i l i t a r y a b i l i t i e s ( N u m . 27:18). F i n a l l y after M o s e s a n n o u n c e s t o t h e I s r a e l i t e s t h a t h e is t o d i e a n d p r o c e e d s t o e x h o r t t h e m t o o b e y t h e l a w s t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e m , it is M o s e s t h e g e n e r a l w h o m t h e y d e c l a r e t h e y w i l l m i s s m o s t (Ant. 4.194). A t s u c h a n e m o t i o n a l p o i n t i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e n a t i o n , J o s e p h u s tells u s t h a t w h a t t h e y r e m e m b e r is his b r a v e r y — t h e risks t h a t h e h a s r u n o n t h e i r b e h a l f — a n d his a r d e n t z e a l for t h e i r s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 4 . 1 9 4 - 9 5 ) . N o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s g i v e u s a n e x t e n d e d p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s as a g e n e r a l , b u t his p e o p l e , t o o , a r e p r e s e n t e d as s o l d i e r s . T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y c l e a r i n M o s e s ' e x h o r t a t i o n t o t h e I s r a e l i t e s b e f o r e h i s d e a t h , w h e r e h e a d d r e s s e s t h e m as " c o m r a d e s i n a r m s " (avarparLOJTai)
a n d p a r t n e r s i n l o n g t r i b u l a t i o n (Ant. 4.177).
M o s e s ' first g r e a t e x p l o i t as g e n e r a l , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , i n a n e x t e n s i v e e x trabiblical addition,
is his c a m p a i g n
E t h i o p i a n s (Ant. 2 . 2 3 8 - 5 3 ) .
5 9
on
b e h a l f o f the
Egyptians against
the
T h e b i b l i c a l b a s i s for this l e n g t h y e p i s o d e is a s i n g l e
verse in the B i b l e : " A n d M i r i a m a n d A a r o n spoke against M o s e s o n a c c o u n t o f the Ethiopian
w o m a n w h o m he had
w o m a n " (Num. 12:1).
married;
for h e h a d
married
an
Ethiopian
6 0
59. In the Palaea Historica, as Flusser 1971a, 6 7 - 6 8 , points out, Moses, w h e n h e leads an expedition against the people o f India, carries a l o n g three thousand storks to overcome the immense n u m b e r o f serpents that are to be found a l o n g the way. T h i s is clearly a variant o f the version in Josephus. T h e substitution o f India for Ethiopia, w e m a y suggest, w a s because India, at the time o f the composition o f the Palaea Historica, was relatively m o r e prominent than Ethiopia as a country thought to lie at the extremity o f the world. O n e view, found in Telammedenu o n Talqut 1.738, Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.27, a n d de-Rabbi Nathan 39, is that the Kushite w o m a n is Z i p p o r a h the Midianite, M o s e s ' first wife; this w o u l d b e supported by Demetrius (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.29.3) a n d Ezekiel the T r a g e d i a n , 5 9 - 6 4 , w h o identify M i d i a n a n d Ethiopia. T h a t a single w o r d (Kushit, "Ethiopian") could have given rise to so farreaching a legend is the assumption o f G e i g e r 1857, 199, a n d H a l e v y 1927,114. R a p p a p o r t 1930,117, n. 141, disputes this a n d contends, rather, that the legend merely leaned o n this w o r d . But, w e m a y re mark, midrashic exegesis is full o f just such lengthy explanations. T h i s is hardly the place to enter into the discussion o f Josephus's source for this episode, the litera ture o n w h i c h is considerable; see, in particular, the following: B r a u n 1938; Flusser 1971a; H a l e v y 1927; L e v y 1907; R a j a k 1978; R a p p a p o r t 1930; Runnalls 1983; Shinan 1978; a n d Silver 1973-74. W i e d e m a n n 1900, 171-75, mentions a graffito in w h i c h w e learn that under the Nineteenth Dynasty, in the time o f R a m e s e s II, Ethiopia, then a n Egyptian province, h a d an Egyptian governor n a m e d M e s u i , whose identification with M o s e s has been proposed; W i e d e m a n n thinks that the two were interchanged in an Egyptian half-historical tale. T h i s m a y b e the historical basis o f Josephus's tale, although L e v y 1907, 205, objects o n chronological a n d other grounds to the identification o f M e s u i a n d Moses. Neverthe less, h e postulates (p. 206) that Artapanus's account reflects a historical conquest o f the U p p e r Nile re gion. 60. A s to Josephus's source there are four major theories: (1) Josephus derived it from a midrash n o w lost. T h i s is the view o f von R a n k e 1883, 3.2.18; Heller 1928, 631; R a p p a p o r t 1930, 28-29
a
n
n
d 7>
n. 143; a n d Schalit 1944-63, i:lxxi. T h e fact that a parallel for M o s e s ' marriage with the Ethiopian princess is not found in Artapanus but appears only in midrashim w o u l d argue for this explanation. A s to w h y it is not found in the older midrashim and, indeed, does not appear in rabbinic literature until the eleventh century (Targum Yerushalmi Numbers 12:1; Sefer ha-Tashar; Shalshelet Haqqabala; Dime Hayamim shelMoshe; Chronicles ofJerahmeel 45-56), R a p p a p o r t 1930,117, n. 143, suggests that perhaps the portrayal o f Moses, the Levite, as a w a r hero was e x p u n g e d b y the opponents o f the Levite Hasmoneans. H o w -
MOSES
403
J o s e p h u s h a s r e s o r t e d to this e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x p a n s i o n for s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e e p i s o d e supplies a c a s e h i s t o r y b o t h o f t h e c a u s e s o f J e w - h a t r e d a n d o f t h e benefits t h a t t h e J e w s h a v e g i v e n to society. O n the o n e h a n d , it a d m i r a b l y illustrates J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t w o b a s i c feelings o f those p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t J e w s a r e h a t r e d (JJLLOOS) a n d e n v y (66vos), as i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e
ever, the H a s m o n e a n s looked u p o n themselves as K o h a n i m (priests), from w h o m the Levites sprang, rather than as Levites; and, in any case, M o s e s was such a national hero that such censorship seems un likely. A n o t h e r possible view is that the tradition w a s e x p u n g e d at a time w h e n there w a s opposition to a J e w leading a w a r in foreign service, but w e k n o w o f no such opposition. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m with this theory is that these rabbinic sources depict M o s e s as fighting on the side o f the Ethiopians, whereas Josephus presents h i m as attacking them; still other problems are that in these sources, M o s e s marries the w i d o w o f the Ethiopian king, that he refrains from having relations with her, and that he reigns as king o f Ethiopia for forty years and then separates from her, whereas in Josephus, he marries the daughter o f the king, and there is n o mention o f these other details. O n the other hand, Frankel 1851, 119, n. k), far from suggesting that Josephus borrowed it from midrashim, conjectures that the Ethiopian episode in the late midrashim was b o r r o w e d from Josephus through Josippon; but Josippon, in the ex tant version, does not have any such episode. (2) Josephus h a d an A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish source, w h i c h was, as B r a u n 1938, 26-27, postulates, a pro-Jewish reply to an anti-Jewish Egyptian account, such as is found in (Pseudo-)Manetho. T h i s source is usually identified as A r t a p a n u s (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.1-37); so Bloch 1879, 60-62; Freudenthal 1874-75,
I :
^ 9 - 7 0 ; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:409-10, n. 80;
and H e i n e m a n n 1935, 372. (We m a y note, incidentally, that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus are silent about M o s e s ' slaying o f the Egyptian overseer.) But Artapanus omits the crucial story o f M o s e s ' mar riage with the Ethiopian princess. H a l e v y 1927,115, endeavors to explain this omission b y asserting that he did so for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as he did not w a n t to m a k e M o s e s figure in a love story; but, in v i e w o f the fact that A r t a p a n u s does attribute to M o s e s such un-Jewish conceptions as the introduc tion o f the worship o f cats, dogs, and ibises (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.4), w e m a y assume that he w a s seeking to impress his p a g a n audience, w h o certainly w o u l d have appreciated such a love story as that o f M o s e s and T h a r b i s . Moreover, he attributes to M o s e s the foundation o f M e r o e , so n a m e d from M e r ris, M o s e s ' adoptive mother, whereas Josephus (Ant. 2.249)
s a v s
m
a
t
M e r o e drew its n a m e from the sis
ter o f C a m b y s e s . Josephus never mentions Artapanus, although he surely h a d ample opportunity to d o so, particularly in his apologetic treatise Against Apion. L e v y 1907, 201, postulates that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus b o r r o w e d from Pseudo-Hecataeus, w h o tells o f the c a m p a i g n o f Sesostris against the Ethiopians (ap. D i o d o r u s 1.54). Braun 1938, 99-100, agrees that Josephus's story o f T h a r b i s derives from a p r e - A r t a p a n e a n version, and that the omissions in Artapanus himself can be explained in light o f Artapanus's habit o f selectivity in citing only religious and cultural data rather than warlike and erotic events o f his sources. Willrich adopted this view (1895, 168-69), but later retracted it (1900, in—14). Holscher 1916, 1959, postulates a lost A l e x a n d r i a n midrash as Josephus's source both for this addition and for m a n y other changes in his paraphrase o f the Bible. Schalit 1944-63 introduction, i:xlviii-xlix, concludes that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus derive from a c o m m o n source (he suggests A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor), but that Josephus's version represents a later stage o f its development. W a cholder 1962, 58, suggests that the source w a s Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , since the interweaving o f ro m a n c e a n d warfare and an anti-Egyptian bias are salient characteristics o f Nicolaus's presentation. T h e v i e w that Josephus h a d an A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish source is plausible, inasmuch as a story a b o u t a w a r between E g y p t and Ethiopia w o u l d be o f particular relevance to the Egyptians, for w h o m the Ethiopi ans were a perpetual, seldom c o n q u e r e d foe. Still, w e m a y wonder, although admittedly the argumentum ex sitentio is hardly conclusive, w h y Philo, w h o writes at such length apologetically about M o s e s in his De Vita Mosis and is particularly c o n c e r n e d to answer the charges of Jew-baiters, does not repeat this story, w h i c h w o u l d have served to answer so m a n y o f their contentions. T h e romantic motif m a y have c o m e
4
o
4
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
E g y p t i a n s , b y a p p o i n t i n g h i m as t h e i r g e n e r a l in the e x t r e m e l y d a n g e r o u s c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s , h o p e d , like P r o e t u s w i t h B e l l e r o p h o n a n d like D a v i d w i t h U r i a h , to r i d t h e m s e l v e s o f M o s e s b y g u i l e (Ag. Ap. 1.224). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the e p i s o d e s h o w s h o w m u c h the E g y p t i a n s a c t u a l l y o w e d t o the Israelite l e a d e r M o s e s , i n a s m u c h as, t h r o u g h his successful c a m p a i g n , h e w a s a b l e to save the E g y p t i a n s f r o m the t h r e a t p o s e d b y their m o s t d a n g e r o u s foe (Ant. 2 . 2 8 1 - 8 2 ) . O n c e the E g y p t i a n s a r e t h u s s a v e d b y M o s e s , h o w e v e r , P h a r a o h , m o t i v a t e d b y e n v y o f M o s e s ' g e n e r a l s h i p a n d b y fear o f s e e i n g h i m s e l f a b a s e d , d e c i d e s to m u r d e r M o s e s (Ant. 2.255). B y t h u s shifting the r e a s o n for P h a r a o h ' s w r a t h f r o m his u m b r a g e at M o s e s ' m u r d e r o f the E g y p t i a n t o e n v y o f his m i l i t a r y ability, J o s e p h u s h e r e m a y w e l l b e a n s w e r i n g s u c h anti-Jewish w r i t e r s as M a n e t h o b y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the E g y p t i a n s , r a t h e r t h a n c a l u m n i a t i n g the J e w s , s h o u l d b e grateful t o t h e m for the a i d r e n d e r e d to t h e m b y the J e w s t h r o u g h M o s e s , a n d t h a t J e w s a c t u a l l y are p a triotic, as s e e n in the i n s t a n c e o f M o s e s , w h o risked his life to save the E g y p t i a n s f r o m the E t h i o p i a n t h r e a t . I n the s e c o n d p l a c e , the e p i s o d e disproves the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the J e w s are c o w a r d s w h o a r e militarily i n e p t . O n the contrary, M o s e s t u r n s o u t to b e a brilliant strategist a n d is fearless in b a t d e a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s ; a n d the J e w i s h p e o p l e c a n thus l o o k b a c k w i t h p r i d e u p o n h a v i n g s u c h a f o u n d i n g father. T h i s p o i n t is e s p e cially effective, since e v e n so g r e a t a m i l i t a r y l e a d e r as the P e r s i a n k i n g C a m b y s e s ( H e r o d o t u s 3 . 1 7 - 2 6 ) h a d b e e n unsuccessful in his a t t e m p t t o c o n q u e r E t h i o p i a , h a d h a d to m a k e a n i g n o m i n i o u s r e t r e a t to E g y p t ( H e r o d o t u s 3.25), a n d h a d suc c e e d e d in c o n q u e r i n g o n l y the a r e a i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t to E g y p t ( H e r o d o t u s
from the Ninus R o m a n c e , w h i c h , according to R a t t e n b e r g 1933, 211-57, and B r a u n 1938, 9, dates from the first century B.C.E. (3) Josephus m o d e l e d the story, or at least the T h a r b i s episode, on one or more popular stories drawn from m y t h o l o g y or legend: Salia, the Etruscan princess w h o was abducted b y Cathetus, w h o was m a d l y in love with her (Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Plutarch, Paralkla Graeca et Romana 40B [315EF]); the A m a z o n Antiope, w h o fell in love with Theseus and surrendered the city to him (Pausanias 1.2.1); the R o m a n Tarpeia, w h o opened the gate o f the R o m a n fortress to the Sabine Titus Tatius, w h o m she loved (Livy 1.11; O v i d , Fasti 1.261 ff.; Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.38; Propertius 4.4); Scylla, w h o pulled out the purple hair that g r e w on her father's head, and on w h i c h his life depended, so that M i n o s , w h o m she loved, might capture her city o f M e g a r a (Apollodorus 3.15.8); Polycrita, w h o (in a direct reversal o f the story o f M o s e s and Tharbis) saved her country by taking ad vantage o f the love for her o f the general w h o was besieging her city (Parthenius 9.18; Plutarch, Mulierum Vvrtutes 17; Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 3.15; Polyaenus 8.36); Peisidice, w h o betrayed her city because o f her love for Achilles, w h o was besieging it (Parthenius 21); L e u c o p h r y e , w h o betrayed her fa ther to her lover (Parthenius 5); Nanis, the daughter o f Croesus, w h o betrayed her father to her lover C y r u s , king o f the Persians (Parthenius 22); D e m o n i c e , w h o betrayed her city because o f her love for Brennus, king o f the Galatians, w h o w a s besieging it (Plutarch, Parallela Minora 15); C o m a i t h o (Apol lodorus 2.4.7). A n d , finally, (4) Josephus invented it himself. T h i s is the v i e w o f H e i n e m a n n 1935, 374, w h o avers that the w a y that Josephus embellishes the story o f Joseph and Potiphar's wife shows h o w m u c h such r o m a n c e w o u l d reflect Josephus's taste; but as B r a u n 1934 and Sprodowsky 1937 assert, Josephus's portrait o f Joseph itself depends largely on older legendary materials.
MOSES
405
3.97). I n d e e d , t h e E t h i o p i a n s h a d a r e p u t a t i o n for b e i n g i n v i n c i b l e ( S t r a b o 16.4.4); a n d e v e n A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t h a d failed t o o v e r c o m e t h e m .
6 1
T h i r d l y , J o s e p h u s seeks b y m e a n s o f this e p i s o d e t o h u m a n i z e his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s . G i v e n the biblical text alone, w e m a y well w o n d e r w h a t qualifications a s h e p h e r d s u c h as M o s e s h a d to l e a d h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f Israelites in a trek t h r o u g h a n u n k n o w n d e s e r t a n d in m i l i t a r y struggles a g a i n s t n u m e r o u s n a t i o n s . T h e E t h i o p i a n e p i s o d e , in effect, t u r n s o u t to b e a t r a i n i n g a n d p r o v i n g g r o u n d for M o s e s , i n a s m u c h as h e a l r e a d y h e r e s h o w s m i l i t a r y s a g a c i t y in l e a d i n g a n a r m y t h r o u g h a d e s e r t a g a i n s t a foe r e n o w n e d for b r a v e r y a n d m i l i t a r y e x c e l l e n c e (Ant. 2.244). W e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t t o s o m e d e g r e e , J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e m o d e l e d M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s u p o n t h e b i b l i c a l d a t a o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n across t h e S i n a i desert. F o u r t h l y w h e r e a s t h e ibis w a s c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e E g y p t i a n s t o b e d i v i n e , J o s e p h u s , c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n c l a i m t h a t their r e l i g i o n w a s o f e x t r e m e a n t i q uity, p o r t r a y s t h e ibis as b e i n g m e r e l y a v e r y useful p a r t o f M o s e s ' s t r a t e g y t o o v e r c o m e t h e snakes infesting t h e desert. F i f t h l y t h e e p i s o d e , i n c l u d i n g , as it d o e s , the l o v e affair o f M o s e s a n d
the
E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s , n o t m e n t i o n e d b y A r t a p a n u s , p r o v i d e s r o m a n t i c interest for J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s . I n d e e d , E t h i o p i a a l w a y s h a d r o m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n s for t h e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s , i n a c c e s s i b l e as it w a s a n d h e n c e , as s e e n , for e x a m p l e i n t h e l a t e r n o v e l b y H e l i o d o r u s , l i n k e d w i t h all sorts o f m a r v e l s in t h e G r e e k a n d R o m a n m i n d (see S n o w d e n 1970). H e r e , t o o , t h e r e is a n a p o l o g e t i c strain, in t h a t M o s e s a b i d e s b y his a g r e e m e n t a n d m a r r i e s t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s , w h e r e a s in t h e p a r a l lel stories o f t h e G r a e c o - R o m a n l e g e n d a r y a n d h i s t o r i c a l traditions, t h e
hero
s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y b e t r a y s t h e traitoress. A m a j o r q u a l i t y o f a m i l i t a r y leader, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in t h e p o r t r a i t o f A e n e a s in V i r g i l , is s h e e r e n d u r a n c e in t h e f a c e o f adversity. M o s e s e x h i b i t s this q u a l i t y w h e n , for a s e c o n d t i m e , h e m u s t traverse a desert, this t i m e w h e n f l e e i n g f r o m P h a r a o h , w h o , in envy, is t r y i n g to kill h i m after his successful c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s fled f r o m P h a r a o h a n d c a m e to t h e l a n d o f M i d i a n ( E x o d . 2:15), J o s e p h u s a d d s a n u m b e r o f details: t h a t h e w a s a b l e t o e s c a p e despite t h e fact t h a t t h e r o a d s w e r e g u a r d e d ; t h a t h e o n c e a g a i n a d o p t e d t h e s t r a t a g e m o f g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e desert, since h e felt t h a t his foes w o u l d b e less likely to c a t c h h i m t h e r e ; t h a t h e left w i t h o u t p r o v i s i o n s ; a n d t h a t h e w a s n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n f i d e n t (Kara^povcov
"indifferent,"
"fearless,"
" t r u s t i n g firmly," " h a v i n g e x t r e m e c o n f i d e n c e " ) o f his p o w e r s o f
endurance
(Kaprepia
" p e r s e v e r a n c e , " "steadfastness") (Ant. 2.256).
It is his q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e (Odpoos, " h a r d i h o o d " ) t h a t l e a d s M o s e s to a p p r o a c h
n
61. Consequently, as Holladay 1983,1:235, - 5^? points out, victories over the Ethiopians became a frequent motif for enhancing the standing of heroes, e.g., Osiris (Diodorus 1.17.1, 18.3-4), Sesostris (Diodorus 1.55.1, 1.94.4; Herodotus 2.110; Strabo 16.4.4), and Semiramis (Diodorus 2.14.4).
406
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
the b u r n i n g b u s h , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , n o m a n , b y r e a s o n o f its d i v i n i t y h a d p e n e t r a t e d p r e v i o u s l y (Ant. 2.267).
Furthermore,
w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e v o i c e tells M o s e s t h a t h e will b e sent t o P h a r a o h to b r i n g forth t h e Israelites f r o m E g y p t ( E x o d . 3:10), in J o s e p h u s , t h e role e n v i s a g e d for M o s e s is a m i l i t a r y o n e , since t h e v o i c e b i d s h i m c o u r a g e o u s l y (Oappovvra) to E g y p t t o a c t as c o m m a n d e r a n d l e a d e r (arpanqyov
return
Kal rjyepLova) (Ant. 2.268).
T h e i m a g e o f M o s e s t h a t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e B i b l e is s o m e t i m e s o n e o f t i m i d i t y T h u s , at t h e b u r n i n g b u s h , w h e n G - d tells M o s e s t o cast his staff o n the g r o u n d , h e flees f r o m it w h e n it b e c o m e s a s e r p e n t ( E x o d . 4:3). I n J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f M o s e s fleeing; i n d e e d , w e a r e n o t t o l d o f M o s e s ' r e a c t i o n at all (Ant. 2.272). M o s e s ' b r a v e r y is h i g h l i g h t e d b y v i r t u e o f t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s G - d tells h i m to r e t u r n t o E g y p t , "for all t h e m e n a r e d e a d w h o s o u g h t t h y life" ( E x o d . 4:19), t h e r e is n o s u c h a s s u r a n c e to b e f o u n d i n J o s e p h u s , w h e r e G - d s i m p l y tells M o s e s to h a s t e n to E g y p t w i t h o u t further delay, p r e s s i n g f o r w a r d b y n i g h t a n d d a y (Ant. 2.274). W h e n M o s e s a p p e a r s b e f o r e t h e n e w P h a r a o h , h e presents h i m s e l f as a m i l i t a r y m a n . I n fact, his first r e m a r k t o P h a r a o h is to r e m i n d h i m o f t h e services t h a t h e r e n d e r e d t o the E g y p t i a n s in t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s a n d o f his c o m m a n d i n g a n d l a b o r i n g a n d i m p e r i l i n g h i m s e l f for his t r o o p s — a n d all this w i t h o u t d u e r e w a r d f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.282). I n the B i b l e , t h e Israelites c o m p l a i n t o M o s e s b e c a u s e t h e E g y p t i a n s h a v e n o w i n c r e a s e d their o p p r e s s i o n o f t h e Israelites b y r e q u i r i n g t h e m to g a t h e r their o w n s t r a w for t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f b r i c k s , a n d M o s e s , in t u r n , c o m p l a i n s t o G - d ( E x o d . 5:20-23). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s refuses to w a v e r b e f o r e either t h e k i n g ' s threats o r t h e r e c r i m i n a t i o n s o f t h e Israelites, h o w e v e r , a n d i n s t e a d steels his s o u l i n his d e v o t i o n to s e e k i n g his p e o p l e ' s l i b e r t y (Ant. 2.290). J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s ' c o u r a g e b y m a k i n g P h a r a o h ' s t h r e a t after t h e p l a g u e o f d a r k n e s s m o r e v i v i d (Ant. 2.290). I n t h e B i b l e , P h a r a o h is q u o t e d as s a y i n g to M o s e s m e r e l y t h a t h e s h o u l d b e g o n e , a n d t h a t the m o m e n t t h a t h e l o o k s u p o n his f a c e a g a i n , M o s e s w i l l die ( E x o d . 10:29). J o s e p h u s , for his p a r t , says t h a t P h a r a o h w a s infuriated (opyioQeis)
by M o s e s ' speech and that he actually
t h r e a t e n e d to b e h e a d h i m i f h e s h o u l d e v e r c o m e a g a i n a n d p e s t e r
(ivox^tov,
" a n n o y , " " t r o u b l e , " " b e a n u i s a n c e " ) h i m o n this m a t t e r (Ant. 2.310). O f c o u r s e , M o s e s ' g r e a t e s t m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t , as J o s e p h u s stresses, is his l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e Israelites d u r i n g t h e E x o d u s (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 5 7 - 5 8 ) . I n particular, t h e p i c t u r e t h a t J o s e p h u s p a i n t s is t h a t o f a g e n e r a l w h o , like X e n o p h o n in t h e Anaba sis, takes c o m m a n d o f m o t l e y t r o o p s — i n d e e d , the Israelites a r e r e f e r r e d to as a n a r m y (Ant. 3 . 4 ) — a n d b r i n g s t h e m safely to their d e s t i n a t i o n t h r o u g h a h o s t o f for m i d a b l e difficulties, o v e r c o m i n g b o t h their l a c k o f w a t e r a n d hostile tribes. It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, in a n s w e r t o the c h a r g e o f the anti-Jewish b i g o t s t h a t t h e J e w s are c o w a r d s , t h a t M o s e s is a d m i r e d for his c o u r a g e (avSpayaOia, " m a n l y v i r t u e " ) b y a non-Jew, his f a t h e r - i n - l a w
"bravery,"
R a g u e l (Jethro) (Ant.
3.65).
" T h r o u g h o u t all this," says J o s e p h u s , " h e p r o v e d the best o f g e n e r a l s , t h e sagest
MOSES
[avverwraros,
407
" m o s t intelligent," " s a g a c i o u s , " " w i s e " ] o f c o u n s e l o r s , a n d the m o s t
c o n s c i e n t i o u s o f g u a r d i a n s " (Ag. Ap. 2.158). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses h e r e t h a t a successful g e n e r a l m u s t b e intelligent, e v e n as h e later notes, in a c o m m e n t n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e , t h a t the A m o r i t e s , in their b a t d e w i t h t h e Israelites, s h o w e d n e i t h e r skill in c o u n s e l (povr]oai heivovs) n o r v a l o r in a c t i o n (Ant. 4.94; cf. N u m . 21:25). T h e h i g h p o i n t o f M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p d u r i n g the E x o d u s o c c u r s at the S e a o f R e e d s . J o s e p h u s increases the m a g n i t u d e o f this a c h i e v e m e n t o f M o s e s ' b y h e i g h t e n i n g t h e d r a m a o f the E g y p t i a n c h a s e o f the Israelites a n d the v i g o r o f their p u r suit (Ant. 2.321). I n particular, M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t at the S e a o f R e e d s is all the greater, i n a s m u c h a s — a p o i n t m a d e t w i c e b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.321, 3 2 6 ) — t h e Is raelites w e r e u n a r m e d , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , at least a c c o r d i n g to the H e b r e w v e r sion, t h e y w e r e a r m e d ( E x o d . 13:18). M o r e o v e r , in c o n t r a s t to the B i b l e , w h i c h states t h a t the E g y p t i a n s h a d 600 c h a r i o t s b u t d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e the n u m b e r o f h o r s e m e n a n d infantry ( E x o d . 14:7), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s the E g y p t i a n t h r e a t b y giving a round number—50,000—for
their h o r s e m e n a n d h e a v y infantry
(Ant.
2.324). J o s e p h u s a d d s to the d a n g e r c o n f r o n t i n g the Israelites b y n o t i n g t h a t the E g y p t i a n s , b y c o n f i n i n g t h e m b e t w e e n inaccessible cliffs a n d the sea, h a d b a r r e d all routes b y w h i c h t h e y m i g h t a t t e m p t to e s c a p e (Ant. 2.324-25). I n a s c e n e r e m i n i s c e n t o f X e n o p h o n ' s p o r t r a y a l o f the A t h e n i a n s ' r e a c t i o n to their terrible defeat in the n a v a l b a t d e o f A e g o s p o t a m i (Hellenica 2.2.3), J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s the p a t h o s o f the situation b y i n v o k i n g the w a i l i n g s a n d l a m e n t a t i o n s o f the w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n " w i t h d e a t h b e f o r e their eyes, h e m m e d in b y m o u n t a i n s , sea, a n d e n e m y " (Ant. 2.328). A t this p o i n t , G - d in the B i b l e b e r a t e s M o s e s for c r y i n g o u t to H i m i n s t e a d o f telling the p e o p l e to g o f o r w a r d , a n d t h e n instructs h i m to smite the sea ( E x o d . 14:15). I n J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o r e b u k i n g o f M o s e s (Ant. 2.329-33); o n the contrary, M o s e s , w e are told, firmly trusts in G - d (Ant. 2.329); h e takes the initia tive, in a n e x t e n d e d s p e e c h , in e x h o r t i n g the p e o p l e ; a n d , w i t h o u t a n y instructions f r o m G - d , h e smites the sea (Ant. 2.338). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s p a i n t s the e n c o u n t e r at the S e a o f R e e d s as a b a t d e (Ant. 2.334). A s J o s e p h u s presents matters, it w a s o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e e x h a u s t e d f r o m the p u r s u i t t h a t the E g y p t i a n s d e f e r r e d the b a t d e . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , the m i r a c l e c o m e s at G - d ' s initiative ( E x o d . 14:16), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o suggests the m i r a c l e to G - d , r e m i n d i n g H i m t h a t the sea is G - d ' s a n d t h a t 62
c o n s e q u e n d y H e c a n m a k e the d e e p b e c o m e d r y l a n d (Ant. 2 . 3 3 7 ) . It is significant
62. E v e n though generally Josephus downgrades or rationalizes miracles, here, whereas the Bible declares that it took all that night for G - d to drive back the sea (Exod. 14:21), in Josephus, w e are told that the miracle was instantaneous, and that the sea recoiled at M o s e s ' very stroke (Ant. 2.338). A d d i tionally a n d very uncharacteristically, Josephus adds to the miracle b y remarking that rain fell in tor rents from heaven, and that crashing thunder a c c o m p a n i e d the flash of lightning (Ant. 2.343). Further more, he heightens the miracle by stating that the Egyptians were punished in such wise as n o other people h a d ever b e e n before within h u m a n m e m o r y (Ant. 2.346). See M o e h r i n g 1973, 376-83.
408
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h a t in a d d u c i n g a p a r a l l e l for the s u p e r n a t u r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n at the S e a o f R e e d s , J o s e p h u s cites the c r o s s i n g o f the P a m p h y l i a n S e a , w h i c h w i t h d r e w b e f o r e the a r m y o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t (Ant. 2.348). H e thus i m p l i c i t l y c o m p a r e s M o s e s to t h a t g r e a t e s t o f c o n q u e r o r s , w h i l e also m a k i n g the m i r a c l e itself m o r e c r e d i b l e b y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it w a s n o t w i t h o u t p r e c e d e n t . B u t p e r h a p s m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f all, J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a totally n e w e l e m e n t w i t h his s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s M o s e s w h o b r a v e l y l e d the w a y in e n t e r i n g the sea (Ant. 2.339). W i t h s u c h a leader, w e are n o t s u r p r i s e d t o find J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l r e m a r k t h a t the Israelites s p e d into the sea w i t h zest, a s s u r e d o f G - d ' s a t t e n d a n t p r e s e n c e , so t h a t the w a t c h i n g E g y p t i a n s d e e m e d t h e m m a d (Ant. 2.340). O n e o f the g n a w i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t a n y r e a d e r o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f the e x o d u s will ask is why, if M o s e s w a s s u c h a g r e a t leader, h e c h o s e to l e a d t h e Israelites b y s u c h a r o u n d a b o u t r o u t e t o the P r o m i s e d L a n d . T h e B i b l e ' s a n s w e r is t h a t G - d c h o s e this r o u t e lest the p e o p l e h a v e a c h a n g e o f h e a r t w h e n the Philistines m a d e w a r o n t h e m a n d so a t t e m p t t o r e t u r n t o E g y p t ( E x o d . 13:17). J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to h e i g h t e n the role o f M o s e s , asserts t h a t it w a s M o s e s h i m s e l f w h o c h o s e this r o u t e (Ant. 2.322). J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y dissatisfied w i t h the B i b l e ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t the r o u n d a b o u t r o u t e itself p r e s e n t e d e n o r m o u s m i l i t a r y o b s t a c l e s a n d , in a d d i t i o n , w o u l d h a v e c o n f r o n t e d the p e o p l e w i t h the t r e m e n d o u s p r o b l e m o f thirst in a trackless desert. H e n c e , a c o m p e t e n t l e a d e r w o u l d surely, it m i g h t s e e m , h a v e c h o s e n the m o r e d i r e c t r o u t e a l o n g the s e a c o a s t . K e e n l y a w a r e o f this p r o b l e m , J o s e p h u s offers t w o further e x p l a n a t i o n s in a d d i tion t o the b i b l i c a l a n s w e r : t h a t i f the E g y p t i a n s h a d c h a n g e d their m i n d s a n d s o u g h t to p u r s u e the Israelites, G o d w o u l d h a v e h a d r e a s o n to p u n i s h t h e m for this m a l i c i o u s b r e a c h o f their p a c t , a n d t h a t the Israelites m i g h t t h e r e b y h a v e c o m e to Mount
Sinai, where
2-322-23).
G-d
had
commanded
them
to
offer
sacrifices
(Ant.
63
B y a m p l i f y i n g the sufferings o f the Israelites in the desert, J o s e p h u s increases the stature o f their l e a d e r M o s e s as w e l l (Ant. 3.1). I n the first p l a c e , it is t o M o s e s ' c r e d i t as a l e a d e r t h a t h e o r d e r s t h e m to t a k e w a t e r w i t h t h e m (Ant. 3.2); a n d w h e n this is e x h a u s t e d a n d the a v a i l a b l e w a t e r is so bitter that, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i tion, n o t e v e n the beasts o f b u r d e n find it tolerable, a n d the Israelite r a b b l e (6'xAos) are i n c a p a b l e o f m e e t i n g the stress o f necessity w i t h m a n l y fortitude (TO
avSpeiov),
it is to M o s e s t h a t t h e y t u r n for s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 3.4). B y e x a g g e r a t i n g the Israelites' m i s e r y b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f w a t e r (Ant. 3 . 9 - 1 1 ) , in c o n t r a s t to the b r i e f s t a t e m e n t in the B i b l e ( E x o d . 15:27), a n d b y l i k e w i s e e x p a n d i n g o n the Israelites' i n d i g n a t i o n at M o s e s a n d their r e a d i n e s s to stone h i m , their g e n e r a l (orparriyov),
as h e signifi
c a n t l y t e r m s h i m , J o s e p h u s further h e i g h t e n s M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p role (Ant. 3 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . F a c e d w i t h i m m i n e n t s t o n i n g b y the Israelite m o b , M o s e s fearlessly stands u p to
63. Philo gives, in addition to the biblical reason, a factor unmentioned by Josephus, namely, that M o s e s sought, by leading the Israelites through a l o n g stretch o f desert, to test the extent o f their loy alty w h e n supplies b e c a m e scarce (De Vita Mosis 1.29.164).
MOSES
409
his critics a n d tells t h e m t h a t h e h a s n o fear for his o w n safety, i n a s m u c h as, h e re m a r k s , it w o u l d b e n o m i s f o r t u n e for h i m to b e unjustly d o n e to d e a t h (Ant. 3.21). I n t h e c r u c i a l e n c o u n t e r w i t h A m a l e k , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , M o s e s entrusts t h e l e a d e r s h i p in b a t d e t o J o s h u a ( E x o d . 17:9), in J o s e p h u s , it is r a t h e r M o s e s h i m s e l f w h o takes the l e a d in c a l l i n g u p the h e a d s o f t h e tribes a n d t h e o t h e r officers a n d e x h o r t s these s u b o r d i n a t e s to o b e y h i m , their g e n e r a l (Ant. 3 . 4 7 - 4 8 ) . M o s e s t h u s e x h i b i t s o n e o f t h e c r u c i a l qualities o f a g r e a t g e n e r a l , t h e ability to select s u b o r d i n a t e s . I n this case, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s t o l d J o s h u a t o select m e n for the b a t d e ( E x o d . 17:9), J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t M o s e s s e l e c t e d J o s h u a a n d e n u m e r a t e s t h e qualities t h a t t h e latter possessed: e x t r e m e c o u r a g e a n d v a l o r in e n d u r a n c e o f toil (Ant. 3.49). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , all t h a t M o s e s d o e s d u r i n g Israel's conflict w i t h A m a l e k is to h o l d u p his h a n d s ( E x o d . 17:11), in J o s e p h u s , h e p l a y s a m u c h m o r e a c t i v e role, p o s t i n g a s m a l l force o f a r m e d m e n a r o u n d t h e w a t e r as a p r o t e c t i o n for t h e w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n a n d for t h e c a m p in g e n e r a l (Ant. 3.50). M o s e s h i m s e l f stays u p all n i g h t i n s t r u c t i n g J o s h u a h o w t o m a r s h a l his forces. F u r t h e r m o r e , at the first streak o f d a w n , h e , in A e n e a s like f a s h i o n , e x h o r t s b o t h J o s h u a a n d his m e n o n e b y o n e a n d finally a d d r e s s e s stirring w o r d s t o t h e w h o l e a r m y (Ant. 3.51). J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e H e b r e w v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t all t h e A m a l e k i t e s w o u l d h a v e p e r i s h e d h a d n o t n i g h t i n t e r v e n e d to stop the c a r n a g e (Ant. 3.54). H e a d d s further details, t h u s e m b e l l i s h i n g his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s as a c o n q u e r i n g g e n e r a l (Ant. 3.55): t h e Israelites, w i t h their m o s t n o b l e (KaXXiarrjv) a n d m o s t t i m e l y (Kaupiwrdrriv)
v i c t o r y terrified t h e n e i g h b o r i n g n a t i o n s a n d , in t h e
p r o c e s s , a c q u i r e d a v a s t b o o t y , w h i c h J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s at l e n g t h (Ant. 3 . 5 6 - 5 7 ) . T h e y e n s l a v e d n o t o n l y t h e p e r s o n s b u t also t h e spirit (>povrjpLara) o f t h e A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 3.56). S o i n s p i r i n g w a s M o s e s to his m e n t h a t after d e f e a t i n g A m a l e k , t h e y b e g a n to p l u m e t h e m s e l v e s o n their v a l o r a n d to h a v e h i g h a s p i r a tions for h e r o i s m (Ant. 3.58). W h i l e the B i b l e g i v e s n o c a s u a l t y figures ( E x o d . 17:13), J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t n o t a single o n e o f the Israelites w a s slain, w h e r e a s t h e e n e m y ' s d e a d w e r e p a s t n u m b e r i n g (Ant. 3.59). Finally, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e re a l i z e d t h a t a g o o d g e n e r a l k n o w s h o w to c h e e r u p his t r o o p s w i t h festivities, his M o s e s , after t h e victory, r e g a l e s his forces w i t h festivity (ev(x)x^s)
(Ant. 3.60), j u s t
as h e d o e s after t h e v i c t o r y o v e r O g (Ant. 4.101). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t ( E x o d . 16:6), J o s e p h u s states t h a t M o s e s t h e n r e s t e d t h e Israelites for a f e w d a y s , a p p a r e n d y so t h a t t h e y m i g h t refresh t h e m s e l v e s (Ant. 3 . 6 1 - 6 2 ) . T h a t t h e c r e d i t for t h e v i c t o r y b e l o n g s to M o s e s is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t after t h e b a t d e , A a r o n a n d J e t h r o ( R a g u e l ) s i n g t h e praises o f M o s e s , " t o w h o s e m e r i t [dperriv] it w a s d u e t h a t all h a d b e f a l l e n to their h e a r t s ' c o n t e n t " (Ant. 3.65). E v e n w h e n p r e s e n t i n g M o s e s as a j u d g e , J o s e p h u s refers t o h i m in m i l i t a r y l a n g u a g e as a g e n e r a l (arpayrjyov)
(Ant. 3.67). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e r e c o u n t s M o s e s '
c h o i c e o f s u b o r d i n a t e j u d g e s ( E x o d . 18:25), the a d v i c e g i v e n to M o s e s b y his fatheri n - l a w R a g u e l (Jethro) is t h a t h e r e v i e w his army d i l i g e n d y a n d d i v i d e it i n t o g r o u p s a n d m a r s h a l (hiaKoapaqaovai
" d i v i d e , " "muster," a m i l i t a r y t e r m ) t h e m , n o t , as in
4io
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h e B i b l e , in sections o f t h o u s a n d s , h u n d r e d s , fifties, a n d tens, b u t r a t h e r in g r o u p s o f t h o u s a n d s , five h u n d r e d s , h u n d r e d s , fifties, thirties, t w e n t i e s , a n d tens (Ant. 3.70-71).
64
S u c h a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , says R a g u e l , a g a i n a d o p t i n g m i l i t a r y t e r m i n o l
ogy, w i l l r e n d e r G - d m o r e p r o p i t i o u s to t h e a r m y (oTparcp). E v e n w h e n M o s e s as c e n d s M o u n t S i n a i to r e c e i v e t h e L a w , h e is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s as a m i l i t a r y l e a d e r (oTparrjyov)
(Ant. 3.78). A n d w h e n M o s e s r e t u r n s w i t h t h e L a w a n d lists t h e
r e w a r d s t h a t t h e p e o p l e w i l l r e c e i v e i f t h e y f o l l o w the C o m m a n d m e n t s , h e u r g e s t h e m to e n g a g e in b a t d e (irepipiax^TOTepoi) for these m o r e j e a l o u s l y t h a n for c h i l d r e n a n d w i v e s , j u s t as h e p o i n t s o u t t h a t i f this w e r e a b a t d e , t h e y w o u l d b e re d o u b t a b l e (<j>o$€poi) to their foes (Ant. 3 . 8 8 ) .
65
A k e y q u a l i t y in a g e n e r a l , as a l r e a d y n o t e d , is the ability to inspire his troops. I n t h e B i b l e , w h e n M o s e s arrives at t h e b o r d e r s o f C a n a a n , h e d o e s n o t s p e a k to t h e Israelites g e n e r a l l y b u t m e r e l y g i v e s d i r e c t instructions to t h e scouts w h o are to spy o u t the l a n d ( N u m . 13:17-20). T h e J o s e p h a n M o s e s , in a n i n s p i r i n g s p e e c h to t h e entire p e o p l e , r e m i n d s t h e m o f t h e b l e s s i n g o f liberty, w h i c h G - d h a s a l r e a d y g r a n t e d t h e m , a n d o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e P r o m i s e d L a n d , w h i c h is s o o n to b e theirs (Ant. 3.300-301). H e t h e n tells his p e o p l e to p r e p a r e for t h e task o f c o n q u e r i n g t h e l a n d ; in a n A e n e a s - l i k e p o s e , h e r e m i n d s t h e m t h a t the task w i l l n o t b e easy. W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , it is G - d ' s i d e a t o s e n d scouts ( N u m . 13:2), J o s e p h u s ,
66
ever
s e e k i n g to b u i l d u p t h e stature o f M o s e s as a m i l i t a r y planner, attributes t h e p l a n t o M o s e s (Ant. 3.302). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t w i t h o u t M o s e s ' m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p , the Israelites a r e d o o m e d to defeat. T h u s w h e n , after t h e r e p o r t o f the spies, t h e Israelites seek to as c e n d the hill c o u n t r y w i t h o u t M o s e s ' g u i d a n c e ( N u m . 1 4 : 4 0 - 4 5 , D e u t . 1:42), t h e y suffer a m a s s i v e defeat, t h e details o f w h i c h a r e e x p a n d e d c o n s i d e r a b l y b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 4 . 7 - 8 ) , w h o t h e r e b y u n d e r l i n e s t h e i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y o f M o s e s ' g e n e r a l ship. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , at this p o i n t , G - d takes t h e initiative in telling M o s e s
64. See Baskin 1983, 66, w h o remarks that this reorganization o f M o s e s ' forces is strikingly close to R o m a n troop formations, where each officer took his tide from the n u m b e r o f m e n w h o m he c o m m a n d e d . Similarly, w e m a y add, w h e n Josephus describes the Israelite c a m p , he follows the pattern o f the R o m a n c a m p , with the tabernacle, as T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:459, n. a, remarks, replacing the praetorium (Ant. 3.289). 65. O n e o f the embarrassing questions that readers might well have asked is w h y the Levites— Moses a m o n g t h e m — w e r e exempt from military service. T h e Bible gives no reason (Num. 1:47);
D u t
Josephus offers a very plausible explanation, namely, that the Levites were a holy tribe (Ant. 3.287). A s to w h y certain classes o f people are e x e m p t from military service, namely, those w h o have recendy built houses, those w h o have not yet partaken o f the fruits o f their plantings, and those w h o have recendy been betrothed and married, the Bible gives as the reason "lest he die in batde a n d another m a n enjoy what he has started" (Deut. 20:5-8). Josephus formulates the reason, rather, in terms o f the likelihood o f their being less brave and shirking danger because o f nostalgia for what they h a d left behind (Ant. 4.298). 66. S o also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.40.221). O n this point Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 15.1) agrees with the biblical text.
MOSES
411
to d i v e r t his r o u t e into the w i l d e r n e s s ( N u m . 14:25), it is M o s e s , in J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h o takes the initiative in s h o w i n g the i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d i n g a g o o d retreat (Ant. 4 . 9 - 1 0 ) . O n e o f t h e c r u c i a l q u a l i t i e s o f a g e n e r a l is t h e a b i l i t y t o inspire his t r o o p s w i t h e a g e r n e s s for b a t d e . M o s e s ' p o s s e s s i o n o f this q u a l i t y is s e e n in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l ( N u m . 2 1 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) in w h i c h J o s e p h u s states t h a t b e f o r e t h e b a t t l e w i t h t h e A m o r i t e s , M o s e s r o u s e d t h e a r d o r o f his soldiers, u r g i n g t h e m t o g r a t i f y t h e i r lust for b a t t l e (Ant. 4 . 8 8 - 8 9 ) . S o effective is M o s e s t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e y p r o c e e d i n t o a c t i o n . It is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , f a c e d w i t h s u c h spirit, t h e A m o r i t e s a c t u a l l y b e c o m e fearful. T h e r o u t t h a t f o l l o w s is r e c o u n t e d v e r y s i m p l y in t h e B i b l e : " I s r a e l p u t t h e m [the A m o r i t e s ] t o t h e s w o r d " ( N u m . 21:24). T h i s b e c o m e s , in Josephus's version, a n elaborate description o f a p a n i c 4.90-92), w h i c h draws heavily on T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t
6 7
(Ant.
o f the A t h e n i a n d e b a
cle at S y r a c u s e . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( N u m . 21:24) o f t h e spoil o f t h e A m o r i t e s t a k e n b y t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 4 . 9 3 - 9 4 ) . Israel's v i c t o r y o v e r O g is all t h e g r e a t e r a n d t h e c r e d i t t o b e g i v e n t o M o s e s t h e g e n e r a l all t h e m o r e e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t so c o n f i d e n t w a s O g o f s u c c e s s t h a t h e w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o m a k e trial o f t h e I s r a e l i t e s ' v a l o r d e spite t h e fact t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d t h a t his friend S i h o n h a d a l r e a d y p e r i s h e d (Ant. 4
. 6).
6 8
9
T h e b a t d e w i t h O g is a further test o f M o s e s ' mettle. T h a t O g w a s a g i a n t is c l e a r f r o m the B i b l e , w h i c h states t h a t his b e d s t e a d w a s n i n e cubits (13 feet) in l e n g t h , a n d four c u b i t s (6 feet) in w i d t h ( D e u t . 3:11). J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t t o cite s u c h d i m e n s i o n s w o u l d i m p u g n his credibility, o m i t s t h e m , w h i l e stressing O g ' s h u g e size in m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m s b y stating t h a t h e h a d a stature a n d b e a u t y s u c h as f e w c o u l d b o a s t (Ant. 4.98). H o w e v e r , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t t h e Is raelites c o n q u e r e d all o f O g ' s cities a n d t h a t these w e r e fortified ( D e u t . 3:4-5), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s m a t t e r s b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f the r e a l m o f O g s u r p a s s e d in r i c h e s all the o c c u p a n t s o f t h a t a r e a , t h a n k s t o the e x c e l l e n c e o f their soil a n d a n a b u n d a n c e o f c o m m o d i t i e s (Ant. 4.97). I n his last t e s t a m e n t to the Israelites, M o s e s , in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in the B i b l e (cf. D e u t . 2 0 : 1 0 - 1 4 ) , g i v e s m i l i t a r y a d v i c e t o the p e o p l e — n a m e l y , t h a t w h e n g o i n g to w a r t h e y s h o u l d select as their c o m m a n d e r a n d as G - d ' s l i e u t e n a n t t h e o n e m a n w h o is p r e e m i n e n t for v a l o r (dperfj) a n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d a v o i d di v i d e d l e a d e r s h i p (Ant. 4 . 2 9 7 ) .
69
67. See the comments o f T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:521, nn. b and c, w h o cites, in particular, the paral lel with T h u c y d i d e s ' account (7. 83-84) o f the retreat o f the Athenians from Syracuse. 68. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, however, O g dwelt only one day's distance from S i h o n (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 4.8; Midrash Tannaim 4). 69. Here, too, as T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:619, nn. a and b, remarks, Josephus is indebted for his lan guage to T h u c y d i d e s (6.72).
412
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Temperance It is in his p o s s e s s i o n o f the v i r t u e o f t e m p e r a n c e that M o s e s m o s t c l e a r l y e m e r g e s as the S t o i c - l i k e sage. W e m a y call a t t e n t i o n to J o s e p h u s ' s final e u l o g y for M o s e s , w h e r e h e is d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g f o u n d f a v o r in e v e r y w a y , b u t chiefly t h r o u g h his c o m m a n d o f his p a s s i o n s (r
70
b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e that s e e m s to c o n t r a d i c t t h e i m a g e o f M o s e s as self-
c o n t r o l l e d is that in w h i c h M o s e s , d e s c e n d i n g f r o m M o u n t S i n a i , sees the p e o p l e d a n c i n g a r o u n d the G o l d e n C a l f ( E x o d . 32:15-20). A t this p o i n t , M o s e s ' s anger, w e a r e told, b u r n s h o t , a n d in utter e x a s p e r a t i o n , h e t h r o w s the tablets o f t h e L a w to t h e g r o u n d , g r i n d s t h e C a l f to a p o w d e r , scatters it u p o n water, a n d forces the Is raelites to d r i n k it ( E x o d . 32:19). J o s e p h u s , m o s t s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s this w h o l e in c i d e n t (Ant. 3.99), n o t only, w e m a y s u g g e s t , b e c a u s e it reflected b a d l y u p o n the Is raelites as a p e o p l e so fickle that t h e y q u i c k l y f o r g o t all the m i r a c l e s that G - d h a d p e r f o r m e d for t h e m , b u t also b e c a u s e it casts M o s e s h i m s e l f in a b a d light as a h o t t e m p e r e d leader. O n the f o r m e r p o i n t , J o s e p h u s tries to e x o n e r a t e the p e o p l e b y stating that t h e y w e r e s e i z e d b y g r e a t a n x i e t y a b o u t M o s e s b e c a u s e o f his d e l a y in r e t u r n i n g to t h e m a n d b y fear lest h e m i g h t h a v e b e e n d e v o u r e d b y a w i l d b e a s t o r d i e d a n a t u r a l d e a t h (Ant. 3 . 9 5 - 9 8 ) . J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s M o s e s ' t w o ascents o f M o u n t S i n a i ; a n d i n s t e a d o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h M o s e s b r e a k s the tablets, w e h a v e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f his d i s p l a y i n g t h e m to t h e r e j o i c i n g m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 3.102) (see S m o l a r a n d A b e r b a c h 1968, 91-116). J o s e p h u s , in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e (cf. N u m . 16:30), e m p h a s i z e s that t h e c h i e f lesson to b e l e a r n e d f r o m the k e y c h a l l e n g e to M o s e s ' a u t h o r i t y that b y K o r a h , is t h e n e c e s s i t y o f m o d e r a t i o n (aco^poavv-qs)
(Ant. 4.49).
Similarly, w h e n the Israelite m e n c o n s o r t w i t h the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , M o s e s , in a s p e e c h n o t p a r a l l e l e d in the B i b l e ( N u m . 2 5 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) , in effect e q u a t e s m o d e r a t i o n w i t h o b e d i e n c e to a u t h o r i t y
7 1
stressing that c o u r a g e (dvhpeiav) consists, n o t in v i o
l a t i n g l a w s , b u t in resisting the p a s s i o n s (eTriOvpuiais) (Ant. 4.143). H e t h e n a d d s that
70. Similarly, Philo praises M o s e s for his temperance, noting that although, having been brought u p in the palace o f Pharaoh, he h a d a b u n d a n t opportunities to submit to the temptations o f lust, "he kept a tight hold on them [the lusts o f adolescence] with the reins, as it were, o f temperance [ocx)poovvrj\ and self-control
[Kaprepia]"
(De Vita Mosis 1.6.25). H
e
adds that M o s e s m a d e a special
practice o f frugal contentment and h a d an unparalleled scorn for a life of luxury (De Vita Mosis 1.6.29). Philo's enumeration o f the virtues to w h i c h he devoted particular attention starts with self-restraint (iyKpa.7-ciai), continence
(Kaprepiai),
and temperance (oaxfrpoovvrj) (De Vita Mosis 1.27.154). M o s e s ' m o d
eration reaches the point o f asceticism, as w e can see from Philo's c o m m e n t that he abstained from food and drink and sexual relations in order to hold himself ready at all times to receive oracular mes sages (De Vita Mosis 2.14.68). S o also Philo declares that M o s e s cut off all passions everywhere (Legum Al legoriae 3.45.129, 46.134), in contrast to A a r o n , w h o merely attempted rather to control t h e m (Legum Al legoriae 3.44.128). Philo maintains that only such a m a n as M o s e s was able, through a special grace o f G - d , to suppress his emotions completely (Legum Allegoriae 3.45.131). 71. W e m a y note that w h e n Josephus enumerates his o w n c a n o n of the cardinal virtues (Ant. 6.160), he lists obedience (neiOoi) as one o f them.
MOSES it w a s n o t r e a s o n a b l e after t h e Israelites' s o b r i e t y (oaxfrpovrjaavras)
413
in t h e desert for
t h e m t o r e l a p s e i n t o d r u n k e n riot in their p r e s e n t p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 4.144). I n d e e d , in his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to the Israelites b e f o r e his d e a t h , M o s e s affirms t h a t the p u r p o s e o f the l a w s that h e h a s c o n v e y e d to his p e o p l e is to t e a c h t h e m m o d e r a t i o n (a(xxf)poavvrj) (Ant. 4.184). T h o s e w h o k n o w w e l l h o w to obey, h e r e m a r k s , will also k n o w h o w t o rule (Ant. 4.186). A s i m i l a r e q u a t i o n o f s o b r i e t y (oaxfrpoveiv) w i t h o b e d i e n c e m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e r e b e l l i o u s son (Ant. 4.264; cf. D e u t . 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 1 ) . The
s a m e p o i n t is m a d e in J o s e p h u s ' s discussion o f i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y —
n a m e l y , t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t i m p u t e to the fathers the sins o f the sons, i n a s m u c h as t h e y o u n g , in their d i s d a i n for discipline, p e r m i t t h e m s e l v e s m u c h t h a t is c o n t r a r y to the instruction o f the l a w s (Ant. 4.289). T h e lesson t h a t h e h o p e s the Israelites will l e a r n for t h e future f r o m their m a n y c o m p l a i n t s to a n d revolts a g a i n s t h i m is m o d e r a t i o n (oaxfrpovrjoeiv) (Ant. 4.189). A g a i n , in setting forth the c o d e o f l a w s g i v e n at S i n a i , J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s gives a n e x p l a n a t i o n n o t f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t (Lev. 21:7; D e u t . 22:22) o f t h e prohibition o n m a r r y i n g a female slave—namely, that although one m a y be c o n s t r a i n e d t h e r e t o b y love, s u c h p a s s i o n m u s t b e m a s t e r e d b y r e g a r d for d e c o r u m (TO ev7rp€7T€s) (Ant. 4.244). I n particular, J o s e p h u s identifies m o d e r a t i o n w i t h m o d e s t y (Ant. 6.63). I n the B i b l e , h u m i l i t y is c i t e d as M o s e s ' c r o w n i n g v i r t u e : " N o w t h e m a n M o s e s w a s v e r y m e e k , m o r e t h a n all m e n that w e r e o n the face o f the e a r t h " ( N u m . 12:3). I n the s a m e line, t h e J o s e p h a n M o s e s refers to h i m s e l f as m e r e l y G - d ' s s u b - g e n e r a l (vno OTparrrytp) a n d u n d e r l i n g (tinr/perr],
" s u b o r d i n a t e " ) (Ant. 4.317). J o s e p h u s also
h i g h l i g h t s M o s e s ' m o d e s t y b y c i t i n g his w i l l i n g n e s s to take a d v i c e f r o m his fatheri n - l a w a n d his r e a d i n e s s to a c k n o w l e d g e this assistance (Ant. 3.74). Similarly, M o s e s is said to h a v e m o d e s d y r e c o r d e d the p r o p h e c i e s o f B a l a a m , e v e n t h o u g h h e c o u l d j u s t as easily h a v e a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e m for himself, i n a s m u c h as t h e r e w e r e n o w i t nesses to c o n v i c t h i m o f d o i n g so (Ant. 4 . 1 5 7 ) .
72
A n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f M o s e s ' h u m i l i t y is the fact t h a t in a n e r a in w h i c h c l o t h i n g w a s c o n s i d e r e d v e r y i m p o r t a n t as a sign o f o n e ' s societal standing, M o s e s dresses like a n y o r d i n a r y p e r s o n (ZSicorevcov) a n d in all else b e a r s h i m s e l f r a t h e r like a s i m p l e c o m m o n e r (drjpLOTiKwrepov) w h o in n o r e s p e c t seeks to a p p e a r different f r o m t h e c r o w d (rcov noAAwv) (Ant. 3.212). A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e that the p a g a n s f r o w n e d u p o n u n d u e m o d e s t y J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , w h e n a n n o u n c i n g the a p p o i n t m e n t o f his b r o t h e r A a r o n as h i g h priest, v e r y c a n d i d l y a n d u n a s h a m e d l y , a n d in a w a y t h a t w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d to A r i s t o d e (whose i d e a l w a s t h e pLeyaXoi/tvxos,
Nicomachean Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 A 3 3 - 1 1 2 5 A 3 5 ) , i n v o k e s his o w n m e r i t
72. T h u s Moses precludes the charge of plagiarism, which was so frequendy practiced in antiquity. Josephus's statement is to be compared with that of the Baraita quoted in the Talmud (Baba Batra 14b) that Moses wrote his own book (that is, the Torah) and the section of Balaam.
414
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
(dperrfv), his b e n e v o l e n c e (evvoiav),
PORTRAITS
a n d the perils t h a t h e h a s e n d u r e d for the Is
raelites' sake (Ant. 3.188). H e says t h a t i f the c h o i c e h a d b e e n left to h i m , h e w o u l d h a v e a d j u d g e d h i m s e l f w o r t h y o f t h e office, " a l i k e f r o m t h a t self-love t h a t is i n n a t e in all, as also b e c a u s e I a m c o n s c i o u s o f h a v i n g l a b o r e d a b u n d a n t l y for y o u r salva t i o n " (Ant. 3.190). M o s e s reiterates this p o i n t w h e n c h a l l e n g e d b y K o r a h for his a p p a r e n t n e p o t i s m (Ant. 4.27). H e a r g u e s t h a t h e is a n e a r e r k i n s m a n to h i m s e l f t h a n is his brother, a n d h e n c e w o u l d n e v e r h a v e p a s s e d o v e r h i m s e l f i n b e s t o w i n g this d i g n i t y i f k i n s h i p w e r e the force g u i d i n g h i m . F i n a l l y h e , like H o r a c e (Odes 3.30.1), is n o t a s h a m e d to say t h a t t h r o u g h his l a b o r s h e h a s built a n e v e r l a s t i n g m e m o r i a l for the p u b l i c w e l f a r e (Ant. 4.179). Justice T h e s u p r e m e a f f i r m a t i o n o f M o s e s ' j u s t i c e o c c u r s in a n a d d i t i o n b y J o s e p h u s t o the B i b l e ( E x o d . 18:13), in w h i c h h e d e c l a r e s t h a t all w h o c a m e to M o s e s t h o u g h t t h a t o n l y so w o u l d t h e y o b t a i n j u s t i c e ; a n d e v e n those w h o lost t h e i r cases b e f o r e h i m left c o n v i n c e d t h a t it w a s j u s t i c e a n d n o t c u p i d i t y t h a t h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h e i r fate (Ant. 3.6C5-67).
73
C o n v e r s e l y , J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e b e e n e m b a r r a s s e d b y the fact t h a t M o s e s , the g r e a t l e a d e r o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e , w a s a c t u a l l y a m u r d e r e r , w h o s h o w e d s u c h l a c k o f r e s p e c t for j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e t h a t h e t o o k the l a w i n t o his o w n h a n d s in his i m 7 4
p u l s i v e s l a y i n g o f the E g y p t i a n o v e r s e e r ( E x o d . 2 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) . A r t a p a n u s , i n his v e r s i o n (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.27.18), seeks to d e f e n d M o s e s b y p r e s e n t i n g a s c e n a r i o in w h i c h M o s e s , in self-defense, slays a c e r t a i n C h a n e t h o t h e s , w h o h a d b e e n d e s i g n a t e d b y P h a r a o h , w h o w a s j e a l o u s o f M o s e s ' f a m e , to kill h i m . J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s , h a s n e i t h e r the B i b l e ' s n o r A r t a p a n u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the slay i n g b y M o s e s ; b u t J o s e p h u s typically, as w e h a v e n o t e d , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h s u c h e m b a r r a s s i n g m a t e r i a l , s i m p l y o m i t s the i n c i d e n t .
75
M o s e s ' sense o f j u s t i c e m a y b e seen in his s t a t e m e n t to G - d o n the o c c a s i o n o f the r e b e l l i o n o f D a t h a n a n d A b i r a m . I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n G - d w i s h e s to
73. S o also Philo remarks that w h e n M o s e s reproached the tribes o f R e u b e n and Manasseh, they knew that he spoke, not out o f arrogance, but out o f solicitude for them all and out o f respect for jus tice and equality, and that his detestation o f evil w a s never meant to cast reproach but always to bring those capable o f improvement to a better m i n d (De Vita Mosis 1.60.328). 74. Philo, clearly aware o f the problem, adds that the Egyptian overseers were exceedingly harsh and ferocious, c o m p a r a b l e in their savagery to v e n o m o u s animals, and that the Egyptian w h o m Moses slew was the crudest o f all (De Vita Mosis 1.8.43-44). M o s e s killed him, says Philo "because he not only m a d e no concession but was rendered harsher than ever by his exhortations, beating with breathless promptness those w h o did not execute his orders, persecuting them to the point o f death, and subject ing them to every outrage" (De Vita Mosis 1.8.44). Philo is conscious o f the controversy that surrounded M o s e s ' unilateral action and therefore adds: " M o s e s considered that his action in killing him was a righteous action. A n d righteous it w a s that one w h o only lived to destroy m e n should himself be de stroyed." 75. Philo does not suppress the passage but interprets it allegorically (Legum Allegoriae 3.12.37).
MOSES
415
a n n i h i l a t e t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n for a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h t h e m , it is t h e p e o p l e w h o fall o n their faces a n d ask G - d w h e t h e r G - d o u g h t to b e a n g r y w i t h t h e w h o l e c o n g r e g a t i o n for t h e sin o f o n e m a n ( N u m . 16:22). I n J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o takes t h e l e a d o n this o c c a s i o n , a p p e a l i n g to G - d ' s sense o f j u s t i c e b y a s k i n g G - d t o e x a c t j u s t i c e f r o m t h e sinners b u t to save t h e m u l t i t u d e w h o follow H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s , o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t it is unjust t h a t all s h o u l d p a y for t h e infractions o f a f e w (Ant. 4.50). J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y e a g e r to p o i n t o u t t h a t the M o s a i c C o d e r e q u i r e s t h a t e v e r y effort b e m a d e to a v o i d w a r a n d that, s h o u l d w a r b e necessary, it b e c o n d u c t e d j u s d y (Ant. 4.296). T h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e r e a d s s i m p l y : " W h e n y o u a p p r o a c h a t o w n to a t t a c k it, y o u shall offer it t e r m s o f p e a c e " ( D e u t . 20:10). J o s e p h u s , in v i e w o f his close c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e R o m a n s , their ideals, a n d their m e t h o d s o f w a r fare, w a s p r e s u m a b l y a w a r e also o f their l a w s o f w a r , r e c o r d e d , for e x a m p l e , in C i c e r o (De Officiis 1 . 1 1 . 3 4 - 3 6 a n d De Re Publica 3.23.34-35). A s C i c e r o p u t s it, the o n e l e g i t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e in m a k i n g w a r is to live in p e a c e u n m o l e s t e d ; m o r e o v e r , h e says, i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w t e a c h e s t h a t a w a r is j u s t o n l y i f it is d u l y d e c l a r e d after a f o r m a l d e m a n d for satisfaction. O n e is r e m i n d e d as w e l l o f V i r g i l ' s f a m o u s state m e n t o f t h e m i s s i o n o f the R o m a n s , " t o i m p o s e the w a y o f p e a c e , to spare s u b d u e d p e o p l e s , a n d to h u m b l e h a u g h t y o n e s " (Aeneid 6.852-53). J o s e p h u s , in his c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p a n s i o n o f t h e a b o v e p a s s a g e in D e u t e r o n o m y , recasts it in a c c o r d w i t h these R o m a n ideals a n d m e t h o d s o f w a r f a r e (Ant. 4.296). I n particular, h e h a s M o s e s d e c l a r e t h a t w h e n t h e Israelites a r e o n the v e r g e o f w a r , t h e y s h o u l d s e n d a n e m b a s s y to t h e e n e m y to m a k e it c l e a r that, a l t h o u g h t h e y h a v e a v a s t a r m y a n d a r m a m e n t s , t h e y d o n o t desire to m a k e w a r a n d to seize u n w a n t e d s p o i l s .
76
If, i n d e e d , G - d is t h e m o d e l o f j u s t i c e , H e is also the m o d e l o f t h e r e l a t e d v i r t u e o f forgiveness, b o t h o f w h i c h v i r t u e s a r e e x h i b i t e d b y M o s e s . T h u s , in e x h o r t i n g t h e Israelites j u s t b e f o r e his d e a t h , M o s e s , a l t h o u g h h e r e m i n d s t h e m t h a t t h e y h a v e m o r e often i m p e r i l e d h i m t h a n t h e e n e m y , a d d s i m m e d i a t e l y t h a t h e says this w i t h n o i n t e n t to r e p r o a c h t h e m , since h e is l o a t h to l e a v e t h e m a g g r i e v e d b y re c a l l i n g these t h i n g s t o their m i n d s (Ant. 4 . 1 8 8 - 8 9 ) . C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e , as w e see h e r e , is t h e q u a l i t y o f m e r c y I n this c o n n e c t i o n , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h w h a t w o u l d s e e m to b e a n e m b a r r a s s i n g c a l l for n o less t h a n g e n o c i d e , in G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t H e w i l l h a v e w a r w i t h A m a l e k f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n ( E x o d . 1 7 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) a n d t h a t t h e Israelites a r e to b l o t o u t t h e r e m e m b r a n c e o f h i m ( D e u t . 25:19). A w a r e o f the p o t e n t i a l e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f s u c h a c o m m a n d , J o s e p h u s strives m i g h t i l y to p a i n t the A m a l e k i t e s in t h e d a r k e s t c o l o r s (Ant. 3.39-40); it is their k i n g s w h o take t h e initiative in s e n d i n g m e s s a g e s to the n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s to m a k e w a r o n t h e Israelites a n d a c t u a l l y
76. Cf. Philo, who similarly notes, in an expansion of the biblical passage (Num. 20:14-21), Moses' efforts to persuade the king of the Edomites to allow the Israelites to pass through their land peacefully (De Vita Mosis 1.43.243).
416
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
to d e s t r o y (Sicx/idelpeiv) t h e m . J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s M o s e s as e x p e c t i n g n o s u c h hostil ity at all, i n a s m u c h as the Israelites h a d d o n e n o t h i n g to p r o v o k e it, a n d h e is c o n s e q u e n d y p e r p l e x e d in the face o f it, e s p e c i a l l y since his p e o p l e a r e destitute o f a r m s a n d o f all else (Ant. 3.43). J o s e p h u s t h e n cites the f o r m u l a t i o n o f E x o d u s (17:14) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t G - d will utterly b l o t o u t the A m a l e k i t e s , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f D e u t e r o n o m y (25:19) t o the effect t h a t the Israelites are to d o so (Ant. 3.60). A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , M o s e s p r e d i c t e d (irpoe^reve)
t h a t the A m a l e k i t e s
w o u l d b e utterly e x t e r m i n a t e d . H e d o e s n o t s a y b y w h o m o r w h e n ; i n d e e d , this p r e d i c t i o n w a s a c t u a l l y fulfilled, i n a s m u c h as b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , t h e y h a d dis appeared. T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to the i m p o r t a n c e o f m e r c y as a constituent e l e m e n t o f j u s t i c e is c l e a r f r o m his omission o f M o s e s ' a n g e r w i t h the c o m m a n d e r o f his a r m y for s p a r i n g the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n w h o h a d b e e n guilty o f l e a d i n g the Israelite m e n astray (Ant. 3.60; cf. N u m . 3 1 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . T h e r e w o u l d , h o w e v e r , s e e m to b e a c o n t r a d i c tion to this h i g h l i g h t i n g o f M o s e s ' m e r c y in the a d v i c e , u n p a r a l l e l e d in the Bible, g i v e n b y M o s e s to the Israelites j u s t before his d e a t h that t h e y s h o u l d leave n o t o n e o f their e n e m i e s alive after d e f e a t i n g t h e m (Ant. 4.191). B u t h e r e J o s e p h u s supplies a justification for this e x t r e m e i n j u n c t i o n — n a m e l y , that if the Israelites g e t e v e n a taste o f a n y o f the w a y s o f their e n e m i e s , this will c o r r u p t their ancestral constitution. A n y a d m i r e r o f the S p a r t a n constitution o r o f Plato's ideal in the Republic a n d o f the c a r e that these d o c u m e n t s take to preserve the status q u o w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e s u c h c o u n s e l . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n will e x p l a i n J o s e p h u s ' s v a r i a t i o n o f the g e n e r a l b i b l i c a l injunction (Deut. 20:13-14) that the Israelites are to slay the m e n in b a t d e b u t to take as b o o t y w o m e n , children, a n d cattle; J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s enjoins slaying o n l y those w h o resist (Ant. 4.300), r e m i n d i n g o n e a g a i n o f Virgil's " P a r c e r e subjectis et d e b e l l a r e s u p e r b o s " (Aeneid 6.853). T h e C a n a a n i t e s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f their threat to the v e r y constitution o f the Israelites, are to b e e x t e r m i n a t e d c o m p l e t e l y .
77
H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s , in his p a r a p h r a s e in t h e Antiquities, s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s the p a s s a g e in w h i c h G - d instructs M o s e s t h a t u p o n e n t e r i n g the l a n d o f C a n a a n , the Israelites are to d e s t r o y all the C a n a a n i t e s ' statues a n d d e v a s t a t e all their h i g h p l a c e s ( D e u t . 12:2-3). I n a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s d i s c r e e d y o m i t s a n y r e f e r e n c e to the p a s s a g e in w h i c h M o s e s a p p e a r s t o s h o w i n t o l e r a n c e w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t the Is raelites sacrifice to G - d v i c t i m s t h a t are u n t o u c h a b l e to the E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.304; cf. E x o d . 8:21-23). W h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t a n y o n e , w h e t h e r Israelite o r foreigner, w h o curses G - d is s u b j e c t t o the d e a t h p e n a l t y ( E x o d . 8:21-23), J o s e -
77. Strabo says that M o s e s and his immediate successors acted righteously and piously toward G - d , but that later superstitious m e n introduced various laws and customs that served to separate the Jews from other peoples (16.2.36-37.761). A s late as the fourth century C.E., the emperor Julian asserts that although M o s e s taught the Israelites to worship only one god, he w a s tolerant o f other religions, but that later generations o f Jews h a d the shamelessness and audacity to insult other religions (Contra Galilaeos 238C).
MOSES
417
p h u s , in p a r a p h r a s i n g t h e p a s s a g e , o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f this p e n a l t y to f o r e i g n e r s (Ant. 4.202). L i k e w i s e c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is t h e v i r t u e o f h u m a n i t y (i\avdpco7ria). I n his r e p l y to his anti-Jewish critics, J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t t h e M o s a i c c o d e w a s d e s i g n e d to p r o m o t e h u m a n i t y t o w a r d t h e w o r l d at l a r g e (Ag. Ap. 2.146), t h a t " o u r l e g i s l a tor," t h a t is, M o s e s , i n c u l c a t e d i n t o t h e J e w s t h e d u t y o f s h a r i n g w i t h o t h e r s , a n d t h a t t h e J e w m u s t n o t o n l y furnish f o o d a n d supplies to t h o s e w h o ask for t h e m b u t m u s t also s h o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n e v e n for d e c l a r e d e n e m i e s ( A g . Ap. 2 . 2 1 1 - 1 3 ) . H e e v e n a d d s u n s c r i p t u r a l p r o v i s i o n s , s u c h as t h a t J e w s a r e f o r b i d d e n t o b u r n u p t h e c o u n t r y o f t h e i r e n e m i e s a n d to d e s p o i l fallen c o m b a t a n t s .
7 8
S u c h gentleness
(r)p,€p6T7)Ta) a n d h u m a n i t y (<j>iAav6pa)Triav) e x t e n d e v e n to a n i m a l s , w h o s e use is a u t h o r i z e d o n l y in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the L a w . W h e n J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e M o s a i c L a w r e q u i r e s the J e w to p o i n t o u t t h e r o a d to o t h e r s (Ag. Ap. 2.211), it is a l m o s t as if h e is r e p l y i n g to J u v e n a l ' s c h a r g e (14.103) t h a t M o s e s ' secret b o o k forbids p o i n t i n g o u t t h e w a y to a n y n o t w o r s h i p p i n g a c c o r d i n g to the s a m e rites as t h e J e w s . M o r e o v e r , says J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e (Lev. 19:14), o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d , for the p l e a s u r e o f o n e ' s s e l f - a m u s e m e n t , to i m p e d e a n o t h e r b y m i s l e a d i n g h i m (Ant. 4.276). T h e M o s a i c L a w , h e says, t e a c h e s m e n n o t to h a t e t h e i r fellows b u t to s h a r e t h e i r possessions (Ag Ap. 2.291). I n t h e Antiquities, M o s e s , far f r o m h a t i n g m a n k i n d , is d e p i c t e d as b e a r i n g n o m a l i c e e v e n t o w a r d K o r a h a n d his f o l l o w e r s , w h o h a d r e b e l l e d a g a i n s t his a u t h o r i t y a n d w h o w e r e o n t h e v e r g e o f s t o n i n g h i m to d e a t h (Ant. 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . L i k e w i s e , B a l a k , in his c o n c e r n w i t h t h e g r o w i n g p o w e r o f t h e Israelites, h a s n o t l e a r n e d , w e a r e told, t h a t t h e H e b r e w s are n o t w o n t to interfere (iToXvTTpaypLoveiv) w i t h o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a n d are, in fact, f o r b i d d e n b y G - d to d o so (Ant. 4.102). J o s e p h u s also omits a n y reference to the passage w h e r e M i r i a m a n d A a r o n speak against M o s e s o n account o f the Ethiopian w o m a n w h o m he h a d married ( N u m . 12:1); s u c h m u r m u r i n g o n t h e p a r t o f s u c h h i g h l y p l a c e d p e o p l e w o u l d s u r e l y h a v e b e e n t a k e n as i n d i c a t i v e o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d E t h i o p i a n s . I n c o n t r a s t t o s u c h p e o p l e s as t h e S p a r t a n s , w h o m a d e a p r a c t i c e o f e x p e l l i n g for e i g n e r s (Ag Ap. 2.259), a n d e v e n t h e A t h e n i a n s , w h o p e r s e c u t e d t h o s e w h o h e l d v i e w s at v a r i a n c e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e state (Ag Ap. 2 . 2 6 2 - 6 8 ) , M o s e s is s a i d t o h a v e m o s t liberally, m o s t g r a c i o u s l y , a n d u n g r u d g i n g l y w e l c o m e d into t h e J e w i s h fold
78. T h e latter remark w o u l d appear to be contradicted by the fact that the Israelites, before leav ing Egypt, despoiled the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36), and by the further fact that, after their victory over the Amalekites, M o s e s ordered the corpses o f the enemies to be stripped (Ant. 3.59). S o also Ant. 4.93, after the victory over the Amorites, a n d Ant. 4.162, after the defeat o f the Midianites. Likewise, Philo emphasizes the h u m a n i t y (<£iAav0pco7uas) shown by Moses in not even having the will to take revenge against the Canaanites, since they were his kinsmen (De Vita Mosis 1.44.249). Inasmuch as Moses is de picted as the greatest o f legislators, Philo's discussion o f the virtues o f the legislator is particularly rele vant (De Vita Mosis 2.2.8-11). T h e r e he enumerates four such: love o f humanity ((juXavdpojirov), o f j u s tice, and o f goodness, a n d hatred o f evil.
418
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a n y w h o e l e c t e d t o s h a r e t h e w a y s o f t h e J e w s , b a s i n g h i m s e l f o n the p r i n c i p l e t h a t relationships s h o u l d b e b a s e d n o t o n l y o n f a m i l y ties b u t o n a g r e e m e n t in m a t t e r s o f c o n d u c t (Ag. Ap. 2.209-1 o). T h a t M o s e s himself, a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , w a s n o t p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t G e n tiles is c l e a r f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e differentiates b e t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d t h e E g y p tians, carefully n o t i n g , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t w h e n the Israelites d e p a r t e d f r o m E g y p t , the E g y p t i a n s l a m e n t e d a n d r e g r e t t e d t h e h a r s h
treatment
t h a t t h e y h a d inflicted o n t h e m (Ant. 2.315). H i s f r e e d o m f r o m p r e j u d i c e is l i k e w i s e d i s p l a y e d in t h e r e s p e c t h e s h o w s R a g u e l (Jethro), his father-in-law, w h o is d e s c r i b e d as a priest h e l d in h i g h v e n e r a t i o n b y the p e o p l e o f t h e c o u n t r y (Ant. 2.258). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t M o s e s w a s c o n t e n t to d w e l l w i t h J e t h r o ( E x o d . 2:21), J o s e p h u s u n d e r s c o r e s a l a c k o f b i a s a g a i n s t n o n - J e w s w h e n h e says t h a t R a g u e l (Jethro) a c t u a l l y a d o p t e d M o s e s as his s o n (Ant. 2.263). T o s h o w t h e w a r m f e e l i n g t h a t e x i s t e d b e t w e e n f a t h e r - i n - l a w a n d son-in-law, J o s e p h u s e m p h a sizes t h e g l a d n e s s (da/xeVco?) w i t h w h i c h R a g u e l w e n t to m e e t M o s e s after t h e v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k a n d t h e j o y M o s e s felt at t h e visit (Ant. 3.63). I n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , J e t h r o b r i n g s b a c k his d a u g h t e r Z i p p o r a h a n d the c h i l d r e n to M o s e s after a t e m p o r a r y s e p a r a t i o n ; in J o s e p h u s , t h e f a m i l y h a d n e v e r b e e n p a r t e d (cf. E x o d . 4:20). For his p a r t , J e t h r o is d e p i c t e d as c o n c e r n e d n o t t o e m b a r r a s s M o s e s for his inefficient a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e ; o n l y w h e n all o t h e r s a r e g o n e d o e s h e dis c r e e d y a d v i s e M o s e s w h a t to d o (Ant. 3.67). T h e c h a r g e o f J e w i s h p r o v i n c i a l i s m a n d i n t o l e r a n c e w a s , w e m a y guess, n o t c o n f i n e d to t h e J e w - b a i t e r s . A s v a n U n n i k (1974, 259) h a s r e m a r k e d , the w o r d s o f Z a m b r i a s (Zimri) w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e v o i c e o f those J e w i s h
contemporaries
w h o o b j e c t e d t o t h e a n c e s t r a l r e l i g i o n as o b s c u r a n t i s t a n d t o o c o n f i n i n g , i n d e e d , as o p p o s i n g u n i v e r s a l o p i n i o n (Ant. 4 . 1 4 5 - 4 9 ) .
7 9
Z a m b r i a s ' s r e b e l l i o n is t h u s d i r e c t e d
n o t m e r e l y a g a i n s t M o s e s ' a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m b u t also a g a i n s t t h e refusal o f J u d a i s m to o p e n itself to o t h e r r e l i g i o u s v i e w s . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n will e x p l a i n w h y J o s e p h u s r e g a r d s his r e b e l l i o n as far g r a v e r t h a n t h a t o f K o r a h , i n a s m u c h as w h i l e t h e latter w a s d i r e c t e d m e r e l y a g a i n s t t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f M o s e s a n d A a r o n , t h e f o r m e r at t a c k e d t h e v e r y roots o f J u d a i s m (Ant. 4.140). G e n e r o s i t y a n d m a g n a n i m i t y (jieyaXoyvajfjioavvrj)
a r e a m o n g t h e k e y traits o f a
g r e a t m a n , as w e see in X e n o p h o n ' s b i o g r a p h y o f A g e s i l a u s (8.3-4).
Indeed,
w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y p r e s e n t s t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f c h a r g i n g interest o n l o a n s w i t h o u t g i v i n g a r e a s o n for it ( D e u t . 23:20), J o s e p h u s uses the o c c a s i o n to e x p l a i n the r e a s o n — n a m e l y , t h a t it is n o t j u s t to e x p l o i t the m i s f o r t u n e o f a fellow c o u n t r y m a n , a n d that, o n the c o n t r a r y o n e s h o u l d a n t i c i p a t e t h e g r a t i t u d e o f s u c h p e r sons a n d t h e r e w a r d t h a t G - d h a s in store for g e n e r o s i t y to t h e m (Ant. 4.266). W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t this g e n e r o s i t y w i t h r e s p e c t to l o a n s e x t e n d s o n l y to J e w s , the
79. Cf. Schian 1973. A c c o r d i n g to this view, to take exception to an opinion that is universally held is, ipso facto, to be completely wrong.
MOSES
419
fruit o f t h e field, a c c o r d i n g to t h e M o s a i c L a w , as i n t e r p r e t e d b y J o s e p h u s , is t o b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o all w a y f a r e r s , b o t h J e w s a n d n o n - J e w s alike (Ant. 4.234). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s says t h a t o n e s h o u l d e v e n invite o t h e r s , J e w s a n d G e n t i l e s , e n t r e a t i n g t h e m to a c c e p t as guests the b o u n t y t h a t G - d h a s g i v e n o n e , "for o n e m u s t n o t a c c o u n t as e x p e n d i t u r e t h a t w h i c h o u t o f liberality [xprjGTOTrjra] o n e lets m e n take, since G - d b e s t o w s this a b u n d a n c e o f g o o d things, n o t for o u r e n j o y m e n t a l o n e , b u t t h a t w e m a y also share t h e m g e n e r o u s l y w i t h o t h e r s ; a n d H e is d e s i r o u s t h a t b y these m e a n s t h e s p e c i a l favor t h a t H e b e a r s to the p e o p l e o f Is r a e l a n d t h e b o u n t y o f H i s gifts m a y b e m a n i f e s t e d t o o t h e r s a l s o " (Ant. 4 . 2 3 6 - 3 7 ) . I n fact, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e p r e s c r i b e s w h i p p i n g the g u i l t y w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g t h e offense i n v o l v e d ( D e u t . 25:3), J o s e p h u s a p p l i e s this p e n a l t y to t h e c a s e o f o n e w h o h a s v i o l a t e d p r e c i s e l y these l a w s p e r t a i n i n g to generosity, b e c a u s e , as h e a d d s , " b y e n s l a v e m e n t to l u c r e h e h a s o u t r a g e d his d i g n i t y " (Ant. 4 . 2 3 8 - 3 9 ) . A f t e r their afflic tions in E g y p t , h e r e m a r k s , J e w s s h o u l d take t h o u g h t o f t h o s e w h o a r e in a similar situation. W e see a n e x a m p l e o f M o s e s ' g a l l a n t r y t o w a r d o t h e r s in his r e s c u e o f t h e d a u g h t e r s o f J e t h r o f r o m ruffians (Ant. 2.258-63). H e r e t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t t h e s h e p h e r d s c a m e a n d d r o v e the d a u g h t e r s a w a y , b u t t h a t M o s e s h e l p e d t h e m a n d w a t e r e d their f l o c k ( E x o d . 2:17). J o s e p h u s v i g o r o u s l y e x p a n d s o n t h e c h a r i t y (evTTouav) o f this b e n e f i c e n t a c t (evepyeTrjOeiGou) a n d a d d s t h a t M o s e s d e e m e d it m o n s t r o u s (Setvov) to o v e r l o o k t h e injury to t h e y o u n g w o m e n a n d to a l l o w these m e n ' s v i o l e n c e to t r i u m p h o v e r their rights (Si/ccuou), a n d so h e b e a t o f f t h e a r r o g a n t i n t r u d e r s (Ant. 2 . 2 6 0 - 6 1 ) .
80
A k i n to t h e q u a l i t y o f g a l l a n t r y is t h a t o f h o s p i t a l
i t y W e see this trait in the w a r m g r e e t i n g g i v e n b y M o s e s to his f a t h e r - i n - l a w w h e n t h e latter visits h i m after t h e e n c o u n t e r w i t h the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 3.63). T h e B i b l e says t h a t J e t h r o offered sacrifices, a n d t h a t A a r o n a n d t h e p e o p l e j o i n e d h i m in t h e s a c r e d m e a l ( E x o d . 18:12); b u t n o t h i n g is said a b o u t a p u b l i c feast g i v e n b y M o s e s . I n J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o offers the sacrifices a n d m a k e s a feast for t h e p e o p l e . T o s h o w t h e r e s p e c t t h a t J e w s h a v e for non-Jews, J o s e p h u s h a s a n e x t e n d e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e b a n q u e t g i v e n b y M o s e s in h o n o r o f his father-in-law, w h e r e a n e c u m e n i c a l spirit prevails, w i t h A a r o n a n d his c o m p a n y b e i n g j o i n e d b y J e t h r o in c h a n t i n g h y m n s to G - d as the a u t h o r a n d d i s p e n s e r o f their s a l v a t i o n a n d their l i b e r t y (Ant. 3.64). C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e q u a l i t y o f i\avdpamia is t h a t o f s h o w i n g g r a t i t u d e . T h u s J e t h r o , in a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m p l i f i c a t i o n o n the B i b l e ( E x o d . 2:20), c o m p l i m e n t s M o s e s o n his sense o f g r a t i t u d e a n d o n his r e q u i t i n g o f favors (Ant. 2.262). F u r t h e r m o r e , M o s e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , s h o w s h o w to e x h i b i t g r a t i t u d e in
80. Philo also takes the opportunity to remark that M o s e s earned his tide " G - d ' s m a n " through his beneficence
22.128-29).
(evepyereiv),
w h i c h is the peculiar prerogative o f a g o d (De Mutatione Nominum
420
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h h e r e w a r d s t h e v a l i a n t soldiers after their v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k a n d e u l o g i z e s their g e n e r a l , J o s h u a (Ant. 3.59). Finally, i n his last s p e e c h to t h e p e o p l e , M o s e s , in a s u p p l e m e n t to t h e B i b l e ( D e u t . 32), r e n d e r s p e r s o n a l t h a n k s to G - d for t h e c a r e t h a t H e h a s b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e m , for t h e h e l p t h a t H e h a s g i v e n h i m in his struggles, a n d for the g r a c i o u s n e s s t h a t H e h a s s h o w n t o w a r d h i m (Ant. 4 . 3 1 5 - 1 6 ) . L i k e w i s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to tell t h e t r u t h . H e n c e , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s t o e x p l a i n i n s t a n c e s o f a p p a r e n t d e c e i t b y b i b l i c a l figures. I n t h e c a s e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s , in a n e d i t o r ial c o m m e n t , r e m a r k s t h a t h e i n n o w h i t s t r a y e d f r o m t h e t r u t h (Ant. 4.303); a n d w h e n e x h o r t i n g t h e Israelites j u s t b e f o r e his d e a t h , M o s e s r e m a r k s t h a t souls, w h e n o n t h e v e r g e o f d e a t h , d e l i v e r t h e m s e l v e s w i t h p e r f e c t integrity, t h a t is, t r u t h (Ant. 4.179). I n p a r t i c u l a r , J o s e p h u s c o m m e n d s M o s e s , as w e h a v e n o t e d , for n o t c l a i m i n g as his o w n t h e a d v i c e g i v e n t o h i m b y his f a t h e r - i n - l a w R a g u e l ( J e t h r o ) , this in o b v i o u s c o n t r a s t t o t h e G r e e k s , w i t h t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n for p l a g i a r i s m 3.73-74).
81
(Ant.
Similarly, e v e n t h o u g h M o s e s c o u l d h a v e a s c r i b e d B a l a a m ' s p r o
p h e c i e s t o himself, i n a s m u c h as t h e r e w a s n o w i t n e s s to c o n t r a d i c t h i m , h e w a s h o n e s t e n o u g h , says J o s e p h u s , to h a v e g i v e n c r e d i t for t h e m t o B a l a a m
(Ant.
4-I57-58).
O n e o f t h e i n c i d e n t s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a r to c o n t r a d i c t the Israelites' r e p u t a t i o n for honesty, a n d p r e s u m a b l y M o s e s ' r e p u t a t i o n for integrity, w a s M o s e s ' p e r m i t t i n g t h e Israelites to " b o r r o w " j e w e l r y a n d c l o t h i n g f r o m the E g y p t i a n s . A p a g a n writer, P o m p e i u s T r o g u s (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitoma 2 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) , w h o is g e n e r a l l y friendly t o t h e J e w s , states t h a t t h e J e w s c a r r i e d o f f b y stealth the s a c r e d vessels o f the E g y p t i a n s . O n e m i g h t w e l l a s s u m e t h a t the Israelites m u s t h a v e p r a c t i c e d d e c e i t in o r d e r to o b t a i n these objects, a l t h o u g h s u c h theft m i g h t
perhaps
h a v e b e e n justified in v i e w o f t h e w a y in w h i c h the Israelites h a d b e e n t r e a t e d b y t h e E g y p t i a n s for so l o n g .
8 2
I n o n e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , G - d tells M o s e s t h a t b e f o r e
l e a v i n g E g y p t , t h e Israelites a r e t o ask for j e w e l s a n d c l o t h i n g f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s , " a n d y e shall spoil t h e E g y p t i a n s " ( E x o d . 3 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) . B e f o r e t h e y a c t u a l l y d e p a r t f r o m E g y p t , G - d r e p e a t s similar instructions to M o s e s ( E x o d . 1 1 : 2 - 3 ) . O b v i o u s l y , the Israelites h a d n o i n t e n t i o n o f r e t u r n i n g these "gifts." J o s e p h u s resolves t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g all r e f e r e n c e to t h e first p a s s a g e ; a n d in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the s e c o n d , it is n o t t h e Israelites w h o a p p r o a c h the E g y p t i a n s b u t r a t h e r the E g y p tians t h e m s e l v e s w h o t a k e t h e initiative in h o n o r i n g the Israelites w i t h gifts, s o m e
81. Philo, apparently feeling that inclusion o f Jethro's visit to M o s e s and o f M o s e s ' acceptance o f his advice w o u l d detract from the authoritativeness o f Moses, omits this incident. 82. S o Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.25.141, and Jubilees 48:18. In Berakot 9b, the rabbis emphasize that the Israelites did not w a n t to " b o r r o w " from the Egyptians and were satisfied merely with regaining their freedom; but G - d insisted that they d o so in order to fulfill the promise that H e h a d m a d e to A b r a h a m that they w o u l d leave E g y p t with great substance (Gen. 15:13-14).
MOSES
421
to s p e e d their d e p a r t u r e , o t h e r s to s h o w their n e i g h b o r l y feelings t o w a r d o l d a c q u a i n t a n c e s (Ant. 2.314). T h e literate r e a d e r will r e c a l l t h a t P l a t o in his m a s t e r w o r k , the
Republic
( 4 . 4 4 3 C - 4 5 E ) , defines j u s t i c e , the v e r y subject o f t h e Republic, as a h a r m o n y o f t h e virtues o f w i s d o m , courage, a n d temperance. M o s e s , in an extrabiblical addition, e x h o r t s t h e Israelites b e f o r e his d e a t h to k e e p t h e o r d e r e d h a r m o n y (/coa/xov) o f t h e c o d e o f l a w s t h a t h e h a s g i v e n to the Israelites, so t h a t t h e y m a y b e a c c o u n t e d t h e m o s t f o r t u n a t e o f m e n (Ant. 4.193). I n d e e d , as J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n to his s u m m a r y o f t h e J e w i s h constitution, t h e a d m i r a b l e h a r m o n y
(opiovoiav)
a n d b e a u t i f u l c o n c o r d (<jvpL>ajvlav) t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e a r e d u e to t h e i r u n i t y o f c r e e d (Ag. Ap. 2.179).
Piety
I n his v e r y first m e n t i o n o f " t h e g r e a t l a w g i v e r , " J o s e p h u s states t h a t it w a s in p i e t y (evoefieiav)
a n d in the e x e r c i s e o f the o t h e r virtues (the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g that, in
t h e scales o f v a l u e , p i e t y b a l a n c e s all t h e o t h e r virtues c o m b i n e d ) t h a t t h e Israelites w e r e t r a i n e d u n d e r h i m (Ant. 1.6). A t the v e r y outset o f his w o r k , J o s e p h u s entreats his r e a d e r s t o fix their t h o u g h t s o n G - d a n d to test w h e t h e r M o s e s w a s w h a t w e might t e r m an o r t h o d o x theologian w h o h a d a w o r t h y conception o f His nature, w h o a s s i g n e d t o H i m s u c h a c t i o n s as befitted H i s p o w e r , a n d w h o k e p t his l a n g u a g e free o f the u n s e e m l y m y t h o l o g y f o u n d a m o n g o t h e r l a w g i v e r s , e v e n t h o u g h in d e a l i n g w i t h e v e n t s o f so l o n g a g o , h e w o u l d h a v e h a d a m p l e l i c e n s e to i n v e n t fictions (Ant. 1.15). T h e c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y is further s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s re m a r k t h a t o n c e M o s e s h a d w o n t h e i r o b e d i e n c e to t h e dictates o f p i e t y (ev crepe Lav), h e h a d n o further difficulty in p e r s u a d i n g t h e Israelites o f all t h e rest (Ant. 1.21). I n a n s w e r i n g t h e anti-Jewish attacks o f A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d t h e rest, w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h a t t h e l a w s o f the J e w s t a u g h t i m p i e t y (doefieiav)
(ap. Ag.
Ap. 2.291), J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e first q u a l i t y t h a t t h e M o s a i c c o d e is d e s i g n e d t o p r o m o t e is p i e t y (Ag. Ap. 2.146). H e stresses t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f p i e t y w h e n he declares that even Jewish w o m e n a n d children agree that piety must be the m o tive o f all t h e tasks i n o n e ' s life (Ag. Ap. 2.181). J o s e p h u s , in his p e r o r a t i o n at t h e e n d o f the essay Against Apion (2.293), e x c l a i m s , " W h a t g r e a t e r b e a u t y t h a n i n v i o l a b l e p i e t y ? " J o s e p h u s b a s i c a l l y redefines dperr) as evoefieia, t e g r a l p a r t o f dperrj,
w h i c h w a s , i n d e e d , a n in
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S t o i c s ( H o l l a d a y 1977, 98). I n t r u t h , it is
p i e t y ' s r e l a t e d virtues, m a g n a n i m i t y (pLeyaXoifjvxla), c o u r a g e (dvSpela), p a t i e n t e n d u r a n c e (Kaprepla),
a n d s a g a c i t y (ovveois),
so i m p o r t a n t in S t o i c i s m (Epictetus, ap.
A r r i a n , LHssertationes 1.6.28-29), t h a t b r i n g a b o u t t h o s e g r e a t d i v i d e n d s f r e e d o m f r o m p e r t u r b a t i o n a n d distress, so p r o m i n e n t in M o s e s ' story. T h a t M o s e s w a s f a m o u s for p i e t y m a y b e s e e n f r o m t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t h e Life of Claudius i n t h e Historia Augusta (25.2.4-5) t h a t t h e m o s t l e a r n e d a s t r o l o g e r s h a d a s s e r t e d t h a t 120 y e a r s w a s t h e l i m i t o f h u m a n life, b u t t h a t M o s e s a l o n e , " t h e
422
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
f r i e n d o f G - d , " h a d b e e n g i v e n 125 y e a r s ,
8 3
p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f his p i e t y
T h e m e n t i o n o f M o s e s ' n a m e w i t h o u t explanation here w o u l d s e e m to indicate t h a t t h e r e a d e r s o f this w o r k w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o k n o w w h o h e w a s ( G a g e r 1972,23). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f M o s e s
8 4
m a y b e s e e n in the
s t a t e m e n t , f o u n d e v e n b e f o r e the n a r r a t i v e o f his birth, t h a t G - d m a k e s t o M o s e s ' father, A m r a m , in a d r e a m — n a m e l y , t h a t h e r e m e m b e r e d their p i e t y (etWjSeiav) a n d c o n s e q u e n d y w o u l d g r a n t t h e m a r e w a r d , as H e h a d their forefathers
(Ant.
2.212). T h e r e w a r d , H e says, will b e the b i r t h o f a c h i l d w h o will d e l i v e r the Is raelites f r o m b o n d a g e . T h e s o u r c e o f M o s e s ' piety, in the b r o a d e s t sense, w a s u n d o u b t e d l y his u p b r i n g i n g as a priest in the p a l a c e o f P h a r a o h , w h o w a s r e g a r d e d as a g o d . T h e r e M o s e s w o u l d h a v e l e a r n e d the esoteric l o r e o f the E g y p t i a n s .
8 5
M o r e o v e r , h e h a d s o j o u r n e d w i t h J e t h r o , the priest o f M i d i a n , w h o s e d a u g h t e r Z i p p o r a h h e h a d m a r r i e d ; a n d h e h i m s e l f w a s a b r o t h e r o f A a r o n , the p r o g e n i t o r o f the h i g h priests a m o n g the Israelites. S e v e r a l w r i t e r s — M a n e t h o , P o m p e i u s T r a gus, S t r a b o , C h a e r e m o n , a n d e v e n the J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n A r t a p a n u s — d e s c r i b e h i m as a n E g y p t i a n priest; a n d the fact t h a t o n l y M a n e t h o a n d C h a e r e m o n in this list a r e anti-Jewish i n d i c a t e s t h a t in itself s u c h a s t a t e m e n t e v i d e n c e s n o a n i m o s i t y t o w a r d M o s e s . O n the c o n t r a r y the E g y p t i a n priests w e r e h e l d t o possess esoteric k n o w l e d g e ; a n d as h e stresses t h r o u g h o u t the s e c o n d b o o k o f his Histories, H e r o d o t u s , for e x a m p l e , w a s v e r y m u c h i m p r e s s e d b y t h e m . Josephus
8 6
h i g h l i g h t s the role o f M o s e s as a p r o p h e t , t w i c e i d e n t i f y i n g h i m as a
p r o p h e t w h e n the b i b l i c a l text d o e s n o t (Ant. 2.327 vs. E x o d . 14:13; Ant. 4.320 v s . D e u t . 33:1). A l t h o u g h h e r e a l i z e d t h a t t o r e c o u n t all o f the p l a g u e s m i g h t b e b o r ing to his r e a d e r s , h e n o n e t h e l e s s d o e s so in o r d e r to s h o w t h a t M o s e s e r r e d in n o n e o f his p r e d i c t i o n s (Ant. 2.293). B u t M o s e s ' true g r e a t n e s s as a p r o p h e t c o n sisted, as J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s us, in the fact t h a t w h e n e v e r h e s p o k e , it s e e m e d t h a t o n e h e a r d G - d H i m s e l f s p e a k i n g (Ant. 4.329). I n his final a d d r e s s t o the p e o p l e , w e are told, h e p r e d i c t e d future events, " i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h w h i c h all h a s c o m e a n d
83. See Stern 1974-84, 2:635, w h o notes that the figure o f 125 years is nowhere, other than here, given as the length of Moses' life; but according to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Testament of Ben jamin, 12.2; Testament of Asher, 1.1) Benjamin and Asher reached the age o f 125. T h i s age is also found a m o n g the examples of longevity listed by Pliny, Natural History 7.163-64. 84. Attridge 1976a, 116, n. 2, cites twelve major biblical characters w h o are said to possess this virtue but does not list Moses a m o n g them. Similarly, for Philo, piety is Moses' key virtue (De Praemiis et Poenis 9.53; De Vita Mosis 2.13.66). 85. Philo refers to Moses as a hierophant (Upo)dvTr)s), the technical term for the highest officer of the heathen mysteries and the revealer o f its sacred knowledge (De Specialibus Legibus 1.8.41, 2.32.201, 4.34.176; De Virtutibus 11.75, 3 74)- Philo also refers to him as high priest (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 38.130). T h e most essential quality required of a priest, as Philo notes, is piety; a n d this, he says, Moses possessed to a very high degree (De Vita Mosis 2.13.66). 86. See Feldman 1990. So also Philo, Legum Allegoriae 2.1.1. See Wolfson 1947, 2:16-20. 2A
MOSES
423
is c o m i n g t o pass, the seer h a v i n g in n o w h i t s t r a y e d f r o m t h e t r u t h " (Ant 4 . 3 2 9 ) .
87
J o s e p h u s a v e r s t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y M o s e s r e c o r d e d t h e blessings a n d curses o f t h e T o r a h w a s t h a t h e w i s h e d t o stress t h a t its t e a c h i n g s h o u l d n e v e r b e a b o l i s h e d b y t i m e (Ant 4.307). M o s e s ' c o n c e r n to g u a r d a g a i n s t t h e i m p i o u s p r e t e n s i o n s o f false p r o p h e t s m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t h e , in his piety, left to G - d , t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m o f t h e o r a c u l a r stones o n the h i g h priest's r o b e s , t h e s u p r e m e a u t h o r i t y w h e t h e r t o a t t e n d t h e s a c r e d rites o r to a b s e n t H i m s e l f f r o m t h e m (Ant 3.214). M o s e s ' p i e t y m a y b e s e e n in the a c c o u n t o f the b u r n i n g b u s h , w h e r e h e displays u n s h a k a b l e faith in G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (Ant 2.270-71). I n a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t ( E x o d . 5 a n d 7), h e s h o w s full c o n f i d e n c e in w a r n i n g P h a r a o h t h a t for t h o s e w h o o p p o s e G - d ' s c o m m a n d s dire c a l a m i t i e s arise f r o m all q u a r t e r s ; a n d n o p r o g e n y is b o r n to t h e m a c c o r d i n g t o n a t u r e ' s laws. L i k e w i s e , b e f o r e c r o s s i n g t h e S e a o f R e e d s , M o s e s , in e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k s , e x h o r t s t h e Israelites, r e m i n d i n g t h e m t h a t G - d h a s fulfilled far b e y o n d their e x p e c t a t i o n s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t H e h a s p r o m i s e d a n d t h a t H e l e n d s H i s a i d e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e H e sees t h a t m e n h a v e lost all h o p e o f i m p r o v i n g their lot (Ant 2.330-33). F u r t h e r m o r e , in a s p e e c h t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in t h e B i b l e , M o s e s r e m i n d s t h e Israelites o f G - d ' s p a s t m i r a c l e s a n d lists t h e re w a r d s t h a t w i l l a c c r u e to t h e m i f t h e y follow the C o m m a n d m e n t s (Ant 2 . 3 3 1 - 3 3 ) . M o s e s ' p i e t y m a y also b e s e e n in t h e i n c i d e n t w h e n h e sends spies to t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n . I n t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d o n l y t h a t M o s e s sends t h e m to spy o u t t h e l a n d ( N u m . 13:17). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s , in his s p e e c h to the entire p e o p l e , e x h o r t s t h e m to b e o f o n e m i n d a n d to h o l d G - d , " w h o is e v e r o u r h e l p e r a n d ally," in l a s t i n g h o n o r (Ant 3.302). W h e n M o s e s a p p e a l s to G - d to i n t e r v e n e against the rebellious K o r a h , h e asks H i m to p r o v e t h a t all is d i r e c t e d b y p r o v i d e n c e (npovoia, a k e y S t o i c w o r d ) , t h a t n o t h i n g h a p p e n s b y a c c i d e n t (avropbdrajs,
a k e y E p i c u r e a n w o r d ) , b u t that it is G - d ' s will
t h a t overrules a n d b r i n g s e v e r y t h i n g to its e n d (Ant 4.47). B e f o r e his d e a t h , M o s e s , in a m i g h t y profession o f faith, d e c l a r e s t h a t there is for all m a n k i n d b u t o n e s o u r c e o f felicity, a g r a c i o u s G - d (Ant 4.180). H e looks u p o n himself, as w e h a v e n o t e d , as m e r e l y G - d ' s s u b a l t e r n (viroarparriycp)
a n d s u b o r d i n a t e minister (vTr-qpirrj) o f the
b e n e f a c t i o n s t h a t G - d h a s d e i g n e d to c o n f e r u p o n the Israelites (Ant 4.317). W e a r e told t h a t h a v i n g first p e r s u a d e d h i m s e l f that G - d ' s will g o v e r n e d all his actions a n d t h o u g h t s , h e r e g a r d e d it as his p r i m a r y d u t y to impress t h a t i d e a u p o n his p e o p l e (Ag. Ap. 2.160). W i t h a n attitude s u c h as this, it is n o t surprising t h a t M o s e s l o o k e d u p o n G - d as his g u i d e a n d c o u n s e l o r (rjyepiova Kal ovpLfioyXov) (Ag. Ap. 2.160). T h a t M o s e s w a s t h e m o s t successful legislator in history, m o r e so t h a n M i n o s o r a n y o f t h e o t h e r s , is s i g n i f i c a n d y c o n n e c t e d b y J o s e p h u s w i t h his a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e
87. T h i s statement, that M o s e s ' final song contains a prediction o f events to c o m e , agrees with rab
binic tradition; see Sifre Deuteronomy 307-33, Midrash Tannaim 192-204, and Yerushalmi T a r g u m i m ad l o c , cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:155, n. 920.
424
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
truest c o n c e p t i o n o f G - d (Ag. Ap. 2.163). I n d e e d , the J e w i s h f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t instituted b y M o s e s is u n i q u e in b e i n g a " t h e o c r a c y " (Ag Ap. 2.165), a t e r m a p p a r e n d y i n v e n t e d b y J o s e p h u s to i n d i c a t e t h a t M o s e s p l a c e d all s o v e r e i g n t y a n d a u t h o r i t y in the h a n d s o f G - d . J o s e p h u s stresses the effectiveness o f M o s e s in u n d e r l i n i n g the c o n c e p t o f m o n o t h e i s m b y n o t i n g the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f his i n j u n c t i o n t h a t the o n e G - d s h o u l d h a v e o n e h o l y city a n d o n e h o l y t e m p l e (Ant. 4.200).
88
(dperrjs),
M o s e s , says J o s e p h u s , t r u l y d i d n o t m a k e p i e t y (evoefleia)
a part o f virtue
b u t r a t h e r m a d e the v a r i o u s v i r t u e s d e p a r t m e n t s o f piety, so t h a t p i e t y
g o v e r n s all t h e a c t i o n s , o c c u p a t i o n s , a n d s p e e c h o f the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 2.170). T h a t h o m a g e t o G - d c o m e s a h e a d e v e n o f p e r s o n a l loss is M o s e s ' p o i n t in r e q u i r i n g A a r o n , b e c a u s e o f his s a n c t i t y as h i g h priest, t o refrain f r o m
any
t h o u g h t s o f g r i e f u p o n t h e loss o f his t w o sons (Ant. 3.211). M o s e s h i m s e l f l i k e w i s e , w e a r e t o l d , in his h u m i l i t y d e v o t e d h i m s e l f s o l e l y t o t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d , declining e v e r y h o n o r that the p e o p l e w e r e ready to confer u p o n h i m
(Ant.
3.212). O n e o f the m o s t e m b a r r a s s i n g b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s w i t h r e g a r d t o M o s e s tells o f G - d ' s a t t e m p t to kill h i m , a p p a r e n d y b e c a u s e h e h a d n e g l e c t e d to c i r c u m c i s e his sons ( E x o d . 4 I 2 4 ) .
89
It is t h e n t h a t his wife Z i p p o r a h literally saves his life b y cir
c u m c i s i n g t h e m . It m u s t h a v e t r o u b l e d J o s e p h u s a n d surely w o u l d h a v e a m a z e d his r e a d e r s t h a t M o s e s , the g r e a t e s t J e w w h o e v e r l i v e d a n d G - d ' s c h o s e n m e s s e n g e r t o d e l i v e r H i s law, s h o u l d h a v e b e e n so i m p i o u s as to d i s o b e y so f u n d a m e n t a l a p r e c e p t . H e n c e , h e r e as in so m a n y o t h e r a p p a r e n d y e m b a r r a s s i n g instances, J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y s i m p l y o m i t t i n g the i n c i d e n t a l t o g e t h e r
(Ant.
2.279). A n o t h e r e m b a r r a s s i n g detail is the s k e p t i c i s m e x p r e s s e d b y M o s e s w h e n G - d p r o m i s e s t h a t H e w i l l s u p p l y the Israelites w i t h m e a t . I n the B i b l e , M o s e s r e m i n d s G - d t h a t t h e r e are 600,000 a d u l t m e n to b e fed a n d w o n d e r s w h e t h e r t h e r e will b e sufficient m e a t a n d fish ( N u m . 1 1 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) . J o s e p h u s o b v i o u s l y c o u l d n o t i m a g i n e a skeptical M o s e s (Ant. 3.298). For h i m , M o s e s is the s u p r e m e m a n o f faith, a n d so it is he, r a t h e r t h a n G - d , a n d w i t h o u t p r o m p t i n g f r o m G - d , w h o p r o m i s e s m e a t t o his p e o p l e . M o r e o v e r , h e p o r t r a y s the Israelites, r a t h e r t h a n M o s e s , as l a c k i n g faith a n d m e n t i o n s a n a m e l e s s " s o m e o n e "
(TWOS)
as a s k i n g w h e n c e M o s e s c o u l d
g e t sufficient f o o d for so m a n y t h o u s a n d s o f p e o p l e .
9 0
88. S o also Philo: " H e [Moses] provided that there should not be temples built either in m a n y places or m a n y in the same place, for he j u d g e d that since G - d is one, there should be also only one temple" (De Specialibus Legibus 1.12.67). 89. T h e r e is a rabbinic tradition that the reason w h y they were uncircumcised was that M o s e s ' fa ther-in-law, Jethro, h a d stipulated, w h e n he consented to the marriage o f his daughter to Moses, that the first son o f their union should be brought up as a Gentile. See G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 2:328. 90. R a b b i n i c tradition (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 3:319-20) looked upon M o s e s ' hitting the rock in stead o f speaking to it to bring forth water (Num. 20:2-12) as his greatest sin, since it showed apparent lack o f faith. It is because o f this sin that M o s e s w a s told by G - d that he w o u l d not be permitted to enter the land o f Israel. T h i s tradition is not to be found in Josephus (Ant. 4.85).
MOSES
425
T h a t Jews, moreover, are not guilty o f slighting even the divinity w h o m n o n J e w s profess t o v e n e r a t e is p r o v e d , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , b y t h e s y m b o l i s m o f t h e t a b e r n a c l e a n d its vessels a n d b y t h e v e s t m e n t s o f the priests, e v e r y o n e o f w h i c h is i n t e n d e d t o r e c a l l a n d r e p r e s e n t t h e u n i v e r s e (Ant. 3 . 1 7 9 - 8 7 ) . T h e fact that, after d i s c u s s i n g this s y m b o l i s m at s o m e l e n g t h , J o s e p h u s says t h a t this w i l l suffice for t h e m o m e n t , since his subject w i l l afford h i m f r e q u e n t a n d a m p l e o c c a s i o n t o dis c o u r s e u p o n t h e m e r i t (dper^v) o f t h e l a w g i v e r (Ant. 3.187), i m p l i e s t h a t the i t e m s in t h e t a b e r n a c l e a n d t h e v e s t m e n t s w e r e M o s e s ' c r e a t i o n s a n d t h a t their s y m b o l i s m w a s l i k e w i s e his.
THE ROLE OF G - D J o s e p h u s ' s d e e m p h a s i s o n G - d m a y b e s e e n i n a n u m b e r o f p a s s a g e s . A n d y e t his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e role o f G - d vis-a-vis M o s e s w o u l d s e e m to c o n t r a d i c t this t e n d e n c y t o d e e m p h a s i z e the D i v i n e . T h u s , a l m o s t at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f t h e story o f M o s e s , w e a r e t o l d t h e m o r a l — n a m e l y , t h a t n o m a n c a n defeat t h e w i l l o f G - d , w h a t e v e r c o u n d e s s d e v i c e s h e m a y c o n t r i v e to t h a t e n d , the p r o o f b e i n g that, d e spite all t h e p r e c a u t i o n s t a k e n b y P h a r a o h , t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f his s a c r e d s c r i b e t h a t a c h i l d w o u l d b e b o r n t o t h e Israelites w h o w o u l d a b a s e E g y p t i a n s o v e r e i g n l y t u r n e d o u t to b e t r u e (Ant. 2.209). J o s e p h u s ' s literate G r a e c o - R o m a n
audience
w o u l d , m o r e o v e r , r e a d i l y h a v e r e c o g n i z e d M o s e s ' role as f o u n d e r o f his n a t i o n as c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l i n g t h a t o f R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s ( a m o n g others), w h o l i k e w i s e w e r e e x p o s e d at b i r t h , a n d y e t m a n a g e d to s u r v i v e a n d b e c o m e t h e f o u n d e r s o f t h e R o m a n n a t i o n . T h e fact, t h e n , t h a t A m r a m d e c i d e s to e n t r u s t his child's fate to d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e (Ant. 2.219) m a k e s M o s e s p a r a l l e l to these d i s t i n g u i s h e d fathers o f t h e R o m a n s .
fore
9 1
H o w e v e r , o n c e M o s e s is b o r n , the e m p h a s i s is o n his role r a t h e r t h a n o n G - d ' s i n a c h i e v i n g f r e e d o m for t h e Israelites f r o m E g y p t i a n b o n d a g e .
9 2
Whereas, ac
c o r d i n g to t h e b i b l i c a l text, as n o t e d , it is G - d w h o l e d the Israelites b y t h e l o n g r o u t e t h r o u g h t h e S i n a i d e s e r t r a t h e r t h a n b y t h e short r o u t e t h r o u g h t h e l a n d o f t h e Philistines ( E x o d . 13:17), in J o s e p h u s , the s p o d i g h t is n o t o n G - d b u t o n M o s e s , w h o d e t e r m i n e s t h e line o f m a r c h (Ant. 2.322). J o s e p h u s h a s i n t r o d u c e d s u b d e differences t h a t e n h a n c e t h e role o f M o s e s in his
91. It is instructive to c o m p a r e Josephus's c o m m e n t s (Ant. 2.222-23) with those o f the rabbinic tra dition (Sotah 12b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.24) on the scene in w h i c h M o s e s is exposed in the river in a basket. In the latter, w e have a scenario in w h i c h the angels ask G - d h o w H e c a n permit M o s e s to die w h e n he is destined to sing a song o f praise to H i m after the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds. Josephus w o u l d have found a scene with angels difficult to m a k e credible to his sophisticated audience. W h a t w e have is Josephus's editorial c o m m e n t that via the rescue o f Moses, G - d showed that h u m a n intelli gence is o f n o w o r t h in the face o f the divine will. 92. Contrast Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 9.7), w h o , in citing the predictions o f M o s e s ' birth, enumerates the signs that G - d will perform through him, with Josephus, w h o puts the stress on M o s e s as the de liverer o f the Israelites.
426
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
h a n d l i n g o f the m u r m u r i n g o f the p e o p l e in the desert. I n the B i b l e , the Israelites in the desert c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t M o s e s a n d A a r o n b e c a u s e t h e y l a c k f o o d ( E x o d . 1 6 : 1 - 1 3 ) , w h e r e u p o n G - d p r o m i s e s M o s e s t h a t h e will r a i n b r e a d u p o n the p e o p l e ( E x o d . 16:4). M o s e s t h e n tells the p e o p l e t h a t G - d will g i v e t h e m flesh a n d b r e a d to eat. G - d t h e r e u p o n reassures M o s e s t h a t H e will s e n d the p e o p l e flesh a n d b r e a d ; a n d in the e v e n i n g , q u a i l s c o v e r the c a m p , a n d in the m o r n i n g , t h e r e is m a n n a o n the g r o u n d ( E x o d . 16:13). I n J o s e p h u s , after the p e o p l e c o m p l a i n , it is M o s e s w h o takes the initiative in a p p r o a c h i n g G - d w i t h s u p p l i c a t i o n , w h e r e u p o n G - d p r o m i s e s to relieve their h u n g e r (Ant. 3.23-24). M o s e s t h e n r e p o r t s this to the m u l t i t u d e , a n d n o t l o n g afterwards, a flock o f quails a p p e a r s , f o l l o w e d b y the manna. J o s e p h u s shifts the focus f r o m G - d t o M o s e s in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the gifts t h a t the Israelites g i v e for the t a b e r n a c l e in the w i l d e r n e s s . I n the B i b l e , the Israelites b r i n g their gifts w i t h g l a d n e s s o f h e a r t t o w a r d G - d ( E x o d . 25:2 a n d 35:5), w h e r e a s their r e j o i c i n g is f o c u s e d o n M o s e s , their g e n e r a l , in Josephus,(Ant. 3.102). A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t the a r c h i t e c t u r a l skills o f B e z a l e l a r e d u e to the d i v i n e spirit ( E x o d . 31:3), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o sets architects o v e r the p r o j e c t (Ant. 3.104). J o s e p h u s d i m i n i s h e s the s u p e r n a t u r a l e l e m e n t in the c h o i c e o f the a r c h i tects b y s a y i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e y w e r e s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to d i v i n e c o m m a n d , the s a m e c h o i c e w o u l d also h a v e b e e n m a d e b y the p e o p l e (so also
Berakot^a).
A difficult p a s s a g e t h e o l o g i c a l l y is the o n e in w h i c h , after the Israelites a c c e p t the m a j o r i t y r e p o r t o f the spies w h o h a d b e e n sent into C a n a a n , G - d i n d i g n a n d y tells M o s e s t h a t H e will inflict a p e s t i l e n c e u p o n t h e m a n d t h a t H e will thereafter c r e a t e a g r e a t e r a n d m i g h t i e r n a t i o n o u t o f h i m ( N u m . 14:12). M o s e s ' a n s w e r s e e m s to p u t G - d in H i s p l a c e , since h e says t h a t w h e n the E g y p t i a n s h e a r o f this, t h e y will say t h a t the r e a s o n w h y G - d killed the p e o p l e w a s t h a t H e l a c k e d the p o w e r to b r i n g t h e m into their l a n d . G - d is t h e n p e r s u a d e d b y M o s e s ' a r g u m e n t . T o say the least, this s e e m s to reflect b a d l y o n G - d a n d a p p e a r s to i n d i c a t e t h a t M o s e s is m o r e m e r c i f u l t h a n H e . J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n t l y a w a r e o f the t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m , s i m p l y o m i t s the w h o l e p a s s a g e . A t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m arises w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s t h a t the T o r a h , said to h a v e b e e n g i v e n b y G - d , s e e m s to c o n t r a d i c t itself. T h e a c c o u n t in E x o d u s (37:1-9) states t h a t B e z a l e l m a d e the ark o f the c o v e n a n t , w h e r e a s the v e r s i o n in D e u t e r o n o m y (10:1-5) i n d i c a t e s t h a t M o s e s m a d e it. E v e n if w e a t t e m p t to r e c o n c i l e the t w o v e r s i o n s b y asserting t h a t M o s e s c o u l d b e c r e d i t e d w i t h m a k i n g t h a t w h i c h a n as sistant c o m p l e t e d , w e a r e still c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n o t h e r c o n t r a d i c t i o n , in t h a t in E x o d u s , B e z a l e l m a d e the a r k after M o s e s ' s e c o n d d e s c e n t f r o m S i n a i ( E x o d . 34:29), w h e r e a s D e u t e r o n o m y (10:3) i n d i c a t e s that M o s e s m a d e it b e f o r e his as c e n t . J o s e p h u s (Ant. 3 . 1 3 4 - 3 8 ) , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the p r o b l e m , skillfully sidesteps it b y s i m p l y n o t m e n t i o n i n g w h o built the ark. T o b e sure, J o s e p h u s s e e m s to p u t i n c r e a s e d e m p h a s i s u p o n G - d in the inci d e n t w i t h K o r a h , D a t h a n , a n d A b i r a m . I n the B i b l e , M o s e s tells the rebels t h a t i f t h e y d i e a c o m m o n d e a t h , it will b e a sign t h a t G - d h a d n o t sent h i m ( N u m .
MOSES
427
16:29). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , M o s e s is a m o r e a c t i v e leader, n o t m e r e l y a passive r e c i p i e n t o f m i r a c l e s , in t h a t h e talks d i r e c d y to G - d , c h a l l e n g i n g H i m t o p r o v e , b y inflicting u p o n the rebels a n u n u s u a l d e a t h , t h a t n o t h i n g h a p p e n s b y c h a n c e (avTOfjidrcxJs) (Ant. 4 . 4 7 - 4 8 ) . I n d e e d , it is h e w h o suggests to G - d the i n g e n i o u s i d e a o f c a u s i n g a n e a r t h q u a k e t o s w a l l o w u p K o r a h a n d his c o m p a n y j u s t as h e h a d s u g g e s t e d to G - d the m a n n e r o f the m i r a c l e o f m a k i n g the S e a o f R e e d s into d r y l a n d (Ant. 2.337). T h e n e t result o f this c h a n g e is n o t so m u c h to e l e v a t e the role o f G - d as to raise the status o f M o s e s . M o r e o v e r , the use o f the k e y w o r d
avro/jbdrajs,
a s t a n d a r d t e r m in E p i c u r e a n i s m , w h i c h is also f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s (Ant. 2.347) a n d o f D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y (Ant. 10.277-78), is J o s e p h u s ' s w a y o f a n s w e r i n g the E p i c u r e a n s a n d o f reasserting his a g r e e m e n t w i t h the S t o i c s , w h o , it w i l l b e r e c a l l e d , are c o m p a r e d w i t h the P h a r i s e e s (Life 12), in insisting o n the w o r k i n g o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e in all e v e n t s (see M a c R a e 1 9 6 5 , 139, a n d A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 98). G - d ' s role in the n a r r a t i v e w o u l d a p p e a r to b e m o r e i m p o r t a n t in the p a s s a g e , w i t h n o b i b l i c a l e q u i v a l e n t , in w h i c h , b e f o r e e n g a g i n g in b a t d e w i t h the A m o r i t e s , M o s e s i n q u i r e s o f G - d w h e t h e r H e a u t h o r i z e s h i m to fight (Ant. 4 . 8 7 - 8 8 ) . H e r e a g a i n , h o w e v e r , it is n o t G - d ' s role t h a t is m a g n i f i e d b u t r a t h e r M o s e s ' , in t h a t h e is s h o w n t o h a v e s u c h a close r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G - d t h a t h e consults H i m at c r u cial m o m e n t s . A g r e a t l e a d e r w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to e n j o y s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d to s h o w his l e a d e r s h i p b y n o t e n g a g i n g l i g h d y in s u c h a m a j o r u n d e r t a k i n g w i t h out piously consulting G - d . Similarly, w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o tells M o s e s to h a v e the Israelites b r i n g staffs for e a c h o f the t w e l v e tribes a n d w r i t e A a r o n ' s n a m e o n the staff o f L e v i , so t h a t H e m a y d e m o n s t r a t e w h o m H e c h o o s e s to b e his h i g h priest t h r o u g h the staff t h a t sprouts ( N u m . 1 7 : 1 6 - 2 0 ) , in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o , t o q u e l l t h e rebels, takes t h e initiative in m e r e l y d i r e c t i n g the tribal chiefs to b r i n g their staffs so as to s h o w w h o m G - d favors (Ant. 4 . 6 3 - 6 4 ) , the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t the p l a n w a s a n e a s y o n e for M o s e s to devise. A g a i n , J o s e p h u s p l a c e s the e m p h a s i s o n M o s e s r a t h e r t h a n o n G - d in his h a n d l i n g o f the i n c i d e n t o f the a p o s t a s y o f Z a m b r i a s a n d the h a r l o t r y o f the Israelite m e n w i t h t h e M o a b i t e w o m e n (Ant. 4 . 1 4 1 - 4 4 ) . I n the B i b l e , G - d in fierce a n g e r tells M o s e s to t a k e the chiefs o f the p e o p l e a n d to h a n g t h e m p u b l i c l y ( N u m . 25:4). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s takes the initiative a w a y f r o m G - d a n d s h o w s m u c h m o r e p a t i e n c e a n d d i p l o m a c y in c o n v e n i n g a n a s s e m b l y o f the p e o p l e a n d in u r g i n g t h e m , after their s o b r i e t y in the desert, n o t to relapse n o w in their prosperity. W e c a n see the c a r e w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s a p p r o a c h e s the subject o f m i r a c l e s in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the b u r n i n g b u s h . T h e B i b l e states t h a t a n a n g e l o f the L - r d a p p e a r e d to M o s e s in a f l a m e o f fire o u t o f the m i d s t o f a t h o r n b u s h ( E x o d . 3:2). J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e s t h a t his skeptical, l a r g e l y p a g a n , a u d i e n c e w o u l d h a v e difficulty a c c e p t i n g the i d e a t h a t a n a n g e l a p p e a r e d in s u c h a m a n n e r a n d m i g h t e v e n r i d i c u l e t h e i n c i d e n t . H e therefore a t t e m p t s to p r e p a r e r e a d e r s for the i n c i d e n t b y a d m i t t i n g t h a t it w a s a n a m a z i n g p r o d i g y (Ant. 2.265). H e t h e n c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the role
428
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o f the a n g e l , w h i l e d e s c r i b i n g in m o r e e x a c t detail the a p p e a r a n c e o f the b l a z i n g bush. It is c l e a r t h a t J o s e p h u s is w e l l a w a r e o f the fact t h a t p e o p l e g e n e r a l l y are n o t c o n v i n c e d b y r e p o r t s o f m i r a c l e s . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t A a r o n p e r f o r m e d the signs b e f o r e t h e eyes o f t h e p e o p l e a n d t h a t t h e p e o p l e b e l i e v e d h i m ( E x o d . 4 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) , in J o s e p h u s , as n o t e d , it is M o s e s , r a t h e r t h a n A a r o n , w h o p e r f o r m s the m i r a c l e s (Ant. 2.280); a n d t o u n d e r s c o r e his a c h i e v e m e n t , J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t M o s e s at first failed t o c o n v i n c e t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d o f the Israelites b y a m e r e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m i r a c l e s , w h e r e u p o n h e p e r f o r m e d t h e m b e f o r e their v e r y eyes. A n t i c i p a t i n g t h a t his a u d i e n c e w o u l d h a v e difficulty b e l i e v i n g these m i r acles, h e n o t e s t h a t the l e a d e r s w e r e a m a z e d at this a s t o n i s h i n g s p e c t a c l e . It w o u l d s e e m t o b e significant t h a t n o w h e r e in t h e treatise Against Apion d o e s J o s e p h u s refer to M o s e s ' ability t o p e r f o r m m i r a c l e s , o b v i o u s l y p r e f e r r i n g t h a t h e b e k n o w n s i m p l y o r p r i m a r i l y as a g r e a t leader, l a w g i v e r , a n d g e n e r a l (so Ag Ap. 2.158) (see T i e d e 1972, 2 1 1 ) .
93
T h e a n c i e n t w o r l d w a s a p p a r e n d y r e a d y to a c c e p t M o s e s as a m a g i c i a n , as w e c a n see, for e x a m p l e , f r o m the s t a t e m e n t o f P o m p e i u s T r o g u s (ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae 36, Epitoma 2.7), in the first c e n t u r y C.E., t h a t J o s e p h h a d m a s t e r e d the arts o f m a g i c a n d t h a t M o s e s , w h o m h e d e s c r i b e s as J o s e p h ' s son, h a d i n h e r i t e d his father's k n o w l e d g e . L a t e r in the first c e n t u r y P l i n y t h e E l d e r (Natural
History
30.2.11) m e n t i o n s t h a t o n e b r a n c h o f m a g i c is d e r i v e d f r o m M o s e s , J a n n e s , L o t a p e s , a n d the J e w s . L i k e w i s e , in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y w h e n A p u l e i u s (Apology 90) e n u m e r a t e s a n u m b e r o f w e l l - k n o w n m a g i c i a n s , h e speaks o f " M o s e s , w h o m y o u know."
9 4
J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e b e e n t r o u b l e d , h o w e v e r , b y the fact t h a t in t h e b i b l i c a l e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n M o s e s a n d the E g y p t i a n m a g i c i a n s , the E g y p t i a n s c o m e o f f as h a r d l y s i m p l e t o n s a n d are also a b l e t o p e r f o r m feats o f m a g i c c o m p a r a b l e to those o f M o s e s (Ant. 2.284-87); i n d e e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n to E x o d . 7:12, h e h a s M o s e s m a g n a n i m o u s l y a c k n o w l e d g e their c u n n i n g (Ant. 2.286). H o w e v e r , in the
93. A s T i e d e 1972, 237, further remarks, this is in direct contrast to Artapanus, w h o makes M o s e s ' role as a miracle worker central in his account. 94. It is possible that Apuleius, w h o b y his o w n admission (Apology 91) took these names from very famous writers (one w o u l d guess that one o f these w a s Pliny the Elder, w h o has the names o f six o f the eight magicians mentioned by Apuleius) in public libraries, is simply trying to impress his audience with his erudition; but it is more likely that the phrase " w h o m y o u k n o w " is to be taken at face value, since it applies only to Moses. In the second century C.E., N u m e n i u s (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.8) presents a well-disposed a n d more accurate version, stating that Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes w h o are mentioned in the Damascus Covenant (£addokite Fragments, lines 17 ff.), in the N e w Testament (2 T i m . 3:8), and in rabbinic literature (Targum J o n a t h a n on N u m . 22:22; Talqut Exodus 16.8,171; Tanhuma Ki Tissa 19), and w h o were said to be inferior to none in magic, were chosen by the Egyptian people to stand up to Musaeus, the Jewish leader, "a m a n w h o w a s most powerful in prayer to G - d , " and that they were able to avert even the most violent disasters that M u s a e u s attempted to inflict u p o n the E g y p tians. O n M o s e s ' reputation as a magician, see G a g e r 1972, 134-61.
MOSES
429
first p l a c e , it is n o t A a r o n ' s r o d b u t M o s e s ' t h a t effects t h e feats o f m a g i c ; a n d t h e c o n t e s t , i n fact, b e c o m e s o n e b e t w e e n h u m a n t r i c k e r y a n d d i v i n e p o w e r . J o s e p h u s is c a r e f u l t o r e m a r k t h a t in t h e c o n t e s t b e t w e e n M o s e s a n d the E g y p t i a n m a g i c i a n s , t h e E g y p t i a n r o d s o n l y " l o o k e d like p y t h o n s " (Ant. 2.287). M o r e o v e r , r e a l i z i n g t h a t t h e ability o f t h e E g y p t i a n s to d u p l i c a t e the feat o f t u r n i n g t h e N i l e i n t o b l o o d ( E x o d . 7:22) d e t r a c t e d f r o m t h e m i r a c u l o u s n a t u r e o f t h e p l a g u e , J o s e p h u s s
o m i t s this n o t i c e a l t o g e t h e r (Ant. 2.295). I* * M o s e s himself, in a p e r s o n a l a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f s u p e r n a t i o n a l n a t u r e o f t h e m i r a c l e s , w h o p e r f o r m s t h e feats, s e e k i n g t h e r e b y t o s h o w t h a t t h e m i r a c l e s p r o c e e d e d f r o m d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e (irpovotav) a n d p o w e r (hvvapuv) (Ant. 2.286). M o s e s ' a i m is n o less t h a n to m a k e P h a r a o h u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e is d e a l i n g , n o t m e r e l y w i t h a n o t h e r m a g i c i a n w h o rivals t h e Egyptians, but with a representative o f G - d . A p p a r e n d y M o s e s k n e w w h e r e o f he spoke. T o b e sure, J o s e p h u s , in r e c o u n t i n g t h e p l a g u e s , d o e s n o t m e n t i o n M o s e s a n d his r o d as t h e a g e n t s o f t h e p l a g u e s b u t r a t h e r h a s G - d p e r f o r m t h e m d i r e c d y ; b u t this is in o r d e r t o a v o i d m a k i n g M o s e s a p p e a r to b e a m e r e m a g i c i a n (so T i e d e (1972, 2 2 1 - 2 2 ) . T h e fact t h a t P h a r a o h refuses to u n d e r s t a n d t h e i m p o r t o f t h e p l a g u e s , c o m m a n d e d as t h e y are, in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , b y G - d H i m s e l f (Ant. 2.302, 309), t h u s p u t s t h e b l a m e s q u a r e l y o n P h a r a o h ' s s h o u l d e r s . J o s e p h u s a p o l o g i z e s for r e c o u n t i n g t h e p l a g u e s , w h i c h h e a p p a r e n d y t h o u g h t w o u l d b o r e his r e a d e r s , b y stating t h a t h e is d o i n g so, first, b e c a u s e n o n a t i o n h a d e v e r b e f o r e e x p e r i e n c e d p l a g u e s o f this m a g n i t u d e ; secondly, b e c a u s e h e is s e e k i n g to s h o w t h a t M o s e s w a s n o t m i s t a k e n in a n y o f his p r e d i c t i o n s w h e n h e forecast e a c h o f t h e p l a g u e s ; a n d , thirdly, b e c a u s e h e w a n t s m a n k i n d to r e a l i z e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f o f f e n d i n g G - d (Ant. 2.293). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t cite as a r e a s o n t h a t these p l a g u e s w e r e i n t e n d e d to s h o w the p o w e r o f M o s e s in b r i n g i n g t h e m d o w n o n t h e E g y p tians, since h e c l e a r l y w a n t s to d i v o r c e M o s e s as m u c h as p o s s i b l e f r o m t h e i m a g e o f a m a g i c i a n , i n a s m u c h as this k i n d o f j u g g l e r y (Ant. 2.320, yorjreiav) w a s s n e e r e d at b y t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d p r e s u m a b l y b y the R o m a n s . T h e m i r a c l e at t h e S e a o f R e e d s , surely t h e m o s t s p e c t a c u l a r o f all the m i r a c l e s p e r f o r m e d b y G - d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e x o d u s , serves, in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n ,
9 5
to h e i g h t e n t h e a c h i e v e m e n t n o t m e r e l y o f G - d b u t also o f M o s e s . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , M o s e s a d d r e s s e s the p e o p l e , u r g i n g t h e m to h a v e c o n f i d e n c e in G - d ( E x o d . 1 4 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , in J o s e p h u s , h e a d d r e s s e s G - d d i r e c d y g i v i n g e x p r e s s i o n to his s u p r e m e faith in H i m , in H i s p r o v i d e n c e (Trpovota), a n d in his m i g h t (Ant. 2 . 3 3 4 - 3 6 ) . T h e m i r a c l e itself is t h e n h e i g h t e n e d b y t h e d r a m a t i c fact t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s a c t u a l l y see t h e Israelites a d v a n c i n g i n t o the s e a a n d d e e m t h e m m a d for r u s h i n g to a c e r tain d e a t h a n d t h e r e u p o n s p e e d to p u r s u e t h e m (Ant. 2.340), litde d r e a m i n g t h a t t h e S e a o f R e e d s w a s r e s e r v e d for t h e H e b r e w s a n d w a s n o p u b l i c h i g h w a y (Ant.
95. Jacobson 1983, 37-38, notes a number of parallels in the account of the miracle of crossing the Sea of Reeds between Ezekiel the Tragedian and Josephus.
430
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
2.342). T h e m i r a c l e itself, h o w e v e r , is p r e s e n t e d dramatically, b u t in naturalistic rather than supernatural
terms, with windswept billows descending u p o n
the
E g y p t i a n s , w i t h r a i n falling in t o r r e n t s f r o m h e a v e n , a n d w i t h c r a s h i n g t h u n d e r a c c o m p a n y i n g the flashes o f l i g h t n i n g (Ant. 2.343). J o s e p h u s is c l e a r l y a p o l o g e t i c a b o u t the i n c i d e n t , i n a s m u c h as h e g o e s o u t o f his w a y t o r e m a r k t h a t h e h a s re c o u n t e d e a c h detail "just as I f o u n d it in the s a c r e d b o o k s " (Ant. 2.347). O n e recalls, in this c o n n e c t i o n , J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t it is b e c a u s e the p r o p h e t s a l o n e are responsible for the H o l y S c r i p t u r e s t h a t t h e r e is n o d i s c r e p a n c y in w h a t is w r i t t e n , their a c c u r a c y d e r i v i n g f r o m the fact t h a t their k n o w l e d g e o f a n c i e n t h i s t o r y w a s d u e to the inspiration t h a t t h e y r e c e i v e d f r o m G - d (Ag. Ap. 1.37). J o s e p h u s , despite his c o n s t a n t e m p h a s i s o n the p r o v i d e n c e (npovoLa) o f G - d a n d despite his e x a g g e r a t i o n o f the e p i s o d e as o n e in w h i c h the e n e m i e s o f the J e w s w e r e p u n i s h e d in s u c h a m a n n e r as h a d n e v e r b e f o r e o c c u r r e d w i t h i n h u m a n m e m o r y (Ant. 2.346), realizes t h a t his a u d i e n c e w o u l d b e s k e p t i c a l o f s u c h a m i r a cle.
9 6
H e n c e , as n o t e d , h e seeks t o bolster his credibility b y c i t i n g a p a r a l l e l , w h i c h
h e asserts is f o u n d in all those w r i t e r s w h o h a v e r e c o r d e d A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t ' s e x p l o i t s — n a m e l y , the c r o s s i n g o f the P a m p h y l i a n S e a b y A l e x a n d e r (Ant. 2.347-48), w h i c h P l u t a r c h (Alexander 17; cf. A p p i a n , Civil War 2.149) d o e s s p e a k o f as m i r a c u lous, a n d w h i c h A r r i a n (Anabasis 1.26) similarly e x p l a i n s as d u e t o a c h a n g e o f w i n d caused by an act o f providence.
97
E v e n so, J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.347) c o v e r s h i m s e l f b y
affecting a n o n c o m m i t t a l attitude, stating t h a t the m i r a c l e o f the S e a o f R e e d s t r a n s p i r e d " w h e t h e r b y the will o f G - d o r m a y b e b y a c c i d e n t , " a n d closes his dis cussion b y telling his r e a d e r s p o l i t e l y t h a t " o n these m a t t e r s e v e r y o n e is w e l c o m e to his o w n o p i n i o n . "
9 8
F a m i l i a r as h e w a s w i t h the snide r e m a r k s o f the J e w -
96. In contrast, as Wolfson 1947,1:122-26, 347-56, and G r a n t 1952,185, have remarked, Philo's at titude toward miracles is essentially affirmative, since, as he says (e.g., De Opificio Mundi 14.46; DeAbra hamo 22.112, 32.175), all things are possible for G - d . H e n c e , as G r a n t indicates, in connection with the miracles achieved through Moses, Philo can state that w h e n G - d tells M o s e s that H e will turn the river into blood, M o s e s can readily believe this because o f the proofs that he h a d already b e e n shown in pre vious miracles o f his h a n d and staff (De Vita Mosis 1.14.82). Likewise, w h e n Aaron's serpent devours the serpents o f the Egyptian magicians, the onlookers, w h o h a d previously been skeptical, realize that this h a d been brought about by some more divine p o w e r for w h o m every feat is easy (De Vita Mosis 1.16.94). Likewise, o f the miracle o f the S e a o f Reeds, Philo remarks that it is G - d ' s special property to find a w a y where there is no w a y (De Vita Mosis 1.31.174). Nevertheless, it is striking that in his description o f the plague o f darkness, Josephus does not resort to rationalization (Ant. 2.308), whereas Philo tries to offer a scientific explanation in his suggestion that the darkness was possibly caused by an eclipse o f the sun or by a cutting off o f the stream o f rays through continuous clouds, compressed with great force into masses o f unbroken density (De Vita Mosis 1.21.123). 97. Josephus similarly remarks that M o s e s surmised that it w a s due to the providence o f G - d that the arms o f the Egyptians were carried by the tide a n d the force o f the w i n d up to the c a m p o f the Is raelites (Ant. 2.349). 98. A similar formula is found in Ant. 1.108, 3.81, 4.158, 10.281, 17.354. But, as G r a n t 1952, 183, re marks, the fact that Josephus, far from omitting the story o f Balaam's speaking ass or using this formula in that case, says that it was by the will o f G - d that Balaam's ass received a h u m a n voice (Ant. 4.109) shows that he did not, at any rate, look with suspicion at this extraordinary miracle.
MOSES
431
baiters, J o s e p h u s m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e rationalistic v i e w o f the M e m p h i a n s , as c i t e d b y A r t a p a n u s (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.27.35), t h a t M o s e s , k n o w i n g t h e c o u n t r y s i d e , w a t c h e d for the e b b tide a n d t h e n l e d the Israelite m u l titudes t h r o u g h the d r y p a r t o f t h e sea. I n s t e a d , h e prefers to r e p r e s e n t t h e e v e n t as a m i r a c l e , p r e s u m a b l y f e e l i n g t h a t it a d d e d to the stature o f M o s e s as a g e n e r a l w o r t h y o f c o m p a r i s o n , at least b y i m p l i c a t i o n , w i t h A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t , a n d w o r thy o f such a divine act o f p r o v i d e n c e . " J o s e p h u s is similarly a p o l o g e t i c a n d resorts to r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n in his a c c o u n t s o f t h e s w e e t e n i n g o f t h e bitter w a t e r s at M a r a h (Ant. 3 . 5 - 9 ) , t h e f e e d i n g o f t h e Is raelites w i t h quails a n d m a n n a (Ant. 3 . 1 3 - 3 2 ) , a n d t h e issuing o f w a t e r f r o m t h e r o c k (Ant. 3.33-38). I n the first case, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t G - d s h o w e d M o s e s a p i e c e o f w o o d , w h i c h h e t h e n t h r e w into t h e w a t e r so as t o s w e e t e n it ( E x o d . 15:25), in J o s e p h u s , M o s e s p i c k s u p a p i e c e o f w o o d o n his o w n initiative, splits it in t w o , a n d t h e n flings it i n t o t h e w e l l (Ant. 3.7). J o s e p h u s t h e n a d d s t h e ra t i o n a l i z i n g detail t h a t M o s e s , likewise o n his o w n initiative, i n s t r u c t e d the p e o p l e t o d r a i n o f f t h e l a r g e r p a r t o f t h e water, a s s u r i n g t h e m t h a t the r e m a i n d e r w o u l d be drinkable ( ^ . 3 . 8 ) .
1 0 0
I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e quails, J o s e p h u s , b y a d d i n g t h a t q u a i l s a r e m o r e a b u n d a n t t h a n a n y o t h e r species o f b i r d in t h a t a r e a , a n d t h a t t h e y a r e a c c u s t o m e d to s k i m t h e g r o u n d (Ant. 3.25), c l e a r l y r a t i o n a l i z e s t h e m i r a c l e ( E x o d . 16:13). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s t h e m i r a c l e o f the m a n n a in t h e B i b l e is d u e solely to G - d ( E x o d . 16:13), J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s t h e role o f M o s e s , a d d i n g t h a t w h i l e M o s e s r a i s e d his h a n d s in prayer, a d e w d e s c e n d e d a n d c o n g e a l e d a b o u t his h a n d s (Ant. 3.26). I n t h e g a t h e r i n g o f the m a n n a , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t o r d e r s w e r e g i v e n , p r e s u m a b l y b y M o s e s , t h a t e a c h p e r s o n s h o u l d c o l l e c t the s a m e a m o u n t (Ant. 3.29). J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s so as to h a v e it a p p e a r t h a t t h e m a n n a w a s n o t so e x c e p t i o n a l , since h e n o t e s t h a t " t o this v e r y day," t h a t entire r e g i o n o f A r a b i a is w a t e r e d b y a r a i n similar to t h a t w h i c h t h e Israelites e x p e r i e n c e d in t h e d a y s o f M o s e s (Ant. 3.31). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e w a t e r f r o m t h e r o c k ( E x o d . 17:7), t h e r e is, t o b e sure, n o a t t e m p t to r a t i o n a l i z e .
101
J o s e p h u s , as in the c a s e o f t h e m i r a c l e o f
99. Philo recounts the miracle as an illustration o f M o s e s ' prophetic status (De Vita Mosis 2.45.247-51), in contrast to Josephus, w h o significantly looks u p o n it as illustrating M o s e s ' genius as a leader and as a general. W e m a y also contrast with Josephus the approach o f Pseudo-Philo, in his Bib lical Antiquities (10.5), w h o , without any apology, stresses the miraculous aspect and the awesome inter vention o f G - d . T h e same is true o f the rabbinic tradition, on w h i c h see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:11, n. 55. 100. In contrast, Philo wavers between explaining that the tree that G - d showed M o s e s was formed by nature to accomplish this service, w h i c h h a d hitherto remained unknown, or postulating that it w a s created for precisely this occasion (De Vita Mosis 1.33.185). T h e Tannaitic rabbis, as G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:14, n. 82, remarks, apparendy, like Josephus, attempted to rationalize the miracle, perhaps in direct opposition to w h a t they conceived as excessive reliance u p o n miracles in the claims o f the first Christians. 101. Philo wavers between explaining the miracle in natural terms (the rock contained a spring, w h i c h w a s n o w broken open) or suggesting that perhaps then for the first time a b o d y o f water collected
432
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s , seeks to bolster the credibility o f d i v i n e i n t e r v e n tion b y stressing t h a t a w r i t i n g d e p o s i t e d in the T e m p l e attests to it (Ant. 2.347); a n d , as w e h a v e n o t e d a b o v e , J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e is careful to p o i n t o u t t h a t the p r o p h e t s a l o n e h a d the p r i v i l e g e o f r e c o r d i n g a n d v o u c h i n g for these
ancient
r e c o r d s (Ag. Ap. 1.37). J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to say t h a t t h e m i r a c l e l e d the Israelites to c o n c e i v e a d m i r a t i o n for M o s e s , since t h e y r e a l i z e d t h a t the r e a s o n w h y the m i r a c l e h a d b e e n v o u c h s a f e d t h e m w a s t h a t G - d h e l d M o s e s in s u c h h i g h es t e e m (Ant. 3.38). A n a p p a r e n t e x c e p t i o n to the g e n e r a l d e e m p h a s i s o f miracles w o u l d s e e m to be Josephus's
a c c o u n t o f t h e b a t t l e w i t h t h e A m a l e k i t e s ( E x o d . 1 7 : 8 - 1 3 ) , in
w h i c h t h e Israelites a r e v i c t o r i o u s o n l y so l o n g as M o s e s h o l d s his h a n d s e r e c t (Ant. 3.53). B u t h e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h e v i c t o r y in r a t i o n a l t e r m s in t h a t h e d w e l l s at l e n g t h o n t h e m i l i t a r y p r e p a r a t i o n s , o m i t s t h e fact t h a t M o s e s h e l d t h e r o d o f G - d in his h a n d s , a n d a d d s t h a t M o s e s w i t h d r e w t o t h e
mountain,
c o m m i t t i n g t h e b a t t l e t o G - d a n d t o his c o m m a n d e r , J o s h u a (see T i e d e 1 9 7 2 , 227). E v e n in the c a s e o f the r e v e l a t i o n at S i n a i , so c e n t r a l t o J e w i s h belief, J o s e p h u s , w e l l a w a r e t h a t his p a g a n r e a d e r s w o u l d b e skeptical, r e p e a t s his f a m i l i a r f o r m u l a , t h a t e a c h o f his r e a d e r s is free to t h i n k o f it as h e will (Ant. 3 . 8 1 ) .
102
Y e t h e is c a r e
ful to r e m a r k h e r e t h a t h e h a s r e c o r d e d the events as t h e y are w r i t t e n in the s a c r e d b o o k s ; a n d thus, as h e says in his treatise Against Apion (1.37) a n d as n o t e d a b o v e , h e c a n affirm the reliability o f these s t a t e m e n t s i n a s m u c h as t h e y are v o u c h e d for b y the p r o p h e t s , the g u a r d i a n s o f these a n c i e n t r e c o r d s . O n e o f the g r e a t d i v i n e m i r a c l e s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the e x o d u s is that, a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , the L - r d w e n t b e f o r e the Israelites, p r o t e c t i n g t h e m b y d a y in a pillar o f c l o u d a n d b y n i g h t in a pillar o f fire ( E x o d . 13:21). T h e m a g n i t u d e a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f this m i r a c l e is r e a l i z e d b y P h i l o , w h o refers to it as " a p r o d i g y [repdoTiov],
a m i g h t y w o r k {jieyaXovpyrnjua]
o f nature, the like o f w h i c h n o n e c a n
r e m e m b e r to h a v e b e e n s e e n in the p a s t , " a n d suggests t h a t p e r h a p s a n u n s e e n a n g e l w a s e n c l o s e d w i t h i n the c l o u d (De Vita Mosis 1 . 2 9 . 1 6 5 - 6 6 ) . I n v i e w o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f this m i r a c l e , it is m o s t significant t h a t J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.323) o m i t s it t o tally, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e f e a r e d t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d find it i n c r e d i b l e . A n o t h e r m i r a c l e t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e f o u n d difficult to
in it through hidden channels and w a s forced out by the impact o f the striking o f M o s e s ' staff (De Vita Mosis 1.38.211). 102. It is obvious, as Delling 1957-58, 300 and 306, remarks, that Josephus himself is not express ing any doubt on the matter, since he w o u l d be guilty o f blatant self-contradiction if he were to doubt that G - d w a s the author o f the Law. It is significant that Josephus says nothing o f the m a n y dangers that, according to the rabbinic tradition, M o s e s had to overcome w h e n he w e n t to get the T o r a h or o f the w a y in w h i c h he convinced the angels that mankind needed it more than they did or o f the secret remedies and the knowledge o f the H o l y N a m e s that they gave him. See the discussion by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 3:109-19, and his notes thereon.
MOSES
433
c o m p r e h e n d w a s t h e filling o f t h e t a b e r n a c l e b y t h e d i v i n e p r e s e n c e ( E x o d . 4 0 : 3 4 - 3 5 ) , w h i c h p r e v e n t e d M o s e s f r o m e n t e r i n g it. J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s this p h e n o m e n o n b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a d e l i c i o u s d e w w a s distilled f r o m t h e c l o u d , t h e r e b y r e v e a l i n g G - d ' s p r e s e n c e to t h o s e w h o b o t h d e s i r e d a n d b e l i e v e d in it (Ant. 3.203). T h e U r i m a n d T h u m m i m , the p r i e s d y d e v i c e s for o b t a i n i n g o r a c l e s , t h e e x a c t w o r k i n g s o f w h i c h r e m a i n u n e x p l a i n e d in t h e B i b l e ( E x o d . 28:30), w e r e y e t a n other miracle that presumably w o u l d have d u m b f o u n d e d Josephus's readers. Jose p h u s tells t h e r e a d e r at s o m e l e n g t h e x a c d y h o w t h e y w o r k e d a n d sarcastically re m a r k s t h a t this a l o n e s h o u l d b e m a r v e l e n o u g h for s u c h as h a v e n o t c u l t i v a t e d a w i s d o m so s u p e r i o r as to d i s p a r a g e all religious things (Ant. 3 . 2 1 5 - 1 7 ) .
1 0 3
H e re
m a r k s t h a t so brilliant a l i g h t f l a s h e d f r o m the stones o n the h i g h priest's b r e a s t p l a t e t h a t it w a s e v i d e n t t o the w h o l e h o s t t h a t G - d h a d c o m e to the a i d o f t h e Is raelites. H e n c e , h e c o n c l u d e s , " t h o s e G r e e k s w h o r e v e r e o u r p r a c t i c e s , b e c a u s e t h e y c a n in n o w a y g a i n s a y t h e m " (Ant. 3.217) call t h e b r e a s t p l a t e Xoycov, t h a t is " o r a c l e , " t h e w o r d u s e d in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 28:15) t o translate t h e t e r m hoshen a n d c l e a r l y a t e r m t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e a d i l y intelligible to the G r e e k s , in w h o s e r e l i g i o n o r a c l e s p l a y e d so v i t a l a p a r t . A n o t h e r e n i g m a t i c p a s s a g e in t h e B i b l e r e c o u n t s h o w G - d t o l d M o s e s to fash i o n t h e figure o f a s e r p e n t a n d to m o u n t it o n a s t a n d a r d , i n f o r m i n g h i m t h a t i f a n y o n e w h o h a d b e e n b i t t e n b y t h e s e r p e n t l o o k e d at it, h e w o u l d r e c o v e r ( N u m . 2 1 : 8 - 9 ) . M o s e s faithfully f o l l o w e d these instructions, a n d t h e s e r p e n t i n d e e d m a n ifested this m i r a c u l o u s property. J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t s u c h a tale w o u l d raise q u e s t i o n s a b o u t his credibility, a n d so h e o m i t s it c o m p l e t e l y (Ant. 4.85).
JOSEPHUS AS POLITICAL THEORIST T h e w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , for J o s e p h u s as for P l a t o (Republic 8 . 5 6 6 C - 8 0 B ) , is tyranny. T h e g r e a t a t t a c k o n M o s e s b y Z a m b r i a s (Zimri) a c c u s e s h i m o f a c t i n g t y r a n n i c a l l y (rvpavviKtbs)
u n d e r the pretext o f following the laws a n d o b e y i n g G - d
w h i l e a c t u a l l y d e p r i v i n g t h e Israelites o f f r e e d o m o f a c t i o n (avret;ovoiov, d e t e r m i n a t i o n " ) (Ant. 4.146). Z a m b r i a s , s p e a k i n g frankly a n d as a free
"self-
(iXevOepov)
m a n , m a k e s a v e r y s t r o n g c a s e for i n d e p e n d e n c e o f j u d g m e n t w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t h e prefers to g e t at the t r u t h for h i m s e l f w i t h the h e l p o f m a n y p e r s o n s , r a t h e r t h a n to live u n d e r a tyranny, p l a c i n g all his h o p e s for his w h o l e life u p o n o n e m a n , M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 1 4 8 - 4 9 ) . A g a i n , w h e n the Israelites, as t h e y so often d o , c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t M o s e s a n d d e c i d e to defy his l e a d e r s h i p , t h e w o r s t t h a t t h e y c a n s a y o f h i m is t h a t h e is a t y r a n t (Ant. 4.3). T h e m o s t effective a r g u m e n t o f t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l r e v o l u t i o n a r y t h a t M o s e s f a c e d , K o r a h , w a s t h a t M o s e s h a d defied his o w n l a w s i n
103. This apparent exception to Josephus's deemphasizing of the role of G-d may be explained by the fact that Josephus, who was so proud of his status as a priest, here emphasizes the importance of the priesdy role.
434
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a c t i n g u n d e m o c r a t i c a l l y in g i v i n g the p r i e s t h o o d to his b r o t h e r A a r o n ,
not
t h r o u g h a m a j o r i t y v o t e o f the p e o p l e , b u t r a t h e r a c t i n g in the m a n n e r o f tyrants (rvpawajv
. . . rpoircp) (Ant. 4 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . A n d w h e n the m u l t i t u d e , e x c i t e d b y K o r a h ,
are b e n t o n s t o n i n g M o s e s , t h e y shout, " A w a y w i t h the t y r a n t , a n d let the p e o p l e b e rid o f their b o n d a g e to o n e w h o , in the p r e t e n d e d n a m e o f G - d , i m p o s e s his d e s p o t i c o r d e r s [jSiaia irpoardypiara
] " (Ant. 4.22).
T h e B i b l e , to b e sure o n l y o n c e ( D e u t . 33:5), refers to M o s e s as a k i n g ; a n d o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s favorite a u t h o r s , H e r o d o t u s (3.82), f u r t h e r m o r e c l e a r l y a g r e e s w i t h the P e r s i a n o p i n i o n t h a t p r o v i d e d the k i n g is v i r t u o u s , the i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t is a m o n a r c h y . H e n c e it w o u l d s e e m surprising that J o s e p h u s , u n l i k e P h i l o , n o w h e r e refers to M o s e s as a k i n g .
1 0 4
T h i s is all the m o r e r e m a r k a b l e , i n a s m u c h as
M o s e s , in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n , s e e m s to possess all the qualities o f a H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g — l a w g i v e r , j u d g e , g e n e r a l , a n d s h e p h e r d o f his p e o p l e .
1 0 5
T h e v e r y fact t h a t
his o p p o n e n t s call h i m " t y r a n t " w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t to J o s e p h u s ' s m i n d , h e w a s the " g o o d " c o u n t e r p a r t o f " t y r a n t , " n a m e l y , a king. O n e r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s refrains f r o m c a l l i n g M o s e s k i n g is p e r h a p s t h a t M o s e s w a s a c c u s e d o f b e i n g a m b i t i o u s t o seize the k i n g s h i p o f E g y p t — a c o n c l u sion t h a t the s a c r e d scribes o f E g y p t h a d d r a w n (Ant. 2.234) w h e n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , the infant M o s e s f l u n g to t h e g r o u n d the c r o w n t h a t P h a r a o h h a d affec t i o n a t e l y p u t o n his h e a d (Ant. 2.233) (similarly P h i l o , De Vita Mosis 1.9.46). A n o t h e r r e a s o n for n o t c a l l i n g M o s e s k i n g m a y b e t h a t J o s e p h u s , after e n u m e r a t i n g the v a r ious f o r m s o f g o v e r n m e n t — m o n a r c h y ,
oligarchy, a n d d e m o c r a c y — ,
contrasts
t h e m all w i t h the u n i q u e f o r m p r o m u l g a t e d b y G - d t h r o u g h M o s e s , n a m e l y , t h e o c r a c y (Ag. Ap. 2.165). It w o u l d , therefore, h a v e b e e n s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y for J o s e p h u s to d e s i g n a t e b o t h t h e o c r a c y a n d m o n a r c h y as the i d e a l . I n d e e d , in his s u m m a r y o f the M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t the k i n g is to d o n o t h i n g w i t h o u t the a p p r o v a l o f t h e h i g h priest a n d the c o u n s e l o f his senators (Ant. 4.224; cf. D e u t . 17:14-20). P e r h a p s J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a priest, w a s u n w i l l i n g to g i v e u p his o w n role in the i d e a l state, as r u n b y priests, b y g i v i n g " k i n g s " the p r i m a c y . P e r h a p s , t o o , J o s e p h u s h a d in v i e w the p o p u l a r b e l i e f (see Isocrates, Nicocles 5), t h a t k i n g s are
104. See M e e k s 1967, 134-35. Philo, on the other hand, refers to him o n a n u m b e r o f occasions as a king (De Vita Mosis 1.11.62, 1.27.148-49, 1.28.158, 1.60.334; 2.51.292). H e declares that M o s e s c o m bined in his person, in clear allusion to the Platonic ideal ruler, the philosopher-king, the two faculties o f the kingly and the philosophical (De Vita Mosis 2.1.2); and he concludes his lengthy biography o f M o s e s by referring to him with his several tides, the first of which is "king." 105. See G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 57. T h e description o f the ideal king in D i o C h r y s o s t o m w o u l d seem to fit the selfless M o s e s extremely well: " H e [the king] receives it [his scepter] on no other tide than that he shall plan and study the welfare o f his subjects, b e c o m i n g indeed a guide and shepherd o f his p e o ple, not, as someone [Plato, Republic 4.42 iB] has said, a caterer and banqueter at their expense. Nay, he ought to be just such a m a n as to think that he should not sleep at all the whole night through as hav ing no leisure for idleness" (Orations 1.12-13). See also D i o C h r y s o s t o m (Orations 1.15-16, 1.21, 1.38, 3.51-54); and Epictetus (ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 2.14.13).
MOSES
435
e q u a l t o g o d s a n d w a n t e d to a v o i d , as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h e assertion t h a t M o s e s w a s d i v i n e . Surely, in a n y case, h e w a s n o t a n t i m o n a r c h i c as s u c h (pace M e e k s 1967, 136), as w e c a n see f r o m t h e c l o s e relations t h a t h e h a d w i t h K i n g A g r i p p a I I (Life 3 6 4 - 6 7 ; 4g i t y . 1.51). M o r e generally, J o s e p h u s is m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n ship b e t w e e n l a w a n d f r e e d o m . W h e n the E g y p t i a n s , b e s e t b y the m i g h t y E t h i o p i ans, d e s p a i r o f f r e e d o m (Ant. 2.252), it is M o s e s i r o n i c a l l y w h o d e f e n d s their free d o m , j u s t as it is t h e s a m e M o s e s w h o d e v o t e s all his efforts to p r o c u r i n g his o w n p e o p l e ' s l i b e r t y f r o m the o p p r e s s i v e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.290). O n t h e o n e h a n d , t h e w a t c h w o r d o f t h e e x o d u s is the l i b e r t y t h a t the Israelites h a v e w o n f r o m E g y p t i a n b o n d a g e ; a n d w h e n t h e p e o p l e a n g r i l y c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t h i m b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f f o o d a n d w a t e r in t h e desert, M o s e s a n s w e r s t h e m b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t it is n o t f r o m n e g l i g e n c e t h a t G - d h a s thus t a r r i e d in h e l p i n g t h e m b u t r a t h e r to test t h e i r m a n h o o d a n d their d e l i g h t in l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav)
(Ant. 3.19). A g a i n , w h e n c o n
fronted w i t h t h e t h r e a t o f t h e A m a l e k i t e s , M o s e s b i d s the Israelites to trust in G - d ' s d e c r e e , t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e y h a v e b e e n p r o m o t e d t o l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav)
(Ant.
3.44). F u r t h e r m o r e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , w h e n M o s e s ' father-in-law R a g u e l (Jethro) visits h i m , A a r o n a n d his c o m p a n y , t o g e t h e r w i t h R a g u e l , c h a n t h y m n s to G - d as t h e a u t h o r a n d d i s p e n s e r o f their s a l v a t i o n a n d their l i b e r t y (iXevdepias)
(Ant. 3.64).
I n d e e d , w h e n M o s e s addresses his p e o p l e o n t h e b o r d e r s o f C a n a a n , j u s t b e f o r e t h e spies a r e sent into Palestine to s c o u t t h e l a n d , h e r e m i n d s the p e o p l e t h a t G - d h a s r e s o l v e d to g r a n t t h e m t w o blessings, l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav)
a n d the possession o f
a f a v o r e d l a n d (Ant. 3.300; cf. 4.2). L i k e w i s e , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the r e b e l l i o n o f D a t h a n a n d A b i r a m , M o s e s r e m i n d s t h e p e o p l e o f t h e g r e a t toils t h a t h e h a s u n d e r g o n e for t h e i r l i b e r t y (iXevdepias)
(Ant. 4.42).
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , M o s e s is p r a i s e d b e c a u s e h e g a v e to the Israelites a s y s t e m o f l a w t h a t is a l l - e m b r a c i n g , l e a v i n g n o t h i n g , h o w e v e r insignificant, t o t h e discre tion o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l (avre^ovoLov)
(Ag. Ap. 2.173). M o s e s , t h e l a w g i v e r , is l a u d e d for
t e a c h i n g his p e o p l e to live u n d e r the L a w as u n d e r a father a n d m a s t e r (Ag Ap. 2.174). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t hesitate h e r e to use a w o r d (SeoTTorrj) for " m a s t e r " t h a t in H e r o d o t u s (3.89) a n d T h u c y d i d e s (6.77) h a s the c o n n o t a t i o n s o f " d e s p o t " o r " a b s o l u t e r u l e r " a n d , i n d e e d , is a s y n o n y m for the d r e a d e d
rvpavvos
s h o w s t h a t h e , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , r e g a r d e d o n e t y r a n n y as a c t u a l l y t h e v e r y b e s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t — n a m e l y , t h e t y r a n n y o f G - d , a t h e o c r a c y . I n d e e d , in his s u m m a r y o f t h e M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s t h a t aristocracy, as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , is t h e b e s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t (Ant. 4.223). H e t h e n p r o c e e d s to define t h e e s s e n c e o f a r i s t o c r a c y as a state o f b e i n g c o n t e n t w i t h h a v i n g l a w s as o n e ' s (heairoras)
masters
a n d as g o v e r n i n g all o n e ' s a c t i o n s b y t h e m . T h i s d e l i c a t e b a l a n c e o f
o b e d i e n c e a n d l i b e r t y m a y b e s e e n at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f M o s e s ' m i s s i o n , inas m u c h as w e a r e t o l d t h a t h e b e t a k e s h i m s e l f to P h a r a o h o n l y after h e is a s s u r e d o f b o t h t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f t h e Israelites to follow his o r d e r s a n d o f their l o v e o f l i b e r t y (eXevdepias)
(Ant. 2.281). A g a i n , b e f o r e r e a d i n g the D e c a l o g u e to t h e Israelites,
436
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
M o s e s addresses t h e m , d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e is b r i n g i n g t h e m rules for a blissful life a n d a n o r d e r e d g o v e r n m e n t (iroXireias
KOOJAOV) (Ant. 3 . 8 4 ) .
106
I n his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to his p e o p l e , M o s e s carefully stresses t h e difference b e t w e e n l i b e r t y a n d l i c e n s e (Ant. 4.187). A p p a r e n d y the Israelites h a d t h o u g h t , as h e says, that f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h c o n s i s t e d in their ability to insult their b e n e f a c t o r s ; b u t liberty, h e insists, d o e s n o t lie in r e s e n t i n g w h a t rulers r e q u i r e o n e to d o . D r a w i n g u p o n his e x p e r i e n c e i n the r e c e n t w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s stresses o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n t h a t t h e m o s t terrible p o l i t i c a l evil is civil strife. I n p a r ticular, u n l i k e the B i b l e , w h i c h m e r e l y presents the c o m m a n d m e n t n o t to r e m o v e o n e ' s n e i g h b o r ' s l a n d m a r k ( D e u t . 19:14), J o s e p h u s a d d s a r e a s o n , a g a i n in p o l i t i c a l t e r m s — n a m e l y , t h a t r e m o v a l o f l a n d m a r k s l e a d s to w a r s a n d seditions
(ardaecov)
(Ant. 4.225). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , M o s e s p r a y s that, after t h e y h a v e c o n q u e r e d the l a n d o f Israel, t h e Israelites n o t b e o v e r c o m e b y civil strife
(ordoecos),
" w h e r e b y y o u will b e l e d to a c t i o n s c o n t r a r y to t h o s e o f y o u r fathers a n d d e s t r o y t h e institutions t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d " (Ant. 4.294). I n d e e d , o n e o f t h e qualities o f J o s e p h u s ' s i d e a l ruler, as w e c a n see in his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s , is that h e seeks to p r e vent dissension.
107
A n o t h e r p o l i t i c a l issue o n w h i c h J o s e p h u s felt s t r o n g l y w a s n a t i o n a l i s m . I n the B i b l e , G - d tells M o s e s f r o m the b u r n i n g b u s h that H e will t a k e t h e Israelites into a g o o d a n d b r o a d land, the l a n d o f the C a n a a n i t e s , flowing w i t h milk a n d h o n e y ( E x o d . 3:8). A s i m i l a r s t a t e m e n t is f o u n d a f e w v e r s e s later ( E x o d . 3:17). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is c l e a r : t h e Israelites a r e to d i s p l a c e the C a n a a n i t e s a n d establish a n i n d e p e n d e n t state in the l a n d . I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , h o w e v e r , t h e r e is s i g n i f i c a n d y n o m e n t i o n o f the C a n a a n i t e s w h o a r e to b e d i s p l a c e d a n d n o s u g g e s t i o n o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t state; the Israelites a r e m e r e l y t o c o m e to the l a n d a n d settle t h e r e (Ant. 2.269). W h e n G - d g i v e s his c h a r g e t o M o s e s , t e l l i n g h i m to g o t o P h a r a o h t o r e q u e s t t h a t h e a l l o w t h e Israelites to l e a v e , i n t h e B i b l e , H e r e m i n d s M o s e s t h a t h e h a s c o v e n a n t e d w i t h t h e f o r e f a t h e r s A b r a h a m , I s a a c , a n d J a c o b to g i v e t h e m t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n ( E x o d . 6:4). A f e w v e r s e s later, G - d tells M o s e s t h a t H e w i l l b r i n g t h e Israelites i n t o t h e l a n d t h a t h e s w o r e to g i v e t o t h e i r forefathers, a n d t h a t H e w i l l g i v e it t o t h e m as a p o s s e s s i o n , c l e a r l y o n c e a g a i n s i g n i f y i n g t h a t t h e
106. In contrast to Josephus, w h o emphasizes the portrait o f M o s e s as the agent o f G - d in giving orders, Philo seems to be more democratic in stating that in his c o m m a n d s a n d prohibitions M o s e s sug gested and admonished rather than c o m m a n d e d and in stressing that the very numerous and neces sary instructions that he gave were a c c o m p a n i e d by forewords and afterwords in order to exhort rather than to enforce (De Vita Mosis 2.9.51). 107. It is significant that whereas in the Bible, it is M o s e s ' fear that he will be caught for slaying the Egyptian overseer that leads h i m to escape to M i d i a n (Exod. 2:11-15), Josephus (Ant. 2.254),
a s
noted,
omits the whole incident o f the slaying o f the Egyptian, and instead declares that M o s e s escaped be cause he h a d heard that Pharaoh, envious o f his generalship against the Ethiopians a n d suspecting that he w o u l d take advantage o f his success to revolutionize (vecurepiacte) E g y p t , was plotting to murder h i m (Ant. 2.256).
MOSES
437
Israelites a r e t o d i s p l a c e t h e G a n a a n i t e i n h a b i t a n t s a n d establish a n i n d e p e n d e n t state ( E x o d . 6:8). J o s e p h u s
s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s this e n t i r e p a s s a g e
(Ant.
2.292).
HELLENIZATIONS B e c a u s e h e w a s w r i t i n g for a p r e d o m i n a n d y n o n - J e w i s h G r e e k a u d i e n c e , J o s e p h u s felt c o n s t r a i n e d to f o r m u l a t e distinctively b i b l i c a l w o r d s a n d c o n c e p t s in a w a y f a m i l i a r to his a u d i e n c e . T h u s , for e x a m p l e , w h e n M o s e s p r e p a r e s t h e Is raelites for d e p a r t u r e f r o m E g y p t (Ant. 2.312), there is n o i n d i c a t i o n in the B i b l e as to h o w t h e y a r e to b e m a r s h a l e d for the j o u r n e y ( E x o d . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a g e n e r a l in t h e w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , k n e w h o w i m p o r t a n t it w a s for a g o o d g e n e r a l to m u s t e r his t r o o p s carefully in a d v a n c e . H e n c e , w e are g i v e n the e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l t h a t M o s e s a r r a n g e d t h e m in fraternities (els (frparplas), this u n i t b e i n g a s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h e G r e e k tribe (v\r/). A similar h e l l e n i z a t i o n is to b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s in h e x a m e t e r v e r s e t h a t M o s e s c o m p o s e d his s o n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e m i r a c u l o u s c r o s s i n g o f t h e S e a o f R e e d s (Ant. 2.346), as w e l l as in his s t a t e m e n t t h a t M o s e s ' final s o n g b e f o r e his d e a t h w a s l i k e w i s e in h e x a m e t e r v e r s e (Ant. 4.303). I n d e e d , t h e v e r y fact t h a t M o s e s is referred to as a " l a w g i v e r " (vopLoderrjs, Ant. 3.180) r a t h e r t h a n as " M o s e s o u r m a s t e r " (Mosheh
Rabenu),
as in t h e r a b b i n i c literature, is a n a d a p t a t i o n for G e n t i l e r e a d e r s o f M o s e s ' p r i m a r y role in J e w i s h history, i n t e n d e d to m a k e h i m p a r a l l e l w i t h o t h e r g r e a t l a w givers, s u c h as L y c u r g u s o f S p a r t a (see M e e k s 1967, 132). Similarly, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 4 . 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 , 302), M o s e s g a v e the Israelites n o t o n l y l a w s b u t also a c o n s t i t u t i o n (TroXirela), thus m a k i n g the J e w i s h state c o m p a r a b l e to t h e G r e e k city-states. I n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s ' s literate a u d i e n c e w a s likely to b e w e l l v e r s e d in p h i l o s ophy, it s h o u l d n o t b e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t j u s t as A b r a h a m is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s as a S t o i c - l i k e p h i l o s o p h e r w h o p r o v e s the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d (Ant. 1.156), so M o s e s , as n o t e d , is p r e s e n t e d as a S t o i c - l i k e sage, r e m a r k a b l e for his c o n t e m p t for toils (TTOVOV Kara^povrjaeL,
a t y p i c a l l y S t o i c p h r a s e ) (Ant. 2.229). A k e y S t o i c t e r m ,
npovoLa,
p l a y s a c r u c i a l role in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t s o f b o t h A b r a h a m a n d o f M o s e s . W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d A m r a m ' s c o n f i d e n c e in G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e , as s e e n in his d e c i sion to p l a c e the infant M o s e s in a n ark o n t h e N i l e r a t h e r t h a n to c o n t i n u e t o r e a r h i m in secret (Ant. 2.219). Similarly, in his s p e e c h to the a n g r y Israelites, M o s e s e x horts t h e m n o t to d e s p a i r o f G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoiav) (Ant. 3.19). T h e s a m e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f G - d ' s g r a c i o u s n e s s (evpuevfj) a n d H i s p r o v i d e n c e (npovolas)
that oc
c u r s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m is, m o r e o v e r , f o u n d in M o s e s ' last a d d r e s s to his p e o p l e , w h e r e h e r e n d e r s t h a n k s t o G - d for b e s t o w i n g H i s c o n c e r n u p o n h i m (Ant. 4.180, 185). M o s e s ' e m p h a s i s o n l a w (vopuos) is in a c c o r d w i t h the S t o i c v i e w o f vopuos as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e c o s m o s a n d o f m a n as a Koapuo7roXlTrjs w h o m u s t o r d e r his life in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h u n i v e r s a l l a w (see H o l l a d a y 1977, 102); h e n c e , b y
438
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a l l e g o r i c a l l y i m p u t i n g c o s m i c significance t o the t a b e r n a c l e , the t w e l v e l o a v e s , t h e c a n d e l a b r u m , the tapestries, a n d the h i g h priest's g a r m e n t s , J o s e p h u s is a p p e a l i n g to the S t o i c v i e w t h a t l a w m u s t h a v e a c o s m i c d i m e n s i o n (Ant. 3 . 1 8 1 - 8 7 ) . E v e n M o s e s ' d e s c r i p t i o n o f G - d as O n e , u n c r e a t e d , i m m u t a b l e t o all eternity, a n d in b e a u t y s u r p a s s i n g m o r t a l t h o u g h t is, f o r m u l a t e d in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l dress (Ag. Ap. 2.167) (see T i e d e 1972, 2 1 0 ) .
1 0 8
L i k e w i s e , the simile t h a t L a w h a s
f o u n d its w a y a m o n g all m a n k i n d as G - d p e r m e a t e s the u n i v e r s e (Ag. Ap. 2.284) is t a k e n f r o m the S t o i c s . J o s e p h u s h a s i n c l u d e d m a n y motifs a n d p h r a s e s f r o m the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s , A e s c h y l u s , a n d e s p e c i a l l y S o p h o c l e s a n d E u r i p i d e s , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d . I n t h e c a s e o f M o s e s , w e c a n see the i n f l u e n c e o f the t r a g e d i a n s in the i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i z a t i o n o f the p l i g h t o f the Israelites (Ant. 2.208). W h e r e a s the B i b l e m e r e l y r e p o r t s P h a r a o h ' s d e c r e e t o kill all m a l e b a b i e s ( E x o d . 1:22), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s w i t h g r e a t p a t h o s : " T e r r i b l e , t h e n , w a s the c a l a m i t y c o n f r o n t i n g t h e v i c t i m s : n o t o n l y w e r e t h e y t o b e bereft o f their c h i l d r e n , n o t o n l y m u s t the p a r e n t s t h e m s e l v e s b e accessories to the d e s t r u c t i o n o f their offspring, b u t the d e s i g n o f e x t i n g u i s h i n g their r a c e b y the m a s s a c r e o f the infants a n d their o w n a p p r o a c h i n g dissolution r e n d e r e d t h e i r lot c r u e l a n d i n c o n s o l a b l e . " T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in the p i c t u r e o f the infant M o s e s , w h o gleefully fas tens u p o n the b r e a s t o f his m o t h e r (Ant. 2.227). T h e childlessness o f P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r (Ant. 2.232), u n m e n t i o n e d in the B i b l e , similarly h e i g h t e n s the interest in h e r d i s c o v e r y o f the infant M o s e s .
1 0 9
T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i z a t i o n as w e l l o f M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p . T h u s in re c o u n t i n g the m i r a c l e o f the p a r t i n g o f the w a t e r s o f the S e a o f R e e d s ( E x o d . 1 5 : 1 - 2 1 ) , J o s e p h u s a d d s the d r a m a t i c t o u c h t h a t the m i r a c l e w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h u n d e r a n d l i g h t n i n g , as stated in the allusion to the h a p p e n i n g in Ps. 7 7 : 1 6 - 2 0 (Ant. 2.343). W h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t M o s e s r e t u r n e d t o the c a m p a n d t h e n a w i n d c a m e forth a n d b r o u g h t quails ( N u m . 11:30-31), J o s e p h u s a d d s d r a m a to the situation b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t e v e n as M o s e s s p o k e , the c a m p w a s filled w i t h q u a i l s o n e v e r y side (Ant. 3.299). O n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s , J o s e p h u s a d d s v i v i d t o u c h e s t o his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f battles. T h i s is true also in the c a s e o f M o s e s , since s u c h details serve to e n h a n c e his m i l i t a r y r e p u t a t i o n as a g e n e r a l . T h u s , in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the b a t d e w i t h A m a l e k , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t the a d v e r s a r i e s m e t in a h a n d - i n - h a n d c o n t e s t a n d f o u g h t w i t h g r e a t spirit a n d m u t u a l shouts o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t (Ant. 3.53). A f t e r the b a t d e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t M o s e s built a n altar, w h i c h h e c a l l e d b y n a m e " T h e L - r d is m y b a n n e r " ( E x o d . 17:15), J o s e p h u s states t h a t h e n a m e d the altar " G i v e r o f v i c t o r y " (vucaiov) (Ant. 3.60), c l e a r l y r e c a l l i n g the g o d d e s s o f victory,
108. T i e d e 1972, 210, here compares C l e a n t h e s ' " H y m n to Z e u s " (Stobaeus, Eclogues 1.112). 109. T h i s detail, also found in Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.4.13), is likewise found in A r t a p a n u s (ap. Euse bius, Pr. Ev. 9.27), from w h o m both Philo and Josephus m a y have drawn it.
MOSES NIKT)
439
( H e s i o d , Theogony 384; Pindar, Isthmian Odes 2.26) a n d the epithets o f Z e u s
viKaios ( D i o C a s s i u s 47.40) a n d o f Pallas vtKata ( D e m o s t h e n e s 37.623). T h e r e is h e i g h t e n e d d r a m a in M o s e s ' r e p l y to the c h a r g e s o f K o r a h . I n t h e b i b lical p a s s a g e , the a n g r y M o s e s v e r y s i m p l y tells G - d t h a t h e is n o t g u i l t y o f t a k i n g a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e m u l t i t u d e o r o f h a r m i n g a n y o f t h e m ( N u m . 16:15). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s m a k e s q u i t e a s c e n e , r a i s i n g his h a n d s to h e a v e n a n d s p e a k i n g in s t e n t o r i a n t o n e s (yeywvorepov,
" l o u d e r - s o u n d i n g , m o r e s o n o r o u s " ) (Ant. 4.40). H e t h e n d e l i v
ers a l o n g s p e e c h , in the c o u r s e o f w h i c h h e asks G - d , i f the a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m b e true, t o k e e p the rebels free f r o m all h a r m a n d , w h a t is m o r e , to b r i n g u p o n h i m s e l f t h e p u n i s h m e n t h e h a d w i s h e d o n t h e m (Ant. 4.50). T h e d r a m a is further e n h a n c e d b y the fact t h a t M o s e s w e e p s as h e addresses G - d (Ant. 4.51). T h e r e is similarly i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in the s c e n e in w h i c h t h e e a r t h s w a l l o w s u p K o r a h ' s c o m p a n y ( N u m . 1 6 : 3 1 - 3 4 ) . J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t his r e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e difficulty b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e e a r t h c o u l d o p e n its m o u t h a n d s w a l l o w u p the rebels, as t h e B i b l e w o u l d h a v e it, presents a m o r e scientific e x p l a n a t i o n , namely, that there w a s a n earthquake, w h i c h he then proceeds to c o m p a r e dra m a t i c a l l y to a w a v e t o s s e d b y t h e v i o l e n c e o f t h e w i n d (Ant. 4 . 5 1 - 5 2 ) . H e g i v e s fur t h e r details as w e l l — a c r a s h a n d a b u r s t o f b o o m i n g s o u n d . T h e d r a m a is further h e i g h t e n e d b y the d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e effects u p o n the v i c t i m s , w h o , h e says, w e r e o b l i t e r a t e d so swiftly t h a t s o m e w e r e e v e n u n a w a r e o f t h e i r fate. T h e w h o l e i n c i d e n t , h e a d d s , c l e a r l y a n t i c i p a t i n g the s k e p t i c i s m o f his r e a d e r s , w a s so s u d d e n t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t h i n g to s h o w t h e o n l o o k e r s t h a t the e a r t h h a d a c t u a l l y suffered a n y such convulsion. W h e n the tribes o f R e u b e n a n d G a d seek A m o r i t e l a n d for p a s t u r a g e a n d d e c l i n e to j o i n the o t h e r tribes in their c o n q u e s t s , the b i b l i c a l M o s e s b e r a t e s t h e m for a l l o w i n g t h e i r b r e t h r e n t o g o to w a r w h i l e t h e y s t a n d aside ( N u m . 32:6). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s uses m u c h s t r o n g e r a n d m o r e colorful l a n g u a g e , d e n o u n c i n g t h e m as e r r a n t knaves
(KOLKIGTOVS)^
w h o h a d d e v i s e d this p l a u s i b l e e x c u s e for their c o w a r d i c e b e
c a u s e t h e y w i s h e d to live in l u x u r y a n d ease (rpv(f>dv dnovcos oidyovras)
(Ant. 4.167).
E v e n in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s is m o r e d r a m a t i c . T h u s , D e u t . 20:19 p r e s e n t s the l a w t h a t w h e n e n g a g e d in a l o n g siege, the Israelites a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o d e s t r o y t h e trees in t h e a r e a . J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i c a l l y q u o t e s w h a t t h e trees w o u l d s a y i f t h e y w e r e e n d o w e d w i t h v o i c e s , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e y w o u l d p l e a d t h a t t h e y w e r e in n o w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for the w a r , t h a t t h e y w e r e b e i n g m a l t r e a t e d u n j u s d y a n d t h a t i f t h e y h a d the p o w e r , t h e y w o u l d h a v e m i g r a t e d t o a n o t h e r c o u n t r y (Ant. 4.299). T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the w a i l i n g at M o s e s ' a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h b e c o m e s m u c h m o r e g r a p h i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the B i b l e , it is o n l y after M o s e s ' d e a t h t h a t t h e Israelites b e w a i l h i m for thirty d a y s , b u t t h e r e is n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e w a i l i n g itself ( D e u t . 34:8). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e w a i l i n g is m o r e m o v i n g b e c a u s e it takes p l a c e after M o s e s h a s t o l d t h e Israelites a b o u t his a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h a n d h a s g i v e n his blessings to t h e p e o p l e , b u t w h i l e h e is still alive. S e c o n d l y , w e are t o l d t h a t t h e m u l t i t u d e bursts
440
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
i n t o tears, w i t h t h e w o m e n b e a t i n g t h e i r breasts. M o s t m o v i n g o f all is t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w a i l e v e n m o r e , i n a s m u c h as t h e y a r e t o o feeble to s u p p r e s s t h e i r grief. M o s e s ' g r e a t n e s s is a g g r a n d i z e d b y t h e fact t h a t the c h i l d r e n , w e a r e told, in t h e i r l a m e n t , u n d e r s t a n d his v i r t u e s a n d g r a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s to a n e x t e n t b e y o n d t h e i r y e a r s (Ant. 4.320). P e r h a p s m o s t p o i g n a n t o f all is t h e fact t h a t e v e n M o s e s himself, a w a r e , t h o u g h h e o b v i o u s l y w a s , as J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s us, t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t d e s p o n d as the e n d a p p r o a c h e s , b e c a u s e d e a t h befalls o n e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e w i l l o f G - d a n d b y a l a w o f n a t u r e , is y e t r e d u c e d to tears w h e n h e sees the l a m e n t s o f t h e p e o p l e (Ant. 4.322). O n e o f t h e m a j o r d e v i c e s in G r e e k t r a g e d y is t h e use o f i r o n y as w e see n o t a b l y in S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King (see A r i s t o d e , Poetics 1 1 . 1 4 5 2 A 2 2 - B 8 ) . J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s this m o t i f m o s t effectively at s e v e r a l p o i n t s in his n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r sent h e r m a i d to fetch t h e b a b y M o s e s ( E x o d . 2:5), J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t t h e i r o n y in the situation, in t h a t t h e v e r y p e r s o n s w h o b y r e a s o n o f M o s e s ' b i r t h h a d d e c r e e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f all c h i l d r e n o f H e b r e w p a r e n t a g e w e r e m a d e to c o n d e s c e n d t o n o u r i s h a n d t e n d h i m (Ant. 2.225). J o s e p h u s also a t t e m p t s t o m a k e his n a r r a t i v e m o r e a p p e a l i n g t o his G r e e k r e a d ers b y i n t r o d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs. T h u s , t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r p l a y i n g b y t h e r i v e r b a n k (Ant. 2 . 2 2 4 )
18
r e m i n i s c e n t o f the s i m -
d a r s c e n e d e s c r i b i n g N a u s i c a a o n t h e s h o r e o f P h a e a c i a in H o m e r ' s
Odyssey
(6.100 f f ) . O f c o u r s e , t h e m o s t striking i n s t a n c e o f s u c h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n o f r o m a n tic motifs is t h e s c e n e in w h i c h t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s falls m a d l y i n l o v e (els epcora Seivov coXiaOev) w i t h t h e b r a v e e n e m y g e n e r a l , M o s e s , w h o is b e s i e g i n g t h e E t h i o p i a n s ' c a p i t a l (Ant. 2.252). S u s p e n s e is t h e h a l l m a r k o f t h e G r e e k r o m a n c e s a n d is p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t as w e l l in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e . A g o o d e x a m p l e o f this d e v i c e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e M o s e s n a r r a t i v e m a y b e s e e n in the a c c o u n t o f t h e e x t r e m e a g o n y o f thirst suffered b y t h e Israelites at R e p h i d i m . A c c o r d i n g to t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , G - d tells M o s e s t h a t H e will s t a n d b e f o r e h i m , t h a t h e s h o u l d strike the r o c k , a n d t h a t w a t e r w i l l c o m e o u t o f it, w h e r e u p o n M o s e s d o e s so in the sight o f t h e e l d e r s o f Israel ( E x o d . 17:6). I n J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e e l a b o r a t e a c c o u n t , t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e s u s p e n s e : M o s e s , w e a r e told, a p p r o a c h e s t h e p e o p l e , w h o a r e e x p e c t a n t a n d h a v e t h e i r eyes fixed u p o n h i m , h a v i n g a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d h i m h a s t e n i n g f r o m t h e hill (Ant. 3.36). J o s e p h u s a d d s a further stage to t h e story, i n w h i c h M o s e s first tells t h e p e o p l e t h a t G - d w i l l d e l i v e r t h e m f r o m t h e i r distress in a n u n e x p e c t e d m a n n e r , n a m e l y , t h a t a r i v e r is to f l o w for t h e m o u t o f t h e r o c k . T h e s u s p e n s e is i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e t h e Israelites t h i n k t h a t t h e y a r e b e i n g c o m p e l l e d , e x h a u s t e d as t h e y are, t o c l e a v e t h e r o c k . O n e c a n i m a g i n e t h e i n c r e d u l i t y o f t h e p e o p l e at this p r e d i c t i o n a n d t h e t r e m e n d o u s s u s p e n s e as M o s e s strikes t h e r o c k to see w h e t h e r t h e w o r d s w i l l c o m e true. T h e s u s p e n s e e n d s w h e n M o s e s strikes t h e r o c k w i t h his staff, a n d a c o p i o u s s t r e a m o f w h a t w e a r e t o l d is m o s t p e l -
MOSES
441
l u c i d w a t e r g u s h e s forth. T h e m e r e sight o f it, w e are t o l d in a n e x t r a d r a m a t i c t o u c h , a l r e a d y slakes t h e p e o p l e ' s t r e m e n d o u s thirst (Ant. 3.38).
SUMMARY B e c a u s e M o s e s w a s t h e o n e figure i n t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w h o w a s w e l l k n o w n t o t h e p a g a n w o r l d a n d a l s o b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n r e v i l e d b y s e v e r a l anti-Jewish w r i t e r s , J o s e p h u s m a y b e a s s u m e d t o h a v e felt a s p e c i a l n e e d t o p a i n t a f a v o r a b l e p i c t u r e o f h i m . S e v e r a l e v e n t s in M o s e s ' life p r e s e n t e d a p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m for J o s e p h u s , n o t a b l y his m u r d e r o f a n E g y p t i a n overseer, his m a r r i a g e t o a n o n J e w i s h w o m a n , Z i p p o r a h , his l o w l y o c c u p a t i o n o f s h e p h e r d , his t i m i d i t y w h e n h e is s e l e c t e d b y G - d at t h e b u r n i n g b u s h t o b e t h e l e a d e r o f t h e Israelites, t h e l e p r o u s n e s s o f his h a n d at o n e p o i n t , his failure t o c i r c u m c i s e his sons, his s p e e c h d e fect a n d his n e e d t o h a v e his b r o t h e r A a r o n as his s p o k e s m a n , his p e r m i s s i o n t o t h e Israelites t o " b o r r o w " j e w e l r y a n d c l o t h i n g f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s , his n e e d t o t u r n t o his f a t h e r - i n - l a w J e t h r o for a d v i c e , his a n g e r i n s m a s h i n g t h e first set o f tablets o f t h e law, his a b a n d o n m e n t o f his w i f e Z i p p o r a h , his m a r r i a g e t o a n E t h i o p i a n w o m a n , his s k e p t i c i s m w h e n G - d p r o m i s e s t h a t H e w i l l s u p p l y t h e Is raelites w i t h m e a t , his d i s o b e d i e n c e t o w a r d G - d i n s t r i k i n g r a t h e r t h a n s p e a k i n g t o t h e r o c k , a n d his i n a b i l i t y t o a n s w e r t h e c o m p l a i n t s o f Z e l o p h e h a d ' s d a u g h ters. D e s p i t e t h e fact t h a t h e p r o m i s e s in his p r o e m n e i t h e r t o a d d n o r to s u b t r a c t a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e b i b l i c a l text, in t h e a b o v e cases J o s e p h u s s i m p l y o m i t s t h e e p i s o d e o r d i m i n i s h e s t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s is c a r e f u l t o a v o i d t h e u n d u e a g g r a n d i z e m e n t a n d n e a r deification o f M o s e s f o u n d i n t h e S a m a r i t a n t r a d i t i o n a n d , to a lesser d e g r e e , in t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n . L i k e w i s e , b e c a u s e his s o p h i s t i c a t e d a u d i e n c e w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y h a v e f o u n d t h e b i b l i c a l m i r a cles h a r d l y c r e d i b l e , h e t e n d s to d o w n g r a d e o r r a t i o n a l i z e t h e m ; or, as in t h e c a s e o f the miraculous crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds, he m a k e s a point o f noting the par allel o f t h e c r o s s i n g o f the P a m p h y l i a n S e a b y A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t . B e c a u s e t h e Antiquities
is a n a p o l o g e t i c w o r k d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y to n o n - J e w s ,
J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s M o s e s as e m b o d y i n g t h e qualities o f t h e g r e a t h e r o e s o f t h e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s , n o t a b l y t h e e x t e r n a l qualities o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature, p r e c o c i o u s n e s s in his y o u t h , a n d the f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y w h a t w a s , in effect, a fifth c a r d i n a l v i r t u e , piety. M o s e s ' a p p e a l to this a u d i e n c e is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, g i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f M o s e s as t h e i d e a l leader, e s p e c i a l l y in his m e e t i n g t h e test o f s e d i t i o n a n d in c o p i n g w i t h t h e u n r u l y m o b . J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o n this p o i n t is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Pericles, o f P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p tion o f the philosopher-king, o f Virgil's portrayal o f A e n e a s , a n d o f the traditional S t o i c s a g e ; w h i l e c o n c u r r e n d y t h e role o f A a r o n as his s p o k e s m a n is c o n s i d e r a b l y d o w n g r a d e d . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y as e d u c a t o r , legislator, a n d p o e t , a n d , a b o v e all, as
442
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
g e n e r a l a n d p r o p h e t t h a t M o s e s e x c e l s . I n stressing these a c h i e v e m e n t s , J o s e p h u s shifts the focus f r o m G - d to M o s e s . J o s e p h u s ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f M o s e s a r e o c c a s i o n e d b y his a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n to d e f e n d the J e w s a g a i n s t their o p p o n e n t s ' c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u larly c o w a r d i c e , p r o v i n c i a l i s m , a n d i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d b y his p o s i t i v e desire to p o r t r a y a p e r s o n a l i t y w h o w o u l d b e fully c o m p a r a b l e to s u c h g r e a t l e a d e r s , w h e t h e r historical o r l e g e n d a r y , as H e r a c l e s , L y c u r g u s , A e n e a s , a n d Pericles. Finally, J o s e p h u s h a s u t i l i z e d s e v e r a l m o t i f s — n o t a b l y i r o n y a n d s u s p e n s e — f r o m the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s in o r d e r to r e n d e r his n a r r a t i v e m o r e d r a m a t i c .
C H A P T E R
ELEVEN
Joshua
THE IDEALIZATION OF THE
LEADER
S i n c e t h e ability to d i s c e r n the qualities o f p e o p l e a n d , a b o v e all, to select a w o r t h y successor, is a m o n g t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t qualities o f a g r e a t leader, the fact t h a t M o s e s , t h e g r e a t e s t l e a d e r t h a t the Israelites e v e r h a d , c h o s e J o s h u a as his s u c c e s sor l e d J o s e p h u s to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t J o s h u a m u s t h i m s e l f h a v e p o s s e s s e d t h e qualities o f a n i d e a l s t a t e s m a n .
1
A s J o s e p h u s p u t s it in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t t h a t
h a s n o b i b l i c a l basis, J o s h u a p o s s e s s e d five c r u c i a l qualities: h e w a s e x t r e m e l y c o u r a g e o u s , v a l i a n t in e n d u r a n c e o f toil, h i g h l y gifted in intellect, h i g h l y gifted in s p e e c h , a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d for p i e t y in w o r s h i p p i n g G - d (Ant. 3.49). W h e n s u m m a r i z i n g J o s h u a ' s qualities u p o n his d e a t h , J o s e p h u s singles o u t five s u c h q u a l i t i e s — h i s o u t s t a n d i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e , his s u p r e m e skill in s p e a k i n g l u c i d l y (oacf>a)s) to t h e m u l t i t u d e , his s t o u t - h e a r t e d n e s s a n d g r e a t d a r i n g , a n d his u t m o s t d e x t e r i t y in d i r e c t i n g affairs (irpvTavevaaif
in p e a c e t i m e a n d a d a p t a b i l i t y to e v e r y o c c a s i o n
(Ant. 5.118). I f w e c o m b i n e these t w o p a s s a g e s , w e see t h a t J o s e p h u s
stressed
J o s h u a ' s qualities o f w i s d o m , e l o q u e n c e , c o u r a g e , e n d u r a n c e , flexibility, a n d piety. The
e m p h a s i s o n J o s h u a ' s w i s d o m a n d e l o q u e n c e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f T h u c y
d i d e s ' d i s c u s s i o n (2.60.5-6) o f the qualities o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n in P e r i c l e s ' last s p e e c h to the A t h e n i a n s . I n particular, w e m a y n o t e that, like T h u c y d i d e s , w h o e m p h a s i z e s t h e p r a g m a t i s m o f Pericles, e s p e c i a l l y in t h e latter's a p p r a i s a l o f t h e A t h e n i a n e m p i r e (2.62-64), J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t J o s h u a h a d r e c e i v e d profitable
1. An examination of the bibliographies of Josephus by Heinz Schreckenberg and myself indicates that there has been no study of Josephus's portrait of Joshua approaching comprehensiveness. Typical is the tantalizing brief remark of Villalba i Varneda 1986, 32, that the figure of Joshua is filled out in comparison with the biblical text; but we are given almost no details. 2. The word rrpvTavevoi is borrowed from Athenian politics and refers to holding the presidency of a tribe and presiding over the boule (senate) and the ekklesia (assembly). 443
444
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
i n s t r u c t i o n for his role f r o m M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 5.117). Just as T h u c y d i d e s stresses t h a t after Pericles, there w a s a p r e c i p i t o u s d e c l i n e in the q u a l i t y o f A t h e n i a n l e a d e r s h i p b e c a u s e his s u c c e s s o r s w e r e m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h their p e r s o n a l w e l l - b e i n g t h a n w i t h t h e c o m m o n w e a l , so J o s e p h u s , in a s u p p l e m e n t to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e (Josh.
23.1 ff.), r e m a r k s t h a t J o s h u a ' s
successors s h o w e d t h e m s e l v e s careless
g u a r d i a n s o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l (Ant. 5.90). J o s e p h u s ' s h i g h h g h t i n g o f J o s h u a as a l e a d e r m a y b e seen in his v a r i o u s additions to a n d m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the b i b l i c a l text. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t offi cers w e n t t h r o u g h the c a m p a n d c o m m a n d e d the p e o p l e to follow as t h e y crossed the J o r d a n R i v e r (Josh. 3:2-3), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is J o s h u a h i m s e l f w h o p r o c e e d s t o t r a n s p o r t the a r m y w i t h the w h o l e m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 5.17). W h e r e a s the bibli cal n a r r a t i v e states t h a t the p e o p l e e n c a m p e d in G i l g a l w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g w h o h a d d i r e c t e d t h e m to d o so (Josh. 4:19), J o s e p h u s says explicitly t h a t it w a s J o s h u a w h o d i r e c t e d t h e m to l a y siege to the city o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.22). I n the B i b l e , w e a r e told t h a t the w h o l e c o n g r e g a t i o n o f Israel a s s e m b l e d at S h i l o h a n d set u p the tent o f m e e t i n g , w i t h o u t b e i n g i n f o r m e d as to w h o h a d d i r e c t e d t h e m to d o so (Josh. 18:1); J o s e p h u s specifies t h a t J o s h u a c a l l e d the p e o p l e t o g e t h e r to S h i l o h a n d s u m m o n e d the a s s e m b l y (Ant. 5.72). H i s q u a l i t y as a l e a d e r is e m p h a s i z e d b y t h e fact t h a t o n c e J o s h u a g a v e his order, the p e o p l e r a n t o g e t h e r w i t h alacrity (Ant. 5.73). J o s e p h u s is careful to d o w n g r a d e the role o f C a l e b , w h o , it will b e r e c a l l e d , a p p e a r s o n a p a r w i t h J o s h u a in the B o o k o f N u m b e r s in p r e s e n t i n g their c o u r a g e o u s m i n o r i t y r e p o r t after their r e c o n n o i t e r i n g m i s s i o n ( N u m . 14:6). H e n c e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e recalls M o s e s ' p r o m i s e to give C a l e b t h e city o f H e b r o n , w h i c h h e h a d
reconnoitered
(Josh. 1 4 : 6 - 9 ) , a n d r e c o r d s C a l e b ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w a s still as s t r o n g as h e w a s o n the d a y w h e n M o s e s sent h i m to spy o u t t h e l a n d (Josh. 14:11), J o s e p h u s , in his e a g e r n e s s to r e d u c e the role o f C a l e b , o m i t s his r e q u e s t for H e b r o n (Ant. 5.71).
JOSEPHUS'S AIMS: APOLOGETICS J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e s e e n , m a k e s s p e c i a l efforts t o stress t h a t t h e J e w i s h h e r o e s p o s s e s s e d the c a r d i n a l virtues to a n e m i n e n t d e g r e e . T h e r e are also s o m e a d d i t i o n a l t o u c h e s , n o t a b l e h e r e , h o w e v e r , e s p e c i a l l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s h u a . F o r e x a m p l e , it is e x t r e m e l y e m b a r r a s s i n g t h a t R a h a b , w h o is s u c h a h e r o i n e in the story o f J o s h u a ' s c o n q u e s t o f t h e l a n d , is d e s c r i b e d in the b i b l i c a l t e x t as a h a r l o t 3
(Josh. 2:1). J o s e p h u s , like t h e t a r g u m , h o w e v e r , translates the n o u n d e s c r i b i n g h e r status as " i n n k e e p e r " (Ant. 5-8).
4
3. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, R a h a b became a convert to Judaism a n d the wife of Joshua himself, as well as the ancestress of eight prophets a n d of the prophetess Huldah (Sifre Numbers 78; Sifre Zuta 75; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 8 (end); Megillah 14b; Seder Eliyahu %uta 22.37). T h e Midrash Ruth Rabbah 2.1 (126a) mentions R a h a b as the ancestress o f the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. T h e Gospel o f Matthew (1:5) mentions R a h a b as an ancestress of Jesus. 4. T h e A r a m a i c word pundekita has a double meaning, signifying both "prostitute" and "innkeeper."
JOSHUA
445
A striking c h a n g e i n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t is his o m i s s i o n o f the fact t h a t J o s h u a at G i l g a l p e r f o r m e d the rite o f c i r c u m c i s i o n o n those Israelites w h o h a d b e e n b o r n in the desert ( J o s h . 5:2) e v e n t h o u g h , a c c o r d i n g to the T o r a h ( E x o d . 12:44), the Is raelites w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o k e e p the Passover, as i n d e e d t h e y s u b s e q u e n d y d i d after their c i r c u m c i s i o n , if t h e y h a d n o t b e e n c i r c u m c i s e d ( J o s h . 5.20).
5
6
W e m a y g u e s s t h a t the r e a s o n for this o m i s s i o n is t h a t the b i b l i c a l t e x t s e e m s t o i m p l y t h a t all w e r e c i r c u m c i s e d r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e y c o n s e n t e d o r n o t ; a n d J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to the c h a r g e that the J e w s are a g g r e s s i v e in c o n v e r t i n g n o n - J e w s to J u d a i s m , a c h a r g e t h a t h a d a p p a r e n d y l e d o n at least t w o o c c a s i o n s (139 B.C.E., 19 C.E., a n d p e r h a p s also d u r i n g the r e i g n o f the e m p e r o r C l a u d i u s ) to e x p u l s i o n s o f J e w s f r o m R o m e (see F e l d m a n 1993a, 300-304) a n d a c h a r g e t h a t J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h a d e a g e r l y s o u g h t to c o u n t e r b y o p p o s i n g forcible c o n v e r s i o n o f c a p t u r e d R o m a n s d u r i n g the w a r t h a t b e g a n in 6 6 (Life 112 a n d War 2.454). F o r the s a m e r e a s o n , a p p a r e n d y J o s e p h u s o m i t s the c i r c u m c i s i o n o f the S h e c h e m i t e s b y S i m e o n a n d L e v i (Ant. 1.340). One
o f the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s , as w e h a v e n o t e d , is t h a t o f e x h i b i t i n g the
u t m o s t c r u e l t y t o w a r d strangers. It is a p p a r e n d y to c o u n t e r s u c h c h a r g e s o f J e w i s h atrocities t h a t J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y the Israelite c r u e l t y t o
the
C a n a a n i t e s d e s c r i b e d in J o s h u a . T h u s , w h e r e a s the H e b r e w text s e v e n t i m e s r e c o r d s t h a t J o s h u a s m o t e the v a r i o u s C a n a a n i t e t o w n s w i t h the e d g e o f the s w o r d , utterly d e s t r o y i n g all the i n h a b i t a n t s (Josh. 10:28-36), J o s e p h u s states v e r y s i m p l y t h a t J o s h u a b o t h c a p t u r e d the k i n g s a n d p u n i s h e d all their h o s t a n d m a d e g r e a t c a r n a g e o f the i n h a b i t a n t s a n d also c a p t u r e d b o o t y (Ant. 5 . 6 1 - 6 2 ) . W h e r e a s the H e b r e w t e x t d e s c r i b e s in v i v i d t e r m s the a p p a r e n t ruthlessness w i t h w h i c h J o s h u a c a p t u r e d H a z o r (Josh. 1 1 : 1 0 - 1 5 ) a n d " p u t to the s w o r d all w h o w e r e in it, utterly d e s t r o y i n g t h e m , " so t h a t " t h e r e w a s n o n e left t h a t b r e a t h e d " (Josh. 11:11), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this n o t i c e c o m p l e t e l y (Ant. 5.67). W h e r e a s in the H e b r e w text, in his f a r e w e l l address, J o s h u a d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d will thrust o u t all the n a t i o n s f r o m the l a n d o f C a n a a n (Josh. 2 3 : 1 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a a t t e m p t s to justify s u c h w h o l e s a l e s l a u g h t e r b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e (Joshua) g a v e s u c h o r d e r s b e c a u s e h e w a s c o n v i n c e d t h a t the p e o p l e ' s s e c u r i t y a n d the m a i n t e n a n c e o f their a n c e s t r a l insti tutions d e m a n d e d s u c h a c t i o n (Ant. 5.90). I n a n o t h e r instance, w h e r e the B i b l e d e clares t h a t J o s h u a d i d n o t d r a w b a c k his h a n d at A i until h e h a d utterly d e s t r o y e d all the i n h a b i t a n t s (Josh. 8:27), J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y restricts the s l a u g h t e r t o the
5. T h e importance o f the omission o f the rite o f circumcision m a y be seen from the statement o f the Midrash Aggada o n G e n . 17:8, that the Israelites w o u l d never have b e e n able to enter the L a n d if J o s h u a h a d not circumcised them, inasmuch as the L a n d h a d b e e n promised to the patriarchs on c o n dition that their descendants observed the rite o f circumcision. 6. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:172, n. 16, suggests that Josephus's statement that Gilgal means "liberty" (Ant. 5.34) presupposes the v i e w that by performing the rite o f circumcision there, the Israelites definitely w o n their liberty; but there is n o hint anywhere else in Josephus o f such a connotation of the w o r d "liberty."
446
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m e n , i n a s m u c h as w e a r e specifically t o l d t h a t a c r o w d o f w o m e n , c h i l d r e n , a n d slaves w e r e t a k e n o n this o c c a s i o n (Ant. 5.48). J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a d i l e m m a , i n a s m u c h as the B i b l e itself d e c i s i v e l y forbids i n t e r m a r r i a g e ( D e u t . 7:3); a n d y e t h e w a s a w a r e t h a t t o o s t r e n u o u s a n o b j e c t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e w o u l d p l a y i n t o t h e h a n d s o f the J e w - b a i t e r s w h o c h a r g e d t h e J e w s w i t h m i s a n t h r o p y I n the H e b r e w B i b l e , J o s h u a s t e r n l y w a r n s the Is raelites t h a t i f t h e y m i x w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s , " t h e y shall b e a s n a r e a n d a t r a p for y o u , a s c o u r g e o n y o u r sides, a n d t h o r n s in y o u r eyes, till y o u a r e d r i v e n o f f this g o o d land that the L - r d y o u r G - d has given y o u " (Josh. 23:12-23). In Josephus, the t h r e a t is m u c h r e d u c e d in l e n g t h a n d in intensity, J o s h u a stating m e r e l y t h a t i f t h e Israelites t u r n aside to i m i t a t e o t h e r n a t i o n s , G - d w i l l t u r n a w a y f r o m t h e m (Ant. 5.98).
THE Q U A L I T I E S O F A LEADER Wisdom A s w e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d , J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h e n i n t r o d u c i n g J o s h u a for t h e first t i m e as M o s e s ' h a n d - p i c k e d adjutant, singles o u t , a m o n g his qualities, the fact t h a t h e w a s h i g h l y gifted in intellect (vorjoai " t o p e r c e i v e , " " u n d e r s t a n d " ) (Ant. 3.49). I n his final a p p r a i s a l o f J o s h u a , h e r e m a r k s t h a t h e w a s n o t w a n t i n g in i n t e l l i g e n c e (ovveois,
"insight," "understanding,"
"perception,"
" s a g a c i t y , " " p r u d e n c e , " " d i s c e r n m e n t " ) (Ant. 5.118). I n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e is t h e ability to p e r s u a d e . S o also J o s h u a is said to possess s u p r e m e skill in e x p o u n d i n g his i d e a s to the m u l t i t u d e c l e a r l y (Ant. 5.118), a q u a l i t y n o w h e r e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b u t r e m i n i s c e n t o f Pericles ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.60.5), t h e i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g , in the cases o f b o t h
figures,
t h a t t h e m a s s e s a r e u n r e l i a b l e unless l e d a n d i n s p i r e d b y a c o m p e t e n t l e a d e r a n d speaker. T h e J o s e p h a n J o s h u a s h o w s his effectiveness as a s p e a k e r w h e n , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , h e displays e x c e l l e n t p s y c h o l o g y in c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e Is raelites o n t h e success o f their e x p l o i t s a n d in p r a i s i n g t h e m as w o r t h y o f t h e G - d W h o h a s v o u c h s a f e d t h e m their s u c c e s s a n d o f the e x c e l l e n c e o f t h e l a w s t h a t t h e y w e r e f o l l o w i n g (Ant. 5.73). A s T h u c y d i d e s h a d n o t e d in his p o r t r a i t o f Pericles (2.65.8), a g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e to restrain t h e m u l t i t u d e (Kareixe
T O irXrjdos). S o also J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s
t h a t after the Israelites, u p o n r e c e i v i n g t h e u n f a v o r a b l e r e p o r t o f t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n sent to r e c o n n o i t e r C a n a a n , h a d d e c i d e d to stone M o s e s a n d A a r o n a n d to r e t u r n to E g y p t , J o s h u a a n d C a l e b s o u g h t to restrain the c r o w d ( T O TrXrjdos Kareixov) a n d to a l l a y their p a s s i o n , e n t r e a t i n g t h e m to b e c o u r a g e o u s a n d t o trust those w h o e x h o r t e d t h e m to p r o c e e d to p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 3.308). T h e p i c t u r e h e r e is s i n g u l a r l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e f a m o u s p a s s a g e in V i r g i l (Aeneid 1.124-56) w h e r e N e p t u n e allays t h e t u r b u l e n c e a r o u s e d i n t h e seas b y A e o l u s , t h e g o d o f t h e w i n d s , a n d w h e r e , q u i t e clearly, V i r g i l h a s in m i n d t h e role p l a y e d b y A u g u s t u s in q u i e t i n g t h e
JOSHUA
44j
m o b , after the c e n t u r y o f i n t e r n e c i n e w a r in R o m e , w i t h his simile o f t h e l e a d e r w h o calms the c r o w d that has b e e n passionately aroused: And just as in a great people when sedition [seditio, the Roman equivalent of OTOLOLS] has often been aroused, and the ignoble mob rages with passion, and now firebrands and rocks fly (madness supplies arms), then if, by chance, they behold a man, serious in piety and merits, they are silent and stand with pricked-up ears; he controls their passions with words and soothes their breasts. [Aeneid 1.148-53] I n o r d e r to e n h a n c e J o s h u a ' s qualities as a leader, J o s e p h u s s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t the p e o p l e m u r m u r e d a g a i n s t t h e i r l e a d e r s , i n c l u d i n g J o s h u a , w h e n t h e y w e r e f o r b i d d e n to p u n i s h t h e t r e a c h e r o u s G i b e o n i t e s , w i t h w h o m t h e y h a d m a d e a t r e a t y ( J o s h . 9:18 v s . Ant. 5.56). B u t t h e r e is m o r e to J o s h u a ' s w i s d o m t h a n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d o r a t o r i c a l a b i l i t y O n t w o o c c a s i o n s , J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t b y t e r m i n g J o s h u a a p r o p h e t (Ant. 4 . 1 6 5 , 4. 311). I n the first s u c h c a s e , J o s e p h u s is p a r a p h r a s i n g t h e b i b lical p a s s a g e in w h i c h G - d tells M o s e s to l a y his h a n d s u p o n (i.e., select as his suc cessor) J o s h u a , " a m a n in w h o m t h e r e is a spirit" (ruah) ( N u m . 27:18). I n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e , M o s e s a p p o i n t s J o s h u a to s u c c e e d h i m b o t h in his p r o p h e t i c a l f u n c 7
t i o n s a n d as c o m m a n d e r in c h i e f (Ant. 4.165), thus q u i t e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e , as J o s e p h u s ' s m o u t h p i e c e , r e g a r d s these t w o qualities as p r i m a r y in t h e l e a d e r w h o is to s u c c e e d M o s e s . I n t h e s e c o n d p a s s a g e , after i n d i c a t i n g (in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f N u m . 28:1-30:1) t h a t M o s e s t a u g h t the Israelites h o w t h e y s h o u l d c o n s u l t t h e o r a c u l a r stones w h e n t a k i n g t h e field, J o s e p h u s a p p e n d s t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k t h a t J o s h u a also p r o p h e s i e d in t h e p r e s e n c e o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.311). J u s t as M o s e s (Ant. 4.320), at the c l o s e o f his life, " p r o p h e s i e s " to e a c h o f t h e tribes t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e p a s t (yevofjueva), so t h e B o o k o f J o s h u a is a p r o p h e t i c b o o k , as it is r e c k o n e d also b y the r a b b i s (Baba Batra 14b); a n d J o s h u a h i m s e l f is a m e m b e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n p r o f e s s i o n — t h a t is, a h i s t o r i a n — a n d thus, as n o t e d , a k i n to a p r o p h e t i n J o s e p h u s ' s view. N o n e t h e l e s s , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s differs f r o m his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y , P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o in his Biblical Antiquities
20.2 r e m a r k s t h a t after t h e
d e a t h o f M o s e s , G - d t o l d J o s h u a literally to t a k e t h e g a r m e n t s o f M o s e s ' w i s d o m a n d , b y p u t t i n g these o n , to " b e c o m e a n o t h e r m a n . " F o r J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o s u c h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in J o s h u a : his i n t e l l i g e n c e is a p p a r e n d y i n n a t e , n o t d u e to his d o n n i n g M o s e s ' g a r m e n t s : i n d e e d , it is p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e o f J o s h u a ' s i n n a t e w i s d o m t h a t M o s e s selects h i m to s u c c e e d h i m . J o s e p h u s h a s n o e q u i v a l e n t to t h e r a b b i n i c p i c t u r e o f J o s h u a as s t u d e n t o f t h e T o r a h (Genesis Rabbah 6.9). T h e r e w e a r e t o l d t h a t G - d a p p e a r e d to J o s h u a i n o r d e r to g i v e h i m m i l i t a r y instructions a n d f o u n d h i m r e a d i n g t h e B o o k o f
7. This is particularly interesting, inasmuch as prophecy is constandy, well into the Christian pe riod, regarded by Christians as the essential element of the biblical literature.
448
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
D e u t e r o n o m y , w h e r e u p o n G - d d e c l a r e d t h a t " t h e b o o k o f the l a w shall n o t d e p a r t o u t o f thy m o u t h " (see J o s h . 1:8). It is significant t h a t this p a s s a g e in the B o o k o f J o s h u a itself is o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s ; n o r is t h e r e a n y c o u n t e r p a r t to the r a b b i n i c p i c t u r e o f J o s h u a as the i d e a l t y p e o f the " d i s c i p l e o f the w i s e " o r o f the t a l m u d i c p h r a s e reflecting the stature o f J o s h u a as a scholar, n a m e l y , " e v e n if J o s h u a the s o n o f N u n h a d t o l d m e " (cf. Hullin 124a; Yevamot 4 5 a ; Berakot 24b) o r o f the s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s h u a w a s a b l e b y m e a n s o f d e e p r e a s o n i n g to establish the r a t i o n a l e for the l a w s r e v e a l e d to M o s e s o n S i n a i ( J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d , Peak 1.15a). J o s e p h u s ' s a i m is c l e a r l y to h i g h l i g h t J o s h u a as a p r a g m a t i c leader, n o t e d e s p e c i a l l y for his c o u r a g e in w a r . Courage 8
It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e t h a t o n t e n o c c a s i o n s J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t b y r e f e r r i n g to J o s h u a as a g e n e r a l . H e d o e s this at times outside the m a i n n a r r a t i v e o f J o s h u a , w h e r e J o s e p h u s felt the n e e d t o identify J o s h u a a n d c h o s e to d o so w i t h the e p i t h e t " g e n e r a l " (arpanqyos).
J o s h u a ' s ability as a g e n e r a l is p a r t i c u l a r l y e n
h a n c e d b y the fact t h a t h e h a d as his t e a c h e r the g r e a t g e n e r a l M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 3.50-51); i n d e e d , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t M o s e s , b e f o r e the battle w i t h A m a l e k , said to J o s h u a : " C h o o s e for us m e n , a n d g o out, fight w i t h A m a l e k " ( E x o d . 17:9), J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s M o s e s as p a s s i n g a w a k e f u l n i g h t
instructing
J o s h u a o n h o w to m a r s h a l his forces a n d as e x h o r t i n g his p r o t e g e at the first streak o f d a w n to p r o v e h i m s e l f in a c t i o n n o t inferior to the h o p e s t h a t h e h a s o f h i m (Ant. 1
3-50-5 )J o s h u a ' s e x c e l l e n c e as a g e n e r a l is s e e n e s p e c i a l l y in the e n c o u n t e r w i t h the A m a l e k i t e s , w h e r e , b e c a u s e o f his s u p e r i o r tactics, n o t a single o n e o f his m e n p e r ishes, w h e r e a s the e n e m y ' s d e a d are p a s t n u m b e r i n g . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , J o s h u a c o m m a n d s the p e o p l e t h r o u g h his officers (Josh. 1:10), in J o s e p h u s , h e d i r e c d y a n d w i t h o u t i n t e r m e d i a r i e s enjoins t h e m to p r e p a r e for the c a m p a i g n (Ant. 5.1). I n a d dition, J o s h u a ' s skill as a g e n e r a l m a y b e s e e n in his m a s t e r y o f tactics in c a p t u r i n g a city b y stealth. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e h a s J o s h u a instruct his soldiers to lie in w a i t n e a r the city o f A i (Josh. 8:4), J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a g e n e r a l in G a l i l e e , a n d m o d e l i n g his p r e s e n t a t i o n o n T h u c y d i d e s (2.81), e l a b o r a t e s b y h a v i n g h i m p o s t a m b u s c a d e s d u r i n g the n i g h t a n d all a b o u t the t o w n (Ant. 5.45). J o s h u a the g e n e r a l is d e p i c t e d as steadfast in refusing to y i e l d t o p i t y T h u s w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l t e x t says m e r e l y t h a t J o s h u a ' s m e n utterly d e s t r o y e d all in the city o f J e r i c h o (Josh. 6:21), J o s e p h u s specifically d e c l a r e s t h a t it w a s J o s h u a w h o c h a r g e d t h e m to slay all w h o m t h e y c a p t u r e d " a n d n e i t h e r t h r o u g h w e a r i n e s s , n o r y i e l d i n g to pity, to desist f r o m the s l a u g h t e r o f their e n e m i e s " (Ant. 5.25). Finally, J o s h u a ' s g r e a t n e s s as a g e n e r a l b e c o m e s e v i d e n t p a r t i c u l a r l y t h r o u g h t h e v o i d c r e a t e d b y his d e a t h . T h u s w e a r e t o l d in the B i b l e t h a t A d o n i - b e z e k l e d t h e C a n a a n -
8. War 4 4 5 9 ; Ant. 3.59, 4.165, 4.324, 6.84, 7.68, 7.294, 9.207, 9.280,11.112.
JOSHUA
449
ites i n battle a g a i n s t the Israelites (Judg. 1:5); J o s e p h u s p e r c e p t i v e l y a d d s , i n trib ute t o J o s h u a , t h a t " t h e y w e r e h o p i n g to d e f e a t the Israelites, since J o s h u a w a s d e a d " (Ant. 5.121). B u t J o s h u a is m o r e t h a n o n e w h o gives o r d e r s . H e also, as n o t e d , is a role m o d e l o f e x t r e m e c o u r a g e (Ant. 5 . 1 1 8 , " s t o u t - h e a r t e d " ) a n d g r e a t d a r i n g ; a n d this is o n e o f t h e m a j o r r e a s o n s w h y h e is s e l e c t e d b y M o s e s to l e a d the Israelites in battle. J o s h u a ' s e x p l o i t s i n the b a t d e w i t h t h e A m a l e k i t e s a r e attested b y t h e w h o l e a r m y (Ant. 3.59), a n d h e is c o n s e q u e n d y p r a i s e d b y M o s e s himself. T h e p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a as r e s c u e r f r o m d e s p a i r is m a g n i f i e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Is raelite r e a c t i o n after t h e d e f e a t at N a i a (Ai). I n t h e B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e h e a r t s o f t h e p e o p l e m e l t e d a n d b e c a m e as water, a n d t h a t J o s h u a h i m s e l f r e n t his c l o t h e s a n d fell t o t h e e a r t h b e f o r e t h e ark until t h e e v e n i n g ( J o s h . 7 : 5 - 6 ) ; h e t h e n in d e s p a i r q u e s t i o n s G - d as to w h y H e h a s b r o u g h t t h e Israelites o v e r t h e J o r d a n o n l y to d e l i v e r t h e m into t h e h a n d s o f the A m o r i t e s , e x p r e s s e s the w i s h t h a t t h e Is raelites h a d n e v e r c r o s s e d t h e J o r d a n , a n d asks G - d w h a t h e s h o u l d n o w s a y to t h e Israelites ( J o s h . 7 : 7 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s a m o r e c o n f i d e n t J o s h u a . N o t h i n g is said a b o u t his r e n d i n g his c l o t h e s , a n d w e a r e t o l d t h a t it is the p e o p l e w h o h a v e u n d u l y m a g n i f i e d their distress, in u t t e r d e s p o n d e n c y b e c a u s e , h a v i n g t h o u g h t t h e m s e l v e s m a s t e r s o f t h e c o u n t r y t h e y n o w b e h e l d their e n e m i e s u n e x p e c t e d l y e m b o l d e n e d (Ant. 5.37). J o s h u a a d d r e s s e s G - d w i t h frankness (Trapprjatav, " f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h , " " c a n d o r , " " s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , " "self-assertion," " a u d a c i t y " ) . F a r f r o m d e s p a i r i n g , t r u e l e a d e r t h a t h e is, h e recalls t h a t a n u m b e r o f things h a v e t u r n e d o u t as p r o m i s e d b y G - d a n d p r o c e e d s t o a p p e a l to G - d to dispel t h e d e s p o n d e n c y o f t h e people.
9
J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r s h i p is further a c c e n t u a t e d t h r o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i z i n g t h e p o w e r o f t h e Israelites' o p p o n e n t s . T h u s w e r e a d s i m p l y t h a t J o s h u a c a m e a n d fell u p o n t h e C a n a a n i t e s ( J o s h . 1 1 : 7 - 8 ) ; b u t in J o s e p h u s t h e c o m b a t is d e s c r i b e d as fierce, a n d t h e c a r n a g e , w e a r e told, w a s s u c h t h a t the tale o f it w o u l d b e b e y o n d b e l i e f (Ant. 5 . 6 6 ) .
10
W e h e a r o f t h e cities o f the C a n a a n i t e s to w h i c h t h e Israelites
h a v e c o m e ( J o s h . 9:17); b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f a n a l l i a n c e a m o n g t h e m , let a l o n e o f t h e r e a s o n for s u c h . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , d e c l a r e s t h a t the G i b e o n i t e s in v i t e d t h e n e i g h b o r i n g tribes to f o r m a n a l l i a n c e w i t h t h e m , w a r n i n g t h e m o f w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n to t h e m i f t h e y d i d n o t (Ant. 5.50); a n d h e n c e J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r s h i p is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e h e w a s a b l e to m e e t the t h r e a t b y this l e a g u e . I n their ruse, w h e n t h e y s e n d a d e l e g a t i o n to J o s h u a s e e k i n g to f o r m a n a l l i a n c e w i t h h i m , t h e
9. Far different is the picture o f the episode presented in rabbinic literature: there Joshua loosens the shoes from off his feet in mourning, not for the defeat at A i , but for the neglect o f the study o f T o r a h by the people (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 18.101-2); and an angel reproaches Joshua for having allowed the preparations for w a r to interfere with the study o f T o r a h (Erubin 63b). 10. T o maintain authenticity, however, Josephus avoids exaggeration. T h u s , whereas the Bible de clares that none o f the Canaanites were left after Joshua e n g a g e d them in batde (Josh. 11:8), Josephus, m o r e credibly, says that Joshua destroyed the w h o l e o f the enemy's army, save for a few (Ant. 5.66).
450
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
G i b e o n i t e s p a y tribute to h i m b y specifically n o t i n g that it w a s his v a l o r t h a t h a d b r o u g h t t h e m to h i m (Ant. 5.52). J o s h u a ' s a c h i e v e m e n t is all the g r e a t e r b e c a u s e o f the strength o f the fortifications, d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s at s o m e l e n g t h , o f the C a n a a n i t e cities (Ant. 5 . 7 1 - 7 2 ) , a p o i n t n o t m e n t i o n e d in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (Josh. 13:1). If, ultimately, J o s h u a fails to c o m p l e t e the c o n q u e s t , J o s e p h u s is careful to as c r i b e this, n o t to a n y d e f i c i e n c y o n his p a r t , b u t r a t h e r to the fact t h a t a g e i m p e d e d h i m , as w e l l as the fact t h a t those w h o s u c c e e d e d h i m w e r e careless g u a r d i a n s o f the c o m m o n w e a l (Ant. 5.90), w h i c h is p r o m i n e n t , as w e see f r o m T h u c y d i d e s ' d e scription (2.60.5-6), a m o n g the qualities o f a leader. A g r e a t g e n e r a l m u s t b e able to inspire his troops. In the B i b l e , J o s h u a u p b r a i d s the p e o p l e a n d asks h o w l o n g t h e y will b e slack a b o u t g o i n g in to take possession o f the l a n d that G - d h a s g i v e n t h e m (Josh. 18:3). J o s e p h u s , in a d d i t i o n to a v o i d i n g the l a n d t h e o l o g y o f this p a s s a g e , h a s J o s h u a s p e a k at l e n g t h a n d use e x c e l l e n t p s y c h o l o g y in first c o m m e n d i n g t h e m for their successes a l r e a d y a c h i e v e d , n o t a b l y their utter defeat o f thirty-one kings, a n d c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e m as w o r t h y o f G - d a n d o f the e x c e l l e n c e o f their laws. H e thanks those from b e y o n d the J o r d a n w h o j o i n e d h i m in s h a r i n g his d a n g e r s . F a r from b l a m i n g t h e m for n o t c o m p l e t i n g the c o n quest, h e g r a c i o u s l y a d m i t s that m o r e t i m e w a s n e e d e d for the c a p t u r e o f the C a n a a n i t e cities, o w i n g to the strength o f their r a m p a r t s . W h e n d i s c h a r g i n g the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes, instead o f m e r e l y telling t h e m to r e t u r n to their tents (Josh. 22:3-4), J o s e p h u s h a s J o s h u a g r a c i o u s l y e x p l a i n that since n o further a r d u o u s task w a s t h e n a w a i t i n g t h e m , it w a s b u t j u s t that t h e y s h o u l d rest, so as to b e alert to m e e t future e m e r g e n c i e s (Ant. 5 . 9 4 ) .
11
A n d yet, as e l s e w h e r e , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e n g a g e in u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the figure o f J o s h u a , H e s p e a k s m e r e l y o f four k i n g s w h o j o i n e d the G i b e o n i t e s in their a l l i a n c e w i t h J o s h u a a n d a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r o f k i n g s w h o j o i n e d the k i n g o f J e r u s a l e m in o p p o s i n g h i m (Ant. 5.58). A s t o J o s h u a himself, w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text states m e r e l y t h a t h e w e n t u p f r o m G i l g a l to u n d e r t a k e the c o n q u e s t o f the s o u t h e r n p a r t o f C a n a a n (Josh. 10:7), J o s e p h u s ' s
Joshua
" s p e d " (oTrevoas) to the assistance o f the G i b e o n i t e s , m a r c h i n g all d a y a n d all n i g h t (Ant. 5.60). T h e f a m e o f the Israelites' v a l o r is w i d e s p r e a d in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5.63), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , w e r e a d m e r e l y t h a t J a b i n , k i n g o f H a z o r , h a d h e a r d o f it (Josh. 11:1). Finally, it a c c r u e s to J o s h u a ' s r e p u t a t i o n as a l e a d e r t h a t his m e n are c a l l e d " v a l i a n t " (dyadwv) a n d " w o r t h y o f r e g a r d " (oTrovSfjs d^iov) (Ant. 5 . 3 6 ) .
12
11. T h e r e is no indication in Josephus, as there is in the Samaritan tradition (Chronicon Samaritanum, ed. Juynboll, 26-32, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:179, n. 45) that Joshua was a giant w h o stood five ells tall (about seven and a half feet). Furthermore, rabbinic tradition states that thirty-one kings, as well as the satraps o f many foreign kings, opposed Joshua (Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi it 7.36c; Leviticus Rabbah 17.6; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 5.14). 12. Josephus avoids undue exaggeration o f the type that we find in the rabbinic comment that the death of one of Joshua's soldiers, Jair, was as weighty a matter as if the majority of the Sanhedrin had been destroyed (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 11.7; Baba Batra 121b; Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7.5).
JOSHUA
451
Temperance T h e t h i r d o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t e m p e r a n c e , is a r e c u r r i n g m o t i f in J o s e p h u s . W e find that, j u s t as o n e o f the qualities in Pericles so a d m i r e d b y T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.8) w a s his ability to restrain t h e m a s s e s a n d to d i r e c t t h e m o n t o a p a t h o f m o d e r a t i o n , so t h e J o s e p h a n J o s h u a e v i d e n c e s a similar ability, as illustrated, notably, in his success, n o t p a r a l l e l e d in the B i b l e (Josh. 22:13), in r e s t r a i n i n g t h e p e o p l e ' s a n g e r at t h e tribes o f R e u b e n a n d G a d a n d the h a l f tribe o f M a n a s s e h , w h o h a d e r e c t e d a n altar o n t h e b a n k s o f t h e J o r d a n (Ant. 5.103). I n the B i b l e , it is P h i n e h a s t h e priest a n d t h e r e s p e c t i v e l e a d e r s o f t e n o f the tribes w h o f o r m a d e l e g a t i o n to the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes (Josh. 2 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a , w h o , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e h i g h priest E l e a z a r a n d the elders, restrains t h e p e o p l e a n d c o u n sels t h e m to seek a p a r l e y (Ant. 5.103). Justice W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t single o u t the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e as s u c h in his p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , h e d o e s e m p h a s i z e J o s h u a ' s h o n e s t y a n d fairness, w h i c h are, o f c o u r s e , intrinsic to j u s t i c e . I n d e e d , a p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , as w e see f r o m t h e a g e d G e p h a l u s , w h o represents tradition in Plato's Republic (1331G), is s p e a k i n g t h e truth. I n t h e c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his c o n c e r n t h a t his o a t h n o t b e v i o l a t e d , e v e n w h e n t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s a r e the deceitful G i b e o n i t e s (Ant. 5.57). W h e n h e d i s c o v e r s their s t r a t e g e m , h e c o n v o k e s the h i g h priest E l e a z a r a n d t h e c o u n c i l a n d m a k e s the G i b e o n i t e s p u b l i c slaves so as to a v o i d v i o l a t i o n o f the o a t h t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e m (Josh. 9 : 2 7 ) .
13
W e a r e i n f o r m e d t h a t J o s h u a tells the Israelites to a p p o i n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m e a c h o f t h e tribes w h o a r e o f a p p r o v e d v i r t u e to m e a s u r e o u t the l a n d faithfully a n d w i t h o u t f r a u d u l e n c e a n d to r e p o r t h o n e s t l y to t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n at l a r g e re g a r d i n g its d i m e n s i o n s (Ant. 5.75). T h e b i b l i c a l text s i m p l y says t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are to b e a p p o i n t e d to a p p o r t i o n t h e l a n d (Josh. 18:4); the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s uses t h e a b o v e t h r e e e x p r e s s i o n s in r e f e r e n c e to t h e m a n d a d d s t h a t the s u r v e y o r s w e r e e x p e r t s , " f r o m w h o m b y r e a s o n o f their skill the truth w o u l d n o t b e h i d d e n , " e m p h a s i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e h e a t t a c h e d to h o n e s t y a n d t r u t h (Ant. 5.76). S o m e w h a t later, J o s e p h u s a g a i n e x p a n d s o n J o s h u a ' s c o n c e r n for fairness in this a p p o r t i o n m e n t b y e x p l a i n i n g w h y the a l l o t m e n t s h a d to b e fixed b y v a l u a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n b y m e a s u r e m e n t , since in s o m e cases, a single a c r e o f o n e t y p e o f l a n d w a s w o r t h as m u c h as a t h o u s a n d o f a n o t h e r t y p e (Ant. 5.78). Still later, J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t it is J o s h u a w h o m a d e sure t h a t t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e m a g n i t u d e o f e a c h tribe (Ant. 5.80). S o c o n c e r n e d is J o s e p h u s w i t h his h e r o ' s fairness t h a t 13. A similar regard for the inviolability o f an oath given by Joshua to the Gibeonites is shown in rabbinic literature (Gittin 46a), where w e are told that Joshua kept his promise to the Gibeonites in order to sanctify the n a m e o f G - d by showing h o w sacred an oath w a s to the Israelites.
452
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
w h e r e a s the B i b l e cites in d e t a i l the b o u n d a r i e s o f the l a n d g i v e n to the B e n j a m i n i t e s w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g w h y its t e r r i t o r y w a s so n a r r o w , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t the r e a s o n for this w a s t h a t their soil w a s p e c u l i a r l y e x c e l l e n t ( J o s h . 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 0 ) . I n c o n t r a s t t o J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t , the r a b b i s e m p h a s i z e the m i r a c u l o u s e l e m e n t in the a p p o r t i o n m e n t , w h e r e b y the h o l y spirit i n s p i r e d the h i g h priest in m a k i n g e a c h specific a s s i g n m e n t (Baba Batra 122a). J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f J o s h u a ' s g e n e r o s i t y a n d g r a t i t u d e — q u a l i t i e s t h a t are c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h j u s t i c e u n d e r the r u b r i c o f h u m a n i t y (<j>iXavdpo)Tr[a). J o s h u a s h o w s his q u a l i t y o f g e n e r o s i t y w h e n h e distributes all the b o o t y c a p t u r e d at A i a m o n g his soldiers (Ant 5 4 8 ) , w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h a distribution a m o n g t h e m ( J o s h . 8:27). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l text ( J o s h . 6:25)
D V
h a v i n g J o s h u a specifically a c
k n o w l e d g e his g r a t i t u d e to R a h a b for h a v i n g p r o t e c t e d his spies (Ant 5.30). H e as sures h e r t h a t in r e c o m p e n s i n g her, h e w i l l n o t b e f o u n d t o fall short o f s u c h a b e n e f a c t i o n . I n c o n c r e t e t e r m s , the J o s e p h a n J o s h u a ' s s h o w o f g r a t i t u d e g o e s b e y o n d t h a t o f his b i b l i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t , in t h a t h e presents h e r w i t h l a n d s f o r t h w i t h and shows her every consideration. B o t h in a n earlier a d d r e s s at S h i l o h (Ant 5.74) a n d in his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s t o the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes w h o h a d their s e t t l e m e n t b e y o n d the J o r d a n (Ant 5.95), J o s h u a r e n d e r s t h a n k s t o t h e m for h a v i n g s h a r e d his perils. H e v e r y g r a c i o u s l y re calls h o w t h e y h a d d e f e r r e d the e n j o y m e n t o f t h e i r possessions a n d r e s o l v e d to p a r t a k e o f t h e m o n l y after h e l p i n g the o t h e r tribes, a n d a d d s t h a t the Israelites will b e grateful t o t h e m " n o t o n l y t o d a y b u t forever." I n the B i b l e , t h e r e is a n a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t the tribes h a d n o t d e s e r t e d their b r e t h r e n , b u t t h e r e is n o c o r r e s p o n d i n g e x p r e s s i o n o f t h a n k s ( J o s h . 22:3). T h e r e a f t e r , J o s h u a v e r y g r a c i o u s l y gives t h a n k s to his soldiers, a d d i n g to the b i b l i c a l text (Josh. 22:8) t h a t t h e y will t a k e w i t h t h e m " o u r g o o d w i l l a n d r e a d i n e s s t o serve a n d r e q u i t e y o u in w h a t s o e v e r y o u m a y d e s i r e " (Ant 5.96). H e t h e n c o m p l i m e n t s t h e m for h a v i n g n e i t h e r i n a n y w i s e shirked t h e b e h e s t s o f M o s e s n o r d i s d a i n e d his a u t h o r i t y after his d e a t h , " n o r is there a u g h t for w h i c h w e d o n o t a c c o r d y o u g r a t i t u d e . "
Piety A s n o t e d , in d e s c r i b i n g the qualities o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s cites the s i n g u l a r p i e t y t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m his m e n t o r , M o s e s (Ant 3.49). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y for J o s h u a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to the Israelites. I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , h e e x h o r t s t h e p e o p l e to fear the L - r d a n d to serve H i m in sincerity a n d faithfulness ( J o s h . 24:14). J o s e p h u s ' s J o s h u a n o t o n l y e x h o r t s the Israelites b u t specifically e x p l a i n s that it is o n l y t h r o u g h
piety
(evoefielq) t h a t t h e y c a n r e t a i n t h e friendship o f G - d (Ant 5.116). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w e are further t o l d t h a t i n a s s i g n i n g the cities o f refuge, h e t o o k strict c a r e to n e g l e c t n o t h i n g o f w h a t M o s e s h a d c o m m a n d e d (Ant 5 . 9 1 ; cf. J o s h . 2 0 : 1 - 2 ) . J o s h u a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n s h o w s his p i e t y b y b e i n g c o n s t a n d y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
JOSHUA
453
t h e h i g h priest a n d w i t h the c o u n c i l o f elders (Ant. 4 . 1 8 6 , 4.324, 5 . 1 5 , 5.22, 5.43, 5.55, 5.57, 5.80), w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text m a k e s n o s u c h a s s o c i a t i o n . I n particular, w e m a y n o t e t h a t w h e n M o s e s is a b o u t to die, h e is e s c o r t e d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , b y t h e elders, E l e a z a r the h i g h priest, a n d J o s h u a t h e g e n e r a l (Ant. 4.324), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s d i e d ( D e u t . 34:5). M o r e o v e r , J o s h u a p i o u s l y r e p o r t s t o E l e a z a r a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders w h a t the spies h a d s w o r n to R a h a b (Ant. 5.15); a n d since t h e k e e p i n g o f o n e ' s o a t h is a s a c r e d duty, t h e y d u l y ratify i t — a d e t a i l t h a t is n o t f o u n d i n S c r i p t u r e (Josh. 2:23). A g a i n , in d r a w i n g lots t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e sinner, J o s e p h u s h a s J o s h u a s u m m o n E l e a z a r a n d t h e m a g i s t r a t e s (Ant. 5.43), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h a c o n sultation ( J o s h . 7:16). F u r t h e r m o r e , the o a t h c o n f i r m i n g t h e c o n v e n a n t w i t h t h e G i b e o n i t e s is p r o n o u n c e d n o t m e r e l y b y J o s h u a , as in S c r i p t u r e ( J o s h . 9:15), b u t also b y t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders (Ant. 5.55). I n d e e d , in u p h o l d i n g t h e i n v i o l a b i l i t y o f t h e o a t h g i v e n to t h e G i b e o n i t e s , J o s h u a , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , c o n s u l t s t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e c o u n c i l (Ant. 5.57), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e h e acts a l o n e ( J o s h . 9:26). A g a i n , i n a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e l a n d , J o s e p h u s ' s J o s h u a c o n s u l t s E l e a z a r a n d the c o u n c i l o f e l d e r s (Ant. 5.80), w h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s h u a acts o n his o w n ( J o s h . 18:10). O n e m a y g u e s s t h a t in this e m p h a s i s o n J o s h u a ' s piety, J o s e p h u s w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e fact t h a t h e h i m s e l f w a s a priest a n d h e n c e d e e m e d it c r u c i a l t h a t t h e priest h o o d b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e p e o p l e , j u s t as in his v i e w o f p r o p h e c y , h e l o o k s u p o n P h i n e h a s t h e h i g h priest as G - d ' s i n t e r p r e t e r (7Tpo(/)rjT€vaavTos) (Ant. 5.120,159), w h e r e a s the biblical passage has n o m e n t i o n o f Phinehas's p r o p h e s y i n g (Judg. 20:27-28).
D E T H E O L O G I Z I N G AND AVOIDANCE OF T H E O L O G I C A L DIFFICULTIES I n t h e c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s s o u g h t to e m p h a s i z e his piety, o n t h e o n e h a n d , b u t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a s careful n o t t o stress u n d u l y t h e role o f G - d in his a c t u a l e x p l o i t s , lest h e d i m i n i s h t h e c r e d i t d u e t o J o s h u a himself. J o s e p h u s o m i t s G - d ' s c h a r g e to J o s h u a r e a s s u r i n g h i m a n d telling h i m to b e s t r o n g a n d o f g o o d c o u r a g e ( J o s h . 1 : 1 - 9 v s . Ant. 5.1). W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s h u a e x h o r t s t h e tribes o f R e u b e n a n d G a d a n d t h e h a l f tribe o f M a n a s s e h , r e m i n d i n g t h e m o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f t h e l a n d to t h e m ( J o s h . 1:12-13), in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a r e m i n d s t h e m r a t h e r o f their p r o m i s e s t o M o s e s a n d e x h o r t s t h e m , o u t o f r e s p e c t for M o s e s ' f o r e t h o u g h t o n their behalf, t o r e s p o n d t o his o r d e r s w i t h a l a c r i t y (Ant. 5.4). I n t h e i r b i b l i c a l r e s p o n s e , t h e t w o a n d a h a l f tribes p r a y t h a t G - d w i l l b e w i t h J o s h u a as H e w a s w i t h M o s e s ( J o s h . 1:17); b u t i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n (Ant. 5.4), w e r e a d o n l y that they followed Joshua. T h e s a m e d e e m p h a s i s o n G - d m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t i n t h e B i b l e , w h e n R a h a b a d d r e s s e s t h e spies, she m e n t i o n s G - d five t i m e s in r e c a l l i n g t h e m i r a c l e s t h a t H e h a s p e r f o r m e d for t h e Israelites ( J o s h . 2 : 9 - 1 2 ) , b u t she says n o t h i n g a b o u t
454
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
G - d ' s m i r a c l e s in J o s e p h u s a n d m e n t i o n s G - d ' s n a m e o n l y o n c e as t h e s o u r c e o f t h e signs b y w h i c h she k n e w t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d c a p t u r e t h e c i t y o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.12). W h e n t h e spies r e p o r t t o J o s h u a , t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n h a s t h e m s a y t h a t " t h e L - r d h a s g i v e n all the l a n d i n t o o u r h a n d s " (Josh. 2:24); b u t in J o s e p h u s t h e role o f G - d is o m i t t e d , a n d w e r e a d o n l y t h a t t h e y r e c o u n t e d their a d v e n t u r e s (Ant. A g a i n , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , o n t w o o c c a s i o n s , it is G - d w h o tells J o s h u a to c o m m a n d t h e priests to c o m e u p o u t o f t h e J o r d a n (Josh. 3:7, 4 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a p r o c e e d s o n his o w n t o t r a n s p o r t the a r m y a n d e v e n establishes t h e o r d e r in w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s classes o f t h e p e o p l e are to cross (Ant. 5.17). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the r e m a r k , f o u n d in t h e B i b l e (Josh. 5:1), t h a t w h e n t h e A m o r i t e a n d C a n a a n i t e kings h e a r d that the L - r d h a d dried u p the waters o f the J o r d a n for t h e Israelites, their h e a r t s m e l t e d in fear (Ant. 5.20). A t t h e siege o f J e r i c h o , w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , G - d tells J o s h u a t h a t H e h a s g i v e n t h e c i t y i n t o his h a n d s (Josh. 6:2), in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e priests a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders, resolves to b e s i e g e t h e c i t y (Ant. 5.22). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e e t y m o l o g y o f t h e n a m e G i l g a l e x p l a i n s t h e fact t h a t G - d h a d " r o l l e d a w a y " t h e r e p r o a c h o f E g y p t f r o m the Israelites (Josh. 5:9), in J o s e p h u s , the n a m e G i l g a l is said t o signify " f r e e d o m " f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d f r o m t h e miseries o f t h e desert (Ant. 5.34); a n d there is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e role o f G - d in t h e o r i g i n o f t h e n a m e . E v e n w h e n , as in J o s h u a ' s p r a y e r t o G - d after t h e defeat at A i , h e d o e s a p p e a l to G - d to dispel t h e affliction o f t h e Israelites, h e d o e s n o t ask, as d o e s the b i b l i c a l text (Josh. 7:9), w h a t G - d w o u l d d o for H i s g r e a t n a m e i f t h e C a n a a n i t e s s h o u l d defeat the Israelites (Ant. 5.41). M o s t s i g n i f i c a n d y in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o purifies his a r m y a n d takes the initiative to t h i n k o f a n a m b u s h a g a i n s t A i (Ant. 5.45), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is G - d w h o tells J o s h u a to l a y a n a m b u s h a g a i n s t t h e c i t y (Josh. 8:1-2). L i k e w i s e , w h e n A c h a n is p u n i s h e d for his transgres sion, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d ' s a n g e r w a s a s s u a g e d ( J o s h . 7:26 v s . Ant. 5.44). W h e r e a s the Bible declares that the L - r d gave L i b n a h a n d L a c h i s h into the h a n d s o f Israel (Josh. 10:30 a n d 32), in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a s i m p l y c a p t u r e s t h e k i n g s a n d p u n i s h e s all the h o s t (Ant. 5.61). A g a i n , o n e o f the m o s t difficult p r o b l e m s in b i b l i c a l t h e o d i c y is to justify t h e h a r d e n i n g o f P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t at t h e e x o d u s a n d o f the h e a r t s o f the C a n a a n i t e e n e m i e s o f t h e Israelites w h e n t h e y cross t h e J o r d a n (Josh. 11:20). J o s e p h u s , e a g e r to a v o i d s u c h p r o b l e m s , o m i t s t h e r e f e r e n c e c o m p l e t e l y in his n a r r a t i v e o f J o s h u a (Ant. 5.67), as h e d o e s in his a c c o u n t o f t h e p l a g u e s in E g y p t (Ant. 2.293 ff.). I n a d d i t i o n , in J o s h u a ' s first f a r e w e l l e x h o r t a t i o n , t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is G - d W h o will thrust t h e C a n a a n i t e s o u t f r o m b e f o r e the Israelites, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h H i s p r o m i s e (Josh. 23:5). I n J o s e p h u s , there is n o m e n t i o n o f G - d at this p o i n t (Ant. 5.90): it is t h e Israelites t h e m s e l v e s w h o are c h a r g e d b y J o s h u a to l e a v e n o r e m n a n t o f the C a n a a n i t e s .
JOSHUA
4
5
5
W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , G - d takes the initiative to tell J o s h u a to d i r e c t the Is raelites to a p p o i n t cities o f refuge ( J o s h . 20:1), in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o assigns these cities (Ant. 5.91). Finally, w e m a y n o t e t h a t in J o s h u a ' s f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s t o t h e p e o p l e in the B i b l e , the w o r d L - r d a p p e a r s s i x t e e n t i m e s a n d the w o r d G - d thir t e e n t i m e s ( J o s h . 2 3 : 1 - 1 6 ) ; in J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r d L - r d a p p e a r s o n l y o n c e , a n d the w o r d G - d four t i m e s (Ant. 5 . 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; a n d w e m a y further n o t e t h a t in this s p e e c h , J o s e p h u s r a d i c a l l y a b b r e v i a t e s the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f all the b e n e factions that, a c c o r d i n g t o the b i b l i c a l text, G - d h a s b e s t o w e d o n the Israelites R e a l i z i n g t h a t the c r o s s i n g o f the J o r d a n ( w h i c h is d e s c r i b e d at l e n g t h in m i r a c u l o u s t e r m s in the H e b r e w B i b l e [Josh. 3 : 1 - 1 7 ] ) , w i t h its s t r o n g c u r r e n t a n d l a c k o f b r i d g e s a n d f e r r y b o a t s , w o u l d s e e m i n c r e d i b l e t o his r e a d e r s , J o s e p h u s is careful to a d m i t p r e c i s e l y these difficulties a n d to e x p l a i n r a t h e r t h a t e v e n if the Israelites h a d w i s h e d to s p a n the river w i t h b r i d g e s , the e n e m y w o u l d n o t h a v e a f f o r d e d t h e m t o leisure t o d o so (Ant. 5.16). O n l y t h e n d o e s h e r e m a r k , in r a t i o n a l i z i n g f a s h i o n , t h a t G - d p r o m i s e d to r e n d e r the s t r e a m p a s s a b l e for t h e m b y d i m i n i s h i n g its v o l u m e . E v e n so, h e a d d s , for fear o f b e i n g s w e p t a w a y b y the force o f the c u r r e n t ,
the
w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n o c c u p i e d a p o s i t i o n in the c e n t e r as t h e y w e r e c r o s s i n g the river. T h e c r o s s i n g itself is e x p l a i n e d in m o r e n a t u r a l t e r m s , i n a s m u c h as w e are t o l d t h a t the m i r a c l e ( J o s h . 3:13, 16) w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d b y h a v i n g the w a t e r s di m i n i s h i n v o l u m e so as to m a k e the river m o r e f o r d a b l e (Ant. 5.16). I n a n y case, the e m p h a s i s is o n the l e a d e r s h i p o f J o s h u a , w h o o r g a n i z e s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e a r m y (Ant. 5.17), w h e r e a s i n the B i b l e , the stress is o n G - d ' s w o n d e r s ( J o s h . 3:5). I n g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s shifts a t t e n t i o n f r o m the m i r a c l e o f the c r o s s i n g o f the J o r d a n b y stating m e r e l y t h a t the Israelites e r e c t e d a n altar t h a t w a s to serve as a m e m o r i a l o f the s t o p p a g e o f the s t r e a m (Ant. 5.20) a n d b y n o t citing, as d o e s the B i b l e , the o b v i o u s m i r a c u l o u s p a r a l l e l o f the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s (Josh. 4 : 2 1 ) .
15
14. It is especially w h e n w e c o m p a r e Josephus's portrait o f Joshua with that o f the oral tradition as eventually codified by the rabbis that w e see the degree to w h i c h Josephus has apparendy deliberately sought to distance himself from the miracles that the rabbis ascribe to him. For example, the rabbis re mark that w h e n Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan, as soon as the priests h a d set foot in the Jor dan, all the peoples o f the earth witnessed the miracle o f the waters piling u p to a height o f 700 miles. W h e n Joshua assembles the people around the ark, a divine miracle is said to have caused the narrow space between its staves to contain the w h o l e multitude (Tosefta Sotah 8:1-4; Babylonian Sotah 33b~34a; Jerusalem Sotah 7.5). Josephus (Ant. 5.58) avoids exaggeration, such as w e find in the rabbinic a c c o u n t o f Joshua's w a r with a certain S h o b a c h , king o f the A r m e n i a n s , w h o had allied with him the forty-five kings (each with 60,000 warriors) o f Persia and M e d i a , as well as the hero Japheth (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 4:13 a n d references in 6:179, n. 45). 15. T h e biblical text not only explicidy mentions the parallel with the crossing o f the S e a o f R e e d s (Josh. 4:6) but also closely parallels the passage: " W h e n thy son should ask thee in time to c o m e , say ing: W h a t m e a n the testimonies?" (referring to the miracles connected with Passover) (Deut. 6:20—21); similarly, Josh. 4:6 reads: " W h e n your children ask in time to come, saying: W h a t m e a n ye b y these stones?" T h i s same question is repeated somewhat later (Josh. 4:21); a n d there the answer that is to be given to the children specifically invokes the parallel o f the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds: "For the L - r d
456
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s sensitivity w i t h r e g a r d t o m i r a c l e s is t o b e s e e n in his o m i s s i o n o f t h e s t r a n g e i n c i d e n t o f the a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e a p p a r i t i o n o f t h e c a p t a i n o f t h e L - r d ' s host, w h o tells J o s h u a , in w o r d s r e m i n i s c e n t o f G - d ' s state m e n t to M o s e s ( E x o d . 3:5), t o t a k e o f f his shoes, since t h e p l a c e w h e r e h e is stand i n g is h o l y (Josh. 5 : 1 3 - 1 5 v s . Ant. 5.22). E v e n w h e n J o s e p h u s d o e s m e n t i o n t h e m i r a c u l o u s e v e n t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c a p t u r e o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.23, 5.24, 5.27), h e is careful to a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t h e is a w a r e o f their m i r a c u l o u s n a t u r e , a d m i t t i n g , in o b v i o u s a m a z e m e n t , t h a t e x c e p t for t h e blasts o f t h e priests' t r u m p e t s (Ant. 5.23), the Israelites d i d n o t h i n g , a n d t h a t the w a l l s c o l l a p s e d s p o n t a n e o u s l y a n d w i t h o u t effort o n their p a r t , w i t h o u t e n g i n e o r force o f a n y o t h e r k i n d h a v i n g b e e n a p p l i e d b y t h e m . It is o b v i o u s t h a t J o s e p h u s is as d u m b f o u n d e d as w e r e t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f J e r i c h o ; a n d p r e s u m a b l y h e a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t t h a t his r e a d e r s w i l l b e similarly struck b y t h e m i r a c u l o u s o v e r t h r o w o f t h e r a m p a r t s o f J e r i c h o (Josh. 6 : 6 - 1 6 v s . Ant. 5.28). If, o c c a s i o n a l l y , J o s e p h u s d o e s e x a g g e r a t e G - d ' s a i d to J o s h u a , it is t o i n c r e a s e the d r a m a : thus, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t G - d cast d o w n g r e a t stones u p o n the e n e m y at B e t h - h o r o n ( J o s h . 10:11), J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f t h u n d e r b o l t s , t h u n d e r c l a p s , a n d t h e d e s c e n t o f h a i l o f m o r e t h a n o r d i n a r y m a g n i t u d e (Ant. 5.60); a n d y e t , significantly, in o r d e r t o d i m i n i s h t h e m i r a c l e itself a n d n o t t o d e t r a c t f r o m t h e m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e Israelites, J o s e p h u s h e r e o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l state m e n t t h a t m o r e o f t h e e n e m y w e r e killed b y the hailstones t h a n b y t h e Israelites (Josh. 10: n ) .
1 6
J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e t h a t t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e l e n g t h e n i n g o f the
d a y in the b a t d e at G i b e o n w o u l d stretch the c r e d u l i t y o f his r e a d e r s
(Josh.
1 0 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) . A s t h e b i b l i c a l text w o u l d h a v e it, t h e sun s t a y e d in t h e m i d s t o f h e a v e n a n d d i d n o t h a s t e n to g o d o w n for a b o u t a w h o l e d a y (Josh. 10:13), so that, as t h e B i b l e a d d s , t h e r e h a s b e e n n o d a y like it e i t h e r b e f o r e o r since ( J o s h . 10:14). J o s e p h u s s i m p l y states t h a t t h e d a y w a s p r o l o n g e d a n d " s u r p a s s e d t h e c u s t o m a r y m e a sure," w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o l o n g a t i o n lasted a w h o l e day, let a l o n e t h a t it w a s a n d w i l l b e u n p a r a l l e l e d (Ant. 5.61). T o further reassure t h e r e a d e r t h a t h e is a w a r e o f t h e c r e d u l i t y p r o b l e m h e r e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t this e v e n t is attested b y S c r i p t u r e s t h a t a r e l a i d u p in t h e T e m p l e .
1 7
your G - d dried up the waters o f Jordan from before y o u , until ye were passed over, as the L - r d y o u r G - d did to the S e a o f R e e d s . " 16. Josephus, Ant. 5.60, has n o parallel to the rabbinic statement, w h i c h a p p a r e n d y w o u l d have stretched the credulity o f his readers, that G - d granted Joshua the peculiar favor o f having the hail stones, which, at M o s e s ' intercession, h a d remained suspended in midair w h e n they were about to fall u p o n the Egyptians, fall u p o n the C a n a a n i t e s (Berakot 54b; see G i n z b e r g 1909-39, 4:10). 17. H e r e again, in the description o f the lengthening o f the day at the batde o f G i b e o n , w e see the tremendous gulf in such matters between Josephus and the rabbinic tradition, w h i c h highlights this event as the sixth o f the great wonders since the creation o f the world, adds that the e n e m y used sor cery in order to m a k e the heavenly hosts intervene against the Israelites, a n d indicates h o w Joshua achieved the miracle, namely, by p r o n o u n c i n g the ineffable n a m e o f G - d (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 52). N o r is there a parallel in Josephus to the tradition o f the sun's initial refusal to o b e y Joshua's behest on the grounds that it w a s older than m a n by two days a n d Joshua's sophistic reply that there was n o reason
JOSHUA
457
J o s e p h u s is careful, as w e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d , to a v o i d w h a t w o u l d s e e m to b e u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . T h u s t h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e C a n a a n i t e a r m y w a s as n u m e r o u s as t h e s a n d u p o n t h e s e a s h o r e a n d h a d v e r y m a n y h o r s e s a n d c h a r i o t s ( J o s h . 11:4). J o s e p h u s strives for g r e a t e r c r e d i b i l i t y b y g i v i n g l a r g e b u t p r e c i s e n u m b e r s : 300,000 m e n - a t - a r m s , 10,000 h o r s e m e n , a n d 20,000 c h a r i o t s (Ant. 5.64). T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f p a s s a g e s in the B i b l e t h a t raise serious q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l b o o k s . I b n E z r a , in his c o m m e n t a r y o n D e u t e r o n o m y (1:1), n o t e s six o f these in t h e P e n t a t e u c h , all o f w h i c h , significandy are omitted b y Josephus. In the B o o k o f J o s h u a w h e r e a s w e r e a d t h a t J o s h u a b u r n e d t h e c i t y o f A i a n d m a d e it f o r e v e r a h e a p o f ruins, " a s it is t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 8:28), s e e m i n g to i n d i c a t e a later a u t h o r s h i p , J o s e p h u s s i m p l y states t h a t A i w a s in f l a m e s , w i t h o u t g i v i n g a n y i n d i c a t i o n as to w h e n t h e p a s s a g e w a s w r i t t e n (Ant. 5.47). Similarly, w h e r e t h e H e b r e w t e x t states t h a t J o s h u a m a d e t h e G i b e o n i t e s h e w e r s o f w o o d a n d d r a w e r s o f w a t e r " u n t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 9:27), a g a i n s e e m i n g l y i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e p a s s a g e w a s w r i t t e n at a m u c h later d a t e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s this p h r a s e (Ant. 5.57). A similar p r o b l e m arises w h e n t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states t h a t J o s h u a c o m m a n d e d t h a t t h e c o r p s e s o f the five C a n a a n i t e k i n g s b e cast into the cave w h e r e they h a d h i d d e n themselves a n d that the m o u t h o f the cave b e c l o s e d w i t h g r e a t stones, w h i c h h a v e r e m a i n e d " u n t o this v e r y d a y " ( J o s h . 10:27). J o s e p h u s resolves m a t t e r s b y o m i t t i n g t h e t r o u b l e s o m e w o r d s (Ant. 5.61). T h e s a m e p h r a s e is f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t the Israelites d i d n o t d r i v e o u t t h e G e s h u r i t e s a n d M a a c a t h i t e s , w h o d w e l t in the m i d s t o f Israel " u n t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 13:13); a n d a g a i n J o s e p h u s skillfully a v o i d s t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g t h e p h r a s e (Ant. 5.71).
POLITICAL
OVERTONES
I n his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to t h e R e u b e n i t e s , G a d i t e s , a n d M a n a s s e h i t e s , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e t h e m e o f the k i n s h i p t h a t unites all Israelites, b a s e d u p o n t h e i r d e s c e n t f r o m o n e forefather, A b r a h a m , a n d t h e i r w o r s h i p p i n g t h e s a m e G - d (Ant. 5.97 v s . J o s h . 23). T h i s e m p h a s i s o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e Israelites' u n i t y is l i k e w i s e to b e seen in the contrast b e t w e e n the biblical version o f the defense b y the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes o f t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e i r a l t a r ( J o s h . 2 2 : 2 1 - 2 9 ) , w h i c h m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f Israelite unity, a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , i n w h i c h t h e T r a n s j o r d a n i a n s specifically u n d e r s c o r e t h a t t h e y a r e n o t r e n o u n c i n g t h e i r k i n s h i p t o t h e i r b r e t h r e n , t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e r e v o l u t i o n a r y intent, a n d t h a t t h e y r e c o g n i z e t h e s a m e o n e G - d w o r s h i p p e d b y all t h e Israelites (Ant. 5 . 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , t h e t w o
why a free-born youth, that is, man, should refrain from enjoining silence upon an old slave, that is, the sun, whom he owned, inasmuch as G-d had given heaven and earth to Abraham (Tanhuma 3.68; Tanhuma Ahare 9; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 6.28, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:178, n. 4I).
458
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
a n d a h a l f tribes d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y h a d set u p t h e altar for fear lest in t i m e t o c o m e t h e o t h e r Israelites m i g h t s a y t h a t t h e y h a d n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e G - d o f Israel (Josh. 22:24), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s t h e y e x p l a i n t h a t the altar is a s y m b o l for eter nity o f their k i n s h i p w i t h t h e o t h e r Israelites a n d a n o b l i g a t i o n to a b i d e b y the l a w s o f their c o m m o n forefathers (Ant. 5.112). I n particular, t h e y d i s t a n c e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h o s e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w h o e m b a r k o n " n e w f a n g l e d " (vecvrepois) w a y s t h a t a r e p e r v e r s i o n s o f their a n c e s t r a l traditions. J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s t h e role o f J o s h u a in p r e v e n t i n g civil w a r in his t r e a t m e n t o f the p a s s a g e w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , it is P h i n e h a s t h e priest a n d t h e p r i n c e s w h o n e g o t i a t e successfully w i t h t h e t w o a n d a h a l f tribes, w h i c h h a v e s e e m i n g l y r e b e l l e d ( J o s h . 2 2 : 3 2 - 3 3 v s . Ant. 5.114). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , w h i l e P h i n e h a s d o e s r e p o r t t h e a n s w e r o f t h e tribes, it is J o s h u a w h o , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , is d e s c r i b e d as r e j o i c i n g t h a t there is n o n e e d to l e v y t r o o p s o r t o l e a d t h e m to b l o o d s h e d a n d battle a g a i n s t k i n s m e n a n d w h o offers sacrifices o f t h a n k s g i v i n g to G - d for the successful o u t c o m e o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s . F i n a l l y J o s e p h u s s h o w s h o w i m p o r t a n t the l e a d e r s h i p o f J o s h u a w a s in p r e v e n t i n g ardaig
b y n o t i n g , a g a i n in a n
e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , t h a t after J o s h u a ' s d e a t h , the p e o p l e fell i n t o a state o f a n a r c h y t h a t c o n t i n u e d for a full e i g h t e e n y e a r s (Ant. 6.84). I n o r d e r to a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g t h e R o m a n s , w h o h a d s h o w e r e d s u c h gifts a n d p r i v i l e g e s u p o n h i m a n d w h o w e r e e x t r e m e l y sensitive t o J e w i s h aspirations for a n i n d e p e n d e n t state, J o s e p h u s o m i t s J o s h u a ' s o r d e r to t h e officers o f t h e p e o p l e to take possession o f the l a n d t h a t G - d h a s g i v e n the Israelites t o possess (Josh. 1:10-11 v s . Ant. 5.1). D R A M A T I C AND R O M A N T I C
MOTIFS
J o s e p h u s h a s i n t r o d u c e d s e v e r a l t o u c h e s to m a k e the J o s h u a n a r r a t i v e m o r e d r a m a t i c . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states t h a t the k i n g o f J e r i c h o g a v e instruc tions to his emissaries to tell R a h a b to b r i n g forth the spies t h a t h a d e n t e r e d h e r h o u s e (Josh. 2:3), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e k i n g s t r a i g h t w a y sent m e n to d i s c o v e r b y t o r t u r e w h a t t h e spies' i n t e n t w a s (Ant. 5.8). T h e e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n t h e k i n g ' s m e s s e n g e r s a n d R a h a b is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as t h e B i b l e s i m p l y re p o r t s R a h a b ' s s t a t e m e n t to the emissaries (Josh. 2:4-6), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a d d s the details t h a t t h e y w e r e c a j o l e d b y t h e w o m a n a n d , s u s p e c t i n g n o guile, d e p a r t e d w i t h o u t e v e n s e a r c h i n g h e r i n n (Ant. 5.10). J o s e p h u s builds u p t h e d r a m a o f the sit u a t i o n t h r o u g h his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , e m p h a s i z i n g the g r e a t risk t h a t R a h a b t o o k in c o n c e a l i n g the s p i e s — t h a t is, t h a t she a n d all h e r h o u s e w o u l d h a v e p e r i s h e d m i s e r a b l y at the h a n d s o f t h e k i n g ' s m e n i f she h a d b e e n c a u g h t (Ant. 5.11). T h e d r a m a is further i n c r e a s e d b y t h e r e m a r k t h a t R a h a b k n e w t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d c a p t u r e J e r i c h o t h r o u g h c e r t a i n signs t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m G - d (Ant. T h e r e is a d d e d d r a m a also, a l t h o u g h n o t to the p o i n t o f u n b e l i e v a b i l i t y in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l details o f b a t d e s c e n e s . T h u s , J o s e p h u s e m b e l l i s h e s t h e a c c o u n t
JOSHUA
459
o f t h e m a s s a c r e at J e r i c h o ( J o s h . 6:21 v s . Ant. 5.28-29). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t the Israelites "utterly d e s t r o y e d all t h a t w a s in t h e c i t y b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n , b o t h y o u n g a n d o l d , a n d o x , a n d s h e e p , a n d ass, w i t h t h e e d g e o f t h e s w o r d , " J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f J e r i c h o w e r e d u m b f o u n d e d at t h e m i r a c u l o u s o v e r t h r o w o f t h e r a m p a r t s , t h a t t h e y w e r e s l a u g h t e r e d in t h e streets o r s u r p r i s e d in t h e h o u s e s , t h a t t h e r e w a s n o possibility o f e s c a p e for t h e m , t h a t t h e c i t y w a s c h o k e d w i t h c o r p s e s , a n d t h a t the i n v a d e r s b u r n t the entire c i t y a n d t h e s u r r o u n d i n g r e g i o n . T h e r e is s i m i l a r d r a m a t i c e l a b o r a t i o n o f the battle s c e n e at A i . A l l w e a r e t o l d in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n is t h a t n o t a m a n w a s left in A i o r B e t h e l ( J o s h . 8:17), b u t J o s e p h u s a d d s s u c h v i v i d details as t h a t t h e Israelites f l u n g t h e m selves i n t o t h e t o w n w h i l e t h e i n h a b i t a n t s w e r e a r o u n d t h e r a m p a r t s w h o l l y e n g r o s s e d in w a t c h i n g t h e i r friends o u t s i d e (Ant. 5.46). L i k e w i s e , t h e r e is m u c h m o r e drama
in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a c t i o n o f A d o n i z e d e k , t h e k i n g o f
J e r u s a l e m , to t h e n e w s t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f G i b e o n h a d m a d e p e a c e w i t h the Is raelites (Ant. 5.58). I n t h e B i b l e , h e fears g r e a d y (Josh. 10:1), b u t in J o s e p h u s , h e is indignant.
SUMMARY J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a c o r r e s p o n d s c l o s e l y to t h o s e o f his o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e roes. I n the first p l a c e , in o r d e r to e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r ship for t h e p r o p e r f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l , his stature is h i g h l i g h t e d t h r o u g h his b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in v a r i o u s c o n t e x t s w h e r e h e is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s . I n the s e c o n d p l a c e , J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s e m p h a s i z e , p r e s u m a b l y for a p o l o g e t i c a n d
propagandistic
r e a s o n s , J o s h u a ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s , in particular, honesty, fairness, generosity, a n d g r a t i t u d e , a n d w h e r e the c o n c e r n is to a n s w e r J e w - b a i t e r s ) — a s w e l l as t h e fifth c a r d i n a l v i r t u e , c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h these, n a m e l y , p i e t y I n a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l p o r t r a i t b y t e r m i n g J o s h u a a p r o p h e t ; a n d i n a s m u c h as, for J o s e p h u s , t h e p r o p h e t is c h a r g e d n o t o n l y w i t h p r e d i c t i n g the future b u t also w i t h r e c o r d i n g t h e past, J o s h u a is thus a s s o c i a t e d w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s o w n profession, t h a t o f h i s t o r i a n . J o s e p h u s is e s p e c i a l l y careful to justify M o s e s ' c h o i c e o f J o s h u a as his successor. I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s g r e a t a d m i r a t i o n o f a n d i n d e b t e d n e s s
to
T h u c y d i d e s , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s h u a e m e r g e s as a J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Pericles, w i t h e m p h a s i s o n his i n t e l l i g e n c e , his ability to p e r s u a d e a n d c h e c k c r o w d s , a n d his p r a g m a t i s m . J o s e p h u s uses his a c c o u n t o f J o s h u a to a n s w e r the c h a r g e s o f J e w - b a i t e r s . T h u s , in r e p l y to t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w s a r e a g g r e s s i v e a n d e v e n ruthless m i s s i o n a r i e s , J o s e p h u s c a r e f u l l y o m i t s t h e fact t h a t J o s h u a p e r f o r m e d the rite o f c i r c u m c i s i o n o n t h o s e Israelites w h o h a d b e e n b o r n d u r i n g the f o r t y - y e a r s o j o u r n in t h e desert. I n a n s w e r to t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s w e r e h a r s h o r e v e n b l o o d t h i r s t y in t h e i r c o n q u e s t
460
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
o f C a n a a n , J o s e p h u s a b b r e v i a t e s a n d t o n e s d o w n or, in s o m e cases, o m i t s b i b l i c a l descriptions o f Joshua's treatment o f the native C a n a a n i t e s . T o a p p r e c i a t e t h e distinctive c h a r a c t e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , w e s h o u l d further
c o m p a r e it w i t h t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e r a b b i s d e p i c t J o s h u a .
W h e r e a s t h e r a b b i s p o r t r a y h i m as a s t u d e n t o f T o r a h , t h e e m p h a s i s in J o s e p h u s is o n his p r a g m a t i c l e a d e r s h i p , p a r t i c u l a r l y in war. J o s e p h u s a v o i d s u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n in p o r t r a y i n g J o s h u a ' s m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t s . I n particular, J o s e p h u s is careful to t o n e d o w n o r r a t i o n a l i z e m i r a c l e s . If, o c c a s i o n a l l y , J o s e p h u s d o e s e x a g g e r a t e , h e is careful t o d o so in s u c h a w a y as to a d d d r a m a to t h e situation b u t w i t h o u t s t r e t c h i n g the c r e d u l i t y o f his r e a d e r s . M o r e o v e r , h e takes p a i n s n o t to stress u n d u l y G - d ' s role in J o s h u a ' s e x p l o i t s in o r d e r n o t to d e t r a c t f r o m J o s h u a ' s o w n a c h i e v e m e n t s . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s , like I b n E z r a , o m i t s t h o s e p a s s a g e s t h a t raise serious q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e b o o k , w h i c h r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n attributes t o J o s h u a . F u r t h e r m o r e , in distinct allusion to his o w n times, w h e n civil strife h a d t o r n the J e w i s h p e o p l e a p a r t d u r i n g t h e w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s is careful to e m p h a s i z e J o s h u a ' s ability in a v o i d i n g civil w a r a n d anarchy. Finally, in o r d e r n o t to a n t a g o n i z e his R o m a n hosts, J o s e p h u s o m i t s references to t h e d i v i n e o r d e r t o take possession o f t h e l a n d o f I s r a e l .
18
18. I a m grateful to A . D . Wasserstein for several helpful suggestions in connection with this study.
C H A P T E R
T W E L V E
Samson
I n e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f S a m s o n , w e see t h a t h e h a s p l a c e d his p e r s o n a l h e l l e n i z e d i m p r i n t o n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , a n d t h a t his p o r t r a i t is s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y his c o n c e r n to d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f their o p p o nents. T h e v e r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s ' s S a m s o n differs f r o m t h e r a b b i n i c p o r t r a y a l o f h i m — h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t h e i n c r e a s e d erotic, h e r o i c , a n d d r a m a t i c interests, a n d t h e d e c r e a s e d m a g i c a n d d i v i n e e l e m e n t — a r e t y p i c a l l y J o s e p h a n r a t h e r t h a n a stage in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the m i d r a s h i c tradi 1
t i o n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m interest t h e m s e l v e s i n w o r d p l a y , in t h e d i v i n e a n d m i r a c u l o u s , a n d in t h e deflation o f t h e h e r o i c stature o f S a m s o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h s . P s e u d o - P h i l o , in his Biblical
Antiq
uities, o c c u p i e s a n i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n , b e i n g c o n c e r n e d chiefly w i t h e x a g g e r a t i n g S a m s o n ' s exploits, w h i l e c o m p a r i n g h i m m o r a l l y w i t h J o s e p h , w h o m h e v i e w s m o r e favorably. O n e i n d i c a t i o n , as w e h a v e s e e n , o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a g i v e n b i b l i c a l p e r s o n ality for J o s e p h u s is t h e relative a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e gives to h i m . T h e story o f S a m s o n c o m p r i s e s 159 lines i n t h e H e b r e w text (Judg. 1 3 : 2 - 1 6 : 3 1 ) a n d 276 lines i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d 271 lines in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n B ) , as c o m p a r e d w i t h 242 lines in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5 . 2 7 6 - 3 1 7 ) . T h i s gives a ratio o f 1.52 o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w t e x t a n d .88 t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d .89 ( V e r s i o n B ) . S a m s o n thus e m e r g e s , f r o m this p o i n t o f view, as o n e o f t h e m o r e p r o m i n e n t b i b lical figures for J o s e p h u s .
1. "The more picturesque details with which Josephus embellishes his story [of Samson] are sup plied by his imagination," says G. F. Moore (1898, 315-16), who however, makes no systematic attempt to support this statement by classifying Josephus's changes and by comparing them with those of Pseudo-Philo and the Midrash, as is attempted here. 461
462
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
SAMSON'S VIRTUES Good Birth S i n c e a g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n , w e a r e n o t s u r p r i s e d to find t h a t J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail t h a t S a m s o n ' s father, M a n a o h , w a s o n e o f t h e fore m o s t (ev oXlyois
apioTos) a m o n g t h e D a n i t e s a n d b y g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t the o u t
s t a n d i n g figure o f his n a t i v e r e g i o n (Ant. 5.276). P s e u d o - P h i l o , in a similar f a s h i o n , a n d w i t h t y p i c a l l y m i d r a s h i c c o n c e r n for s u p p l y i n g n a m e s , stresses S a m s o n ' s n o b l e o r i g i n a n d e n u m e r a t e s his a n c e s t o r s b y n a m e b a c k to D a n , t h e s o n o f J a c o b (Bib. Ant. 42.1), so t h a t S a m s o n t u r n s o u t to b e t e n g e n e r a t i o n s r e m o v e d f r o m J a c o b , j u s t as D a v i d , in t h e g e n e a l o g y e n u m e r a t e d at t h e e n d o f the b o o k o f R u t h (4:18-22), c o m e s t e n g e n e r a t i o n s r e m o v e d after P e r e z . T h e r a b b i s , h o w e v e r , in line w i t h their g e n e r a l d i s a p p r o v a l o f S a m s o n , o m i t all r e f e r e n c e s to his ancestry, a n d a r e c o n t e n t to m e n t i o n m e r e l y t h e n a m e o f his father, M a n o a h .
2
O n t h e basis o f w o r d o r d e r (the n a m e s o f p i o u s p e o p l e in t h e
B i b l e c o m e after t h e w o r d shemo ("his n a m e " ) , M a n o a h is r e g a r d e d b y t h e r a b b i s as p i o u s (Numbers Rabbah 10.5); b u t in a c r i t i c i s m — o n e o f the m o s t d a m n i n g in the w h o l e r a b b i n i c a r s e n a l — o f t e n r e p e a t e d b y t h e m , t h e y c o n d e m n h i m as a n "am haarei—an
i g n o r a n t b o o r — o n t h e g r o u n d s that, a c c o r d i n g to S c r i p t u r e
13:11), h e w a l k e d b e h i n d his wife (Numbers Rabbah 1.337; Berakot 6 1 a ; 'Eruvin
10.5; Midrash
1 8 b ; Talqut 2.68). T h e g r e a t m e d i e v a l
Hagadol
(Judg. Genesis
commentator
R a s h i , in his r e m a r k s o n Berakot 61 a, e x p l a i n s t h a t since M a n o a h h a d n o t s t u d i e d w i t h l e a r n e d s c h o l a r s , h e d i d n o t k n o w the l a w t h a t a m a n o u g h t n o t t o w a l k b e h i n d a w o m a n , e v e n his o w n wife ('Eruvin 18b). W h e r e a s M a n o a h in t h e B i b l e , u p o n s e e i n g t h e a n g e l d i s a p p e a r in t h e flame o f the altar, r e m a r k s , in g r e a t terror, " W e shall surely die, b e c a u s e w e h a v e s e e n G - d " (Judg. 13:22), in J o s e p h u s , his c o n s t e r n a t i o n is c o n s i d e r a b l y d i m i n i s h e d , a n d M a n o a h , m u c h m o r e bravely, is said m e r e l y to fear t h a t s o m e m i s c h i e f (a^aXepov)
m i g h t befall t h e m f r o m this v i
sion (Ant. 5.284). T h e r a b b i n i c M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , far f r o m s e e k i n g to di m i n i s h M a n o a h ' s fearfulness, uses this o c c a s i o n to c o n t r a s t h i m u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h earlier g e n e r a t i o n s ; for H a g a r , it notes, s a w five a n g e l s , o n e after another, a n d still w a s n o t afraid o f t h e m (Genesis Rabbah 4 5 ; Talqut 1.79; Midrash Leqah Tov o n G e n . 16:11). I n a d d i t i o n , in c o n t r a s t to the M i d r a s h (Numbers Rabbah 10.5), w h i c h stresses M a n o a h ' s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e fact t h a t it w a s a n a n g e l (Judg. 13:16), n o t i n g t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f this i g n o r a n c e t h a t h e i n v i t e d t h e a n g e l to eat, J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e states t h a t M a n o a h w a s i g n o r a n t o f this fact, a l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t g o as far as P s e u d o P h i l o , w h o h a s M a n o a h state merely, " I f I w e r e able, I w o u l d p e r s u a d e y o u to e n t e r m y h o u s e a n d eat b r e a d w i t h m e ! " (Bib. Ant. 42.8).
2. In typical fashion, the rabbis prefer a play on the n a m e o f Samson's father, M a n o a h , m e a n i n g "rest," declaring that he was so called because he was e n d o w e d with the prophetic p o w e r to speak with
an angel; and p r o p h e c y is called menuhah, "rest" (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5).
SAMSON
463
I n s t e a d o f l i s t i n g S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t o r s , as d o e s P s e u d o - P h i l o , o r m a k i n g a state m e n t , as d o e s J o s e p h u s , a b o u t t h e p r o m i n e n c e o f S a m s o n ' s ancestry, t h e r a b b i s , i n t h e i r c o n c e r n w i t h c o n n e c t i n g l a t e r b i b l i c a l figures w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h s , p o i n t o u t t h a t J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f D a n refers t o S a m s o n , w h o is i d e n t i f i e d (Sotah 9b) as t h e s e r p e n t i n t e r m s o f w h i c h J a c o b ( G e n . 49:17) d e s c r i b e s D a n (Numbers Rabbah
14.9).
3
W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e n o b i l i t y o f S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t r y o n his father's side (Ant. 5.276), t h e r a b b i s s p e a k r a t h e r o f t h e stature o f S a m s o n ' s m o t h e r , w h o , t h e y say, c a m e f r o m t h e tribe o f J u d a h (Genesis Rabbah 98.13 a n d Numbers Rabbah 10.5).
4
Physical Attractiveness N o t o n l y m u s t the h e r o b e o f h i g h birth, h e must also b e physically h a n d s o m e . In t h e c a s e o f S a m s o n , it is n o t his o w n h a n d s o m e n e s s b u t t h a t o f his m o t h e r t h a t is stressed b y J o s e p h u s , w h o in a s t a t e m e n t t y p i c a l o f his r e m a r k s a b o u t w o m e n in his n a r r a t i v e , f o c u s e s o n h e r b e a u t y r a t h e r t h a n o n h e r piety. S h e is d e s c r i b e d as r e markable
(rrepipXeiTTov,
literally,
" l o o k e d at
from
all sides") for
(ev[jLopla, l i t e r a l l y " g o o d f o r m " ) a n d p r e e m i n e n t (Sia^epov)
her
beauty
a m o n g w o m e n o f her
3. T h e tradition that the c o m i n g o f S a m s o n was prophesied by J a c o b is likewise found in O r i g e n (Commentaria [6.18] in Evangelium Joannis 1.23, ed. Cecile Blanc, 2 [Paris: Cerf, 1970]: 218). T h i s w o u l d appear to raise the status o f Samson; but the rabbis are careful to note that J a c o b , w h e n shown the fu ture figure o f S a m s o n (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 23.5; Mekilta [ed. Friedmann] 55b; Tanhuma o n N u m . 34), thought that h e was to b e the messiah, until he saw him dead, w h e r e u p o n he realized that he w a s not (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.14; Midrash Hagadol o n Genesis 184a). 4. T h e rabbis give her n a m e as Hazzelelponi (Zelelponit) (1 C h r o n . 4:3), so as to refute the heretics w h o questioned biblical genealogies where no names were given (Baba Batra 91a; Midrash Numbers Rab bah 10.5; Midrash Hagadol o n Gen. 88a; Midrash Proverbs o n 31.24; Talqut 2.491). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.1) has a different name, Eluma, the daughter o f R e m a c , a n d does not connect her with the tribe o f J u d a h . T h e ancestry o f Samson's mother from J u d a h gives the rabbis a n opportunity to praise the royal tribe o f J u d a h , for they declare that if D a n h a d not been coupled with the most distinguished o f the tribes (i.e., Judah), he w o u l d not have brought forth even this one j u d g e (i.e., Samson) that he did pro duce (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13). E v e n the p r o p h e c y in Jacob's blessing, that " D a n shall j u d g e his people as one o f the tribes o f Israel" (Gen. 49:16), is taken to refer to Judah, the unique tribe from w h i c h the Jewish kings came. T h a t Josephus w a s perhaps aware o f this tradition that Samson's mother w a s o f the tribe o f J u d a h (even though he does not cite it as such) is perhaps to be seen 'mAnt. 5.299, where the sense o f irony a n d m e l o d r a m a is increased by Josephus's statement that Samson, in submitting to the m e n o f J u d a h , p u t himself at the m e r c y o f his fellow tribesmen (^vXercbv). T h e n a m e o f Samson's mother, Hazzelelponi, is explained as b e i n g derived from the fact that G - d through an angel turned to her rather than to h e r husband (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5). T h e Midrash (ibid.) deduces, therefore, that she was a righteous w o m a n , presumably m o r e so than her husband, since, inasmuch as L o t was m o r e righteous than his wife, the angels c a m e under the shadow o f his, a n d not her, r o o f (Gen. 19:8). T h e M i d r a s h notes the w i s d o m o f M a n o a h ' s wife in not indicating to M a n o a h , for she did not wish to reveal h e r imperfection, that the angel h a d told her that it was she w h o was barren (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5). O n the other hand, Pseudo-Philo, like Josephus, is interested in building u p the reputa tion o f M a n o a h ' s wife for self-effacing honesty, a n d so does have her reveal to h e r husband the angel's assertion that it is she w h o is barren (Bib. Ant. 42.4).
464
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t i m e (Ant. 5.276). I n a n o t h e r c o m p a r a b l e a d d i t i o n , t h e a n g e l t h a t a p p e a r s
to
M a n o a h ' s wife is d e s c r i b e d as a h a n d s o m e (/caAd?) a n d tall y o u t h (Ant. 5.277).
Wisdom O n e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e pueyaXoi/joxos—Aristode's
"great-souled m a n "
(Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 C 3 4 - 2 5 A 1 7 ) — i s t h a t h e is w i s e ; n o v i r t u o u s m a n , h e says, is foolish (rjAcdios, "silly") o r u n i n t e l l i g e n t (dvorjros,
"senseless"). A l s o o n this p o i n t t h e r e is a
contrast b e t w e e n the rabbinic v i e w o f Samson's character a n d that o f Josephus. M a n y commentators have remarked that S a m s o n could not reasonably have ex p e c t e d a n y m a n t o solve his riddle, since it w a s b a s e d o n a n i n c i d e n t a b o u t w h i c h t h e y h a d n o i n f o r m a t i o n (Judg. 14:12); a n d S a m s o n c o n s e q u e n d y a p p e a r s r a t h e r foolish in p o s i n g it. I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , t h e riddle h a s b e c o m e a story (Aoyov),
5
w h i c h is e x a c d y w h a t it is (Ant. 5.290); a n d thus S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m is n o t d a m a g e d . B y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e n o n b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e Philistines at t h e w e d d i n g feast at T i m n a h w e r e a m b i t i o u s ((friXoripLOvpLevojv) t o w i n r e n o w n (86£av) for s a g a c i t y (ovvercov) (Ant. 5.290), J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s o w n sagacity, since h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b l e to o u t w i t t h e m h a d it n o t b e e n for t h e w o m a n ' s t r e a c h e r y T o t h e r e a d e r o f t h e a c c o u n t in J u d g e s (14:17), S a m s o n h a r d l y s e e m s w i s e in re v e a l i n g t h e a n s w e r to the riddle t o his wife; J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to p r o t e c t S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m (or p e r h a p s his g o o d nature), i n f o r m s us t h a t h e s u s p e c t e d (v(f)opd)pL€vos) n o f r a u d (SoXepov) o n h e r p a r t (Ant. 5.293). A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s u n d e r s c o r e s S a m s o n ' s w i s d o m is in t h e tale o f his e s c a p e f r o m the Philistine a m b u s c a d e s at G a z a . T h e B i b l e r e m a r k s s i m p l y t h a t S a m s o n l a y t h e r e till m i d n i g h t a n d t h e n arose (Judg. 16:3). J o s e p h u s is careful to a d d t h a t S a m s o n w a s " n o t u n a w a r e " (ov ydp
Xavddvovoiv
avrov) o f these
s c h e m e s w h e n h e arose at m i d n i g h t (Ant. 5.305). A similar e m p h a s i s is f o u n d in o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s to t h e D e l i l a h e p i s o d e . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , S a m s o n a p p e a r s r a t h e r w e a k - w i t t e d , J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t " S a m s o n , w h o s e wits w e r e y e t r o bust [c/)pov€Lv Zoxvpos,
" s t r o n g - t h i n k i n g " ] , c o u n t e r e d D a l a l a ' s [ D e l i l a h ' s ] ruse b y
another
(Ant. 5.308). J o s e p h u s ' s p e c u l i a r e t y m o l o g y , d e r i v i n g the
[dvrrjTTdra]"
n a m e o f S a m s o n f r o m loxvpos,
" s t r o n g " (Ant. 5.285), is s u g g e s t i v e , therefore, n o t
o n l y o f his p h y s i c a l strength b u t also o f his intellectual strength. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n S a m s o n ' s i g n o r a n c e , after his h a i r h a s b e e n c u t b y D e l i l a h , o f t h e fact t h a t h e is n o w p o w e r l e s s (Judg. 16:20) a n d t h a t G - d h a s n o w d e p a r t e d f r o m h i m (Ant. 5.313). A s u r v e y o f the a d d i t i o n s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e as a w h o l e r e v e a l s t h a t h e often a d d s details a b o u t t h e w i s d o m o f its h e r o e s ; c o n s e q u e n d y it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t h e felt c o n s t r a i n e d t o d e fend S a m s o n against the charge o f ignorance a n d simplemindedness.
5. Similariy, the Septuagint has ^pojSA^/xa vfiiv TrpopdXXopai. npo^dXXo^ai
problem in geometry, say, rather than to a riddle.
generally refers to a
SAMSON
465
Courage I n a s t a t e m e n t that h a s n o b i b l i c a l parallel, J o s e p h u s singles o u t four qualities in S a m s o n ' s c h a r a c t e r that h e r e g a r d s as a d m i r a b l e — v a l o r (dperrj), strength
(loxvs),
h i g h spirit (pueyaXo^pcov, a s y n o n y m for pLeyaXoi/jvxos, r e m i n d i n g o n e o f the f a m o u s " g r e a t - s o u l e d " m a n o f A r i s t o d e [Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 C 3 4 - 1 1 2 5 A 1 7 ] ) , a n d w r a t h (dpyrj) (Ant. 5.317). A l l o f these are qualities associated w i t h b r a v e r y the last b e i n g e s p e c i a l l y 6
r e m i n i s c e n t o f A c h i l l e s , w h o s e w r a t h is the t h e m e o f the Iliad (1.1). J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e b y e m p h a s i z i n g the contrast b e t w e e n h i m a n d the tribe o f J u d a h , f r o m w h i c h h e w a s d e s c e n d e d , a c c o r d i n g to r a b b i n i c tradition, o n his m o t h e r ' s side. I n the B i b l e , the J u d a h i t e s ask the Philistines w h y t h e y h a v e c o m e u p a g a i n s t t h e m (Judg. 15:10). I n J o s e p h u s , the f o r m e r ' s s u b s e r v i e n c e to the latter is u n d e r s c o r e d b y their a p o l o g e t i c a n d c o w a r d l y s t a t e m e n t to the Philistines that it is unjust to p u n i s h t h e m , w h o h a v e p a i d tribute, for S a m s o n ' s m i s d e e d s (Ant. 5.297). W h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y that S a m s o n slew a t h o u s a n d m e n w i t h the j a w b o n e o f a n ass (Judg. 15:16), J o s e p h u s seeks t o e m p h a s i z e his b r a v e r y b y n o t i n g that the spot w a s c a l l e d J a w b o n e b y r e a s o n o f the e x p l o i t (dvSpayaOla,
" b r a v e r y " " m a n l y virtue") that S a m
s o n p e r f o r m e d t h e r e (Ant. 5.300). T h i s is the v e r y w o r d u s e d b y H e r o d o t u s (1.136) o f the Persians, w h o s h o w their e x c e l l e n c e b y fighting a n d b e g e t t i n g l a r g e families o f sons; it is also u s e d b y Pericles in his F u n e r a l O r a t i o n in reference to the v a l o r s h o w n b y the A t h e n i a n soldiers w h o h a d b e e n the first to fall in the P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r (ap. T h u c y d i d e s 2.42.3). J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s S a m s o n ' s g r e a t e x p l o i t at L e h i b y ironi cally l e a d i n g u p to it w i t h the e x u l t a n t cries o f the Philistines, f o l l o w e d b y a q u i c k re versal
(7T€pL7T€T€La).
T h e b i b l i c a l v e r s e says that w h e n S a m s o n c a m e to L e h i , the
Philistines s h o u t e d as t h e y m e t h i m (Judg. 15:14); in J o s e p h u s , the Philistines m e e t h i m w i t h j o y (xapds,
"delight") a n d s h o u t i n g (fiorjs, " l o u d cry," often o f a b a t d e c r y
in H o m e r ) , t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e a c h i e v e d their g o a l (Ant. 5.300).
7
C o n n e c t e d w i t h S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e is his sheer strength, w h i c h is stressed e v e n m o r e b y J o s e p h u s t h a n b y the B i b l e . I n a detail f o u n d e x p l i c i t l y in n e i t h e r the first n o r the s e c o n d b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f the a n g e l ' s visit to M a n o a h ' s wife, the a n g e l p r o m i s e s h e r a g o o d l y (KaXov) son, w h o will b e illustrious for strength (pcjpbrjv
im-
>avovs) (Ant. 5.277). W h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e gives n o e t y m o l o g y for S a m s o n ' s n a m e , 8
a n d w h i l e P s e u d o - P h i l o e x p l a i n s the n a m e as m e a n i n g " h o l y " (Bib. Ant. 4 2 . 3 ) , the
6. Samson's quality o f high spirit (TrpopXrjfia,
Ant. 5.317) is paralleled in extrabiblical details that
Josephus inserts about M o s e s (Ant. 3.83), K e n i a z (Ant. 5.182), Saul (Ant. 6.45), A r a u n a (Ant. 7.332), S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.175), and U z z i a h (Ant. 9.216). 7. T h e Septuagint has a different embellishment: the Philistines shouted and ran to meet him. 8. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:205, n. 161, finds Pseudo-Philo's e t y m o l o g y rather obscure, "since there is n o H e b r e w w o r d m e a n i n g " h o l y " w h i c h can in any w a y be connected with the w o r d S a m s o n . " B u t Pseudo-Philo m a y have h a d in mind a derivation from shimesh, "to minister" or "to serve," given S a m son's Nazirite status. G i n z b e r g himself suggests that the phrase "holy unto the L - r d " m a y be an inac curate rendering o f "anointed to the L - r d , " itself linked to shemen, "oil." Jacobson 1996, 984-85, sug gests that Pseudo-Philo's w o r d for holy, sanctificatus, is a translation o f nazir and thus w o u l d allude to
466
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
r a b b i s c i t e t h e n a m e ' s o b v i o u s d e r i v a t i o n f r o m t h e w o r d shemesh, m e a n i n g " s u n , " and comment
1 0
9
t h a t j u s t as G - d (Ps. 84:12) is s p o k e n o f as a s u n a n d a s h i e l d , so
S a m s o n s h i e l d e d I s r a e l i n his g e n e r a t i o n .
1 1
J o s e p h u s , significandy, e m p h a s i z e s
S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h b y p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t his v e r y n a m e m e a n s " s t r o n g "
1 2
(Ant. 5.285),
t h e r e b y a l s o , it w o u l d s e e m , c o n s c i o u s l y s e e k i n g t o a v o i d c o n n e c t i n g his n a m e w i t h the sun. Josephus p r o c e e d s to e x a g g e r a t e Samson's fear-inspiring strength b y supplying a reason w h y the thirty T i m n i t e c o m p a n i o n s w e r e g i v e n to h i m (Judg. n a m e l y , f e a r o f t h e y o u n g S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h (laxvos)
14:11),
(Ant. 5.289). Specifically, t h e y
w e r e g i v e n " o s t e n s i b l y as c o m p a n i o n s , i n r e a l i t y as g u a r d i a n s , lest h e s h o u l d b e m i n d e d to create a n y d i s t u r b a n c e . " T h e fact that the c o m p a n i o n s are the c h i e f
Samson's Nazirite status. H e concludes that there is n o etymology here; rather the m e a n i n g is " Y o u shall call his n a m e Samson, a n d he shall be a Nazirite to G - d . " 9. Perhaps this is a n allusion to the fact that his h o m e w a s near Beth-Shemesh (literally "the house o f the sun"). 10. Sotah 10a, Talqut 2.69, a n d Talqut ha-Makiri o n Ps. 2.31. 11. T h i s derivation from "sun," w e m a y add, is likewise found in Jerome, Commentarii in Epistolam ad Philemonen 752 (=PL 26.645) a n d Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos (on Ps. 80:14= Corpus Christmnorum 39 [1956], ed. D . E . Dekkers a n d I. Fraipont, 1129, line 70). D u r i n g the nineteenth century a n d the early part o f the twentieth, a n attempt was m a d e to equate the story o f S a m s o n with a solar myth (and to equate h i m with Heracles, pardy o n the basis o f this derivation o f Samson's n a m e from the H e b r e w w o r d for sun). See Steinthal 1877, 392-440; Jeremias 1906, 2:478-82; C a m s 1907 (a discursive a n d p o p ular work); Palmer 1913; a n d m a n y others (for a listing, with brief summaries o f their respective modi fications of the theory, see Stahn 1908, 3-11 [especially critical o f C a m s ] ) . T h i s parallel o f S a m s o n with Heracles, without, o f course, the further equation o f the Samson story with the sun myth, is suggested as early as the e n d o f the third century b y Eusebius, Chronica (ed. Schone, 2.54.;—Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 47 [1956], ed. R u d o l f H e l m , 62a, lines 16-19), w h o notes that the life o f S a m s o n h a d been c o m p a r e d b y some writers with the life o f Heracles; the comparison is also found in Philastrius, De Haeresibus 8 (=PG 92.237). It is, however, righdy called into question by M o o r e 1898, 364, as well as b y Frazer 1918, 2:481, the latter remarking that the association o f various episodes in Samson's life with particular places argues for a genuine local tradition. 12. Nesde 1910,152, asks, in puzzlement, h o w Josephus arrived at the etymology. R a p p a p o r t 1930, xxxiii, followed by Schalit 1944-63, 2: a d l o c , n. 235, suggests that Josephus was perhaps thinking o f Judg. 5:31, w h i c h speaks o f the sun (shemesh) in his might. A possible source for Josephus's e t y m o l o g y is suggested by the Talmud's derivation (Sotah 10a; so also Talqut 2.69 a n d Talqut ha-Makiri on Ps. 2:31, cited by R e n z e r 1902, 25, o f Samson's n a m e from shemesh, since the T a l m u d there quotes Ps. 84:12: "For the L - r d G - d is a sun [shemesh] a n d a shield." T h i s juxtaposition o f sun a n d shield m a y have led Josephus to stress Samson's strength as the explanation of his name. In his c o m m e n t a r y o n the talmudic passage, R a s h i cites Isa. 54:12, "And I will m a k e thy pinnacles [shimeshotaik] as rubies," a n d similarly explains shemesh here as a wall. T h i s etymology, too, w o u l d emphasize the aspect o f Samson's strength. C u r i ously enough, Jerome, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 50 (=PL 23.855) (ed. P. de Lagarde, 33; Corpus Christianorum 72 [1959] 101, lines 23-24, ed. P. Antin) seems to c o m b i n e the rabbinic interpreta tion with that o f Josephus, for he speaks o f Samson, sol eorum, vel solis fortitudo, where the juxtaposition o f "sun" (sol) a n d "strength" [fortitudo) is striking. M o o r e 1898, 326, attempts to explain Josephus's ety m o l o g y as c o m i n g from shamen, "fat," then "robust," "vigorous."
SAMSON stalwarts (aK^aiordrovs^
467
" v i g o r o u s , " " a t their p r i m e , " " i n fullest b l o o m " ) serves to
e m p h a s i z e S a m s o n ' s o w n s t r e n g t h still m o r e .
1 3
J o s e p h u s m a n a g e s to u n d e r s c o r e S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e a n d s t r e n g t h b y c o n t r a s t i n g his p o s s e s s i o n o f these, as n o t e d a b o v e , w i t h the w e a k n e s s a n d c o w a r d i c e o f t h e tribe o f J u d a h , w h o w i s h to h a n d h i m o v e r to the Philistines (Ant. 5.298). T h u s t h e m e n o f J u d a h , in a series o f e x t r a b i b l i c a l details c a l c u l a t e d to a r o u s e s c o r n for t h e m a n d , b y c o n t r a s t , a d m i r a t i o n for S a m s o n , are d e p i c t e d as w i s h i n g t o b e a b o v e r e p r o a c h (ave^t/cA^roi), a n d as r o u n d l y r e b u k i n g (Karafieyajja^voi)
Samson
for his o u t r a g e o u s ( T C T O A / X ^ / X C V C U V ) t r e a t m e n t o f t h e Philistines. T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a m s o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n to t h e m e n o f J u d a h t h a t h e h a s a c t e d a g a i n s t t h e Philistines b e c a u s e o f w h a t t h e y h a v e d o n e to h i m h i g h l i g h t s his o w n i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d his d e f i a n c e o f t h e m (Judg. 15:11). W h e r e a s in S c r i p t u r e , t h e m e n o f J u d a h a n n o u n c e t o S a m s o n t h a t t h e y h a v e c o m e to b i n d h i m so as t o d e l i v e r h i m to t h e Philistines (Judg. 15:12), J o s e p h u s h a s t h e m b e s e e c h i n g h i m to s u b m i t to this t r e a t m e n t o f his o w n free w i l l (Ant. 5.298). T h a t h e d o e s so s u b m i t p o i n t s u p S a m son's c o n f i d e n c e in himself. S a m s o n ' s fearlessness is u n d e r l i n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s n o t d r a m a t i z i n g his s t a t e m e n t o f fear (Ant. 5.299), as d o e s t h e B i b l e , t h r o u g h use o f d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , t h a t t h e J u d a h i t e s w i l l slay h i m (Judg. 15:12). I n a d d i t i o n , w h e r e a s w e r e a d in t h e B i b l e m e r e l y t h a t the J u d a h i t e s b o u n d S a m s o n w i t h t w o n e w r o p e s (Judg. 15:13), J o s e p h u s , to a c c e n t S a m s o n ' s fearlessness, h a s h i m a c t u a l l y d e s c e n d f r o m t h e r o c k a n d p u t h i m s e l f at t h e m e r c y o f his fellow t r i b e s m e n (Ant. 5.299). I n c o n t r a s t t o this J o s e p h a n e m p h a s i s o n S a m s o n ' s strength, t h e r a b b i s p l a y o n t h e w o r d shefjfon, " a d d e r , " a d e s i g n a t i o n for S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t o r D a n (Judg. 13:2; see G e n . 49:17), w h i c h is also c o n n e c t e d w i t h the r o o t shuf, " t o b r u i s e , " " c r u s h , " o r " d i s l o c a t e . " T h e y c o n c l u d e t h a t S a m s o n w a s l a m e in b o t h legs, like t h o s e h o r n e d s n a k e s t h a t o r i g i n a l l y p o s s e s s e d feet b u t later, h a v i n g lost t h e m , c r a w l e d o n t h e i r 14
b e l l i e s . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , a v o i d s a n y g r o t e s q u e p o r t r a y a l o f S a m s o n ' s strength. M o r e o v e r , t h e r a b b i s a d d t o t h e i r striking p o r t r a y a l o f S a m s o n b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e w i d t h b e t w e e n S a m s o n ' s s h o u l d e r s w a s sixty c u b i t s (ninety feet), this o n t h e basis o f t h e B i b l e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t S a m s o n p l a c e d the g a t e s o f G a z a , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Sotah 10a), w e r e sixty cubits w i d e , u p o n his s h o u l d e r s (Judg. 16:3).
15
13. Judg. 14:11 reads: "And it came to pass, w h e n they saw him [kire'otam], that they [the Philistines] brought thirty companions to be with him." Nesde 1910, 152, suggests that Josephus m a y have read kin atom ("when they feared him," or perhaps "because they feared him"), in accordance with one re cension of the Septuagint, which has ev TO> >op€todai avrovs avrov for or' eiSov avrov, a reading that Field 1875 ( * l ° - ) thinks Josephus followed. 14. Sotah 10a. Cf. Sanhedrin m a ; Midrash Hagadol Numbers 95b; Talqut 1.161, 1.765, 2.69; MidrashNumbers Rabbah 14.9; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a; Midrash Aggada Genesis 112 and Numbers 138, cited by Renzer 1902, 25; andNispahim Leseder Eliyahu %uta (ed. Friedmann) 44, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:207m 15. 15. Sotah 10a; Talqut 2.70; Tanna de-vei Eliyahu 5.24. ac
c
468
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
S a m s o n ' s strength a n d v i o l e n c e are e l a b o r a t e d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f his e x ploit w i t h the l i o n , w h e r e h e a d d s the a d d i t i o n a l detail that S a m s o n f l u n g (piVrei) the b e a s t into the w o o d s (Ant. 5.287). S a m s o n ' s h e r o i c stature is e n h a n c e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s r e d u c i n g the role o f his p a r e n t s in the narrative. T h u s , in J u d g . 14:6, w e are told t h a t S a m s o n d i d n o t i n f o r m his p a r e n t s o f his e x p l o i t w i t h t h e l i o n , p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e t h e y m i g h t h a v e b e e n u p s e t b y the d a n g e r t o w h i c h h e h a d e x p o s e d h i m self (so S l o t k i 1950, a d loc.) a n d also b e c a u s e t h e y m i g h t h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t the i n c i d e n t w a s a n o m e n w a r n i n g S a m s o n n o t t o m a r r y the T i m n i t e w o m a n (since t h e y d i d n o t k n o w that his i m p u l s e t o d o so c a m e f r o m G - d ) . T h e B i b l e relates that S a m s o n d i d n o t tell his p a r e n t s t h a t h e h a d s c r a p e d the h o n e y o u t o f the b o d y o f the l i o n (Judg. 14:9). T h e r e a s o n for this silence w a s p e r h a p s t h a t h e f e a r e d that t h e y w o u l d r e b u k e h i m for defiling h i m s e l f t h r o u g h c o n t a c t w i t h a c a r c a s s (Slotki 1950, a d l o c ) . T h e p i c t u r e s u g g e s t e d b y the B i b l e is o f a p r e c o c i o u s o n l y c h i l d w h o s e p a r e n t s a r e w o r r i e d a b o u t h i m . B y o m i t t i n g the role o f the p a r e n t s (they are n o t m e n t i o n e d after Ant. 5.286), J o s e p h u s presents S a m s o n as a g r o w n - u p h e r o c a p a b l e o f s t a n d i n g o n his o w n feet. L i k e w i s e , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a m s o n ' s frustrated a t t e m p t to visit his f o r m e r wife (Judg. 15:1). J o s e p h u s e v i d e n d y felt t h a t the m i g h t y , i m p e t u o u s S a m s o n o u g h t n o t t o b e d e p i c t e d as a m e e k w e a k l i n g w h o c o u l d b e s t o p p e d b y his father f r o m visiting her. W h i l e h i g h l i g h t i n g strength as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f S a m s o n , the r a b b i s r e m a r k , as J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , t h a t it w a s divine in o r i g i n (Sotah 10a); a n d , a b o v e all, t h e y stress that h e w a s p u n i s h e d , a p p r o p r i a t e l y e n o u g h , m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e , in his strength. T o b e sure, t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t S a m s o n w a s c o m p a r a b l e to the Philis tine G o l i a t h in strength (Leviticus Rabbah 5.3 a n d Numbers Rabbah 1 0 . 3 ) ,
16
but w h e n
t h e y c o u p l e S a m s o n w i t h G o l i a t h , it is to c o n t r a s t t h e m w i t h J u d a h a n d D a v i d , in t h a t w h i l e the latter p a i r ' s i n c r e a s e in h e r o i c strength s e r v e d t o their a d v a n t a g e , t h a t o f the f o r m e r p a i r t u r n e d o u t to b e a d i s a d v a n t a g e (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.18.1; Midrash Samuel 6.3), a n d b o t h w e r e killed (Numbers Rabbah 22.7). T h e r a b b i s , to b e sure, d o p r a i s e S a m s o n for his strength, as w h e n t h e y say, e x p o u n d i n g the p h r a s e "as o n e " in " D a n shall j u d g e his p e o p l e as o n e o f the tribes o f I s r a e l " ( G e n . 49:16), t h a t S a m s o n w a s like the U n i q u e O n e o f the w o r l d , a n d t h a t j u s t as G - d r e q u i r e s n o assistance, so S a m s o n n e e d e d n o h e l p in his e x p l o i t w i t h the j a w b o n e (Judg. 15:15) (Genesis Rabbah 9 8 . 1 3 , 99.11). I n e x p o u n d i n g " F o r T h o u hast s m i t t e n all m i n e e n e m i e s u p o n the j a w b o n e " (Ps. 3:8), the r a b b i s e x t o l S a m s o n ' s strength b y s a y i n g t h a t G - d h a s s m i t t e n all o f Israel's e n e m i e s , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y w e r e as m i g h t y as S a m s o n h i m s e l f (Midrash Psalms 3.7). Y e t , the v e r y e x p l o i t w i t h the j a w b o n e is the o c c a s i o n for the t y p i c a l r a b b i n i c m o r a l that o n e is p a i d m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e ; for t h e y r e m a r k t h a t b e c a u s e S a m s o n h a d lusted after that w h i c h w a s u n c l e a n (the for-
16. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:250, n. 29, remarks that, according to Tosefta-Targum 1 S a m . 17.4, S a m son was Goliath's father or ancestor.
SAMSON
469
e i g n T i m n i t e w o m a n ) , t h e r e f o r e his life w a s m a d e t o d e p e n d u p o n a n u n c l e a n a n i m a l (the ass) (Sotah g b ; Numbers Rabbah 9 . 2 4 ) .
17
I n t h e o n e i n c i d e n t ( J u d g . 15:18) w h e r e S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h s e e m s o p e n t o q u e s t i o n , n a m e l y , w h e n h e is a t t h e p o i n t o f d y i n g o f thirst after t h e e x p l o i t w i t h t h e j a w b o n e , t h e M i d r a s h s h a r p l y c a s t i g a t e s h i m , c o n c l u d i n g , in a s a r c a s t i c c o m m e n t o n S a m s o n ' s b o a s t i n g , t h a t h e w h o talks t o o m u c h b e c o m e s t h i r s t y (Genesis Rabbah 98.13). T h e l a n g u a g e o f J o s e p h u s is c o n s i d e r a b l y m i l d e r a n d m u c h m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c t o S a m s o n , w h o in his p r e s e n t a t i o n r e c o g n i z e s his error, a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t h u m a n v a l o r (dperrj) is o f n a u g h t , a n d i m p l o r i n g G - d for h e l p (Ant. 5 . 3 0 2 ) .
18
In illustrating S a m s o n ' s strength, the M i d r a s h likens h i m to a s e r p e n t — a c o m p a r i s o n t h a t t e n d s , o f c o u r s e , t o d e f l a t e S a m s o n ' s stature. I n t h e i r g r e a t c o n c e r n t o c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h his t r i b a l a n c e s t o r D a n in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g ( G e n . 4 9 : 1 7 ) , t h e r a b b i s c o m m e n t t h a t j u s t as all t h e s e r p e n t ' s s t r e n g t h lies i n its h e a d , so t h a t a h e a v y b l o w t o t h e h e a d b u t n o t t o t h e tail kills it, so a l s o S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h r e s i d e d i n h i s h e a d ( J u d g . 16:17) (Genesis Rabbah 98.14). I n d e e d , t h e M i d r a s h , i n its c o n s t a n t effort t o a s s o c i a t e S a m s o n w i t h D a n in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g , c o m p a r e s S a m s o n w i t h t h e s e r p e n t " t h a t b i t e t h t h e h o r s e ' s h e e l s , " t o w h i c h D a n is l i k e n e d ( G e n . 49:17) (Genesis Rabbah 98.14); " t h a t b i t e t h t h e h o r s e ' s h e e l s " h e r e is p r e s u m a b l y a n a l l u s i o n
17. O r i g e n , Adnotationes in Judices 73 (PG 17.37), has a similar tradition, in noting that water sent to relieve Samson's thirst c a m e forth from the j a w b o n e . M o o r e 1898, 347, attempts, b y noting that, ac cording to the Bible, the spring w a s to b e seen at L e h i to this day, to refute the view that after having thrown a w a y the j a w b o n e , S a m s o n picked it u p again a n d drank from it. 18. Samson's exhaustion is exaggerated b y the rabbis in their remark that even if there h a d b e e n a goblet before him, " S a m s o n w o u l d not have h a d the strength to stretch out his hand to take it" (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13). Samson's prayer in the M i d r a s h is more desperate: in it h e appeals to the ultimate covenant o f G - d a n d the Jew, that o f circumcision, pleading that even if the only difference between h i m a n d Philistines is circumcision, that is sufficient reason that he should not fall into their hands (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a). T h e Septuagint (Judg. 15:18) likewise uses stronger language than Josephus, with its reading iKXavoev, implying that S a m s o n cried unto G - d . Midrash Hagadol Deuteronomy 13a; Talqut 1.814; Talqut ha-Makiri on Isaiah i n ; Talqut ha-Mak iri on Psalms 2.103; 'Awt de-Rabbi Natan 121 [Schechter]; Midrash Psalms 18.4; Sifre Deuteronomy 27; Midrash Tannaim 16, cited b y R e n z e r 1902, 42, n. 85, a n d G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:147, n. 880), while c o m m e n t i n g o n Samson's use o f the phrase " T h y servant" in his prayer (Judg. 15:18), denigrate him b y noting that there are two groups o f biblical personalities, those (namely, A b r a h a m , J a c o b , M o s e s , D a v i d , a n d Isaiah) that call c
c
themselves eved a n d are also referred to as eved, a n d those (namely, S a m s o n a n d Solomon) w h o call themselves 'evedbut are not d e e m e d worthy o f this n a m e b y G - d . Moreover, instead o f having G - d re lieve Samson's thirst solely because o f his sincere repentance a n d humility, the rabbis (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13) remark that it was for the sake o f the blessing o f M o s e s (Deut. 33:22): "It will flow min habashan," i.e., miben shinav, "from his teeth," that G - d let a fountain bubble forth from Samson's teeth. T h e r e is n o such mention o f the zekut wot, the merits o f the fathers, in Josephus; for him, as in the Bible, it is because H e is m o v e d b y Samson's supplication that G - d causes a spring o f water to c o m e forth n
n
from a rock. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:207, - 9 > asserts that Josephus's rationalistic explanation o f the miracle, according to w h i c h S a m s o n noticed water flowing from a rock, was k n o w n also to the rabbis and cites Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13; but there the rabbis speak o f water coming, not rationalistically from a rock, but miraculously from between Samson's teeth.
470
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
to S a m s o n ' s final a c t o f r e v e n g e a g a i n s t the Philistines for s e e k i n g t o m a k e sport o f him.
1 9
T h e M i d r a s h likewise n o t e s t h a t j u s t as the snake is f o u n d a m o n g w o m e n
(for h e c o u l d e n t i c e E v e b u t n o t A d a m ) , so S a m s o n w a s to b e m e t w i t h a m o n g women.
2 0
M o r e o v e r , the M i d r a s h c o m p a r e s S a m s o n to a s e r p e n t in t h a t j u s t as a
serpent's eyelid q u i v e r s after d e a t h , so S a m s o n s l e w m o r e o f the e n e m y at his d e a t h t h a n h e s l e w in his lifetime (Judg. 16:30) {Genesis Rabbah 98.14). S u c h a c o m p a r i s o n d o e s h e i g h t e n S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for strength; J o s e p h u s h a s n o s u c h c o m p a r isons. W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s t e n d s to a v o i d the i n c r e d i b l e e v e n w h i l e stressing S a m s o n ' s strength a n d his exploits, his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o , g o e s m u c h further in e x a g g e r a t i n g these exploits. T h u s in d e s c r i b i n g S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t w i t h the gates at G a z a , the B i b l e is b r i e f a n d relatively matter-of-fact (Judg. 16:3). J
o s e
"
p h u s a d d s m e n t i o n o f S a m s o n ' s fury o n this o c c a s i o n (Ant. 5.305), b u t in P s e u d o P h i l o , S a m s o n b e c o m e s a l m o s t a k i n d o f " s u p e r m a n . " A c c o r d i n g to h i m S a m s o n p l a c e d his left h a n d u n d e r the b a r o f the g a t e , s h o o k it, a n d p r o c e e d e d to t h r o w d o w n the g a t e o f the w a l l . T h e n h e t o o k o n e o f the g a t e s in his r i g h t h a n d as a shield a n d u s e d the o t h e r as a s w o r d , killing n o t 1,000 m e n , as in the B i b l e a n d in J o s e p h u s , b u t n o f e w e r t h a n 25,000 (Bib. Ant. 4 3 . 3 ) .
21
A similar e x a g g e r a t i o n is f o u n d in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s a c c o u n t o f h o w S a m s o n b r o u g h t d o w n the t e m p l e u p o n the Philistines at the e n d o f his life (Bib. Ant. 43.7). W h e r e a s the B i b l e a n d J o s e p h u s s a y that t h e r e w e r e 3,000 m e n a n d w o m e n u p o n the roof, w i t h a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r e l s e w h e r e in the b u i l d i n g (Ant. 5.316), a n d the S e p t u a g i n t , in the interest o f verisimilitude, r e d u c e s the n u m b e r t o 700, P s e u d o P h i l o i n c r e a s e s it to 4 0 , 0 0 0 .
22
S a m s o n ' s strength is e x a g g e r a t e d , a l t h o u g h w i t h o u t g r o t e s q u e n e s s o r i n c r e d i b l e inflation, b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t that the m e n (Judg. 16:9) w h o m D e l i l a h p o s t e d t o seize S a m s o n w e r e soldiers (Ant. 5.309). A similar effect is a c h i e v e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n D e l i l a h b o u n d S a m s o n , she d i d so as f i r m l y as possible (Judg. 16:8). Finally, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s the force w i t h w h i c h S a m s o n b r i n g s d o w n the h a l l u p o n the b a n q u e t e r s (Ant. 5.316); the B i b l e says t h a t h e b e n t (va-yet; S e p t u a g i n t , ipdoragev,
" r a i s e d , " " c a r r i e d " ) w i t h all his m i g h t
19. Perhaps Josephus, if he was aware o f the comparison o f Samson with a serpent, found the ser pent, k n o w n as a creature o f subdety and deceit, an objectionable creature to w h i c h to c o m p a r e his hero. See K n o x 1950, 379-400. 20. Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.14; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 183b-!84a; Tanhuma Vayehi 12; Midrash Leqah Tov on G e n . 49:17; Midrash Sekel Tov on Genesis 316. 21. Pseudo-Philo, however, has only a brief mention o f Samson's heroic exploits with the lion, the foxes that he caught, the j a w b o n e o f the ass, and his escape from the bonds with w h i c h the Judahites b o u n d him, referring the reader to the B o o k o f Judges where these things are described at greater length (Bib. Ant. 43.4). Instead, Pseudo-Philo concentrates on those exploits w h e r e S a m s o n showed his strength to the highest degree a n d slew the largest n u m b e r o f Philistines. 22. M o o r e 1898, 362, notes that T h e o d o r e t , Quaestiones et Responsiones, 22, exaggerates the n u m b e r to three thousand m e n and m a n y times more w o m e n .
SAMSON (Judg. 16:30), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s h a s h i m f l i n g i n g all his w e i g h t (ivaeiadels,
471 i.e.,
" s h a k i n g t h o r o u g h l y , " " d a s h i n g to the g r o u n d " ) u p o n the c o l u m n s , o v e r t u r n i n g them.
2 3
B u t J o s e p h u s a v o i d s u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d e v e n , as n o t e d a b o v e , re
d u c e s the n u m b e r slain b y S a m s o n o n this o c c a s i o n f r o m 3,000 o n the r o o f plus a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r e l s e w h e r e to a total o f m e r e l y 3,000 (Ant. 5.316); the M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , e x p l i c i d y r e m a r k s t h a t there w e r e 3,000 m e n a n d w o m e n o n the e d g e o f the roof, " b u t n o o n e k n o w s h o w m a n y w e r e b e h i n d t h e m " (Genesis Rabbah 98.14). I n c o n t r a s t to J o s e p h u s , w h o stresses the h u m a n c h a r a c t e r o f S a m s o n the m a n a n d the h e r o , the r a b b i s c o n s t a n d y e m p h a s i z e the d i v i n e h e l p t h a t h e r e c e i v e d a n d d e c l a r e t h a t t h o u g h S a m s o n ' s strength w a s G - d - l i k e in nature, it w a s p r e c i s e l y t h r o u g h this t h a t h e c a m e to g r i e f .
24
T h u s , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the e x p l o i t m o s t g l o
riously illustrating S a m s o n ' s strength, n a m e l y , that in w h i c h h e b r o u g h t the t w o pillars d o w n u p o n the Philistines at the e n d o f his life, the r a b b i s , i n s t e a d o f c o m m e n t i n g o n the strength d i s p l a y e d b y S a m s o n , t y p i c a l l y prefer to use this h a p p e n i n g to c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h his a n c e s t o r s , f i n d i n g in the t w o pillars a r e f e r e n c e to the t w o o x e n b r o u g h t as a sacrifice o f p e a c e offerings b y the p r i n c e o f D a n , S a m son's a n c e s t o r ( N u m . 7:71) (Numbers Rabbah 14.9). A s s o c i a t e d w i t h S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e a n d strength is his t e m p e s t u o u s n a t u r e , a t h e m e r e m i n i s c e n t , as w e h a v e n o t e d , o f the w r a t h (jprijvw) o f A c h i l l e s in H o m e r ' s Iliad (1.1). J o s e p h u s , d e p i c t i n g S a m s o n as a n Israelite A c h i l l e s o r H e r a c l e s , h i g h lights opyr] ("anger," " f u r y " ) ,
25
as w e h a v e n o t e d , as o n e o f his four c h i e f c h a r a c
teristics. J u s t as this w r a t h is the u n d o i n g o f A c h i l l e s ' s t r e n g t h a n d c o u r a g e , so is it c o n t r i b u t o r y to the e n d o f S a m s o n , for, as J o s e p h u s says in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s p e e c h a s s i g n e d to J u d a h , it is small (paKpol) m e n w h o substitute w r a t h (dpyrjs) for strength (laxvos),
h a v i n g r e c o u r s e t o the f o r m e r n o t o n l y in g r e a t m a t t e r s o n l y b u t in trivial
o n e s as w e l l (Ant. 2.141). S a m s o n ' s fury is to b e seen, for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f J u d g . 15:15, w h i c h r e a d s , r a t h e r m i l d l y : " A n d h e f o u n d a n e w j a w b o n e o f a n ass, a n d p u t forth his h a n d , a n d t o o k it, a n d s m o t e a t h o u s a n d m e n t h e r e with."
In
contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s
Samson
is full
o f fury:
" S a m s o n . . . seizing
[dprraadpLevos] the j a w b o n e o f a n ass t h a t l a y at his feet, r u s h e d [coaaro] u p o n his e n e m i e s " (Ant. 5.300). T o b e sure, the B i b l e , j u s t b e f o r e this p a s s a g e , d e c l a r e s t h a t the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n h i m , c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g t h a t his a c h i e v e m e n t w a s possible o n l y b e c a u s e o f the h e l p o f G - d (Judg. 15:14); b u t J o s e p h u s
23. Aquila, too, accentuates the picture o f Samson's fearlessness by translating " N o razor [morah] shall come upon his head" (Judg. 13:5) as /ecu >6pos ["fear"] OVK k-m^atrai, presumably because he read mora ("fear"). 24. Sotah 10a; Talqut ha-Makiri on Pss. 1.86 and 2.68; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 23b; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 53; Bate Midrashot 3.32, ch. 52, cited b y Renzer 1902, 39. 25. If we ask why, in view of the implied comparison between Samson and Achilles, Josephus does not use Homer's words ^VLS and x°^°s for the wrath o f Samson, the answer would seem to be that Josephus reserves those words (i.e., five instances of fxijvLs and four of x°^°s)> throughout his retelling of the biblical narrative, solely for the wrath of G - d .
472
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
o m i t s the role o f G - d c o m p l e t e l y a n d a s c r i b e s e v e r y t h i n g to S a m s o n ' s w r a t h a n d p o w e r . A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t S a m s o n s m o t e a t h o u s a n d m e n w i t h the j a w b o n e , " h e a p s u p o n h e a p s " (Judg. 1 5 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t b y d e p i c t i n g h i m as a o n e - m a n a r m y r o u t i n g the e n e m y : " [ S a m s o n ] , smit ing t h e m w i t h this w e a p o n , s l e w a t h o u s a n d o f t h e m , r o u t i n g [rperrerai] dire d i s m a y [rapaxOevras,
the rest in
i.e., t h r o w n into d i s o r d e r ] " (Ant. 5.300). It is this s a m e
v i o l e n t a s p e c t o f S a m s o n ' s a c t i v i t y t h a t is stressed in J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f J u d g . 16:3, w h i c h m e n t i o n s m e r e l y t h a t S a m s o n l a i d h o l d o f the d o o r s o f the g a t e s o f G a z a a n d c a r r i e d t h e m t o the m o u n t a i n b e f o r e H e b r o n . A s J o s e p h u s rewrites the text, S a m s o n f l u n g h i m s e l f [ivpdoaei,
i.e., "thrust a g a i n s t , " " d a s h a g a i n s t , " a dna^
Xeyopuevov in all e x t a n t G r e e k literature) a g a i n s t the gates (Ant. 5.305). A g a i n , it is the w r a t h (dpyrjs) d i s p l a y e d b y S a m s o n at the b e t r a y a l o f the a n s w e r to his riddle b y the T i m n i t e w o m a n t h a t l e a d s h e r to s c o r n h i m (Ant. 5.294); J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , o b v i o u s l y felt t h a t this m o o d o n the p a r t o f S a m s o n w a s justified a n d a d m i r e s h i m for it. L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d o e s n o t e x p l i c i d y m e n t i o n S a m s o n ' s m o o d after h e h a s b e e n frustrated in his a t t e m p t to revisit his T i m n i t e wife (Judg. 15:3), J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y d e s c r i b e s h i m as furious (rrapo^vvOeis, " u n l e a s h e d , " " p r o v o k e d , " " e x a s p e r a t e d , " " i n d i g n a n t " ) at the affront (vfipiv) (Ant. 5 . 2 9 5 ) .
26
Temperance The
third o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t e m p e r a n c e , is seen in S a m s o n ' s m o d e r a t i o n
(oaxfypoovvrj) in his diet (Siatrav) a n d in his l o o s e l y f l o w i n g l o c k s (Ant. 5.285). M o d e r a t i o n in diet, it s h o u l d b e n o t e d , is o n e o f the four virtues for w h i c h the J e w s w e r e p r a i s e d in a n t i q u i t y (see F e l d m a n 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 , 28-30); a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a s c r i p t i o n o f this q u a l i t y to S a m s o n fits in w i t h the a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e o f the Antiquities. W e m a y n o t e t h a t w h e n A r i s t o d e , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e a r c h u s o f Soli, praises t h e J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r , h e specifically refers t o the m o d e r a t i o n (ococfrpoovvriv) o f his w a y o f life (SiaLrrj), p r e c i s e l y the t w o t e r m s t h a t J o s e p h u s uses w i t h r e g a r d t o S a m s o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Against Apion 1.182). T h e r a b b i s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , criticize S a m s o n for his l a c k o f m o d e r a t i o n in his i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h the Philistine w o m e n , to w h i c h t h e y a s c r i b e the loss o f his eyes (Judg. 1 6 : 3 1 ) .
27
T h e s a m e criticism, a l t h o u g h s o m e w h a t less explicit, also a p
p e a r s in P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. 43.5).
26. Josephus (Ant. 5.305), however, avoids the extreme contempt for the enemy found in PseudoPhilo's account (Bib. Ant. 43.2-3) o f Samson's escape from the Philistine ambuscades at G a z a , which Pseudo-Philo puts into Samson's mouth—a speech un-Josephan in its utter contempt for the enemy. 27. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Sotah 9 b - i o a ; Tosefta Sotah 3.15; Jerusalem Sotah 1.17b; Ketubot 5.30b; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 1.752 Mekilta Shira 2.362; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 52.12; Tanhuma Beshalah 12; Midrash Hagadol Numbers 15b, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:208, n. 121, a n d Renzer 1902, 38. T h e rabbis (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 20; Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 9.2; Midrash Hagadol Leviticus 145a; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 27; Tanhuma A a n d B Ahare 1 and Ve-ethanan 1; Talqut 2.70 and 979, cited by Renzer 1902, 32) compare him, in obvious disparagement, with Zedekiah: both are involved with oaths (Zedekiah takes an oath in 2 C h r o n . 36:13, and Samson asks the Judahites to swear in Judg. 15:12), and both have
SAMSON
473
Justice W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a s c r i b e the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e as s u c h to S a m s o n , h e d o e s seek to p r o t e c t S a m s o n a g a i n s t a possible c h a r g e o f injustice in the n a r r o w e r sense w h e n h e d e n i e s t h a t S a m s o n p l u n d e r e d i n n o c e n t b y s t a n d e r s a n d carefully a d d s t h a t t h e m e n o f A s h k e l o n w h o m h e d i d d e s p o i l in o r d e r to g e t t h e g a r m e n t s w i t h w h i c h t o r e w a r d t h e Philistine y o u n g m e n for successfully a n s w e r i n g his r i d d l e w e r e t h e m s e l v e s Philistines (Ant. 5.294). Similarly, in d e s c r i b i n g t h e d a m a g e inflicted b y the foxes let l o o s e b y S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t t h e Philistines' c r o p w a s r u i n e d (Ant. 5.296). W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y gives m o r e p r e cise details t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e , in this c a s e b o t h the H e b r e w text (Judg. 15:5) a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n p r o v i d e further details, n o t i n g t h a t the s h o c k s , s t a n d i n g c o r n , a n d o l i v e y a r d s w e r e all b u r n t u p . T h e S e p t u a g i n t a d d s also t h a t t h e v i n e s w e r e r u i n e d ; h e r e J o s e p h u s m i g h t c o n c e i v a b l y also h a v e c i t e d a m i d r a s h o r m o r a l like t h a t w h i c h t h e r a b b i s m e n t i o n in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m i x e d v i n e s o f T i m n a h , b u t to d o so w o u l d h a v e i n v o l v e d a criticism o f S a m s o n for l u s t i n g after f o r e i g n w o m e n , a n d so J o s e p h u s refrains. T o h e l p justify S a m s o n ' s b r u t a l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e Philistines, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s their cruelty. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , t h e Philistines b u r n t t h e T i m n i t e w o m a n a n d h e r father b e c a u s e their a c t i o n s h a d l e d S a m s o n t o d e s t r o y t h e Philistines' c r o p s (Judg. 15:6). J o s e p h u s follows the S e p t u a g i n t a n d Peshitta ( w h i c h r e a d " t h e h o u s e o f h e r father") a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e Philistines b u r n t alive n o t m e r e l y t h e w o m a n a n d h e r father b u t h e r kinsfolk as w e l l (Ant. 5.296). A p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e a g e d C e p h a l u s in P l a t o ' s Re public (1.331c), is s p e a k i n g t h e t r u t h . I n his a p o l o g e t i c for S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s o m i t s D e l i l a h ' s r e p r o a c h e s to S a m s o n t h a t h e h a s t o l d h e r lies (Judg. 16:10, 13), for t h e A c h i l l e s - l i k e h e r o a n d the A r i s t o t e l i a n fieyaXoi/jvxos
is a m a n o f truth. W i t h v a r i
o u s a d d e d t o u c h e s , J o s e p h u s presents D e l i l a h h e r s e l f as t h e villain; it w a s she w h o craftily s o u g h t (irexvlreve)
to d i s c o v e r t h e secret o f S a m s o n ' s strength b y g e t t i n g
h i m d r u n k a n d b y flattering h i m (Ant. 5.307). I n J u d g . 16:15, D e l i l a h d o e s n o t , to b e sure, e x p l i c i d y a c c u s e S a m s o n o f l y i n g , b u t t h e c h a r g e is i m p l i c i t in h e r w o r d s . J o s e p h u s a v o i d s a n y d i r e c t a c c u s a t i o n b y a l l u d i n g to t h e m a t t e r
impersonally,
" w h e n e v e n b y this e x p e r i m e n t t h e t r u t h is n o t d i s c o v e r e d " (Ant. 5 . 3 1 2 ) .
28
In any
case, J o s e p h u s is m u c h briefer in r e p o r t i n g D e l i l a h ' s a c c u s a t i o n (Judg. 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 v s .
their eyes struck out (Zedekiah in 2 Kings 25:7; Samson in Judg. 15:21). The same comparison occurs in Jerome, Commentaria in Ezechiekm 23.22 ff. (=PL 25.220; Corpus Christianorum 75 [1964] 313, lines 1054-55), who makes it the occasion for an attack on Samson, his punishment being, measure for mea sure, in accordance with the familiar midrashic theme, due retribution for his having gone astray after his eyes (Judg. 14:3). 28. To be sure, the Latin version reads verax; and on the basis of this, Niese, in his edition of Jose phus, has suggested the emendation dXrjdrjs, in which case the meaning would be that it was discovered that Samson, as in the biblical account, was not truthful. But Niese declined to incorporate his own emendation into his editio maior.
474
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
Ant. 5.312), a n d t h e result is t o t o n e d o w n h e r c h a r g e o f untruthfulness
against
S a m s o n . H e n c e , t h e r e is less n e e d for J o s e p h u s to stress D e l i l a h ' s r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t S a m s o n h a d finally t o l d h e r t h e t r u t h (Judg. 16:18) (Ant. 5.313), since h e h a s p l a y e d d o w n S a m s o n ' s p r e v i o u s l y l y i n g to h e r ; it is e n o u g h for h i m to s a y t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d w h a t she w i s h e d to k n o w (ravra
fjuadovoa) (Ant. 5.313). T h e M i d r a s h , o n
t h e c o n t r a r y b a s i n g itself o n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s S a m s o n ' s p r e v i o u s untruthfulness, s p e c u l a t e s o n h o w D e l i l a h k n e w t h a t h e w a s n o w s p e a k i n g the truth; its answer, w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a s p e c t , is t h a t his state m e n t t h a t h e h a d b e e n a N a z i r i t e u n t o G - d c o n v i n c e d her, since she k n e w t h a t h e w o u l d n o t u t t e r t h e n a m e o f G - d in v a i n (Numbers Rabbah 9.24, Sotah 9 b , Talqut 2.70). Avoidance of Vice Not
o n l y m u s t t h e h e r o c u l t i v a t e t h e c a r d i n a l virtues, b u t h e m u s t also, as A r i s t o d e
says, a v o i d a n y o c c u p a t i o n o r a c t i v i t y t h a t m a k e s the body, m i n d , o r soul less fit for the p r a c t i c e o f v i r t u e (Politics 8 . 2 . 1 3 3 7 B 9 - 1 4 ) . A r i s t o d e (ibid.) further d e c l a r e s t h a t "we
call t h o s e arts v u l g a r t h a t t e n d to d e f o r m the body, a n d l i k e w i s e all p a i d e m
p l o y m e n t s , for t h e y a b s o r b a n d d e g r a d e t h e m i n d . " I n v i e w o f A r i s t o d e ' s g e n e r a l c o n t e m p t for m e n i a l l a b o r (Politics 8.2.1337B21), J o s e p h u s is careful to o m i t this feature in S a m s o n ' s career. T h u s , J u d g . 16:21 r e p o r t s t h a t t h e Philistines b o u n d h i m w i t h fetters o f brass, " a n d h e d i d g r i n d i n t h e p r i s o n - h o u s e . " T h e m e n i a l l a b o r o f w o r k i n g at the m i l l w a s a c o m m o n a n d m u c h - d r e a d e d p u n i s h m e n t a m o n g the G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s o f slaves a n d e v e n f r e e d m e n for t h e slightest offenses, to w h i c h the c o m i c p o e t s often refer (see M o o r e 1898, 357). T o h a v e h a d S a m s o n s u b m i t to s u c h a p u n i s h m e n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n to d e g r a d e h i m , a n d J o s e p h u s o m i t s all r e f e r e n c e to it. J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e felt t h a t it w o u l d b e d e g r a d i n g to h i m to m e n t i o n t h a t S a m s o n h a d t o m a k e s p o r t o f h i m s e l f b e f o r e t h e Philistines (Judg. 16:25),
a
n
d conse
q u e n d y o m i t s this r e m a r k (Ant. 5.314); i n s t e a d S a m s o n is l e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e tail, to a G r e e k - l i k e b a n q u e t (GV/JLTTOGLOV), w h e r e h e stands b y p a s s i v e l y w h i l e t h e Philistines take t h e initiative in m o c k i n g h i m . Similarly, S a m s o n ' s stature w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i m i n i s h e d i f J o s e p h u s h a d i n c l u d e d the a d d i t i o n , f o u n d o n l y in t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Judg. 16:25), t h a t t h e Philistines c u d g e l e d S a m s o n ; a n d so h e o m i t s this also.
HELLENIZATIONS The Hero as Tragic Protagonist J o s e p h u s h a s h e l l e n i z e d his n a r r a t i v e as a w h o l e , thus m a k i n g it m o r e a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s . O n e f r e q u e n t H e l l e n i s t i c motif, as w e h a v e n o t e d , is t h a t o f fate, e m p h a s i s o n w h i c h w o u l d t e n d to a b s o l v e t h e h e r o f r o m b l a m e . T h u s w e a r e t o l d t h a t it w a s n e c e s s a r y (e'Sei) for S a m s o n to fall (TrepiTreGeiv) a v i c t i m to c a l a m i t y
SAMSON
475
(avfji(f)opd) (Ant. 5.312). H e n c e , S a m s o n ' s reversal o f fortune (7rept77€T€ta, a k e y t e r m in t r a g e d y d e r i v e d f r o m t h e v e r b TrepLTreoeiv, u s e d h e r e b y J o s e p h u s ) is d u e to fate r a t h e r t h a n to his o w n failings. T o J o s e p h u s , t h e r e v e n g e g a i n e d in d e a t h b y S a m s o n is a fitting d e n o u e m e n t t o a tale t h a t is v e r y r e m i n i s c e n t o f a G r e e k t r a g e d y I f t h e r e is a n y vfipis c a s t i g a t e d b y J o s e p h u s h e r e , it is n o t S a m s o n ' s b u t t h a t d i s p l a y e d b y t h e Philistines, w h o , i n details a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , s h o w vfipts (ivvfipioojoiv, S a m s o n o v e r t h e i r c u p s (ovp,Tr6oiov,
Ant.
"insult," " m o c k " ) t o w a r d
5.314); w h i l e h e , his p r i d e
insulted
(vftpL^opuevos) b y s u c h m o c k e r y d e t e r m i n e s t o g a i n r e v e n g e . S u c h a t t a c k s o n i n s o l e n c e a r e a r e c u r r i n g t h e m e in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s t o t h e B i b l e , j u s t as t h e y a r e in G r e e k t r a g e d y Romantic
Motifs
F o l l o w i n g in the p a t h o f H e r o d o t u s , J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n d y inserts digressive p u r p l e passages, a n d especially r o m a n t i c narratives, this b e i n g particularly e v i d e n t in his r e w r i t i n g o f the S a m s o n episode. T h u s w e are told, in details n o t f o u n d in J u d g . 13:2, that M a n o a h w a s m a d l y in love (piaviwSrjs vrr* epwros) w i t h his wife a n d h e n c e inor d i n a t e l y (oiKparcos, i.e., " w i t h o u t c o m m a n d o v e r o n e s e l f o r o n e ' s passions," " i n c o n t i n e n t , " " i m m o d e r a t e , " " i n t e m p e r a t e " ) j e a l o u s (^XOTVITOS)
o f h e r (Ant. 5.277). T h i s
p i c t u r e o f M a n o a h as b e i n g m a d l y in love w o u l d p e r h a p s b e reinforced for G r e e k readers b y the similarity b e t w e e n the n a m e M a n o a h a n d the G r e e k w o r d for m a d , pLavicLSrjs. I n fact, t w o m a n u s c r i p t s r e a d pLavcoxrjs (the G r e e k spelling for M a n o a h ) for pLavLcLSrjs here. M a n o a h ' s j e a l o u s y is further h i g h l i g h t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s additions to the biblical narrative o f the angel's a p p e a r a n c e to M a n o a h ' s wife, namely, t h a t she w a s a l o n e w h e n a specter ()dvTaopLa) a p p e a r e d to h e r (Ant. 5.277) a n d that the a n g e l 29
w a s a c o m e l y (KaXtp) a n d tall (pueydXa)) y o u t h (ibid.). W h e r e a s it is the terrible o r a w e - i n s p i r i n g (nora) c o u n t e n a n c e o f the a n g e l that the B i b l e singles o u t for special at tention (Judg. 13:6), it is thus the angel's b e a u t y that J o s e p h u s a c c e n t u a t e s .
30
F o r t h e i r p a r t , t h e r a b b i s , i n their discussion o f the a n g e l ' s a p p e a r a n c e , stress t h a t h e c a m e to m a k e p e a c e b e t w e e n t h e w o m a n a n d h e r h u s b a n d , further p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t it w a s she, n o t h e r h u s b a n d , w h o w a s b a r r e n , p r e v e n t i n g c o n c e p t i o n , a n d t h a t this w a s t h e r e a s o n w h y t h e a n g e l s p o k e w i t h h e r f i r s t .
3 1
32
29. It is interesting that in Josephus's recounting o f the story o f Gideon, he similarly adds that a specter ((/xivraafia) appeared to h i m in the form o f a young m a n (Ant. 5.213), a description found nei ther in Judg. 6:11 nor any rabbinic source. 30. While most o f the better manuscripts o f the Septuagint read >op€p6s ("terrible"), A reads em^av^s, "conspicuous," "notable," "distinguished," "famous," "renowned"; and this m a y be the source of Josephus's version. 31. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5; Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 9; Tractate Derek Erez Perek Ha-shalom, Talqut Shimoni 2.68. 32. Perhaps there is an echo o f this in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.3), where the angel puts greater stress than does the Bible (Judg. 13:3) on the fact that she is sterile, particularly in the added clause " T h o u art the w o m b which has been forbidden to bear fruit."
476
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
T h e m o t i f s o f j e a l o u s y a n d s u s p i c i o n , so p r e v a l e n t in H e l l e n i s t i c r o m a n t i c n o v els, a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y d e v e l o p e d i n J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n t h a t M a n o a h ' s w i f e t o l d h e r h u s b a n d in d e t a i l (e/cS 117777 aaro) w h a t s h e h a d h e a r d f r o m t h e a n g e l , w h i l e m a r veling 5.279).
e x c e e d i n g l y (iKOavfjid^ovaa) 33
at
the
y o u n g man's
handsomeness
(Ant
T h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n i n J u d g . 13:6 o r 13:8 t h a t M a n o a h d i d n o t b e l i e v e
his w i f e ' s a c c o u n t , for M a n o a h s i m p l y asks f o r f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o w h a t t o d o w i t h t h e c h i l d t h a t , h e a s s u m e s , w i l l b e b o r n , as a n n o u n c e d b y t h e a n g e l . I n J o s e phus, o n the other h a n d , in a n o t h e r extrabiblical detail in the s a m e erotic vein, M a n o a h , in his j e a l o u s y (^Xorvrriavf^
o f t h e a n g e l , is " d r i v e n b y t h e s e p r a i s e s t o
d i s t r a c t i o n [eKTrXrjgiv, i.e., c o n s t e r n a t i o n , m e n t a l d i s t u r b a n c e , p a s s i o n ] a n d t o c o n c e i v e t h e s u s p i c i o n [vrrovoLav] t h a t s u c h p a s s i o n [rrdOovs] a r o u s e s " (Ant W h e r e a s the M i d r a s h
3 6
a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant
5.279).
35
42.1-4) portray the tension be
t w e e n M a n o a h a n d his w i f e in t e r m s o f a d i s p u t e as t o w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e childlessness o f their m a r r i a g e , w i t h the a n g e l b e i n g called u p o n to resolve the dis pute b y w a y o f a divine sign, Josephus, restricting himself to the h u m a n
plane,
stresses r a t h e r t h e e m o t i o n , p a s s i o n , j e a l o u s y , a n d s u s p i c i o n o f M a n o a h 5-277)-
(Ant
37
I n his e m o t i o n a l a n d u n r e a s o n a b l e (dXoyov)
distress, M a n o a h , i n J o s e p h u s ' s
i m a g e , lets his sails o u t t o o far (Ant 5.280); a n d his w i f e , s e e k i n g t o h a v e h i m furl t h e m a n d a l l a y (oraX-qvai, " t o f u r l , " " t o t a k e i n t h e sails") his distress, p r a y s t o G - d t o s e n d t h e a n g e l a g a i n so t h a t h e r h u s b a n d m a y a l s o see h i m . D e v e l o p i n g this t h e m e o f the j e a l o u s y a n d suspicion o f the loving husband, J o s e p h u s has M a n o a h ' s w i f e e n t r e a t G - d t o s e n d t h e a n g e l a g a i n , t h a t h e r h u s b a n d m i g h t see h i m a n d t h u s a l l a y t h e s e s u s p i c i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m his j e a l o u s y o f t h e a n g e l (Ant 5.280). I n t h e
33. R a p p a p o r t 1930, 43, no. 180, unable to find any parallel in the rabbinic writings to this praise o f the y o u n g angel's beauty b y M a n o a h ' s wife, concludes that it is not possible to determine whether this is a romantic invention o f Josephus's to please his G r e e k readers or goes b a c k to a rabbinic source. But w h e n such details are as numerous as they are in Josephus's S a m s o n story, the burden o f p r o o f rests with those w h o postulate a lost rabbinic source. 34. Similarly, the adjective corresponding to the n o u n ^XoTvirla where h e is termed inordinately jealous (^Xorvrros);
is used o f M a n o a h in Ant. 5.277,
the n o u n form (^Xorvrrias) is found in Josephus's
description o f Herod's jealous love for M a r i a m n e (War 1.440, 443). 35. T h e same distrust o f his wife b y M a n o a h recurs in Pseudo-Philo, w h o is even more explicit about it: "And M a n u e believed not his wife" (Bib. Ant. 42.5). Both Pseudo-Philo a n d Josephus note M a n o a h ' s grief at this report from his wife. B u t Pseudo-Philo has none o f the details about the suspi cion and jealousy o f love that give a distinct flavor to Josephus's narrative. A n d in Pseudo-Philo, unlike Josephus, M a n o a h ' s distrust is the occasion for feelings o f shame a n d grief that lead him to a prayer to G - d : " L o , I a m not worthy to hear the signs a n d wonders that G - d hath w r o u g h t in us, or to see the face o f his messenger." 36. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5; Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 9.9; Derek Erez Perek ha-Shalom. 37. A n alternative explanation might b e that Josephus is seeking to provide better motivation for the plot, inasmuch as, p r i m a facie, M a n o a h ' s desire to recall the angel is not well motivated in the Bible. Similarly, in part perhaps in order to remove the implausibility o f the narrative, D e l i l a h in Josephus, full o f feminine wiles, as he depicts her, uses Samson's love for h e r as a w e a p o n against h i m (Ant. 5.310).
SAMSON
477
B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is M a n o a h himself, r a t h e r t h a n his wife, w h o entreats G - d t o s e n d the a n g e l a g a i n , a n d it is n o t to relieve his j e a l o u s y b u t t o t e a c h h i m w h a t to d o o n c e the c h i l d is b o r n (Judg. 13:8). T h e r a b b i n i c tradition, as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d , e m p h a s i z e s the d i v i n e aspects o f the e p i s o d e a n d amplifies this prayer, c o m p a r i n g it, w i t h a t y p i c a l m i d r a s h i c p l a y o n the w o r d vaye'tar ("and h e e n treated"), in its effectiveness in t u r n i n g G - d f r o m the attribute o f c r u e l t y t o t h a t o f c
m e r c y , w i t h a p i t c h f o r k ( eter), w h i c h t u r n s the g r a i n in a s t o r e h o u s e f r o m p l a c e t o place.
3 8
P s e u d o - P h i l o likewise h a s M a n o a h r a t h e r t h a n his wife p r a y i n g , g i v i n g
d r a m a t i c e m p h a s i s t o his p r a y e r b y h a v i n g the a n g e l r e a p p e a r t o his wife e v e n w h i l e h e is p r a y i n g (Bib. Ant. 4 2 . 6 ) .
39
T h e M i d r a s h , in a n effort t o b u i l d u p the stature o f M a n o a h ' s wife as a right e o u s w o m a n , c o m m e n t s o n the v e r s e " A n d the w o m a n m a d e haste a n d
ran"
(Judg. 13:10) t h a t h e r e a g e r n e s s t o i n f o r m h e r h u s b a n d a b o u t t h e r e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e a n g e l illustrates t h a t the a c t i o n s o f r i g h t e o u s p e o p l e a r e p e r f o r m e d
with
a l a c r i t y (Numbers Rabbah 10.5). J o s e p h u s , d i m i n i s h i n g h e r role, n o t o n l y d o e s n o t h a v e this praise b u t e v e n c h a n g e s " m a d e haste a n d r a n " t o m e r e l y " w e n t in q u e s t o f " (fjL€T€ioi) (Ant. 5.280). T h e r e u p o n , J o s e p h u s , p u r s u i n g the t h e m e o f the suspi c i o n o f the h u s b a n d , r e m a r k s that, e v e n o n b e h o l d i n g the a n g e l , M a n o a h " d i d n o t desist f r o m his s u s p i c i o n , a n d h e r e q u e s t e d h i m t o r e p e a t to h i m all t h a t h e h a d r e v e a l e d " t o his wife (Ant. 5.281). T h e w o r d for " r e v e a l e d , " fjLrjvvaetev, m e a n s " t o dis close w h a t is s e c r e t , " i m p l y i n g t h a t M a n o a h s u s p e c t e d t h a t the a n g e l h a d t o l d se crets to his wife. I n c o n t r a s t t o this s u s p i c i o n , the B i b l e m e r e l y h a s M a n o a h ask the a n g e l t o identify h i m s e l f a n d requests t o k n o w w h a t t o d o w i t h the c h i l d (Judg. 1 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) ; h e h a s n o d o u b t t h a t w h a t the a n g e l says will c o m e to pass, b u t h e w a n t s m o r e details a b o u t the s p e c i a l u p b r i n g i n g t o b e g i v e n the child. I n this r e s p e c t , P s e u d o - P h i l o is c l o s e r t o J o s e p h u s t h a n to S c r i p t u r e , for h e asserts t h a t M a n o a h h a s l i n g e r i n g d o u b t s , t h a t h e asks G - d t h r o u g h the a n g e l t o see t o it t h a t his w o r d b e a c c o m p l i s h e d , a n d t h a t h e w a n t s to b e r e a s s u r e d t h a t it will b e (Bib. Ant. 42.7). M a n o a h ' s s u s p i c i o n a n d the m y s t e r i o u s n a t u r e o f the a n g e l ' s e r r a n d are i n c r e a s e d in J o s e p h u s w h e n the a n g e l refuses to r e p e a t w h a t h e h a d r e v e a l e d t o M a n o a h ' s wife (Ant. 5.281), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e a n g e l r e p e a t s substantially w h a t h e h a d t o l d h e r (Judg. 13:13-14). H e r e P s e u d o - P h i l o o c c u p i e s s o m e t h i n g o f a m i d w a y p o sition b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d the M i d r a s h , for w h i l e , as in the M i d r a s h , the a n g e l
38. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5; Tevamot 64a; Sukkah 14a; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 63; Midrash Ha gadol 100a; Talqut 1.110; Midrash Leqah Tov; and Midrash Sekel Tov and Midrash Agada on G e n . 25:21, cited by Renzer 1902, 27. 39. T h e Midrash (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5), to be sure, does have one remark that might have appealed to Josephus's interest in the strained relations between husband and wife. After asking w h y the angel appeared a second time to Manoah's wife rather than to M a n o a h , the Midrash, with typical concern that it not be thought that there are any unnecessary words in the Bible, replies that he did so in order not to render superfluous his first communication with her, for he would have h a d to repeat it all to M a n o a h . It then gives as an afterthought a second reason, namely, that it was to endear her to him, but does not develop this further.
478
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
d o e s give d i r e c t i o n s t o M a n o a h , h e d o e s so in a m u c h briefer f o r m : " G o in u n t o t h y wife a n d c a r r y o u t q u i c k l y all these Words" (Bib. Ant. 42.7). T h e M i d r a s h also s p e a k s o f M a n o a h ' s distrust o f his wife, b u t this is o c c a s i o n e d n o t b y j e a l o u s y o f the a n g e l b u t r a t h e r b y M a n o a h ' s s t a t e m e n t , c o u c h e d in h a l a k h i c t e r m i n o l o g y , t h a t since w h a t h e h a d h e a r d h a d c o m e f r o m a w o m a n , a n d w o m e n are n o t qualified to give d i r e c t i o n s a n d their w o r d s are n o t to b e r e l i e d u p o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e y o m i t o r a d d w o r d s , h e desired c o n f i r m a t i o n f r o m the a n g e l h i m s e l f (Numbers Rabbah 10.5). I n particular, h e seeks a s s u r a n c e t h a t this is t h e s a m e a n g e l w h o a p p e a r e d to his wife. It is true t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s a g r e e w i t h the M i d r a s h (Numbers Rabbah 10.5) in o n e detail, for in J o s e p h u s , M a n o a h asks the a n g e l his n a m e , so that after the b i r t h o f t h e c h i l d , h e a n d his wife m i g h t t e n d e r h i m their t h a n k s a n d m a k e h i m a p r e s e n t (Ant. 5.281), w h e r e a s the B i b l e gives us the r e a s o n " t h a t w h e n thy w o r d s c o m e to p a s s w e m a y d o t h e e h o n o r " (Judg. 13:17). T h e M i d r a s h , like J o s e p h u s , interprets " h o n o r " as " p r e s e n t , " a n d cites N u m . 22:17 to s u p p o r t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the w o r d " h o n o r " (Numbers Rabbah 10.5). B u t this in t e r p r e t a t i o n , a l t h o u g h r e m a r k a b l e , is superficial a n d h a r d l y b a s i c to J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f M a n o a h ' s c h a r a c t e r . A g a i n , the M i d r a s h , in a d e t a i l n o t f o u n d in J o s e p h u s , seeks to e x a l t the c h a r a c t e r o f M a n o a h ' s wife b y n o t i n g t h a t the a n g e l addresses M a n a o h in s u c h a w a y as t o s h o w h o n o r t o his wife a n d t o e n d e a r h e r to h i m (Numbers Rabbah 1 0 . 5 ) .
40
T h e r o m a n t i c motifs t h a t J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e s to a p p e a l to his G r e e k r e a d e r s es p e c i a l l y i n v o l v e t h e erotic; a n d J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e seen, f r e q u e n d y a d d s s u c h el e m e n t s . T h u s , w h e r e a s P s e u d o - P h i l o a p p e a r s o n l y m i l d l y interested in the erotic e p i s o d e s in S a m s o n ' s career, r e d u c i n g c h a p t e r 14 o f J u d g e s t o t w o b r i e f s e n t e n c e s (Bib. Ant. 43.1), J o s e p h u s retells the e p i s o d e at T i m n a h (Judg. 14:1 ff.) in s u c h a w a y as to h i g h l i g h t its erotic a s p e c t . A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the a c c o u n t , the B i b l e d e scribes h o w S a m s o n w e n t d o w n to T i m n a h a n d o n l y later r e t u r n e d a n d t o l d his p a r e n t s a b o u t the m a i d e n w h o m h e h a d s e e n there (Judg. 14:1). I n J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , the a c t i o n is n o t s l o w e d d o w n b y a r e t u r n trip to his p a r e n t s , for S a m s o n g o e s d o w n w i t h t h e m a n d b e g s t h e m to g e t h i m the d a m s e l for a wife as s o o n as h e b e c o m e s e n a m o r e d o f her. J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e is a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l y stronger; i n s t e a d o f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t S a m s o n s a w h e r a n d t h a t she w a s a g r e e a b l e (yasherah, " w a s u p r i g h t , " " w a s p l e a s i n g " ; S e p t u a g i n t , evdeia,
"right"
[Judg. 14:3]), w e h e a r t h a t h e fell in love (ipd) w i t h her; a n d i n s t e a d o f the b l a n d b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e t o l d his p a r e n t s , w e r e a d t h a t h e b e g g e d (7rapa/<:aAef, " s u m m o n s , " " e x h o r t s , " " d e m a n d s " ) t h e m t o g e t h e r for h i m for a wife (Ant. 5.286).
40. T h e rabbis c o n d e m n S a m s o n for his lewdness a n d attribute Samson's being c o m m a n d e d to b e c o m e a Nazirite (Judg. 13:5) to the fact that G - d , k n o w i n g that S a m s o n w o u l d g o wherever his eyes led him and k n o w i n g that wine leads to lewdness, tried to prevent him from following this path. " N o w if," they add critically, "while he w a s a Nazirite, he w e n t wherever his eyes directed him, surely had he b e e n drinking, there w o u l d have never b e e n any r e m e d y for h i m at all, by reason o f his headstrong pur suit after lewdness" (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5).
SAMSON
479
It is t y p i c a l o f J o s e p h u s to a d d t h a t t h e o c c a s i o n for t h e e r o t i c e p i s o d e w i t h t h e w o m a n o f T i m n a h w a s the c e l e b r a t i o n o f a festival (7ravriyvpLs), t h a t is, a n a s s e m b l y in h o n o r o f t h e n a t i o n a l g o d (Ant. 5.286). T h e s a m e e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o n n e c t i o n o f a festival a n d a n e r o t i c e p i s o d e is also s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y o f D i n a h , w h o is r a p e d b y S h e c h e m w h i l e the S i k i m i t e s a r e h o l d i n g a festival (Ant. 1.337). A g a i n , it is at t h e a p p r o a c h o f a p u b l i c festival, w h e n w o m e n j o i n t h e g e n e r a l a s s e m b l y (rTavr)yvpiv), t h a t P o t i p h a r ' s wife, m a k i n g illness a n e x c u s e to h e r h u s b a n d for n o n a t t e n d a n c e , r e n e w s h e r solicitation o f J o s e p h (Ant. 2.45). L i k e wise, in a passage reminiscent
o f the r a p e o f t h e S a b i n e w o m e n , a festival
(TravrjyvpLv) is t h e o c c a s i o n at w h i c h t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s c a p t u r e b r i d e s for t h e m selves (Ant. 5.170). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t S a m s o n w e n t d o w n to T i m n a h a c c o m p a n i e d b y his father a n d m o t h e r (Judg. 14:5), J o s e p h u s , to e n h a n c e t h e r o m a n t i c a s p e c t , h a s S a m s o n g o a l o n e a n d r e p e a t e d l y (ovvex&s)
(Ant. 5. 287). T h e r o m a n t i c a s p e c t is a c
c e n t u a t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s in t h e c o u r s e o f his c o n s t a n t visits to t h e h o m e o f the T i m n i t e w o m a n t h a t S a m s o n p e r f o r m e d his first g r e a t e x ploit, s t r a n g l i n g t h e l i o n (Ant. 5.287). W h e r e a s the B i b l e h a s S a m s o n s c r a p e t h e h o n e y f r o m t h e lion's c a r c a s s a n d b r i n g it to his p a r e n t s (Judg. 14:9), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e role o f the p a r e n t s a n d r o m a n t i c a l l y c o n n e c t s the e p i s o d e r a t h e r w i t h S a m s o n ' s w o o i n g o f t h e T i m n i t e m a i d e n (Ant. 5.288), for this h o n e y
4 1
is p a r t o f t h e
gifts b r o u g h t b y S a m s o n the l o v e r t o the m a i d e n . I n o r d e r t o k e e p a t t e n t i o n f o c u s e d o n the l o v e b e t w e e n S a m s o n a n d his T i m n i t e wife, J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a m s o n ' s a r g u m e n t (Judg. 14:16 v s . Ant. 5.292) t h a t since h e h a s n o t t o l d t h e a n s w e r to t h e r i d d l e to his p a r e n t s , h e c a n h a r d l y b e e x p e c t e d t o r e v e a l it t o his wife. T h i s a r g u m e n t rests o n the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t p a r e n t s s t a n d in a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p to a s o n t h a n d o e s his wife; a n d J o s e p h u s , for r o m a n t i c r e a s o n s , could never acknowledge this.
42
T h e r e is l i k e w i s e h e i g h t e n e d r o m a n t i c d r a m a in the fact t h a t all interest is d i r e c t e d to S a m s o n ' s T i m n i t e w i f e a n d h e r i m p e n d i n g p u n i s h m e n t b y t h e Philistines i f she fails to a s c e r t a i n f r o m S a m s o n t h e a n s w e r to his riddle. T h e r e is, a c c o r d i n g l y , n o m e n t i o n o f t h e t h r e a t to b u r n h e r father's h o u s e (Judg. 14:15); o u r a t t e n t i o n is
41. T h e r e appears to be no satisfactory answer to the question raised by N e s d e 1910,152, as to the significance o f the fact that there are three h o n e y c o m b s in Josephus's account (Ant. 5.288), a detail found neither in the Bible nor in the rabbinic midrashim. Similarly, w e m a y add, three honeycombs are mentioned in Ant. 5.292. T h e pattern o f triads is recurrent in the narrative: for three days, the T i m n i t e s cannot guess Samson's riddle (Judg. 14:14); similarly, Delilah tries three times unsuccessfully to find the secret o f Samson's strength (Judg. 16:6-15). O n Josephus's fondness for triads, see T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:vi. 42. A s to the question o f h o w S a m s o n , given G e n . 2:24—"Therefore a m a n leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his w i f e " — , could declare that a parent is closer than one's wife, see Sanhedrin 58a, w h e r e R a b b i Eliezer declares that "his father" means "his father's sister" and "his m o t h e r " means "his mother's sister," while R a b b i A k i v a interprets "his father" to m e a n "his father's wife."
480
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
k e p t f o c u s e d solely o n the w o m a n . N o r d o e s J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n t h e i m p e n d i n g i m p o v e r i s h m e n t o f the thirty y o u t h s i f t h e y fail to a n s w e r the r i d d l e (Judg. 1 4 : 1 5 ) ;
43
a g a i n the stress is solely o n the w o m a n herself. T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d m e l o d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the s c e n e in w h i c h S a m s o n ' s wife b e g s h i m to r e v e a l the a n s w e r to the riddle (Ant 5.292). I n J u d g . 14:17, w e r e a d that S a m s o n ' s wife w e p t b e fore h i m for s e v e n d a y s . J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f h e r as b u r s t i n g (TTPOTTLTTTOVGTJS,
"rush
i n g h e a d l o n g , " " r u s h i n g f o r w a r d " ) into tears, t h u s h e i g h t e n i n g the t e n s i o n
(Ant
5.292). H e r s u b s e q u e n t t r e a c h e r y is a c c e n t e d b y S a m s o n ' s bitter r e m a r k t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g m o r e deceitful (SoXepcorepov) t h a n a w o m a n w h o b e t r a y s (eK€pei) o n e ' s 44
s p e e c h (Ant 5«294). Finally, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t after this i n c i d e n t , S a m son's a n g e r w a s k i n d l e d a n d h e r e t u r n e d t o his father's h o u s e (Judg. 14:19), J o s e p h u s e x p l i c i d y states t h a t S a m s o n r e n o u n c e d the nuptials, w h i l e o n c e a g a i n o m i t t i n g to m e n t i o n his p a r e n t s (Ant 5.294). J o s e p h u s g o e s b e y o n d the B i b l e in g i v i n g us the r e a c t i o n o f the T i m n i t e w o m a n , w h o , h e says, s c o r n e d (i(f>avXioaoa,
"de
s p i s e d , " " p o u r e d c o n t e m p t o n " ) S a m s o n for his w r a t h (Ant 5.294); w i t h this, the erotic s e q u e n c e , as w i t h E u r i p i d e s ' M e d e a , is c o m p l e t e : p a s s i o n , tears, s c o r n , w r a t h . T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d r o m a n t i c interest in the ironic detail in J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e p r e c i s e s p e c i f y i n g o f the i d e n t i t y o f the T i m n i t e w o m a n ' s n e w h u s b a n d , n a m e l y , the friend o f S a m s o n w h o h a d g i v e n h e r a w a y (vvpL^oaroXco, o r " w h o h a d b e e n his best m a n , " literally, " e s c o r t i n g the b r i d e " ) (Ant 5.294), w h e r e a s the B i b l e speaks o f c
the h u s b a n d m e r e l y as S a m s o n ' s friend (re ah) a n d the S e p t u a g i n t d e s c r i b e s h i m as " o n e o f his friends, w h o m h e l o v e d " (Judg. 14:20). A t first sight, it w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t the o m i s s i o n b y J o s e p h u s o f the offer o f his y o u n g e r d a u g h t e r b y S a m s o n ' s father-in-law (Judg. 15:2) m a r k s a d e c r e a s e in the r o m a n t i c interest, b u t the o m i s s i o n m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s desire to lessen the role o f p a r e n t s in S a m s o n ' s love affairs, to focus m o r e s h a r p l y o n the T i m n i t e w o m a n herself, a n d finally, since the father states t h a t the y o u n g e r sister is fairer t h a n the older, t o a v o i d i m p l y i n g t h a t S a m s o n , w h o , as a h e r o , m u s t h a v e the m o s t beautiful wife, h a d initially h a d the less fair o n e . T h e e p i s o d e t h a t follows is a n e m b r o i d e r i n g o f the motif, f a m i l i a r t o us f r o m the stories o f M e n e l a u s a n d H e l e n a n d o f A c h i l l e s a n d Briseis, o f c o m b a t a r i s i n g f r o m a n e x p e d i t i o n in s e a r c h o f a wife o r f e m a l e c o m p a n i o n (see B l e n k i n s o p p 1 9 6 3 , 70). T h e D e l i l a h e p i s o d e is m o r e r o m a n t i c in J o s e p h u s in the first p l a c e b e c a u s e she is d e s c r i b e d as a hetaira, a c o u r t e s a n (iraipi^opbivris)
(Ant 5.306), w h e r e a s t h e r e is n o
s u c h i n d i c a t i o n in the B i b l e . P e r h a p s , a l t h o u g h this is h a r d l y a n e c e s s a r y inference, J o s e p h u s d e r i v e d his d e s i g n a t i o n o f h e r f r o m the c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t D e l i l a h w a s r e a d y to b e b r i b e d into b e t r a y i n g h e r h u s b a n d (see R a p p a p o r t 1930, 4 4 , n o . 183).
43. O n e stream of the Septuagint tradition has e/cjSiaacu, "to force out," "lay violent hands on," for 7TTwx€vaai, "to be a beggar," "become impoverished," but in both cases the effect is to detract atten tion from the position of the Timnite w o m a n herself. 44. This is particularly effective because eK^epco is used both of woman's giving birth and o f car rying out a corpse to burial.
SAMSON
481
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e c o m b i n e d the e p i s o d e s r e l a t e d in J u d g . 16:1 a n d 16:4. I n t h e f o r m e r v e r s e , t h e S e p t u a g i n t states t h a t S a m s o n " s a w t h e r e a h a r l o t " ( 7 7 0 / 0 V 7 7 , " c o m m o n prostitute"), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e " l o d g e d at o n e o f t h e i n n s " (Ant. 5 . 3 0 4 ) .
45
I n t h e latter v e r s e , w e r e a d t h a t h e fell in l o v e w i t h a w o m a n
n a m e d D e l i l a h . Josephus presents the m u c h m o r e romantic picture o f a courtesan (iTaLpL^ofjLevrjs) (Ant. 5.306) r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h o s e for w h i c h G r e e c e w a s f a m o u s . It s e e m s m o s t likely, t h e n , t h a t this is a n o t h e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s i n v e n t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d to g i v e a G r e e k c o l o r i n g to his n a r r a t i v e .
46
F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t " b e i n g e n a m o r e d [ipaaOets,
t h e v e r b specifi
c a l l y for s e x u a l love] o f a w o m a n w h o w a s a c o u r t e s a n a m o n g t h e Philistines, D a l a l a b y n a m e , h e [ S a m s o n ] c o n s o r t e d [awrjv,
" h a d i n t e r c o u r s e " ] w i t h h e r " (Ant.
5.306). A n erotic flavor l i k e w i s e c o m e s to t h e fore in c e r t a i n details a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f D e l i l a h ' s a p p r o a c h to S a m s o n w h e n she seeks to d i s c o v e r the secret o f his s t r e n g t h (Ant. 5.307). S h e d o e s so w h i l e t h e y a r e d r i n k i n g (Trapd
TTOTOV)
a n d in like i n t e r c o u r s e (roLavTrjv avvovoiav)
r a t i o n for his e x p l o i t s .
47
and by expressing admi
O v e r a l l , S a m s o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h D e l i l a h is p r e s e n t e d in
m o r e erotic f a s h i o n t h a n in t h e B i b l e , for J o s e p h u s h a s h i m c o n t i n u a l l y c o n s o r t i n g (opuXovvros,
(avvex^s)
" b e i n g in c o m p a n y w i t h , " " h a v i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e
w i t h " ) w i t h h e r (Ant. 5.310). T h e r o m a n t i c a s p e c t a n d the s u s p e n s e a r e l i k e w i s e built u p b y J o s e p h u s ' s i m p l i c a t i o n , v i a the use o f eXeyev, t h e i m p e r f e c t o f c o n t i n u a l o r r e p e a t e d a c t i o n , t h a t D e l i l a h c o n t i n u a l l y i m p o r t u n e d S a m s o n to r e v e a l his se c r e t (Ant. 5.310). I n t h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f D e l i l a h ' s l o v e for S a m s o n until h e r t h i r d a t t e m p t to d i s c o v e r the secret o f his s t r e n g t h (Judg. 16:15). I n J o s e p h u s , D e l i l a h , full o f f e m i n i n e w i l e s , uses S a m s o n ' s l o v e for h e r as a w e a p o n a g a i n s t h i m , a n d she k e e p s s a y i n g to h i m t h a t she takes it ill t h a t h e h a s so little c o n f i d e n c e in h e r affection (evvoias,
" g o o d w i l l , " " f a v o r , " " l o v e " ) for h i m as to
w i t h h o l d f r o m h e r w h a t she desires to k n o w , "as t h o u g h , " she a d d s , w i t h w h a t J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d as t y p i c a l f e m i n i n e strategy, " s h e w o u l d n o t c o n c e a l w h a t she k n e w m u s t in his interests n o t b e d i v u l g e d " (Ant. 5.310) J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t is l i k e w i s e m o r e r o m a n t i c t h a n t h a t o f t h e B i b l e in his o m i s sion o f t h e p a y m e n t o f m o n e y b y t h e Philistines to D e l i l a h (Judg. 16:18). R a t h e r , h e c o n c e n t r a t e s o n D e l i l a h ' s l e a r n i n g o f t h e secret a n d h e r c u t t i n g o f f o f S a m s o n ' s h a i r (Ant. 5.313). T h e r a b b i s , as w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d , s p e c u l a t e o n w h a t D e l i l a h d i d w i t h t h e m o n e y t h a t she r e c e i v e d f r o m the Philistines, a n d t h e y c o n c l u d e , as d o e s
45. S o also, whereas the Bible (Josh. 2:1) speaks of the house of the harlot R a h a b , Josephus, like the targum and Midrash, depicts R a h a b not as a harlot but as one w h o kept an inn (Karaycoyiov) (Ant. 5.74). Cf. W i s e m a n 1964, 8 - 1 1 . 46. T h i s appears likely w h e n one compares Pseudo-Philo, who, presumably combining Judg. 16:1 and 16:4, reads: "Samson saw there a harlot [fornicariam] whose name was Dalila" (Bib. Ant. 43.5). 47. Perhaps Josephus is seeking to make this incident more plausible, inasmuch as the reader of the biblical narrative might well ask w h y Samson would be so foolish as to reveal the secret of his strength. Josephus's description also points u p the horror o f Samson's violation of the Nazirite pledge to abstain from wine.
482
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. 44.2), s e e k i n g to d r a w a m o r a l f r o m the story, t h a t she g a v e a p a r t o f it t o h e r s o n M i c a h , w h o u s e d it to m a k e a n i d o l for h i m s e l f .
48
I n J o s e p h u s , D e l i l a h ' s b e t r a y a l is j u s t that: it is all h e r d o i n g , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e b a r b e r ' s role, a n d o u r a t t e n t i o n is f o c u s e d solely o n h e r d e p r i v i n g S a m son o f his l o c k s (Ant. 5 . 3 1 3 ) .
49
T h e r e is l i k e w i s e n o m e n t i o n o f t h e fact t h a t after she
h a d c u t o f f S a m s o n ' s hair, she b e g a n to afflict h i m (Judg. 16:19); J o s e p h u s briefly a n d d i r e c d y r e c o u n t s D e l i l a h ' s b e t r a y a l so as to focus d r a m a t i c a t t e n t i o n o n the fact itself (Ant. 5.313). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h a t after S a m s o n ' s h a i r h a d b e e n c u t , the Philistines l a i d h o l d o f h i m (Judg. 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) , J o s e p h u s , h i g h l i g h t i n g t h e fa m i l i a r r o m a n t i c t h e m e o f b e t r a y a l a n d D e l i l a h ' s role, states t h a t she h a n d e d h i m o v e r t o his e n e m i e s (Ant. 5.313). A c c o r d i n g to t h e m i d r a s h i c
tradition,
w h i l e S a m s o n w a s in p r i s o n ,
the
Philistines b r o u g h t their w i v e s to h i m so t h a t t h e y m i g h t c o n c e i v e c h i l d r e n b y h i m w h o w o u l d b e as s t r o n g as h e w a s (Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Sotah 10a; Talqut 2 . 7 0 ) .
50
T h i s t r a d i t i o n is b a s e d u p o n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S a m s o n ' s g r i n d i n g in t h e p r i s o n h o u s e (Judg. 16:21), a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h g r i n d i n g d e n o t e s s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . T h e p i c t u r e thus p r e s e n t e d b y t h e M i d r a s h w o u l d s e e m to b e g r o t e s q u e a n d d e g r a d i n g to S a m s o n . T h e r a b b i s cite this t r a d i t i o n as a n o t h e r e x a m p l e t o illustrate their t h e sis t h a t S a m s o n w a s p r o p e r l y p u n i s h e d m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e ; h e h a d
sinned
t h r o u g h i m m o r a l i t y , a n d c o n s e q u e n d y i m m o r a l i t y w a s p a r t o f his p u n i s h m e n t . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y favors t h e m o t i f o f m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e , s u c h a tradi tion w o u l d n o t h a v e a p p e a l e d to h i m , since it s e e m s g r o t e s q u e . Similarly, t h e r a b bis cite a t r a d i t i o n t h a t S a m s o n ' s s e m e n f l o w e d like a s t r e a m (Sotah 10a), b u t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e f o u n d s u c h a n o t i o n u n c o u t h , e v e n t h o u g h h e is p a r t i c u l a r l y g i v e n to a d d i n g r o m a n t i c t o u c h e s t h r o u g h o u t his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e .
THE ROLE OF G - D T h r o u g h o u t his n a r r a t i v e , J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s S a m s o n ' s stature as a h e r o b y di m i n i s h i n g t h e role o f G - d a n d o f H i s m i r a c l e s in S a m s o n ' s life a n d exploits. It is t r u e that, in a detail n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t t h e a n g e l t h a t a p -
48. Tosefta-Targum Judg. 17:2, a quotation from an u n k n o w n midrash in Rashi, and K i m h i , ad l o c , cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:209, n. 125. 49. M o o r e 1898, 356, notes that according to the H e b r e w consonantal text, Delilah shaved the locks herself, but such an interpretation raises the question as to w h y a barber w o u l d be necessary. M o s t editors take the verb causatively; such a usage, pace M o o r e , is c o m m o n in the Bible, as Slotki 1950, ad l o c , has noted. A s to the theme o f hair b e i n g the source o f one's strength, m a n y commentators have remarked on the similarity between the story o f Delilah and that o f Scylla, w h o plucks out from the head o f her father, Nisus o f M e g a r a , the purple hair on w h i c h his life depended, as also with that o f Pterelaos and his golden hair, and with that o f Ciris; but these parallels, w h i c h were already d r a w n by the twelfth-century Byzantine p o l y m a t h Johannes Tzetzes, are merely superficial. 50. From one o f these unions, according to T a r g u m Jonathan on 1 S a m . 17:4, the Philistine giant Goliath w a s born.
SAMSON
483
p e a r s to M a n o a h ' s wife b r i n g s h e r t h e g o o d n e w s t h a t t h r o u g h G - d ' s g o o d p r o v i d e n c e (Kara 6eov irpovoiav) 2L s o n w i l l b e b o r n to h e r (Ant. 5.277). T h e M i d r a s h d e scribes t h e w o n d e r o u s m a n n e r in w h i c h M a n o a h ' s wife c o n c e i v e s h e r c h i l d , namely, through s e m e n that h a d b e e n miraculously retained overnight in the en t r a n c e t o h e r w o m b (Numbers Rabbah 10.5). A c c o r d i n g to t h e M i d r a s h , all p r o p h e t s w e r e b o r n after o n l y s e v e n m o n t h s o f p r e g n a n c y (Midrash Hagadol 2.13, c i t e d b y G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:217, n . 213); a n d since S a m s o n is c a l l e d a p r o p h e t b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5.285), w e m i g h t e x p e c t h i m to a d d s u c h a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t h i m ; b u t J o s e p h u s , in his e v i d e n t desire to a v o i d t h e u n u s u a l o r t h e m i r a c u l o u s , d o e s n o t h a v e this detail. T h e h e r o , h o w e v e r , as w e see in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a b o u t M o s e s (Ant. 2.230), q u i c k l y g r o w s in stature t o m a n h o o d , a n d so it is w i t h S a m s o n in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n (Ant. 5.285) t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e (Judg. 13:24). B y a d d i n g t h e u n i q u e detail, f o u n d in n o o t h e r s o u r c e , t h a t S a m s o n w a s a p r o p h e t (Ant. 5.285), J o s e p h u s m a y b e a s c r i b i n g to h i m t h e four t r a d i t i o n a l c h a r acteristics o f a p r o p h e t as stated in the T a l m u d — p h y s i c a l strength, w e a l t h , w i s d o m , a n d h u m i l i t y (Nedarim 38a). T h e r a b b i s a p p a r e n t l y w e r e u n w i l l i n g to a s c r i b e these qualities t o S a m s o n , for t h e y d o n o t t e r m h i m a p r o p h e t , a n d h e is (as also g e n e r a l l y in t h e Bible) d e p i c t e d as a b l e to p e r f o r m his d e e d s o n l y w h e n t h e spirit o f G - d c o m e s u p o n h i m . T h e r a b b i s single o u t t h e p a s s a g e " A n d t h e c h i l d g r e w , a n d t h e L - r d b l e s s e d h i m " (Judg. 13:24) for s p e c i a l c o m m e n t ; a n d to t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e r e w i t h G - d blessed h i m , t h e y a n s w e r t h a t w h e r e a s his p h y s i q u e w a s like t h a t o f o t h e r m e n , his s e m e n flowed m i r a c u l o u s l y , like a fast-flowing s t r e a m — t h a t is, his e x t r a o r d i n a r y p a s s i o n for Philistine w o m e n b r o u g h t h i m into c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m a n d u l t i m a t e l y b r o u g h t a b o u t Israelite f r e e d o m f r o m the Philistines (Sotah 10a). A n o t h e r a n s w e r g i v e n is t h a t G - d blessed h i m so t h a t his c o h a b i t a t i o n w a s suited t o e v e r y w i f e ( J e r u s a l e m Sotah 1.8; Midrash Hagadol 183b, c i t e d b y R e n z e r 1902, 3 2 - 3 3 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n the contrary, n o t o n l y m a k e s n o c o m m e n t o n t h e c l a u s e " A n d t h e L - r d b l e s s e d h i m , " b u t o m i t s it a l t o g e t h e r in his a t t e m p t to d i m i n i s h G - d ' s role in S a m s o n ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h e s t a t e m e n t " A n d t h e spirit o f t h e L - r d b e g a n to m o v e h i m in M a h a n e h - d a n b e t w e e n Z o r a h a n d E s h t a o l " in t h e B i b l e (Judg. 13:25) calls forth a w e a l t h o f m i d r a s h i c c o m m e n t , since it e m p h a s i z e s the role o f G - d in S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t s . T h u s , in a t y p i c a l p l a y o n t h e w o r d va-tahel ( " b e g a n " ) , a n d w i t h a t y p i c a l a t t e m p t t o c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h s , the r a b b i s c o m m e n t t h a t o n t h a t d a y t h e p r o p h e c y o f t h e p a t r i a r c h J a c o b ( G e n . 49:17) rested (holetah) o n S a m s o n (Sotah 9b). T h e r a b b i s e l a b o r a t e o n t h e w o r d lefa^amo ( " m o v e , " literally, "strike as a bell") in t h e v e r s e , r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e use o f this t e r m signifies t h a t the S h e c h i n a h k e p t r i n g i n g in front o f S a m s o n like a b e l l t o d i r e c t h i m w h e r e h e w a s to g o . W h e n t h e H o l y S p i r i t a b o d e w i t h S a m s o n , w e a r e also t o l d ,
51
the h a i r s o f his h e a d b e c a m e
51. Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 8.2; Sotah 9b; Jerusalem Sotah 1.17b and 1.8; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 183b;
Talqut 2.69; Tanhuma Mikez 4, cited by Renzer 1902, 28-29.
484
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
stiff a n d , k n o c k i n g a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r like a bell, their p e a l r e v e r b e r a t e d f r o m Z o r a h to E s h t a o l .
5 2
T h e r a b b i s e x p o u n d t h a t w h e n the H o l y Spirit rested o n S a m c
son, his steps ( d e r i v i n g kfcfamo f r o m pa am, f r o m Z o r a h to E s h t a o l .
5 3
"step") w e r e as b r o a d as the d i s t a n c e
Finally, t h e y p r e s e n t a p i c t u r e o f S a m s o n , u n d e r the i m
p a c t o f the H o l y Spirit, u p r o o t i n g t w o g r e a t m o u n t a i n s , n a m e d Z o r a h a n d E s h t a o l , a n d g r i n d i n g t h e m a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r (Sotah 9 b ; Leviticus Rabbah 8 ) .
54
Jose
p h u s , in the interest o f p r e s e n t i n g S a m s o n as a h u m a n h e r o , c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the r e f e r e n c e t o his b e i n g m o v e d b y t h e spirit o f the L - r d . Similarly, J o s e p h u s leaves aside the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t i n his e n c o u n t e r w i t h the l i o n , the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e o v e r S a m s o n (Judg. 14:6); for J o s e p h u s , the c o n t e s t is w h o l l y o n e o f m a n a g a i n s t the k i n g o f the b e a s t s .
55
A g a i n , in his r e c o u n t i n g o f S a m s o n ' s e x c u r
sion t o A s h k e l o n to o b t a i n the g a r m e n t s t h a t h e h a d p r o m i s e d to those w h o suc cessfully a n s w e r e d his riddle, J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e fact t h a t t h e spirit o f G - d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n S a m s o n , e n a b l i n g h i m to p e r f o r m this e x p l o i t (Judg. 1 4 : 1 9 ) .
56
I n Ant. 5.300, J o s e p h u s omits the biblical statement that the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n S a m s o n at L e h i (Judg. 15:14). I n J o s e p h u s , it is S a m s o n h i m s e l f w h o bursts the b o n d s w i t h his o w n m i g h t ; n o r d o t h e y d r o p passively, as in the Bible, b e c a u s e o f divine intervention o r b e c a u s e m i r a c u l o u s l y the ropes b e c o m e as flax that is b u r n t w i t h fire. T h e a c h i e v e m e n t is S a m s o n ' s , n o t G - d ' s , in J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s is s e e k i n g to find a tragic flaw in h i m a n d thus p r e s e n t S a m s o n as a c h a r a c t e r o u t o f a G r e e k tragedy, a n d p e r h a p s also b e c a u s e h e w i s h e s to m o t i v a t e the o d d fact that S a m s o n w a s a l m o s t d y i n g o f thirst, a state for w h i c h the B i b l e implies that G - d , n o t S a m s o n , w a s at fault (Judg. 15:18-20). E v e n w h e n , finally, S a m s o n a c k n o w l e d g e s that h u m a n v a l o r w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f divine h e l p is in v a i n , the p l a c e w h e r e S a m s o n finds w a t e r in his thirst, w h i c h is c a l l e d E n - h a k k o r e in the B i b l e (Judg. 15:19)—that is, the spring o f h i m that calls (to G - d for help), r e m i n d i n g o n e o f S a m s o n ' s d e s p e r a t e a p p e a l for a i d — , is c a l l e d J a w b o n e in J o s e p h u s , r e c a l l i n g b o t h S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t t h e r e w i t h a n d the m i r a c l e that h a d s a v e d h i m (Ant. 5.303). I n line w i t h his g e n e r a l l e s s e n i n g o f t h e role o f G - d in S a m s o n ' s exploits, J o s e p h u s similarly o m i t s the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the L - r d h a d d e p a r t e d f r o m S a m s o n after his h a i r h a d b e e n c u t (Judg. 16:20 v s . Ant. 5.313).
52. See G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:207, n. 116, for other Midrashic references to the conception that the H o l y Spirit might manifest itself in a man's hair. 53. Jerusalem Sotah 1.8; Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 8.2; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 183b; Talqut 2.69. 54. R e n z e r 1902, 33, notes that the rabbis also represent (Berakot^b)
O g as uprooting mountains;
in addition, the following rabbis are depicted as mountain-uprooting heroes: R a b i n a , Meir, Ulla, Shi m o n ben Lakish (Sanhedrin 24a), a n d R a b b a h (Berakot 64a). 55. O n Josephus's (non-)use o f the spirit o f G - d concept, see Best 1959, 218-25. 56. Samson's great exploit o f capturing three hundred foxes (Ant. 5.295) gives the M i d r a s h (on Ps. 8.7) the opportunity to stress that it is G - d W h o gives dominion to m a n over all; for in c o m m e n t i n g on the phrase " Y e a and beasts o f the field" (Ps. 8:8), they say that the angels are alluding there to Samson, and that G - d let the angels see S a m s o n as he w a s capturing the three hundred foxes.
SAMSON
485
It is likewise i n d i c a t i v e o f J o s e p h u s ' s d i m i n u t i o n o f the d i v i n e e l e m e n t t h a t h e c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s S a m s o n ' s p r a y e r to G - d (Judg. 16:28) p r i o r to his g r a n d e s t a c h i e v e m e n t , b r i n g i n g the t e m p l e d o w n u p o n the t h o u s a n d s o f Philistines. T h e S e p t u a g i n t h a s S a m s o n n o t c a l l i n g (vayiqera?), as in the H e b r e w text, b u t a c t u a l l y c r y i n g (I'/cAauaev, " c r y , " " w a i l , " " l a m e n t " ) t o G - d . I n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , t h e r e is n o t i m e for p r a y e r ; the e p i s o d e is all a c t i o n , a n d S a m s o n o c c u p i e s the c e n t e r o f at t e n t i o n . T h e M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d , e m b e l l i s h e s this prayer, a g a i n , in t y p i c a l l y m i d r a s h i c fashion, u s i n g it to c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h the p a t r i a r c h s , for h e p r a y s t h a t G - d r e m e m b e r for h i m the blessing w i t h w h i c h I s a a c b l e s s e d J a c o b , t h a t G - d w o u l d g i v e h i m o f H i s o w n d i v i n e s t r e n g t h ( G e n . 27:28) w h e n h e n e e d e d it, t h u s e m p h a s i z i n g o n c e a g a i n t h a t G - d is the s o u r c e o f S a m son's s t r e n g t h (Genesis Rabbah
66.3; Talqut 2.71). I n a n o t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n o f the
prayer, S a m s o n is p r a i s e d , for h e r e m i n d s G - d o f the i m p a r t i a l i t y w i t h w h i c h h e h a s j u d g e d the Israelites for t w e n t y y e a r s .
5 7
S a m s o n ' s desire for r e v e n g e is l i k e w i s e
e l a b o r a t e d , w i t h S a m s o n a s k i n g G - d to r e w a r d h i m for t h e loss o f o n e e y e in this w o r l d a n d for the loss o f the o t h e r in the w o r l d t o c o m e .
5 8
B y omitting Samson's
p r a y e r c o m p l e t e l y , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n his desire for v e n g e a n c e . T h e M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , c o m p a r e s S a m s o n w i t h a v e n g e f u l s e r p e n t (Genesis
Rabbah
99.11), o n c e a g a i n s e e k i n g to c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h his a n c e s t o r D a n , w h o is t e r m e d a s e r p e n t in J a c o b ' s blessing ( G e n . 4 9 : 1 7 ) .
59
Indeed, Samson's bringing
d o w n the t e m p l e is all his o w n d o i n g in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5 . 3 1 2 - 1 6 ) , w h e r e a s in the M i d r a s h , e v e n m o r e t h a n in the B i b l e (Judg. 16:8-30), it is G - d W h o is at the c e n ter, for the s c e n e r e m i n d s the r a b b i s o f J a c o b , w h o p r o p h e t i c a l l y s a w S a m s o n s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n the t w o pillars, a n d w h o p r a y e d t h a t G - d w o u l d e n d o w h i m w i t h s t r e n g t h (Genesis Rabbah 97); h e n c e S a m s o n ' s p r a y e r in J u d g . 16:28 is a c t u a l l y a repetition o f Jacob's. T h e M i d r a s h speaks o f the m i r a c u l o u s p r e s e r v a t i o n o f S a m s o n ' s c o r p s e , despite the fact t h a t t h o u s a n d s h a d fallen u p o n h i m , so t h a t his f a m i l y w a s a b l e t o retrieve it w i t h o u t h a v i n g to s e a r c h a m o n g the Philistine d e a d (Genesis Rabbah 98.14). T h i s , however, h a p p e n e d not because o f Samson's o w n virtue, but rather because G - d l i s t e n e d t o the p r a y e r o f the p a t r i a r c h J a c o b t h a t those w h o fell u p o n h i m s h o u l d roll a w a y
6 0
57. Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Sotah 10a; Midrash Leqah Tov on G e n . 49:16; Midrash Sekel Tov 323. 58. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Jerusalem Sotah 1.6b; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a; Talqut 2.71. 59. Pseudo-Philo, in his development of Samson's prayer, is once again closer to the Midrash than to Josephus; in his version of the prayer, Samson stresses that it was G - d w h o h a d given him the eyes that the Philistines h a d taken from him, the clear implication being that G - d should now avenge this affront. His final words stress the dichotomy between body and soul: " G o forth, O m y soul, and be not grieved. Die, O m y body, and w e e p not for thyself" (Bib. Ant. 43.7). 60. In contrast with Josephus, w h o seeks to glorify Samson for his o w n sake, the rabbis cite him to recall episodes connected with the patriarchs. For example, the rabbis ask why Scripture (Judg. 15:4) specifies foxes as the animals caught by Samson (Sotah 10a; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9). T h e answer given is that it is characteristic of the fox to turn backward when hunted, and thus it is fitting punishment, ac-
486
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the D e l i l a h e p i s o d e , J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e e x p l o i t s o f t h e m a n S a m s o n a n d d o w n g r a d e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f G - d . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , S a m s o n tells D e l i l a h t h a t i f h e is b o u n d w i t h s e v e n fresh b o w s t r i n g s , h e w i l l b e c o m e as w e a k as a n y o t h e r m a n (Judg. 16:7), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s a n d h a s h i m tell h e r t h a t h e w i l l b e the w e a k e s t o f all m e n (Ant. 5.308). T h e s u s p e n s e is c o n t i n u e d w i t h D e l i l a h ' s r e s p o n s e , for in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d e d detail, she at first h o l d s h e r p e a c e (Ant. 5.309). M u c h as h e m i g h t h a v e l i k e d to further e x a g g e r a t e S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t s , J o s e p h u s is careful to o m i t m i r a c u l o u s a n d m a g i c a l e l e m e n t s . T h u s , w h e r e a s J u d g . 16:9 re p o r t s t h a t " h e b r o k e t h e b o w s t r i n g s as a string o f t o w is b r o k e n w h e n it t o u c h e s the fire," J o s e p h u s ' s S a m s o n is n o n m i r a c u l o u s l y mighty, s i m p l y b u r s t i n g the shoots a s u n d e r (prjtjas) (Ant. 5.310). A similar o m i s s i o n is to b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the i n c i d e n t in w h i c h S a m s o n b r e a k s t h e r o p e s t y i n g his a r m s (Ant. 5.311). T h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e states t h a t h e d i d so as i f t h e y w e r e a t h r e a d (Judg. 16:12); b u t J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s m e r e l y t h a t D e l i l a h ' s s c h e m e w i t h the r o p e s m e t w i t h n o success.
JOSEPHUS'S AIMS: MORALIZING O n e m a j o r lesson i n c u l c a t e d b y J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s in v i e w o f w h a t w a s h a p p e n i n g w i t h his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , is t h a t J e w s m u s t a v o i d assimilation w i t h G e n t i l e s . T h i s c o n c e r n m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t e a c c o u n t o f the Israelites' sin w i t h the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n (Ant. 4 . 1 3 1 - 5 5 ) . It m a y likewise b e p e r c e i v e d in t h e m o r a l o f J o s e p h u s ' s S a m s o n s t o r y — n a m e l y , t h a t o n e m u s t n o t d e b a s e (TrapexoLpaoGev, u s e d o f coins) o n e ' s rule o f life (hiairav) b y i m i t a t i n g f o r e i g n w a y s (Ant. 5.306). O n e o f t h e signs t h a t S a m s o n w a s a p r o p h e t w a s his m o d e r a t i o n in his oiana
(Ant. 5.285); a n d
his d e v i a t i o n f r o m this, J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , w a s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f disaster for h i m (Ant. 5.306). I n particular, it is S a m s o n ' s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e N a z i r i t e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t d r i n k i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s — a g a i n in a n a d d i -
cording to the familiar principle o f measure for measure, that the Philistines should thus be punished. T h e Philistines deserve punishment, a c c o r d i n g to this c o m m e n t , not because o f w h a t they h a d done to Samson in connection with the T i m n i t e w o m a n , but rather because o f their faithlessness to the oath that their ancestor A b i m e l e c h h a d sworn to Isaac (Gen. 21:23). Moreover, in connection with Samson's exploit with the j a w b o n e o f the ass, the rabbis, seeking to draw a connection with the patriarchs, re mark (Tosefta-Targum Judg. 15:15) that this w a s the ass on w h i c h A b r a h a m h a d ridden to M o u n t M o riah, and whose j a w b o n e h a d been miraculously preserved. Pseudo-Philo, like the rabbinic midrashim, compares S a m s o n unfavorably with earlier H e b r e w s . T h u s , in d e n o u n c i n g h i m for m a r r y i n g Delilah, he ascribes to G - d an unscriptural speech berating S a m s o n for not following the example o f Joseph, w h o did not g o astray in a strange land. H e is to be punished, as in rabbinic lore, measure for measure. "Behold, n o w S a m s o n is led astray by his eyes. . .Now, therefore, shall his concupiscence be a stum bling-block unto Samson, and his mingling shall be his destruction, and I will deliver h i m to his ene mies and they shall blind h i m " (Bib. Ant. 43.5). W e m a y note that this same unfavorable comparison o f S a m s o n with Joseph is found in C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, Paedagogus, 3.11.68.3: &XX' ovx OVTCOS -qTrdrrjoev TOV lcx)ari dXXrj yvvt] ("But another w o m a n did not thus beguile Joseph").
SAMSON
487
tion to Scripture—namely, that while S a m s o n w a s drunk, D e l i l a h b o u n d h i m w i t h s h o o t s (Ant. 5 . 3 0 9 ) .
61
T h i s r e f e r e n c e is c l e a r l y d e l i b e r a t e o n t h e p a r t o f J o s e p h u s ,
s i n c e it is m i s s i n g f r o m t h e B i b l e . T h e r a b b i s , o n t h e c o n t r a r y as a l r e a d y n o t e d , s a y t h a t G - d , f o r e s e e i n g t h a t S a m s o n i n his w e a k n e s s w o u l d b e l e d a s t r a y b y his e y e s , p r e s c r i b e d t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t d r i n k w i n e , b e c a u s e w i n e l e a d s t o l e w d n e s s (Numbers Rabbah
10.5) T h e y a d d , i n c o n t r a s t t o J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n :
"Now, if while he
w a s a N a z i r i t e , h e w e n t w h e r e v e r his e y e s d i r e c t e d h i m , surely, h a d h e b e e n d r i n k ing, t h e r e w o u l d n e v e r h a v e b e e n a n y r e m e d y for h i m a t all, b y r e a s o n o f his h e a d s t r o n g p u r s u i t after l e w d n e s s . " L i k e J o s e p h u s , t h e r a b b i s c o n d e m n S a m s o n for his i n t e r m a r r i a g e a n d i n this respect contrast h i m u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h J u d a h , c o m m e n t i n g o n the fact that S c r i p t u r e s a y s t h a t S a m s o n w e n t d o w n t o T i m n a h ( J u d g . 14:1), w h i l e J u d a h w e n t u p t o T i m n a h , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t s i n c e S a m s o n w a s d i s g r a c e d t h e r e , h e is s a i d t o g o down, w h e r e a s since Perez, from w h o m D a v i d w a s descended, w a s b o r n there, J u d a h w e n t up t o T i m n a h .
6 2
T o b e sure, t h e r e is a r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n t h a t seeks t o d e f e n d
S a m s o n s o m e w h a t b y noting that he m a r r i e d the w o m a n from T i m n a h in a legal f a s h i o n ( J e r u s a l e m Sotah 1.6a; Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Midrash
Hagadol Numbers 156);
b u t t h e g e n e r a l i m p o r t o f t h e M i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n is t o c o n d e m n h i m for his m a r riages with heathen w o m e n .
6 3
A w a r e that too strenuous a d e n u n c i a t i o n o f inter-
61. C e r t a i n o f the G r e e k manuscripts (Ant. 5.309) read KaOevSovra, while the Latin version simi larly has dormientem, "asleep"; but Schalit 1944-63, a d l o c , seems justified in his c o m m e n t that [xedvovra ("drunk") is doubdess correct because it is in accord with Ant. 5.306, where S a m s o n is said to have de based his o w n rule o f life b y adopting foreign ways. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo adds that Delilah m a d e S a m s o n drunk a n d that w h e n h e slumbered, she called the barber to shear his locks (Bib. Ant. 43.6). 62. Sotah 10a; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 85.6; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Talqut 1.145; Talqut 2.69, cited b y R e n z e r 1902, 31. 63. T h e Midrash, in elaboration o f Samson's parents' strong objections to their son's marriage with a foreign w o m a n , reports, in a typical image drawn from Halakhah, that his parents pointed o u t to S a m s o n that the vineyards o f T i m n a h were sown with mingled seed forbidden by Jewish law (Deut. 22:9), a n d that similarly the Philistines' daughters were o f m i x e d seed (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Jerusalem Sotah 1.6a; Talqut 2.63; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a). S a m s o n is similarly c o n d e m n e d as a fool for insisting o n the T i m n i t e w o m a n (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 67.12); a n d the scriptural verse " T h e w a y o f a fool is straight in his o w n eyes" (Prov. 30:19), where "way," the rabbis assert, refers to marriage, is the Midrash's c o m m e n t o n Samson's request to his parents, " G e t her for me, because she is pleasing in m y eyes" (Judg. 14:3). Moreover, the rabbis interpret "I a m the L - r d " (Lev. 18:3) as teaching that "I a m H e W h o inflicted punishment u p o n Samson, A m n o n , a n d Zimri, a n d W h o will in the future inflict pun ishment u p o n anyone w h o will act in accordance with their practice o f seeking foreign w o m e n " (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 23.9). W i t h another play o n words (to w h i c h they are so gready inclined), the rabbis note that the reason w h y the silver basin presented (Num. 7:67) b y the prince o f D a n (Samson's tribe) was called mizeraq w a s that S a m s o n was spurned (nizeraq) by his brothers for refusing to m a r r y an Israelite a n d for preferring instead a Philistine w o m a n (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 14.9). S a m s o n is por trayed as a veritable rebel against G - d (Sotah 9b); a n d the rabbis stress that since he sinned with his eyes ("because she is pleasing in m y eyes" [Judg. 14:3]), he was punished, measure for measur, b y having his eyes p u t out b y the Philistines (Judg. 16:21). T o b e sure, the rabbis are troubled b y the scriptural state ment that Samson's marriage with the T i m n i t e w o m a n was divinely ordained (Judg. 14:4), but they continue their attack o n S a m s o n by remarking that w h e n he went to choose a wife, he nevertheless fol-
488
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m a r r i a g e w o u l d p l a y into the h a n d s o f t h o s e w h o c h a r g e d the J e w s w i t h m i s a n t h r o p y J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n the severe b i b l i c a l o b j e c t i o n s o f S a m s o n ' s p a r e n t s to the i n t e r m a r r i a g e c o n s i d e r a b l y h o w e v e r (Ant. 5.286); a n d in p l a c e o f "Is t h e r e n e v e r a w o m a n a m o n g the d a u g h t e r s o f t h y b r e t h r e n , o r a m o n g all my p e o p l e , t h a t t h o u g o e s t t o take a wife o f the u n c i r c u m c i s e d Philistines?" (Judg. 14:3), h e m e r e l y states t h a t " t h e y w e r e for refusing b e c a u s e she w a s n o t o f their r a c e " (Ant. 5.286). H e l e a v e s w i t h o u t further e l a b o r a t i o n t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d w a s n o t d e s i g n i n g the m a r r i a g e in the interests o f the H e b r e w s (Ant. 5.286) a n d t h u s a v o i d s a n y castig a t i o n o f S a m s o n b e c a u s e o f t h e i n c i d e n t h e r e , r e a l i z i n g p r e s u m a b l y t h a t t o criti c i z e S a m s o n w o u l d b e t o criticize G - d , since, after all, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , S a m s o n ' s m a r r i a g e w i t h the T i m n i t e w o m a n w a s p a r t o f the d i v i n e p l a n (Judg. 14:4). I n his final e s t i m a t e o f S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s e x c u s e s his b e h a v i o r in a l l o w i n g h i m s e l f to b e e n s n a r e d b y a w o m a n b y i m p u t i n g this to h u m a n n a t u r e , " w h i c h suc c u m b s to sins," a n d is q u i c k t o a d d t h a t c r e d i t s h o u l d b e g i v e n to h i m for his sur p a s s i n g e x c e l l e n c e (dperrjs) in all o t h e r respects (Ant. 5.317). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t in m a k i n g a w e d d i n g feast, S a m s o n d i d as the y o u n g m e n o f the Philistines d i d (Judg. 14:10); h e t h u s a v o i d s t h e c h a r g e t h a t S a m s o n h a d s u c c u m b e d to i m i t a t i o n o f Philistine p r a c t i c e .
64
SUMMARY W h e r e a s the r a b b i s , in t h e i r p o r t r a y a l o f S a m s o n , are c o n c e r n e d w i t h w o r d p l a y , w i t h the d i v i n e a n d the m i r a c u l o u s , a n d w i t h the deflation o f t h e h e r o i c stature o f S a m s o n , a n d w h e r e a s P s e u d o - P h i l o , in his Biblical Antiquities,
e x a g g e r a t e s his
exploits w h i l e c o m p a r i n g h i m u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t is s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y his c o n c e r n to d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f their opponents. I n t e r m s o f t h e qualities o f a h e r o , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the n o b i l i t y o f S a m son's a n c e s t r y o n his father's side. I n v i e w o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e t o his G r a e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e o f p h y s i c a l attractiveness, h e stresses the b e a u t y o f S a m s o n ' s m o t h e r . H e e m p h a s i z e s S a m s o n ' s sagacity, n o t i n g t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b l e to o u t w i t the Philistines h a d it n o t b e e n for a w o m a n ' s t r e a c h e r y J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s
lowed his o w n bent a n d not the will o f G - d . A g a i n , they explain the sanction given by G - d to the in termarriage by remarking that " I f it concerns the scorners, H e scorns through them," that is, that G - d used Samson's wickedness as the means for rescuing the Israelites; hence, far from approving the mar riage, G - d merely arranged it as the instrument o f salvation for His people (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24). 64. T h e M i d r a s h often uses the S a m s o n episode to reinforce religious lessons. T h u s the lesson that one must fear an oath is stressed by citing the case o f Samson, w h o entrusted himself to the Judahites after he h a d received their oath (Judg. 15:12), thus proving that he feared that oath (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 20.1; Midrash Psalms 18.6). It is this incident that likewise leads the M i d r a s h to apply to S a m s o n the verse " D a n shall be a serpent in the w a y " (Gen. 49:17); for just as a serpent is b o u n d by an oath (i.e., the incantation o f a charmer), so S a m s o n w a s b o u n d by an oath (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.14).
SAMSON
489
b r a v e r y a n d , a b o v e all, his s h e e r strength a n d v i o l e n c e , b u t w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n o r the g r o t e s q u e a n d w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g that this s t r e n g t h w a s d i v i n e in o r i g i n . S a m s o n ' s h e r o i c stature is e n h a n c e d b y r e d u c i n g the role o f his p a r e n t s . I n stressing S a m s o n ' s t e m p e s t u o u s nature, J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s h i m as a n Is raelite A c h i l l e s o r H e r a c l e s . T h e J o s e p h a n S a m s o n e x h i b i t s t h e v i r t u e o f m o d e r a t i o n in his diet. J o s e p h u s p r o t e c t s S a m s o n a g a i n s t the c h a r g e o f injustice b y d e n y i n g t h a t S a m s o n p l u n d e r e d innocent bystanders a n d tones d o w n Delilah's charge that S a m s o n h a d b e e n un truthful to her. H e o m i t s as d e g r a d i n g the b i b l i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f S a m s o n b e i n g f o r c e d to e n g a g e in t h e m e n i a l l a b o r o f w o r k i n g at a mill. J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s t h e S a m s o n story as a G r e e k tragedy. S a m s o n ' s TrepLTrereLa
is
d u e m o r e to fate t h a n to his o w n failings. I n this e p i s o d e , m o r e t h a n a n y other, J o s e p h u s stresses r o m a n t i c motifs, s u c h as the fact t h a t S a m s o n ' s father, M a n o a h , w a s m a d l y in love w i t h his wife a n d h e n c e i n o r d i n a t e l y suspicious a n d j e a l o u s . J o s e p h u s e n h a n c e s the r o m a n t i c a s p e c t o f S a m s o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the T i m n i t e w o m a n b y h a v i n g S a m s o n g o to h e r a l o n e a n d c o n s t a n t l y a n d b y h a v i n g h i m p e r f o r m his first g r e a t e x p l o i t , the s t r a n g l i n g o f a lion, in t h e c o u r s e o f o n e o f these vis its. J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s the d r a m a t i c suspense b y f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n o n t h e T i m n i t e w o m a n a n d h e r i m p e n d i n g p u n i s h m e n t b y the Philistines i f she fails t o l e a r n t h e a n s w e r to S a m s o n ' s riddle. T h e D e l i l a h e p i s o d e b e c o m e s m o r e r o m a n t i c in t h a t she is d e p i c t e d as a c o u r tesan. J o s e p h u s b u i l d s u p t h e r o m a n t i c e l e m e n t a n d the suspense b y h a v i n g D e l i l a h c o n t i n u a l l y i m p o r t u n e S a m s o n to r e v e a l his secret. T h e a c c o u n t is m o r e r o m a n t i c , m o r e o v e r , in t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s the p a y m e n t o f m o n e y t o D e l i l a h b y the Philistines. J o s e p h u s presents S a m s o n as a h u m a n h e r o a n d o m i t s c o m p l e t e l y b i b l i c a l ref e r e n c e s to t h e fact t h a t h e w a s a b l e to a c h i e v e his e x p l o i t s t h r o u g h his b e i n g m o v e d b y the spirit o f the L - r d . H e likewise d i m i n i s h e s t h e d i v i n e e l e m e n t b y o m i t t i n g S a m s o n ' s p r a y e r to G - d p r i o r to his g r a n d e s t a c h i e v e m e n t , b r i n g i n g the t e m p l e d o w n u p o n t h e Philistines. Finally, J o s e p h u s addresses his c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w s in stressing the m o r a l o f t h e s t o r y - n a m e l y t h a t o n e m u s t n o t d e b a s e o n e ' s rule o f life b y i m i t a t i n g f o r e i g n w a y s , a l t h o u g h , a w a r e o f the c h a r g e o f m i s a n t h r o p y
made
a g a i n s t the J e w s , h e tones d o w n the severe o b j e c t i o n s o f S a m s o n ' s p a r e n t s to his in termarriage.
C H A P T E R
T H I R T E E N
Samuel
W h i l e it is true t h a t J o s e p h u s , in his Antiquities, h a s relatively little t o s a y a b o u t the p r o p h e t s as s u c h , nevertheless, i n a s m u c h as, in m a n y cases, t h e y p l a y e d i m p o r t a n t roles in the politics o f their day, J o s e p h u s the historian is m u c h interested in t h e m . T h a t J o s e p h u s v i e w e d S a m u e l p r i m a r i l y as a p r o p h e t m a y b e d i s c e r n e d in his v e r sion o f the s c e n e in w h i c h h e is d e d i c a t e d t o the service o f G - d . T h e B i b l e confines itself to d e s c r i b i n g the d e d i c a t i o n o f S a m u e l a n d the sacrifices a c c o m p a n y i n g it (i S a m . 1:24-28); J o s e p h u s specifically a d d s t h a t H a n n a h d e d i c a t e d S a m u e l to G - d 1
to b e c o m e a p r o p h e t (Ant. 5.347). I n v i e w o f w h a t h a s b e e n said c o n c e r n i n g p r o p h e t s ' g u a r a n t e e i n g the a c c u r a c y o f those historical b o o k s for w h i c h t h e y are responsible, this specification w o u l d e m p h a s i z e the a c c u r a c y o f the b o o k s o f S a m u e l a s c r i b e d t o h i m b y t r a d i t i o n (Baba Batra 14b). O n e i n d i c a t i o n o f the significance o f a g i v e n b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y for J o s e p h u s is the s h e e r a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e a l l o c a t e s t o h i m . I f w h a t I h a v e said a b o u t the i m p o r t a n c e o f the p r o p h e t s for J o s e p h u s is c o r r e c t , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t h i m t o s h o w this in the a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e d e v o t e s t o t h e m . A c t u a l l y , the ratio for E l i j a h is 1.52, for D a n i e l 1.32, for J o n a h 1.15, a n d for E l i s h a 1.11. For S a m u e l (1 S a m . 1 : 1 - 4 : 1 , 7:3-10:27, 1 1 : 1 2 - 1 2 : 2 5 , 1 3 : 8 - 1 5 , 1 5 : 1 - 3 , 1 5 : 1 0 - 1 6 : 1 3 , 1 9 : 1 8 - 2 1 , 25:1, 2 8 : 1 1 - 1 9 ; Ant. l
l
5 . 3 4 1 - 5 1 , 6 . 1 9 - 6 7 , 8 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 0 - 5 , 3 ~33>
1 4 1 - 6 6 , 221-23, 292-94, 332-36) there
1. Similarly, in Pseudo-Philo, w h e n H a n n a h comes to dedicate her son to the service o f G - d , the high priest Eli declares: " B y this child is thy w o m b justified, that thou shouldst set u p prophecy before the p e o p l e " (Bib. Ant. 51.2). In her prayer o f thanksgiving, H a n n a h reaffirms Samuel's status as a prophet: " W h o is A n n a , that a prophet should c o m e out o f her?" (Bib. Ant. 51.6). A n d w h e n the people offer Samuel to Eli, they again designate Samuel as a prophet, as is indicated by their words, " L e t the prophet live a m o n g the p e o p l e " (Bib. Ant. 51.7).
490
SAMUEL
491
a r e 4 3 6 lines in t h e H e b r e w , 701 lines in the G r e e k v e r s i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t , a n d 8 1 4 lines in J o s e p h u s , m a k i n g a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to the H e b r e w o f 1.87 a n d t o t h e 2
S e p t u a g i n t o f 1 . 1 6 . I n t e r m s o f t h e a m o u n t o f s p a c e d e v o t e d to h i m , t h e n , S a m u e l is c l e a r l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f these p r o p h e t s for J o s e p h u s . T h e c h i e f e v i d e n c e for t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f S a m u e l t o J o s e p h u s is, h o w e v e r , t h a t w h e r e a s h e is r e f e r r e d to as a p r o p h e t o n l y o n c e in t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 3:20), h e is so d e s i g n a t e d n o f e w e r 3
t h a n forty-five t i m e s in J o s e p h u s , b y far the largest n u m b e r o f a d d i t i o n a l o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e w o r d " p r o p h e t " o r " p r o p h e s y " in J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e B i b l e (see F e l d m a n
1990, 3 8 9 - 9 1 ) . U n d o u b t e d l y , this relative i m p o r t a n c e
of
S a m u e l for J o s e p h u s is l a r g e l y b e c a u s e S a m u e l p l a y e d s u c h a n i m p o r t a n t role in t h e politics o f his day, w h i c h w o u l d , o f c o u r s e , h a v e b e e n o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to t h e h i s t o r i a n J o s e p h u s a n d his r e a d e r s . B u t a n o t h e r r e a s o n , as w e shall see, is t h a t S a m u e l l a c k e d t h e d r a w b a c k s o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l p r o p h e t s , s u c h as Elijah's z e a l o t r y w h i c h Josephus disparaged, a n d Daniel's prediction that the R o m a n
Empire
w o u l d o n e d a y b e o v e r t h r o w n , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n so e m b a r r a s s i n g to J o s e phus. A n o t h e r c r i t e r i o n o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s a t t a c h e s to p a r t i c u l a r b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s is t h e a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e g i v e s to t h e e n c o m i u m t h a t h e u s u ally p r e s e n t s in t h e c o n t e x t o f their d e a t h s . I n the c a s e o f t h e p r o p h e t s , J o s e p h u s h a s a n e n c o m i u m for E l i s h a (Ant. 9.182) o f t w e n t y - s i x w o r d s , b u t n o n e at all for ei t h e r E l i j a h o r for D a n i e l . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , for S a m u e l (Ant. 6 . 2 9 2 - 9 4 ) , his e n c o m i u m r u n s to e i g h t y - s i x w o r d s .
2. Josephus agrees with the Septuagint in stating that if the Israelites choose a king, he will appoint captains o f hundreds and captains o f thousands (Ant. 6.40), whereas the H e b r e w text speaks o f captains o f thousands and captains o f fifties (1 S a m . 8:12). (Josephus's reading here m a y have b e e n influenced by the organization o f David's army, which, w e are told [1 S a m . 22:7 and 2 S a m . 18:1], h a d captains o f thousands a n d captains o f hundreds. H e m a y also have b e e n influenced by the organization o f the R o m a n army, w h i c h , indeed, did have captains o f hundreds, namely, centurions.) A n o t h e r indication o f Josephus's use o f the Septuagint is to be found in the figure given for the n u m b e r o f guests at the feast where S a m u e l anoints Saul as king. T h e H e b r e w text gives the n u m b e r as "about thirty" (1 S a m . 9:22), whereas the Septuagint has "about seventy," w h i c h figure Josephus follows in specifying that there were guests (Ant. 6.52). 3. Ant. 5.340 vs. 1 S a m . 2:26; Ant. 5.341 vs. 1 S a m . 1:1-28.; Ant. 5.347 vs. 1 S a m . 2:21; Ant. 5.351 vs. 1 S a m . 3:19; Ant. 6.19 vs. 1 S a m . 7:3; Ant. 6.31 vs. 1 S a m . 7:15; Ant. 6.34 vs. 1 S a m . 8:3; Ant. 6.35 vs. 1 S a m . 8:5; Ant. 6.38 vs. 1 S a m . 8:7; Ant. 6.47 vs. 1 S a m . 9:6; Ant. 6.48 vs. 1 S a m . 9:7 (to be sure, identified in these last two instances in the Bible as a " m a n o f G - d " ) ; Ant. 6.52 (bis) vs. 1 S a m . 9:22 and 9:25; Ant. 6. 54 vs. 1 S a m . 10:1; Ant. 6.58 vs. 1 S a m . 10:14; Ant. 6.64 vs. 1 S a m . 10:22; Ant. 6.66 (bis) vs. 1 S a m . 10:24-25; Ant. 6.77 vs. 1 S a m . 11:7; Ant. 6.83 vs. 1 S a m . 11:14; Ant. 6.86 vs. 1 S a m . 12:1; Ant. 6.92 (bis) vs. 1 S a m . 12:18-19; Ant. 6.100 vs. 1 S a m . 13:8; Ant. 6. 101 (bis) vs. 1 S a m . 13:8; Ant. 6.136 vs. 1 S a m . i$:y;Ant. 6.141 1
1
vs. 1 S a m . 15:10-11; Ant. 6.143 v s . S a m . 15: 10-11; Ant. 6.144 v s . S a m . 15:31; ^4w£ 6.145 vs. 1 S a m . 15:31; v s
Ant. 6.147 -
1
v s
S a m . 15:22; Ant. 6.151 (bis) vs. 1 S a m . 15:24-25; Ant. 6.153 -
1
S a m . 15:26; Ant. 6.156 vs.
1 S a m . 15:35; Ant. 6.162 vs. 1 S a m . 16:10; Ant. 6.220 vs. 1 S a m . 19:18; Ant. 6.221 vs. 1 S a m . 19:18; Ant. 6.221 vs. 1 S a m . 19:19; Ant. 6.292 vs. 1 S a m . 25:1; Ant. 6.336 vs. 1 S a m . 28:18-19; Ant. 6.344 vs. n o par allel; Ant. 7.27 vs. 2 S a m . 3:17; Ant. 7.53 vs. 2 S a m . 5.2 and 1 C h r o n . 11:2.
492
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
THE P O R T R A I T OF S A M U E L IN RABBINIC
LITERATURE
T h e Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Midrash Agar, p . 151), d a t i n g f r o m p e r h a p s t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y b u t u n d o u b t e d l y like o t h e r s u c h m i d r a s h i m , i n c o r p o r a t i n g earlier m a t e r i a l , g o e s so far in its a d u l a t i o n o f S a m u e l as to d e c l a r e t h a t s u c h g r e a t n e s s as w a s b e 4
s t o w e d u p o n h i m w a s n o t g r a n t e d to a n y o t h e r k i n g o r p r o p h e t — t h i s p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g K i n g D a v i d a n d s u c h p r o p h e t s as E l i j a h , I s a i a h , J e r e m i a h , a n d E z e k i e l . It further n o t e s t h a t n o o n e e v e r c h a l l e n g e d S a m u e l ' s authority, a n d a p p l i e s five t e r m s o f p r a i s e — f a i t h f u l , h o n o r e d , p r o p h e t , seer, a n d m a n o f G - d — t o h i m . Midrash Samuel, d a t i n g f r o m p e r h a p s t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y b u t a g a i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g m u c h earlier m a t e r i a l , e l e v a t e s his stature b y asserting (3.4) t h a t e v e n b e f o r e his b i r t h , a h e a v e n l y v o i c e w e n t forth a n d p r o c l a i m e d t h e i m m i n e n t a p p e a r a n c e o f a r i g h t e o u s m a n . W h e n p e o p l e later o b s e r v e d S a m u e l ' s d e e d s , t h e y w e r e c e r t a i n t h a t h e w a s t h e r i g h t e o u s i n d i v i d u a l . I n particular, h e is p r a i s e d for his i n c o r r u p t i b i l i t y as a j u d g e (Nedarim 38a); thus, in t h e w o r d s o f the t h i r d - c e n t u r y R a b b i J o h a n a n , h e w a s so h o n e s t t h a t h e refused c o m p e n s a t i o n e v e n w h e n h e w a s e n t i d e d to it. A c c o r d i n g t o a t r a d i t i o n t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e f o u r t h - c e n t u r y A b b a y e (Berakot 10b), h e w a s so s c r u p u l o u s in refusing t h e h o s p i t a l i t y o f o t h e r s t h a t w h e r e v e r h e t r a v e l e d , h e t o o k w h a t h e n e e d e d w i t h h i m . A c c o r d i n g to the t h i r d - c e n t u r y R a b b i E l e a z a r b e n P e d a t , w h e n S a m u e l insisted t h a t h e h a d d e f r a u d e d n o o n e (1 S a m . 1 2 : 3 - 5 ) , a v o i c e f r o m h e a v e n d e c l a r e d t h a t G - d H i m s e l f w a s w i t n e s s to this (Makkot 23b). H e is p r a i s e d for his c o n s i d e r a t e n e s s in w i t h h o l d i n g his r e b u k e o f t h e p e o p l e until s h o r d y b e f o r e his d e a t h , so t h a t t h e y n o t b e e m b a r r a s s e d u p o n m e e t i n g their censurer. S o h i g h l y is S a m u e l r e g a r d e d in r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n t h a t h e is a c t u a l l y said to h a v e b e e n e q u a l to M o s e s a n d A a r o n p u t t o g e t h e r (Pesiqta Rabbati 4 3 . 1 8 2 a [ c o m 5
p i l e d , it is t h o u g h t , in t h e sixth o r s e v e n t h c e n t u r y ] ) . H e is e v e n d e c l a r e d t o b e su p e r i o r to M o s e s , in t h a t w h e r e a s M o s e s first h a d to g o into t h e t a b e r n a c l e in o r d e r to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h G - d , G - d c h o s e to s p e a k d i r e c d y t o S a m u e l (Exodus Rabbah 16.4). I n fact, s u c h c o m p a r i s o n s a r e b a s e d o n c o u p l i n g o f the n a m e s o f M o s e s a n d S a m u e l in the B i b l e itself (Jer. 15:1; Ps. 9 g : 6 ) .
6
J o s e p h u s , as n o t e d a b o v e , calls S a m u e l " p r o p h e t " in n o f e w e r t h a n forty-five in stances, a n d h e is l i k e w i s e t e r m e d a " t r u e p r o p h e t " b y B e n S i r a 4 6 : 1 5 . N o n e t h e l e s s ,
4. W e find a similar adulation in Philo, w h o refers to Samuel as the greatest of kings and prophets (De Ebrietate 36.143). 5. Cf. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:229, - 43> * the following sources for the midrashic view that Samuel was Moses' equal and even in some respects his superior: Midrash Samuel 9.74-75; Midrash Psalms 25.212; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 3.8; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 4; and Midrash Exodus Rabbah 16.4. W e m a y add that in the Pseudepigraphic Biblical Antiquities (52.2) by Josephus's presumed contemporary Pseudo-Philo, Samuel is depicted as being superior even to Moses; " H e is like unto Moses m y servant; but with Moses I spake when he was eighty years old, but Samuel is eight years old." 6. Jer. 15:1: " T h e n the L - r d said to me, ' T h o u g h Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet m y heart would not turn toward this p e o p l e . ' " Ps. 99:6: "Moses and A a r o n were a m o n g His [ G - d ' s ] priests; Samuel also was a m o n g those w h o called on His name." n
w
n
o
c
t e s
SAMUEL
493
t h e t h i r d - c e n t u r y P a l e s t i n i a n R a b b i L e v i , a l m o s t s u r e l y h e r e as e l s e w h e r e r e f l e c t i n g a n e a r l i e r o p i n i o n , d e c l a r e s t h a t S a m u e l w a s r e p r i m a n d e d b y G - d for his selfp r i d e i n t e l l i n g S a u l (i S a m . 9:19) t h a t h e w a s t h e s e e r w h o m h e w a s s e e k i n g (Sifre Deuteronomy 17). T h i s is, h o w e v e r , t h e o n l y n e g a t i v e t r a d i t i o n i n all r a b b i n i c l i t e r a ture a b o u t S a m u e l .
7
SAMUEL'S
VIRTUES
Birth and Early Tears A s i n t h e c a s e o f S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s m a k e s s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s in his a c c o u n t o f t h e b i r t h o f S a m u e l . I n t h e first p l a c e , it is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n o f t h e 8
S e p t u a g i n t in its t e x t o f S a m u e l , w h i c h J o s e p h u s f o l l o w s c l o s e l y i n his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l , asserts t h a t t h e h i g h p r i e s t E l i ' s s e r v a n t s p o k e t o H a n n a h w h e n s h e w a s p r a y i n g for a s o n (1 S a m . 1:14), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , m o r e d r a m a t i c a l l y , f o l l o w i n g t h e 9
H e b r e w , h a s E l i h i m s e l f s p e a k t o h e r (Ant. 5-345). S e c o n d l y , w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , E l i asks t h a t G - d g r a n t h e r p e t i t i o n (1 S a m . 1:17), J o s e p h u s ' s E l i d o e s n o t t h u s a p p e a l to G - d , but rather m a k e s the m o r e dramatic a n n o u n c e m e n t that G - d will g r a n t h e r c h i l d r e n (Ant. 5 . 3 4 5 ) .
10
P s e u d o - P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e s c e n e in w h i c h t h e p e o p l e w e n t d o w n w i t h o n e a c c o r d t o S h i l o h w i t h t i m b r e l s a n d d a n c e s , w i t h lutes a n d h a r p s , a n d
anointed
S a m u e l as t h e y w o u l d a m e s s i a n i c k i n g , d e c l a r i n g , " L e t t h e p r o p h e t live a m o n g t h e p e o p l e , a n d l e t h i m b e l o n g a l i g h t u n t o this n a t i o n " (Bib. Ant. 51.7). I n v i e w o f t h e
n
c
7. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:229, - 43? i
t e s
a
tradition, w h i c h the twelfth-century K a r a i t e J u d a h
Hadassi ascribes to the rabbis, that Samuel acted proudly in proclaiming his incorruptibility as a j u d g e in the presence o f all the people. H e cites another statement b y a K a r a i t e that the rabbis accused S a m u e l o f b e i n g a corrupt j u d g e . G i n z b e r g notes that neither o f these statements is to b e found in ex tant rabbinic literature, a n d he finds it very unlikely that the rabbis should have m a d e such remarks in view o f the general glorification o f Samuel in rabbinic literature. 8. See U l r i c h 1989, 8 1 - 9 6 , w h i c h notes, for example, that Josephus has an extended passage (Ant. 6.68-69) that, a m o n g o u r biblical manuscripts, is found only in the D e a d S e a manuscript o f S a m u e l and is missing from all other surviving biblical texts o f Samuel. 9. Significandy, Josephus's presumed contemporary, Pseudo-Philo, in his Biblical Antiquities (50.6), w h o , like Josephus, generally follows the Lucianic version o f the b o o k o f Samuel, agrees with Josephus in having Eli, rather than his servant, speak to H a n n a h . 10. S o also Midrash Samuel 2.12. B o t h Josephus (Ant. 5.345) a n d the rabbinic tradition (Jerusalem T a l m u d , Berakot 4.7b, and Midrash Samuel 3.72) state that it w a s the sheer length o f H a n n a h ' s prayer that led Eli to suspect that she was drunk. Pseudo-Philo follows the biblical text in having Eli tell H a n n a h merely that h e r prayer h a d been heard b y G - d (Bib. Ant. 50.8); but he clearly implies that Eli was aware that the child to b e born o f her w o u l d b e extraordinary, inasmuch as he states that Eli w o u l d not tell her that a prophet w a s foreordained to b e born o f her, "for he h a d heard w h e n the L - r d spoke con cerning h i m . " Unlike Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 51.3-6), w h o presents H a n n a h ' s song o f praise at length, elaborating o n the biblical source (1 S a m . 2:1-10), Josephus, presumably because he felt that such a prayer h a d n o place in a history proper, omits it, even as he omits D e b o r a h ' s song (Judg. 5:1-31), w h i c h , once again, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 32.1—17) elaborates at great length.
494
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
fact that the m e s s i a h is, b y definition, a p o l i t i c a l figure w h o will establish a n i n d e p e n d e n t J e w i s h state, J o s e p h u s , in line w i t h his t r e a t m e n t o f D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y (Ant. 10.210),
11
is careful to a v o i d p r e s e n t i n g h i m as a m e s s i a h - l i k e figure r e m i n i s
c e n t o f this P s e u d o - P h i l o n i c portrait. O n e o f the t y p i c a l motifs o f a h e r o , as w e h a v e seen, is his p r e c o c i o u s intellec tual d e v e l o p m e n t . I n the c a s e o f S a m u e l , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t h e w a s m i n istering b e f o r e the L - r d w h i l e still a c h i l d (1 S a m . 2:18), J o s e p h u s is m u c h m o r e precise, g i v i n g his a g e as t w e l v e a n d i n d i c a t i n g the n a t u r e o f his p r e c o c i t y , n a m e l y , as a p r o p h e t (Ant. 5 . 3 4 8 ) .
12
Leadership A s a s t u d e n t o f T h u c y d i d e s , J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y e m p h a s i z e s the i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d e r s h i p . T h u s , it is S a m u e l w h o takes the l e a d in s e a r c h i n g for S a u l w h e n h e d i s a p p e a r s after b e i n g c h o s e n as k i n g , w h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, it is his future subjects w h o unsuccessfully s e a r c h for h i m (1 S a m . 10:21-22). T h e r e u p o n , t h e y in q u i r e o f G - d as t o his w h e r e a b o u t s . G - d t h e n tells t h e m t h a t S a u l is h i d i n g a m o n g the b a g g a g e . I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w h e n the Israelites are baffled a n d p e r p l e x e d at S a u l ' s d i s a p p e a r a n c e , it is S a m u e l w h o takes c h a r g e a n d b e s e e c h e s G - d to s h o w w h e r e S a u l is a n d to b r i n g h i m forth. G - d t h e n tells S a m u e l w h e r e S a u l is, w h e r e u p o n S a m u e l s e n d s to fetch h i m a n d sets h i m in the m i d s t o f the t h r o n g (Ant. 6.64). A t the s a m e t i m e , J o s e p h u s is e a g e r to establish the p e r s o n a l l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i ties o f S a m u e l a n d n o t h a v e h i m a p p e a r as a m e r e m o u t h p i e c e o f G - d . T h u s , the B i b l e states t h a t S a m u e l h e a r d all the w o r d s o f the p e o p l e w h e n t h e y r e q u e s t e d a k i n g a n d r e p e a t e d these t o G - d , w h e r e u p o n G - d i n s t r u c t e d h i m to listen to the p e o p l e (1 S a m . 8:21). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , S a m u e l gives a n a n s w e r to the p e o p l e e v e n b e f o r e t u r n i n g to G - d , w h e n h e tells t h e m , q u i t e c o n f i d e n d y to d e p a r t to their r e s p e c t i v e h o m e s a n d to w a i t until h e s u m m o n s t h e m after h e h a s h e a r d f r o m G - d as to H i s c h o i c e o f k i n g (Ant. 6.44). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o p o i n t s o u t D a v i d to S a m u e l as that s o n o f Jesse w h o is to b e a n o i n t e d (1 S a m . 16:12), in J o s e p h u s , it is S a m u e l h i m s e l f w h o r e c o g n i z e s D a v i d as the o n e w h o m it h a s p l e a s e d G - d to select as k i n g (Ant. 6.164).
11. Josephus's justification for his procedure is that, as a historian, he is expected to discuss the past and not to predict the future, although he certainly, as remarked, saw a kinship between the prophet and the historian. Clearly, however, the true reason for Josephus's evasiveness is that Jewish interpre tation o f this passage a p p a r e n d y saw in it a p r o p h e c y o f a messianic overthrow o f the R o m a n Empire (cf. Midrash Exodus Rabbah 35.5). 12. In giving Samuel's age as twelve, Josephus is in precise agreement with the midrashic tradition (Midrash Psalms 25.212; Midrash Samuel 1.46). Pseudo-Philo cites Samuel's age as eight, but, unlike Jose phus, he specifically says that Samuel at that age did not k n o w the oracles o f G - d (Bib. Ant. 53.1). I have suggested (Feldman 1971, cxxxiii) that perhaps in the text of Pseudo-Philo X I I was misread as V I I I , al though admittedly all our surviving manuscripts read octo, "eight." Cf. L u k e 2.40,52, where w e are told that the child Jesus " g r e w and b e c a m e strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor o f G - d w a s u p o n him. . . . A n d Jesus increased in w i s d o m and in stature and in favor with G - d a n d m a n . "
SAMUEL
495
L i k e w i s e , w h e n S a m u e l a n o i n t s D a v i d , w h e r e a s the B i b l e is c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o state that fact (i S a m . 16:13), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l , the true leader, uses t h e o c c a s i o n to e x h o r t D a v i d to b e r i g h t e o u s a n d o b e d i e n t to G - d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p r o p h e s y t h a t h e will b e v i c t o r i o u s in w a r , a n d t h a t h e a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s will b e c o m e s p l e n d i d a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 6 . 1 6 5 ) .
13
J o s e p h u s also stresses S a m u e l ' s role as a l e a d e r w h o is c o n c e r n e d for t h e m a s s e s . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l offers a sacrifice p r e m a t u r e l y w h e n S a m u e l tarries in c o m i n g t o h i m , a n d S a m u e l b e r a t e s h i m w i t h the w o r d s , " W h a t hast t h o u d o n e ? " (1 S a m . 13:11), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l s h o w s m o r e c o n c e r n for t h e p e o p l e w h e n h e tells S a u l that h e is p a y i n g a visit t o h i m in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h G - d ' s will in o r d e r t o p r e side at t h e p r a y e r s a n d sacrifices o n b e h a l f o f the p e o p l e (Ant. 6.102). J o s e p h u s h a s built u p t h e figure o f S a m u e l at t h e e x p e n s e o f that o f E l i t h e h i g h priest.
14
T h u s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , a n a m e l e s s m a n o f G - d tells E l i t h a t t h e lat
ter's t w o sons will die o n t h e s a m e d a y (1 S a m . 2:34). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o tells, n o t E l i b u t S a m u e l , t h a t the sons o f E l i a r e t o die o n t h e s a m e d a y ; H e t h e n a d d s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail, that t h e p r i e s t h o o d is to pass to t h e h o u s e o f E l e a z a r — a m a t t e r o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as h e w a s h i m s e l f a priest (Ant. 5.350). O f c o u r s e , t h e u l t i m a t e d i s p l a y o f S a m u e l ' s role as l e a d e r is to b e s e e n in his a c tions as a p r o p h e t . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f S a m u e l ' s status as a p r o p h e t m a y b e s e e n in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t in r e q u e s t i n g a king, t h e Israelites w e r e n o t o n l y s h o w i n g i n g r a t i t u d e to G - d (1 S a m . 8.7-9)
D
u
t
^
s
o
t
o
S a m u e l ' s status as a p r o p h e t
(Ant. 6.38). M o r e o v e r , w h e n S a u l is s e a r c h i n g for his father's asses, his s e r v a n t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , tells h i m t h a t t h e r e is a m a n o f G - d — t h a t is, S a m u e l — i n t h e city w h o m a y h e l p h i m (1 S a m . 9:6); J o s e p h u s h e r e a c c e n t u a t e s S a m u e l ' s status b y r e f e r r i n g t o h i m as a true prophet
(Ant. 6.47). T h e r e is similar e m p h a s i s o n t h e t r u t h
o f S a m u e l ' s p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 12:17) o f G - d ' s r e s p o n s e to t h e p e o p l e ' s r e q u e s t for a king. I n t h e latter, w e r e a d o n l y t h a t G - d sent t h u n d e r a n d r a i n , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h S a m u e l ' s w o r d ; in J o s e p h u s , w e a r e t o l d t h a t G - d sent t h u n d e r , l i g h t n i n g , a n d h a i l in o r d e r to attest to t h e t r u t h o f all t h a t t h e p r o p h e t h a d said (Ant. 6.92). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e spirit o f G - d c o m e s u p o n S a u l a n d h e p r o p h e s i e s (1 S a m . 19:23), in J o s e p h u s , it is S a m u e l ' s o w n p r e s e n c e that c o m m u n i c a t e s to S a u l t h e p o w e r o f p r o p h e c y (Ant. 6.223).
13. Similarly, in Pseudo-Philo, Samuel, after anointing D a v i d , begins to sing a psalm (Bib. Ant. 5 9 4 ) . 14. Josephus has also, in general, d o w n g r a d e d the importance o f Eli. T h i s is surprising in v i e w o f the fact that w e w o u l d have expected Josephus, w h o is so proud o f b e i n g a priest, rather to elevate a high priesdy figure. Perhaps, however, he w a s embarrassed by the immorality o f Eli's sons. In any case, in the Bible, w e are told that Eli w o u l d bless Elkanah and his wife and express the prayer that G - d w o u l d give them children (1 S a m . 2:20). T h e r e u p o n w e hear in the next verse that G - d did, indeed, re m e m b e r H a n n a h ; a n d she conceived three sons a n d two daughters. Josephus, however, altogether omits the role o f Eli here and states merely that Elkanah h a d other sons and three daughters b y H a n n a h (Ant. 5.347).
496
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
A k e y f u n c t i o n o f a p r o p h e t is to m a k e a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n s o f the future (see F e l d m a n 1990, 4 0 7 - 1 1 ) . T h u s , in the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , S a m u e l tells the p e o p l e the m a n n e r o f the k i n g d o m a n d w r i t e s it in a b o o k , w h i c h h e sets b e f o r e the L - r d , b u t says n o t h i n g a b o u t the p r o p h e t i c n a t u r e o f the b o o k (1 S a m . 10:25). J o s e p h u s h a s S a m u e l p u t in w r i t i n g a p r o p h e t i c p r e d i c t i o n . H e t h e n , like the S i b y l , w h o p r e s e n t e d h e r p r o p h e c i e s to the R o m a n k i n g T a r q u i n i u s S u p e r b u s , w h o e v e n t u a l l y p l a c e d t h e m in the C a p i t o l i n e t e m p l e o f J u p i t e r (see D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s 4.62), r e a d s it in the h e a r i n g o f the k i n g a n d deposits it in the t a b e r n a c l e o f G - d (Ant. 6.66). O n e m a y w e l l ask, h o w e v e r , why, i f S a m u e l w a s s u c h a g r e a t l e a d e r a n d p r o p h e t in the eyes o f G - d , G - d d i d n o t listen to his e n t r e a t y o n b e h a l f o f S a u l after S a u l h a d d i s o b e y e d the d i v i n e c o m m a n d m e n t t o w i p e o u t the A m a l e k i t e s (1 S a m . 15:11). T h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t S a m u e l w a s g r i e v e d a n d c r i e d to G - d all n i g h t . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , e x p l a i n s t h a t the r e a s o n w h y G - d d i d n o t g r a n t S a m u e l ' s r e q u e s t w a s that, as a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e , H e d i d n o t r e g a r d it as j u s t to c o n d o n e sins at the intercession o f another, since n o t h i n g m o r e favors their g r o w t h t h a n " l a x i t y o n the p a r t o f t h e w r o n g e d , w h o , in s e e k i n g a r e p u t a t i o n for m i l d n e s s a n d k i n d n e s s , are u n w i t t i n g l y t h e b e g e t t e r s o f c r i m e " (Ant 6.144). It is t h u s c l e a r t h a t the r e a s o n w h y G - d refuses S a m u e l ' s r e q u e s t is n o t S a m u e l ' s u n w o r t h i n e s s b u t r a t h e r a desire o n the p a r t o f G - d t o u p h o l d this p r i n c i p l e . J o s e p h u s , in a n o t h e r e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i tion, reiterates this p r i n c i p l e , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t c h a n g e a n d r e v e r s a l o f j u d g m e n t are d u e t o h u m a n frailty r a t h e r t h a n t o d i v i n e p o w e r (Ant 6.153). Wisdom A n i n d i c a t i o n o f S a m u e l ' s w i s d o m is t o b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t S a m u e l r e d i v i d e d (oiaKooixrjoas city t o e a c h g r o u p (Ant
" p u t in order," " a r r a n g e " ) the p e o p l e , a s s i g n i n g a
6.31). T h i s a c h i e v e m e n t o f S a m u e l ' s p a r a l l e l s h i m w i t h
M o s e s , w h o w a s p r a i s e d b y H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) for d i v i d i n g the Israelites into t w e l v e tribes. T h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t S a m u e l w e n t y e a r b y y e a r o n t h e circuit, w i t h n o m e n t i o n o f his d i v i d i n g the p e o p l e i n t o g r o u p s (1 S a m . 7:16). A k e y attribute c o n n e c t e d w i t h w i s d o m is the ability to p e r s u a d e . W h e n , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , G - d lists for S a m u e l four virtues to b e s o u g h t in a ruler, o n e 15
o f t h e m is the p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n (vetOa)) (Ant 6 . 1 6 0 ) . W e m a y p e r c e i v e this abil ity in S a m u e l h i m s e l f w h e n h e a d d r e s s e s the Israelites. I n the B i b l e , t h e r e is n o in d i c a t i o n t h a t h e w a i t e d for a n o p p o r t u n e m o m e n t to s p e a k to t h e m (1 S a m . 7:3), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s specifically says t h a t h e s p o k e t o t h e m o n l y w h e n h e s a w their
15. T o be sure, M a r c u s 1934-37, 5:147, in his L o e b translation, renders
TT€L6O)
as " o b e d i e n c e " (pre
sumably to G - d ) ; but inasmuch as one o f the other virtues is piety, it seems more likely that the w o r d implies, rather, as it usually does, the ability to persuade, especially since T h u c y d i d e s , w h o m Josephus so admired, regarded this as a crucial quality in Pericles.
SAMUEL
497
a r d o r a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the o c c a s i o n w a s o p p o r t u n e (Ant. 6.19). S e c o n d l y , w h e n h e d o e s s p e a k to t h e m , h e realizes t h a t i f h e a p p e a l s to t h e m o n religious g r o u n d s , as S a m u e l d o e s in the B i b l e , u r g i n g t h e m to g i v e u p their w o r s h i p o f f o r e i g n g o d s , h e w o u l d n o t s u c c e e d in r e a c h i n g the masses, i n a s m u c h as m a n y w e r e e m o t i o n a l l y a t t a c h e d t o these g o d s ; a c c o r d i n g l y , in J o s e p h u s , h e e v o k e s a c o m m o n d e n o m i n a tor, n a m e l y , p a t r i o t i s m , a p p e a l i n g t o their love o f l i b e r t y a n d their readiness t o sac rifice in o r d e r to attain it. It is o n l y after h e m a k e s this a p p e a l to p a t r i o t i s m t h a t S a m u e l e x h o r t s the I s r a e l i t e s — a n d in t h e m o s t g e n e r a l t e r m s — t o t u r n to right e o u s n e s s a n d t o h o n o r i n g G - d . T h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g as t o the effectiveness o f S a m u e l as a s p e a k e r ; all w e h e a r is t h a t the Israelites d i d p u t a w a y their f o r e i g n g o d s (1 S a m . 7:4). J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s S a m u e l ' s effectiveness as a n orator, h o w ever, n o t i n g t h a t his w o r d s w e r e a c c l a i m e d (iirev^ripLTjae)
b y the p e o p l e , w h o w e r e
d e l i g h t e d (rjaOev) w i t h the e x h o r t a t i o n (Ant. 6.22).
Courage I n setting forth, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , the virtues t h a t G - d seeks in a k i n g , J o s e p h u s lists c o u r a g e (avopeia) as o n e o f four s u c h qualities (Ant. 6.160). I n the s a m e line, t h e r e is e m p h a s i s o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f a ruler's g e n e r a l s h i p in S a m u e l ' s c o m m e n t , w h e n h e a n o i n t s S a u l , that his f u n c t i o n as k i n g will b e to c o m b a t t h e Philistines a n d to d e f e n d the H e b r e w s (Ant. 6.54), w h i c h is n o t f o u n d in his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e (1 S a m . 10:1-8). It is, i n d e e d , striking t h a t m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p s h o u l d b e stressed in t h e c a s e o f S a m u e l , i n a s m u c h as the b i b l i c a l t e x t d o e s n o t d o so (for r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l s , see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:228, n. 42). T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e P h i l i s t i n e s — w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n o f the size o f their a r m y o r o f their use o f the e l e m e n t o f s u r p r i s e — m a r c h a g a i n s t t h e Israelites g a t h e r e d at M i z p a h (1 S a m . 7:7), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s the d a n g e r b y h a v i n g the Philistines a d v a n c e w i t h a n a r m y m i g h t y in strength, h o p i n g to surprise the Israelites w h i l e t h e y are off their g u a r d a n d u n p r e p a r e d (Ant. 6.23). W h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text p r o c e e d s to state m e r e l y t h a t w h e n the Israelites h e a r t h a t the Philistines are a b o u t to a t t a c k t h e m , t h e y are afraid (1 S a m . 7:7), J o s e p h u s v e r y d r a m a t i c a l l y h i g h l i g h t s their fear b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e d i s m a y e d a n d p l u n g e d into c o n f u s i o n a n d a l a r m , n a k e d a n d u n a r m e d (Ant. 6.24). A t this p o i n t , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , the p e o p l e ask S a m u e l to i n t e r c e d e w i t h G - d in t h e i r behalf, a n d h e offers a sacrifice a n d p r a y s to G - d (1 S a m . 7:8). J o s e p h u s p l a c e s the e m p h a s i s o n the Israelites' loss o f c o u r a g e a n d t h u s e x p l a i n s their failure to rally t h e m s e l v e s (Ant. 6.24). W i t h this b u i l d u p , J o s e p h u s t h e n p l a c e s the
spodight
s q u a r e l y o n S a m u e l as the p e r s o n to w h o m the Israelites t u r n as the h o p e o f their s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 6.24). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o m the Israelites ask, t h r o u g h t h e intercession o f S a m u e l , to save t h e m (1 S a m . 7:8), in J o s e p h u s their h o p e is in S a m u e l as w e l l as in G - d (Ant. 6.24). S a m u e l t h e n fulfills their e x p e c t a tions b y n o t o n l y offering a sacrifice, as in the B i b l e (1 S a m . 7:9), b u t also, as A e n e a s ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 1.198-207) o r M o s e s (Ant. 2.327, 3.47, 3.300-1) o r a n y o t h e r
498
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
g o o d g e n e r a l w o u l d , b y e n c o u r a g i n g t h e p e o p l e , b i d d i n g t h e m to b e o f g o o d c h e e r (dappeiv),
a n d giving t h e m confidence b y promising that G - d will help them. A
possible c l u e t h a t J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n S a m u e l as a J e w i s h A e n e a s m a y b e f o u n d in t h e fact t h a t h e refers to o n e o f S a m u e l ' s sons as l u l u s (IovXos) (Ant 6 . 3 2 ) ,
16
an
o t h e r n a m e for A s c a n i u s , t h e s o n o f A e n e a s ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 1.267). It is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t t h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y follows for his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l , i n s t e a d r e a d s ' / O J ^ A , a transliteration o f t h e H e b r e w J o e l . Most
remarkable
is J o s e p h u s ' s
extrabiblical c o m m e n t
in w h i c h
Samuel
e m e r g e s as a fearless g e n e r a l . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d t h a t the Israelites a d v a n c e d f r o m M i z p a h a n d p u r s u e d t h e Philistines, w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n as to t h e identity o f their leader, let a l o n e a n a c t u a l m e n t i o n o f S a m u e l (1 S a m . 7:11), in J o s e p h u s , S a m u e l h i m s e l f is said t o h a v e r u s h e d (irre^epx^rui)
o u t u p o n t h e Philistines
w i t h his p e o p l e a n d h i m s e l f m a s s a c r e s m a n y o f t h e e n e m y w h i l e p u r s u i n g the rest (Ant 6.28). I n this c a m p a i g n , t h e B i b l e e m p h a s i z e s the h e l p t h a t G - d g a v e t h e Is raelites (1 S a m . 7:12), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , w i t h o u t d e n y i n g this h e l p , stresses t h e re sultant strength o f t h e Israelites t h e m s e l v e s (Ant 6.28). I n w h a t follows, the B i b l e states t h a t t h e Philistines w e r e s u b d u e d (1 S a m . 7:13). J o s e p h u s p a i n t s a n e x t r a b i b lical p i c t u r e o f S a m u e l t a k i n g the field (arparevaas)
a g a i n s t t h e Philistines, s l a y i n g
m u l t i t u d e s , a n d utterly h u m b l i n g their p r i d e (^povrjpLara) (Ant 6.30), a l m o s t as i f h e w e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c l i m a x o f a G r e e k tragedy, a n d r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e p r i d e o f the E g y p t i a n s , w h i c h G - d t a m e d w i t h diverse p l a g u e s , as M o s e s r e m i n d e d t h e Is raelites (Ant
3.86)
S a m u e l ' s ability in d i r e c t i n g m i l i t a r y affairs is likewise i m p l i e d w h e n the Philis tines m a s s a h u g e force a g a i n s t t h e Israelites. W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , S a m u e l tells t h e n e w l y a n o i n t e d K i n g S a u l t h a t h e w i l l c o m e t o h i m a n d tell h i m w h a t h e s h o u l d d o (1 S a m . 10:8), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is S a u l w h o r e c o g n i z e s S a m u e l ' s skill as a m i l i t a r y strategist b y s u m m o n i n g h i m to c o n f e r w i t h h i m c o n c e r n i n g t h e w a r a n d t h e situation (rrpaypLdrajv) in g e n e r a l (Ant 6.100). Temperance J o s e p h u s stresses the v a l u e o f t e m p e r a n c e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his criticism o f S a m u e l ' s sons. W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e stresses their p e r v e r s i o n o f j u s t i c e in t h a t t h e y t u r n e d aside after g a i n a n d a c c e p t e d b r i b e s (1 S a m . 8:3), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e y abandoned (Scairas
t h e m s e l v e s to l u x u r y (rpv^rjv)
and
sumptuous
(TroXvTeXeis) diets
" d i e t s , " " w a y s o f life") (Ant 6.34). T h a t J o s e p h u s is definitely c o n t r a s t i n g
the lavish diets o f the sons w i t h t h a t o f S a m u e l h i m s e l f is c l e a r f r o m his s t a t e m e n t t h a t in f o l l o w i n g s u c h a r e g i m e n , S a m u e l ' s sons w e r e a c t i n g in d e f i a n c e n o t o n l y o f G - d b u t also o f their o w n father (Ant 6.34).
16. This is the reading of two of the manuscripts (Regius Parisinus, dating from the fourteenth cen tury, and Oxoniensis, dating from the fifteenth century) and is adopted by Thackeray 1926-34, 182, in his Loeb edition. Other manuscripts read OVTJXOS or TocrjAos (IcurjX).
SAMUEL
S a m u e l ' s o w n m o d e r a t e c h a r a c t e r m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s
499
extrabiblical
s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n the Israelites i m p l o r e h i m to i n t e r c e d e w i t h G - d to forgive t h e m for t h e sin o f r e q u e s t i n g a king, t h e y call u p o n h i m as a k i n d " g o o d , " " n o b l e , " "friendly") a n d m o d e r a t e (imeiKij,
(xprjorov,
"gentle," "considerate," "un
d e r s t a n d i n g , " " g e n e r o u s , " " m a g n a n i m o u s , " " k i n d , " "friendly," " p e a c e a b l e " ) fa ther, t o r e n d e r G - d g r a c i o u s to t h e m so t h a t H e m a y forgive this sin (Ant. 6.92).
Justice T h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t S a m u e l " j u d g e d Israel in all those p l a c e s " (1 S a m . 7:16); J o s e p h u s , o n the contrary, a d d s a g o o d d e a l to this b l a n d s t a t e m e n t . Specifically, h e asserts t h a t S a m u e l j u d g e d the c a u s e s o f the p e o p l e a n d c o n t i n u e d for l o n g t o a d m i n i s t e r (iftpdftevev)
p e r f e c t ( T T O A A ^ V , " m u c h " ) j u s t i c e (evvopulav) (Ant. 6.31). T h e as
s o c i a t i o n o f S a m u e l w i t h the q u a l i t y o f evvopula h e r e w o u l d h a v e r e m i n d e d r e a d e r s o f Hesiod's personification
of Eunomia
as the d a u g h t e r
o f T h e m i s ("Law,"
" R i g h t , " "Justice," " C u s t o m " ) (Theogony 902), as w e l l as o f the title o f a f a m o u s p o e m b y T y r t a e u s (cf. A r i s t o d e , Politics 5.7.1307A1). It is significant t h a t w h e n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , A b s a l o m , the s o n o f D a v i d , w i s h e s to w i n the g o o d w i l l o f the m a s s e s w h o c o m e for j u d g m e n t , h e tells t h e m t h a t if h e h i m s e l f h a d the p o w e r to a d m i n i s t e r j u s t i c e , h e w o u l d d i s p e n s e full a n d p e r f e c t j u s t i c e to t h e m (Ant. 7.195); his p h r a s e for " p e r f e c t j u s t i c e , " TroXXrjv . . . evvopulav, is the s a m e as t h a t e m p l o y e d h e r e w i t h r e g a r d to S a m u e l . L i k e w i s e , w h e n D a v i d e x h o r t s the chiefs o f the p e o p l e to assist his s o n S o l o m o n in the b u i l d i n g o f the T e m p l e a n d , f e a r i n g n o evil, to d e v o t e t h e m s e l v e s w h o l l y to the w o r s h i p o f G - d , h e says, in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h a t as a r e w a r d for d o i n g so, t h e y w i l l e n j o y p e a c e a n d g o o d o r d e r (evvopulav), w i t h w h i c h G - d r e p a y s p i o u s , j u s t m e n (Ant. 7.341). I n J o s e p h u s , j u s t i c e (SuKauoavvrj) is o n e o f the four qualities t h a t G - d tells S a m u e l a r e c r u c i a l in a r u l e r (Ant. 6.160). A s for S a m u e l himself, in his final e x t r a b i b l i c a l e u l o g y o f h i m , J o s e p h u s singles o u t for s p e c i a l praise the fact t h a t h e w a s just
(SIKCUOS)
b y n a t u r e a n d c o n s e q u e n d y v e r y d e a r to G - d (Ant. 6.294).
J o s e p h u s stresses S a m u e l ' s skill in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t S a m u e l ' s sons w e r e j u d g e s in B e e r s h e b a (1 S a m . 8:2), J o s e p h u s shifts the initiative for this to S a m u e l in d e c l a r i n g t h a t S a m u e l c h a r g e d o n e o f his sons to sit in j u d g m e n t in B e t h e l a n d the o t h e r to d o so in B e e r s h e b a , a p p o r t i o n i n g the p e o p l e b e t w e e n t h e m (Ant. 6.32). O n the o t h e r h a n d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t S a m u e l ' s sons, in their p e r v e r s i o n o f j u s t i c e , a c t e d in d e f i a n c e o f their father, w h o d e v o t e d m u c h z e a l a n d c a r e to in stilling t h e i d e a o f j u s t i c e (Si/ccuov) e v e n into the m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 6.34). J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , p e r h a p s i n f l u e n c e d b y the stress t h a t T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.8) p l a c e s u p o n the i n c o r r u p t i b i l i t y o f Pericles, w h o m h e ( T h u c y dides) r e g a r d e d as the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , e m p h a s i z e s , in particular, t h a t S a m u e l the j u d g e w a s a b o v e s u s p i c i o n o f a c c e p t i n g b r i b e s o r gifts (Ant. 6.48). T h u s , w h e n S a u l d e c i d e s t o c o n s u l t S a m u e l for i n f o r m a t i o n as to the w h e r e a b o u t s o f his father's lost
joo
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
asses, h e tells his s e r v a n t t h a t h e h a s n o t h i n g to offer t h e p r o p h e t in r e t u r n for his o r a c l e , w h e r e u p o n t h e s e r v a n t replies t h a t h e h a s a q u a r t e r o f a s h e k e l (Ant. 6.47; see 1 S a m . 9 : 7 - 8 ) . A t this p o i n t , J o s e p h u s interjects t h e c o m m e n t t h a t their i g n o r a n c e o f t h e fact t h a t S a m u e l a c c e p t e d n o r e w a r d h a d m i s l e d t h e m (Ant. 6.48). L i k e w i s e c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is t h e e n o r m o u s responsibility t o tell t h e t r u t h . W h e n S a m u e l a d d r e s s e s t h e p e o p l e , h e simply, in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , i n o r d e r to stress his honesty, asks w h o s e o x h e h a s t a k e n a n d w h o m h e h a s d e f r a u d e d (1 S a m . 1 2 : 3 - 4 ) . J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s o n this t h e m e o f S a m u e l ' s h o n e s t y b y h a v i n g h i m tell t h e p e o p l e t o b e utterly frank, to s u p p r e s s n o t h i n g t h r o u g h fear, to s h o w n o fa v o r i t i s m t h r o u g h r e s p e c t , a n d t o d e c l a r e w h e t h e r h e h a s d o n e a n y t h i n g sinister o r unjust t h r o u g h l o v e o f g a i n (TrXeove&as) o r c u p i d i t y o r o u t o f f a v o r to o t h e r s (Ant. 6.86). I n reply, i n t h e b i b l i c a l text, t h e p e o p l e state t h a t h e h a s n o t d e f r a u d e d o r o p p r e s s e d t h e m (1 S a m . 12:4). I n J o s e p h u s , the r e s p o n s e is m o r e v e h e m e n t : t h e p e o p l e c r y o u t (dv€Kpayov)
t h a t h e h a s d o n e n o n e o f these things; a n d t h e n t h e y g e n
eralize, as t h e B i b l e d o e s n o t , t h a t h e h a s g o v e r n e d t h e n a t i o n w i t h h o l i n e s s (ootcos) a n d j u s t i c e ( S I K C U O J S ) (Ant. 6.87). One
a p p a r e n t stain o n S a m u e l ' s truthfulness is his a p p a r e n t r e a d i n e s s , w h e n
g o i n g to a n o i n t D a v i d as k i n g in p l a c e o f S a u l , to a c c e d e to G - d ' s s u g g e s t i o n that, if a s k e d w h e r e h e is g o i n g , h e s h o u l d r e p l y t h a t h e is o n his w a y to offer a sacrifice to G - d (1 S a m . 16:2). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , the s u g g e s t e d ruse is k e p t v a g u e , a n d w e a r e t o l d m e r e l y t h a t G - d " a d v i s e d h i m a n d p r o v i d e d h i m a w a y o f safety," thus s a v i n g t h e r e p u t a t i o n s o f b o t h G - d a n d S a m u e l for h o n e s t y (Ant. 6.157). C o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is t h e q u a l i t y o f k i n d n e s s t o o t h e r s . I n his final e u l o g y o f S a m u e l , J o s e p h u s singles o u t his k i n d l y (xprjoros)
n a t u r e , t o g e t h e r w i t h his j u s t i c e ,
as t h e r e a s o n s w h y h e is so d e a r to G - d (Ant. 6.294). W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , E l i calls S a m u e l a n d asks h i m to tell h i m w h a t G - d h a d t o l d h i m , a n d S a m u e l c o m p l i e s b y telling h i m e v e r y t h i n g t h a t G - d h a s said p e r t a i n i n g to the i m p e n d i n g d e a t h o f Eli's sons (1 S a m . 3 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l is m o r e c o n s i d e r a t e o f Eli's feelings a n d h a s t o b e c o n s t r a i n e d b y o a t h to r e v e a l t o E l i t h e c o n t e n t s o f G - d ' s r e m a r k s , since, as J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , S a m u e l is l o a t h to g r i e v e h i m b y t e l l i n g h i m (Ant. 5.351). M o r e o v e r , in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , t h e p e o p l e t u r n to S a m u e l to r e c o m m e n d t h a t h e a v e n g e t h o s e w h o o p p o s e d t h e a n o i n t i n g o f S a u l ; a n d it is S a u l w h o t h e n s h o w s his g o o d n a t u r e i n f o r b i d d i n g s u c h v e n g e a n c e (1 S a m . 11:12). J o s e p h u s , a w a r e t h a t this p r e s e n t a t i o n w o u l d serve t o c o n t r a s t S a u l ' s g e n d e n e s s a n d r e a d i n e s s to forgive u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h S a m u e l ' s a p p a r e n t sternness, o m i t s t h e c o n t r a s t altogether. T h e J o s e p h a n S a m u e l l i k e w i s e s h o w s his k i n d n e s s in his r e p e a t e d efforts to i n f l u e n c e G - d t o b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h S a u l after S a u l d i s o b e y s t h e d i v i n e c o m m a n d m e n t to w i p e o u t the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 6 . 1 4 3 - 4 5 ) . I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , S a m u e l is a n g r y (vayihar, p r e s u m a b l y in t h e sense o f " d i s t r e s s e d " o r " g r i e v e d " ) (1 S a m . 15:11), b u t in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , h e is d i s c o n c e r t e d (avvexvOrj) (Ant. 6.143)
a
n
d repeatedly
seeks to p e r s u a d e G - d to b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h S a u l (Ant. 6.151). S a m u e l also s h o w s g r e a t e r k i n d n e s s t o S a u l in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n t h a n i n t h e B i b l e . I n t h e latter, S a m u e l a c c e d e s t o S a u l ' s e n t r e a t y at least t o h o n o r h i m b e f o r e
SAMUEL
50/
the p e o p l e b y r e t u r n i n g w i t h h i m (1 S a m . 15:30-31). J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l g o e s e v e n further a n d w o r s h i p s t o g e t h e r w i t h S a u l (Ant. 6.154). C o n n e c t e d w i t h the q u a l i t y o f j u s t i c e is the v i r t u e o f s h o w i n g g r a t i t u d e . C o n v e r s e l y J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the i n g r a t i t u d e o f the Israelites i n a s k i n g for a k i n g — a r e q u e s t that, G - d says, w i l l c o n v i c t t h e m o f c o n t e m p t a n d o f a d o p t i n g a c o u r s e u n g r a t e f u l t o G - d a n d to S a m u e l ' s status as a p r o p h e t (Ant. 6.38). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a m u e l m e r e l y states w h a t G - d h a s d o n e for the Israelites, n a m e l y , t h a t h e h a s b r o u g h t t h e m o u t o f E g y p t a n d d e l i v e r e d t h e m f r o m all t h e n a t i o n s t h a t h a v e o p p r e s s e d t h e m (1 S a m . 10:18), J o s e p h u s h a s h i m e m p h a s i z e the t h e m e o f t h e in g r a t i t u d e o f t h e Israelites as u n m i n d f u l o f the benefits t h a t t h e y h a v e r e c e i v e d f r o m G-d
a n d r e j e c t i n g H i s s o v e r e i g n t y (Ant. 6.60). A t a later p o i n t , J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s
this t h e m e o f the i n g r a t i t u d e o f the Israelites. T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a m u e l recalls the r i g h t e o u s a c t o f G - d in b r i n g i n g forth their a n c e s t o r s f r o m E g y p t (1 S a m . 1 2 : 7 - 8 ) , J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l e v o k e s the b o n d a g e a n d g r i e v o u s o u t c r y o f the Is raelites in E g y p t (Ant. 6.89) a n d t h e n e x p l i c i d y a n d in the strongest t e r m s p o i n t s o u t their i n g r a t i t u d e b y s a y i n g t h a t after e n j o y i n g these benefits f r o m G - d , t h e y h a v e p r o v e n traitors t o H i s w o r s h i p a n d H i s r e l i g i o n (Ant. 6.90). Piety A s for t h e v i r t u e o f piety, w h e n , a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , S a m u e l is c a l l e d a t h i r d t i m e b y G - d , h e replies, " S p e a k , for t h y s e r v a n t h e a r s " (1 S a m . 3:10). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , S a m u e l uses the o c c a s i o n t o affirm his c o m p l e t e a n d u n d i v i d e d l o y a l t y to G-d,
p r o m i s i n g t h a t h e w i l l n o t fail to serve H i m in w h a t s o e v e r H e m i g h t desire
(Ant. 5.349). S a m u e l also d e m o n s t r a t e s his piety, in a n a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l t e x t (1 S a m . 13:11), w h e n , w e are told, h e p a y s S a u l a visit, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the w i l l (fiovXrjoLv) o f G - d , in o r d e r to p r e s i d e at the p r a y e r s a n d sacrifices o n b e h a l f o f t h e p e o p l e (Ant. 6.102). T h e w o r d povXrjois
is n o t u n r e l a t e d to Trpovoia a n d is u s e d fre
q u e n d y b y J o s e p h u s in r e f e r e n c e to the d i v i n e n o r m to w h i c h h u m a n b e h a v i o r should c o n f o r m (Attridge 1976, 7 4 - 7 5 ) .
1 7
S i m i l a r l y w h e n S a m u e l r e b u k e s S a u l for
n o t f o l l o w i n g the c o m m a n d m e n t o f G - d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the A m a l e k i t e s , h e tells h i m , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , t h a t to o b e y is b e t t e r t h a n to sacrifice (1 S a m . 15:22); in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , S a m u e l a d d s t h a t G - d delights o n l y in g o o d a n d r i g h t e o u s (8iKOLi'oi,s) m e n , n a m e l y , s u c h as f o l l o w H i s will (fiovXiqoei) (Ant. 6.147). J O S E P H U S ' S P O R T R A I T OF S A M U E L A S A L E S S O N IN P O L I T I C A L T H E O R Y J o s e p h u s insists t h a t it w a s in the h i g h e s t interest o f the Israelites to h a v e the best o f all rulers at their h e a d , n a m e l y , G - d Himself. W e see this e m p h a s i s , in p a r t i c u lar, w h e n the Israelites ask h i m to c h o o s e a k i n g for t h e m . W h e r e a s the B i b l e states
17. See Ant. 2.171 (Jacob) and Ant. 4.121, 127 (Balaam), cited by Attridge 1976a, 75.
J02
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
s i m p l y t h a t their r e q u e s t d i s p l e a s e d S a m u e l (i S a m . 8:6), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s at s o m e l e n g t h w h y S a m u e l w a s g r i e v e d b y it, n a m e l y , b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e right e o u s n e s s (oiKaioavvrjs)
a n d his h a t r e d o f k i n g s ; rather, h e w a s k e e n l y (heivois) e n
a m o r e d (rjrrrjro) o f aristocratic g o v e r n m e n t (rrjs apioTOKparlas)
(Ant. 6.36). W h e n
h e t h e n a d d s t h a t S a m u e l r e g a r d e d a r i s t o c r a c y as d i v i n e a n d p r o d u c t i v e o f bliss t o those w h o a d o p t it, J o s e p h u s is c l e a r l y t h i n k i n g o f a r i s t o c r a c y in the e t y m o l o g i c a l sense a n d is e q u a t i n g it, as h a s b e e n n o t e d , w i t h t h e o c r a c y . J o s e p h u s h a s a l o n g , e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in p r a i s e o f aristocracy, n o t i n g that this w a s the f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t o f the Israelites u n d e r M o s e s a n d J o s h u a , a n d that after J o s h u a ' s d e a t h , there w e r e e i g h t e e n y e a r s o f anarchy, after w h i c h t h e y r e s t o r e d aristocratic rule, e n t r u s t i n g s u p r e m e j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y to the o n e b r a v e s t in b a t d e (Ant. 6.83-85). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S a u l ' s m o n a r c h y , J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l text (1 S a m . 15:1), avers t h a t w h i l e S a u l h a d d o m i n i o n o v e r the nations, G - d h a d d o m i n i o n o v e r h i m , as w e l l as o v e r the n a t i o n s (Ant. 6.131). I f o n e w o n d e r s w h y J o s e p h u s , the p r o t e g e o f the R o m a n e m p e r o r s , s h o u l d h a v e h a d a p r o p h e t o f the stature o f S a m u e l e x p r e s s o u t r i g h t h a t r e d for k i n g s w h e n the R o m a n s w e r e b e i n g r u l e d b y e m p e r o r s w i t h a n iron h a n d at this v e r y t i m e , the a n s w e r is t h a t the R o m a n e m p e r o r s d u r i n g this p e r i o d a n d for m a n y y e a r s thereafter p r e s e n t e d t h e m s e l v e s n o t as k i n g s b u t as principes, "first c i t i z e n s , " a n d , i n d e e d , k e p t all the t r a p p i n g s o f r e p u b l i c a n g o v e r n m e n t . I n fact, after the e x p u l s i o n o f the last o f the e a r l y k i n g s , the v e r y w o r d rex w a s a n a t h e m a to t h e m , as C i c e r o r e m a r k s (De Re Publica 2.30.53). W h e n the r a b b i s (Sanhedrin 20b) c o m m e n t o n the Israelites' re q u e s t for a k i n g , t h e y focus o n the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t the Israelites s o u g h t a k i n g to j u d g e t h e m "like all the n a t i o n s " a n d o b j e c t to the assimilation this i m p l i e s 18
(1 S a m . 8:5). J o s e p h u s o m i t s this o b j e c t i o n a b l e p h r a s e a n d states t h a t the p e o p l e s o u g h t a k i n g t o w r e a k v e n g e a n c e u p o n t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.30). O n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t for J o s e p h u s , as for P l a t o in the Republic, is t y r a n n y T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e s c r i b e s the sons o f E l i the h i g h priest as b a s e m e n w h o d i d n o t k n o w t h e L - r d (1 S a m . 2:12) a n d w h o d e a l t c o n t e m p t u o u s l y w i t h the L - r d ' s offerings (1 S a m . 2:17), J o s e p h u s f o r m u l a t e s his d e n u n c i a t i o n o f t h e m in t e r m s o f classical p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y : their m a n n e r o f life dif f e r e d n o w h i t f r o m a t y r a n n y (Ant. 5.339). J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r a b l y amplifies the d e g r a d a t i o n that, S a m u e l w a r n s t h e m , the Israelites will suffer at the h a n d s o f a king, r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y will b e t r e a t e d as chattels at his will a n d p l e a s u r e a n d at the i m p u l s e o f his o t h e r p a s s i o n s (Ant. 6.61). H e a d d s a n o r i g i n a l r e a s o n w h y k i n g s are less c o n c e r n e d t h a n is G - d w i t h the w e l f a r e o f their subjects, n a m e l y , t h a t t h e y are n o t the p e o p l e ' s a u t h o r s a n d c r e a t o r s , as G - d is, a n d that, c o n s e q u e n d y t h e y will n o t l o v i n g l y strive to p r e s e r v e t h e m , w h e r e a s G - d will c h e r i s h t h e m . J o s e p h u s says m o s t e m p h a t i c a l l y that it w a s the tyrants o f the J e w s w h o d r e w d o w n u p o n the
18. Also Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:5; Sanhedrin 20b; Sifre Deuteronomy 156; Midrash Tannaim 103-4; Mekilta Devarim 5 - 6 ; and Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 5 . 8 - 1 1 , cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:230, n. 47.
SAMUEL
303
h o l y T e m p l e the u n w i l l i n g h a n d s o f the R o m a n s (War 1.10). O n n o f e w e r t h a n thirty o c c a s i o n s in the War, h e a p p l i e s the w o r d " t y r a n t s " to the l e a d e r s o f the J e w ish r e b e l s a g a i n s t R o m a n rule. T h r o u g h o u t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , o n e c a n see J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e c u r r e n t situation in his o w n day. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says v e r y s i m p l y t h a t S a m u e l ' s sons d i d n o t w a l k in the w a y s o f their father (1 S a m . 8:3), J o s e p h u s uses the o c c a s i o n to p r e a c h a lesson in politics, n o t i n g that S a m u e l ' s sons furnish a c l e a r illustration a n d p r o o f t h a t sons n e e d n o t b e similar in c h a r a c t e r to their fathers, a n d that, in fact, s o m e t i m e s g o o d , h o n e s t folk are s p r u n g f r o m k n a v e s , w h i l e the offspring o f v i r t u o u s p a r e n t s h a v e p r o v e d to b e d e p r a v e d (Ant. 6.33). I n his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l , J o s e p h u s b e t r a y s his c o n t e m p t for t h e m a s s e s . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , h e r e m a r k s t h a t S a m u e l d e v o t e d m u c h z e a l a n d c a r e t o instilling t h e i d e a o f r i g h t e o u s n e s s (oUaiov)
even i n t o the m u l t i t u d e
(7rXrj0og) (Ant. 6.34). T h i s s a m e m u l t i t u d e , in insisting, d e s p i t e S a m u e l ' s w a r n i n g s o f w h a t a k i n g w i l l d o t o t h e m , t h a t S a m u e l find t h e m a k i n g , is d e s c r i b e d , in a c o m m e n t w i t h o u t b i b l i c a l basis (1 S a m . 8:19), as foolish (dvorjTov) a n d o b s t i n a t e (SVGKOXOV)
(Ant. 6.43). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t t h e p e o p l e r e f u s e d t o
listen t o S a m u e l (1 S a m . 8:19), J o s e p h u s stresses t h e t h o u g h t l e s s n e s s o f t h e m a s s e s b y s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y p r e s s e d h i m i m p o r t u n a t e l y (Xt-n-apcos) a n d insisted t h a t h e s h o u l d e l e c t t h e i r k i n g i m m e d i a t e l y a n d t a k e n o t h o u g h t o f t h e future (Ant. 6.43). J o s e p h u s w a s in s o m e t h i n g o f a q u a n d a r y in p r e s e n t i n g S a m u e l ' s r e a c t i o n to the Israelites' r e q u e s t for a king. O n the o n e h a n d , w e are told, as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h a t b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e r i g h t e o u s n e s s , S a m u e l h a t e d k i n g s a n d w a s k e e n l y e n a m o r e d o f aristocratic g o v e r n m e n t (Ant. 6.36); a n d y e t , u l t i m a t e l y S a m u e l l a c k e d the b a c k b o n e to persist in refusing their request. J o s e p h u s ' s s o l u t i o n to this d i l e m m a is to a b s o l v e S a m u e l o f b l a m e b y stressing h o w m u c h a n x i e t y (<j>povTioos) a n d t o r m e n t (fiaodvov) the r e q u e s t c a u s e d h i m , so that h e h a d n o t h o u g h t for f o o d o r s l e e p w h i l e t u r n i n g o v e r the m a t t e r in his m i n d t h r o u g h o u t the n i g h t (Ant. 6.37). H e also e m p h a s i z e s the n e e d for a s t r o n g r u l e r to a v e n g e the attacks m a d e u p o n the Israelites b y the Philistines (Ant. 6.36). A n d y e t his S a m u e l d o e s w a r n the p e o p l e o f the d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in k i n g s h i p , since p o w e r c o r r u p t s (Ant. 6 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) .
19
M o r e o v e r , h e e m b e l l i s h e s the B i b l e ' s o w n n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t s a b o u t the i m p o s i tions t h a t k i n g s will p l a c e u p o n the Israelite w o m e n (1 S a m . 8:13) b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y will s u b j e c t t h e m to e v e r y m e n i a l task that h a n d m a i d s m u s t p e r f o r c e p e r f o r m f r o m fear o f w h i p p i n g a n d t o r t u r e (Ant. 6.41). W h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, S a m u e l o b j e c t s to the p e o p l e ' s d e m a n d for a k i n g o n the g r o u n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d
19. Attridge 1976a, 173, n. 1, cites a parallel in Dionysius o f Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 5.71) on the
dangers inherent in the appointment o f a dictator, and on the likelihood, as in the case o f Lars Porsena (Ant. Rom. 5.21.2), that power, once attained, w o u l d corrupt as m u c h as wealth.
504
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
h a v e r e g a r d e d G - d H i m s e l f as their k i n g (i S a m . 12:12), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l is m u c h m o r e v e h e m e n t a n d o u t s p o k e n . H e says t h a t h e will tell t h e m w i t h all b o l d ness (rrapprjaias,
" c a n d o r " ) h o w g r e a t a n i m p i e t y t h e y h a v e s h o w n t o w a r d G - d in
r e q u e s t i n g a k i n g (Ant. 6.88). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , h e stresses t h a t G - d d e l i v e r e d t h e m f r o m their distress in E g y p t w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e t o a k i n g (Ant. 6.89). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e n o t e s t h a t G - d sent v a r i o u s j u d g e s t o d e l i v e r the Israelites f r o m their e n e m i e s (1 S a m . 12:11), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l spells o u t m a t t e r s , p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t it w a s n o t u n d e r t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f k i n g s b u t o f j u d g e s as g e n e r a l s t h a t t h e y h a d s u c c e e d e d in r o u t i n g their e n e m i e s (Ant. 6.90). W h a t m a d n e s s (avota), h e v e r y l o g ically asks in c o n c l u s i o n , h a s n o w p o s s e s s e d t h e Israelites t h a t t h e y w a n t t o flee the G - d w h o h a s s a v e d t h e m a n d seek t o h a v e a k i n g ? (Ant. 6.90). I n v i e w o f t h e v e h e m e n t o b j e c t i o n o f G - d a n d o f S a m u e l to the Israelites' re q u e s t for a k i n g , o n e m a y w e l l ask w h y J o s e p h u s w o u l d w a n t to p r e s e n t t h e Is raelites in s u c h a b a d light. T h e a n s w e r m a y b e f o u n d in t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e Israelites confess to S a m u e l t h a t t h e y h a v e s i n n e d in a s k i n g for a k i n g (1 S a m . 12:19), J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s t h e m as n o t m e r e l y c o n f e s s i n g their sin b u t as say i n g t h a t t h e y s i n n e d t h r o u g h i g n o r a n c e (KCLT* dyvotav), a n d h e n c e p r e s u m a b l y a r e m o r e d e s e r v i n g o f forgiveness (Ant. 6.92). T h e Israelites, S a m u e l insists, o u g h t n o t t o b e c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o y e a r n for lib erty, b u t s h o u l d d o t h e d e e d s n e c e s s a r y to attain it (Ant. 6.20). J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l t e x t (1 S a m . 10:19), e m p h a s i z e s t h e l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav) G-d
granted
them
in d e l i v e r i n g t h e m
from
E g y p t (Ant.
6.60). W h e n
that the
Philistines, a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , m u s t e r a h u g e a r m y a g a i n s t t h e Israelites a n d r e d u c e t h e m to t r e m b l i n g (1 S a m . 1 3 : 5 - 7 ) , S a u l , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , sends h e r alds t h r o u g h o u t
t h e c o u n t r y to c a l l u p the p e o p l e in t h e n a m e
o f liberty
(eXevSepiav) t o w a r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.98). O n l y after m a k i n g this r o u s i n g a p p e a l , d o e s S a m u e l s p e a k — a n d in t h e m o s t g e n e r a l t e r m s — o f the n e e d o f t h e Israelites t o t u r n their h e a r t s to G - d a n d to live righteously.
APOLOGETICS W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , S a m u e l is r e p r e s e n t e d as telling t h e Israelites t h a t if t h e y p u t a w a y their f o r e i g n g o d s a n d t h e A s h t a r o t a n d d i r e c t their h e a r t s to G - d , t h e y w i l l b e d e l i v e r e d f r o m t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:3), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e w o r s h i p o f t h e f o r e i g n g o d s (Ant. 6.19). P r e s u m a b l y , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e n o n j e w s w h o m a d e u p m o s t o f his a u d i e n c e m i g h t b e o f f e n d e d b y s u c h a r e f e r e n c e , a n d his S a m u e l i n s t e a d speaks to t h e Israelites o f l i b e r t y (eXevdepia) a n d o f the blessings t h a t it b r i n g s . A c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , w h e n t h e Israelites ask S a m u e l for a k i n g , t h e y specifi c a l l y r e q u e s t t h a t h e c h o o s e a k i n g for t h e m to j u d g e t h e m "like all n a t i o n s " (1 S a m . 8:5). A s w e see f r o m S a m u e l ' s s t r o n g l y n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e , h e o b j e c t e d v e h e m e n d y to the i d e a o f a k i n g , b u t also, m o r e particularly, to t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t
SAMUEL
505
t h e y w i s h e d to b e like o t h e r n a t i o n s i n s t e a d o f m a i n t a i n i n g their u n i q u e i d e n t i t y .
20
Josephus, a p p a r e n d y realizing that such a request a n d such a reaction o n the part o f S a m u e l w o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as a n a t t a c k u p o n t h e w a y o t h e r n a t i o n s , p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g t h e R o m a n s , w e r e g o v e r n e d , s i m p l y o m i t s t h e c l a u s e " n o w m a k e us a k i n g t o j u d g e us like all t h e n a t i o n s . " I n s t e a d , t h e Israelites' r e q u e s t cites t h e n e cessity o f w r e a k i n g v e n g e a n c e u p o n their g r e a t e n e m y , t h e Philistines. T h e b i b l i c a l S a m u e l s e e m s to s h o w a c o m p l e t e l a c k o f h u m a n i t y , h o w e v e r , in h e w i n g t h e A m a l e k i t e k i n g A g a g t o p i e c e s b e f o r e the L - r d in G i l g a l (1 S a m . 15:33). A s i d e f r o m w h a t w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e s h e e r c r u e l t y o f d o i n g so, a n o t h e r p r o b l e m is t h a t S a m u e l w a s a p p a r e n d y a N a z i r i t e a n d h e n c e f o r b i d d e n t o c o m e i n t o contact with a corpse.
21
J o s e p h u s dissociates S a m u e l f r o m this g r u e s o m e a c t b y
h a v i n g h i m rather order A g a g to b e put to d e a t h ,
2 2
j u s t as in J o s e p h u s , it is n o t E l i c
j a h himself, as in t h e B i b l e (1 K i n g s 18:40), w h o kills t h e p r o p h e t s o f B a a l b u t r a t h e r t h e Israelites w h o w i t n e s s t h e c o n t e s t (Ant. 8.343).
" I M P R O V E M E N T S " T O THE STORY: C L A R I F I C A T I O N S A N D I N C R E A S E D S U S P E N S E AND
DRAMA
O n e b a s i c r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s w r o t e his p a r a p h r a s e o f S c r i p t u r e w a s t o c l e a r u p o b s c u r i t i e s in t h e b i b l i c a l text. O n e s u c h difficulty is S a m u e l ' s telling S a u l , after a n o i n t i n g h i m as k i n g , t h a t h e s h o u l d g o d o w n to G i l g a l , a n d t h a t S a m u e l will c o m e t o h i m (1 S a m . 10:8). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n h e r e s e e m s to b e t h a t S a u l s h o u l d g o at o n c e t o G i l g a l , w h e r e a s in p o i n t o f fact m u c h t i m e elapses b e f o r e t h e m e e t i n g b e t w e e n S a u l a n d S a m u e l a c t u a l l y takes p l a c e there. J o s e p h u s , q u i t e c l e a r l y a w a r e o f t h e difficulty, resolves it b y h a v i n g S a m u e l tell S a u l to g o t o G i l g a l " w h e n s u m m o n e d b y m e " (Ant. 6.57). A n o t h e r o b s c u r i t y in t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t is t h e p a s s a g e in w h i c h t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r , after c a l l i n g forth S a m u e l f r o m t h e d e a d , says t o S a u l , " W h y hast t h o u d e c e i v e d m e ? for t h o u art S a u l " (1 S a m . 28:12). T h e r e a d e r will, o f c o u r s e , w o n d e r h o w she w a s t h u s a b l e to r e c o g n i z e S a u l . J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r the s o u r c e o f h e r k n o w l e d g e : S a m u e l reveals S a u l ' s i d e n t i t y t o h e r (Ant. 6 . 3 3 2 ) .
23
J o s e p h u s also tries t o i n c r e a s e t h e d r a m a t i c interest o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e .
20. R a b b i Eliezer in the T a l m u d states that in requesting a king, the elders were acting properly, whereas the masses acted unworthily in seeking a king w h o w o u l d m a k e them like all other nations (Sanhedrin 20b). 21. Josephus makes clear Samuel's Nazirite status by noting that H a n n a h promised that her first b o r n should be consecrated to the service o f G - d and that his m a n n e r o f life (Sicurav) should b e unlike that o f ordinary m e n (Ant. 5.344). 22. Pseudo-Philo, although he often agrees with Josephus, nevertheless follows the biblical text here in asserting that S a m u e l himself killed A g a g (Bib. Ant. 58.4). 23. R a b b i n i c tradition also recognizes this problem, and resolves it, similarly to Josephus, by hav ing S a m u e l , through his deferential posture, intimate to the witch o f E n d o r that a king is present (Midrash Samuel 24.4; Tanhuma Emor [ed. Buber] 4).
jo6
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
T h u s , in the c a s e o f S a m u e l , t h e r e is g r e a t e r d r a m a in the a c c o u n t o f his birth. A c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , E l k a n a h ' s o t h e r wife, P e n i n a h , v e x e d H a n n a h , so t h a t she w e p t (i S a m . 1:7). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the d r a m a b y o m i t t i n g t h e v e x a t i o n o f H a n nah by Peninah
2 4
a n d i n s t e a d p a i n t s a p i c t u r e o f H a n n a h b u r s t i n g i n t o tears a n d
b e w a i l i n g h e r b a r r e n n e s s a n d l o n e s o m e lot as she b e h o l d s t h e c h i l d r e n o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s o t h e r w i f e s e a t e d a r o u n d their m o t h e r (Ant. 5.343). I n his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s role in t h w a r t i n g the a t t a c k o f t h e Philistines, J o s e p h u s a d d s d r a m a t i c details. T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t t h e Israelites w e r e afraid o f t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:7), J o s e p h u s p a i n t s their fear i n m u c h d a r k e r c o l o r s : the Israelites a r e d i s m a y e d a n d a r e p l u n g e d i n t o c o n f u s i o n a n d a l a r m (Ant. 6.24). T h e y confess to S a m u e l t h a t their c o u r a g e h a s flagged t h r o u g h fear a n d t h e m e m o r y o f their f o r m e r defeat. T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the m i r a c l e s w r o u g h t b y G - d in d i s c o m f i t i n g the Philistines. W h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d sent a g r e a t t h u n d e r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:10), J o s e p h u s h a s e m b e l l i s h e d the t e r r o r b y d e s c r i b i n g the fiery l i g h t n i n g t h a t H e flashed
a r o u n d t h e m , " a s it w e r e to b u r n o u t their e y e s , " a n d b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t H e
struck t h e w e a p o n s f r o m their h a n d s a n d so t u r n e d t h e m w e a p o n l e s s to
flight.
J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d a n e a r t h q u a k e , w h i c h h e d e s c r i b e s v e r y g r a p h i c a l l y as " r o c k i n g a n d m a k i n g t r e m u l o u s a n d t r e a c h e r o u s the g r o u n d b e n e a t h t h e m , so t h a t f r o m its reeling, their footsteps s t a g g e r e d , a n d at its p a r t i n g , t h e y w e r e e n g u l f e d in s u n d r y o f its c h a s m s " (Ant. 6.27). T h e r e is l i k e w i s e i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s a p p o i n t m e n t o f S a u l as king. I n t h e B i b l e , it is d u r i n g t h e d a y t h a t G - d a p p e a r s to S a m u e l to r e v e a l S a u l ' s f o r t h c o m i n g visit (1 S a m . 9:15). I n J o s e p h u s , as i n P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. (56.3), the s c e n e is m o r e d r a m a t i c , i n t h a t it is d u r i n g t h e n i g h t t h a t G - d a p p e a r s to S a m u e l (Ant. 6.37-40). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e p e o p l e c o u l d n o t e a t until S a m u e l arrives a n d blesses the sacrifice (1 S a m . 9:12), in J o s e p h u s , the e v e n t is m u c h m o r e g l a m o r o u s , i n a s m u c h as S a m u e l is d e p i c t e d as b e i n g the a c t u a l h o s t o f a feast at w h i c h h e is e n t e r t a i n i n g m a n y (Ant. 6.48). T h e feast itself is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as, w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e there a r e o n l y a b o u t thirty p e r s o n s p r e s e n t (1 S a m . 9:20), in J o s e p h u s , n o t o n l y is t h e n u m b e r i n c r e a s e d , b u t , s i g n i f i c a n d y w h e r e a s t h e S e p t u a g i n t states t h a t there w e r e a b o u t s e v e n t y m e n , J o s e p h u s specifies p r e c i s e l y s e v e n t y (Ant. 6.52), in a c l e a r r e m i n i s c e n c e o f t h e s e v e n t y elders w h o assisted M o s e s ( N u m . 11:24)
a n <
^ °f
t n e
seventy-
o n e m e m b e r s o f t h e S a n h e d r i n in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s p r o t e s t a g a i n s t the Israelites' d e m a n d for a king. I n the B i b l e , S a m u e l calls u p o n G - d t o i n d i c a t e his displeasure w i t h the p e o p l e ' s d e m a n d , a n d w e a r e t o l d t h a t G - d sent t h u n d e r a n d r a i n o n t h a t d a y (1 S a m . 12:17). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , G - d acts n o t o n l y o n t h a t
24. A l t h o u g h Pseudo-Philo frequendy parallels Josephus, here, in contrast to Josephus, he repre sents Peninah as reproaching H a n n a h every day (Bib. Ant. 50.1-2).
SAMUEL
507
d a y b u t d o e s so i m m e d i a t e l y j u s t as H e sends n o t o n l y t h u n d e r b u t l i g h t n i n g a n d h a i l (Ant. 6.92). O n e o f t h e w a y s i n w h i c h J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s interest in his n a r r a t i v e is b y in c r e a s i n g suspense. I n the c a s e o f S a m u e l , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d t h a t t h e Philistines d r e w n e a r to b a t d e a g a i n s t t h e Israelites as S a m u e l w a s offering u p a b u r n t offering (1 S a m . 7:10), J o s e p h u s intensifies t h e suspense c o n s i d e r a b l y T h e v i c t i m is still u p o n the altar, G - d ' s s a c r e d f l a m e n o t y e t h a v i n g w h o l l y c o n s u m e d it, w h e n t h e e n e m y forces e n t e r t h e Israelites' c a m p a n d d r a w u p for b a t d e , e x p e c t a n t o f victory, t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e c a u g h t t h e Israelites o f f g u a r d , i n a h o p e l e s s p l i g h t , u n a r m e d a n d n o t a n t i c i p a t i n g b a t d e (Ant. 6.26). T h e r e is also i n c r e a s e d suspense in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s c h o i c e o f S a u l as king. I n the B i b l e , G - d e x p l i c i d y tells S a m u e l t h a t a m a n will c o m e f r o m t h e tribe o f B e n j a m i n t h e n e x t d a y a t a b o u t t h a t t i m e , w h o m h e is to a n o i n t (1 S a m . 9 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) . J o s e p h u s builds u p the suspense b y a d d i n g t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y S a m u e l h a d a s s e m b l e d so m a n y for his feast w a s t h a t h e h a d b e e n p r a y i n g d a i l y to G - d to r e v e a l to h i m w h o m H e w o u l d m a k e k i n g (Ant. 6.49). T h e r e is further suspense in that, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t S a m u e l w e n t o u t t o w a r d S a u l a n d his s e r v a n t (1 S a m . 9:14), in J o s e p h u s , S a m u e l is s e a t e d u p o n a h o u s e t o p a n x i o u s l y a w a i t i n g t h e p r e c i s e t i m e at w h i c h G - d h a s p r o m i s e d t h a t the m a n will a r r i v e w h o m h e is to a n o i n t as k i n g (Ant. 6.49).
SUMMARY T h a t S a m u e l w a s o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to J o s e p h u s m a y b e s e e n f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e d e v o t e s m o r e s p a c e to h i m , relative to the b i b l i c a l o r i g i n a l , t h a n to a n y o t h e r p r o p h e t . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y striking t h a t w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e refers to S a m u e l as a p r o p h e t o n l y o n c e , J o s e p h u s calls h i m a p r o p h e t o r m e n t i o n s his p r o p h e s y i n g o n forty-five o c c a s i o n s . A p p a r e n d y S a m u e l d i d n o t h a v e t h e d r a w b a c k s for J o s e p h u s o f E l i j a h , w h o s e z e a l o t r y w a s e m b a r r a s s i n g to J o s e p h u s , o r o f D a n i e l , w h o s e p r o p h e c y o f the overthrow o f the R o m a n E m p i r e must have m a d e Josephus, the p r o t e g e o f t h e R o m a n s , r a t h e r s q u e a m i s h . H e n c e , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t h e h a s a m u c h l o n g e r e n c o m i u m for S a m u e l t h a n for e i t h e r E l i j a h o r D a n i e l . J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i z e s t h e a n n u n c i a t i o n o f the b i r t h o f S a m u e l m o r e t h a n t h e B i b l e , b u t h e is careful t o a v o i d p r e s e n t i n g h i m as a m e s s i a h - l i k e figure, as d o e s his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y , P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical
Antiquities.
J o s e p h u s also e m p h a s i z e s S a m u e l ' s q u a l i t y o f l e a d e r s h i p in s e a r c h i n g for S a u l w h e n t h e latter d i s a p p e a r s after b e i n g c h o s e n as king. I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , S a m u e l is n o t a m e r e m o u t h p i e c e o r t o o l o f G - d , a n d n e i t h e r is h e s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e h i g h priest, E l i . A s a t r u e leader, h e is c o n c e r n e d for the m a s s e s . H i s l e a d e r ship is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his role as a p r o p h e t , e s p e c i a l l y in p r e d i c t i n g t h e future accurately I n line w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , S a m u e l is p r e s e n t e d
508
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
as p o s s e s s i n g the f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s tice, t o g e t h e r w i t h the fifth v i r t u e o f piety. H i s w i s d o m is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n , a q u a l i t y t h a t w a s a k e y to the success o f Pericles, the l e a d e r w h o m T h u c y d i d e s , J o s e p h u s ' s m o d e l as a historian, a d m i r e d so m u c h . S a m u e l ' s ability a n d c o u r a g e as a g e n e r a l , as w e l l as his p o w e r to e n c o u r a g e the Israelite army, are m u c h m o r e c o n s p i c u o u s in J o s e p h u s t h a n in the B i b l e . J o s e p h u s also stresses S a m u e l ' s m o d e r a t e c h a r a c t e r a n d e s p e c i a l l y his t e m p e r a n c e , as c o m p a r e d w i t h his s o n s ' l a c k o f this q u a l i t y in their diets. J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t S a m u e l a d m i n i s t e r e d p e r f e c t j u s t i c e , a g a i n i n c o n t r a s t w i t h the p e r v e r s i o n o f j u s t i c e b y his sons. H e stresses his incorruptibility, a n o t h e r q u a l i t y t h a t T h u c y d i d e s e m p h a s i z e s in his p o r t r a y a l o f Pericles. T h e o n e c a s e w h e r e
G-d
s e e m s t o a d v i s e S a m u e l t o b e less t h a n h o n e s t is k e p t v a g u e in J o s e p h u s , t h u s sav i n g the r e p u t a t i o n s o f b o t h G - d a n d S a m u e l . C o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the q u a l i t y o f kindness, w h i c h S a m u e l s h o w s i n t r y i n g u n c e a s i n g l y to i n f l u e n c e G - d to forgive S a u l for his d i s o b e d i e n c e o f the d i v i n e c o m m a n d to e x t e r m i n a t e the A m a l e k i t e s . A s for piety, S a m u e l affirms his c o m p l e t e a n d u n d i v i d e d l o y a l t y t o G - d . J o s e p h u s uses the n a r r a t i v e o f S a m u e l to p r e s e n t his p o l i t i c a l philosophy, p a r ticularly as to the best f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , w h i c h h e e q u a t e s w i t h t h e o c r a c y . T h e w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , for J o s e p h u s as for P l a t o , w h o m h e m u c h a d m i r e d , is tyranny. A g a i n like P l a t o , h e s h o w s c o n t e m p t for the masses. J o s e p h u s uses the S a m u e l story to a n s w e r anti-Jewish c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t the J e w s w e r e g u i l t y o f h a t i n g non-Jews, their religions, a n d their w a y s . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a m u e l o b j e c t s s t r o n g l y t o the Israelites' r e q u e s t for a k i n g to j u d g e t h e m in the m a n n e r o f o t h e r n a t i o n s , J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t s u c h a r e a c t i o n o n the p a r t o f S a m u e l m i g h t b e c o n s t r u e d as a criticism o f the g o v e r n m e n t s o f o t h e r n a t i o n s , o m i t s this p a r t o f their r e q u e s t . J o s e p h u s seeks to i m p r o v e the q u a l i t y o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b y c l e a r i n g u p s u c h obscurities as h o w the w i t c h o f E n d o r w a s a b l e to r e c o g n i z e the identity o f S a u l . F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the d r a m a t i c interest o f the s t o r y e s p e c i a l l y in his a c c o u n t s o f S a m u e l ' s b i r t h a n d o f his success in o v e r c o m i n g the a t t a c k o f the Philistines, as w e l l as in his v e r s i o n o f the p e o p l e ' s r e q u e s t for a k i n g a n d o f S a m u e l ' s c o n s e q u e n t protest. Finally, t h e r e is i n c r e a s e d suspense in J o s e p h u s ' s n a r rative, e s p e c i a l l y in his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s c h o i c e o f S a u l as king.
C H A P T E R
F O U R T E E N
Saul
J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f S a u l , e s p e c i a l l y the a p o l o g e t i c glorification o f his h e r o , is in a c c o r d w i t h t h e h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l ideals o f his p r e d e c e s s o r s in the I s o c r a t e a n a n d 1
A r i s t o t e l i a n s c h o o l s . T h e s h e e r a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s to his a c c o u n t o f S a u l is a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f the i m p o r t a n c e t h a t h e a t t a c h e d to h i m . H e d e v o t e s 2.19 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e (2,332 lines) t o S a u l (Ant. 6.45-7.6) as d o e s t h e I
H e b r e w t e x t (1 S a m . 9 : 1 - 2 S a m . 1:27) ( ? ° 6 5 lines). M o r e o v e r , w h a t is e v e n m o r e i m p r e s s i v e is t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e to his e n c o m i u m o f S a u l (Ant. 6 . 3 4 3 - 5 0 : 55 lines in G r e e k in the L o e b edition) as to his e n c o m i u m o f M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 4 . 3 2 8 - 3 1 : 18 lines in G r e e k in the L o e b edition) o r o f D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 : 16 lines in G r e e k in t h e L o e b edition), f o u r t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i u m o f S a m u e l
(Ant.
6 . 2 9 2 - 9 4 : 13 lines in G r e e k in the L o e b text), a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i a o f I s a a c (Ant. 1.346), J a c o b (Ant. 2.196), J o s e p h (Ant. 2.198), J o s h u a (Ant. 5.188), S a m s o n (Ant. 5.317), a n d S o l o m o n (Ant. 8. 211). I n d e e d , t h e r e is n o s c r i p t u r a l figure a b o u t w h o m J o s e p h u s h a s as m u c h to say b y w a y o f m o r a l i z i n g c r i t i c i s m as h e d o e s a b o u t S a u l (Ant. 6 . 2 6 2 - 6 7 ) . W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l c h a p ters d e a l i n g w i t h S a u l (1 S a m . 9 - 3 1 ) , h e is f r o m t i m e to t i m e o v e r s h a d o w e d b y S a m u e l a n d D a v i d , this is h a r d l y t r u e in J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f h i m , w h e r e , in d e e d , S a u l e m e r g e s as a g r a n d , h e r o i c , a n d t r a g i c
figure
reminiscent o f the
I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . W h e r e a s in c e r t a i n p a s s a g e s o f t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 1 4 : 3 6 - 4 4 , 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 8 : 2 0 - 2 9 , 1 9 : 1 1 - 2 4 , 20:20-34), S a u l a p p e a r s to b e a n o u t r i g h t v i l l a i n , a n d in o t h e r s h e s e e m s e n i g m a t i c (1 S a m . 1 3 : 5 - 1 5 ) (see H u m p h r e y s 1980, 7 4 - 9 0 ) , J o s e p h u s , w i t h o u t w h i t e w a s h i n g h i m c o m p l e t e l y , p r e s e n t s a m u c h
1. There has been no previous full-length treatment of Josephus's portrait of Saul. For a brief sur vey, see Holladay 1977, 67-78. 509
j/o
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m o r e f a v o r a b l e p o r t r a i t o f S a u l . P e r h a p s J o s e p h u s w a s c o n c e r n e d to offset the n e g ative p i c t u r e o f S a u l t h a t w o u l d result f r o m f o c u s i n g o n the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f i S a m . 28: 1 6 - 2 0 , w h e r e w e l e a r n o f his d i s o b e d i e n c e a n d p u n i s h m e n t (see A t t r i d g e 1976, 114). C e r t a i n l y , w e c a n n o t d o u b t t h a t the figure o f S a u l in the B i b l e is t h a t o f a c o u r a g e o u s a n d m o d e s t leader, w h o s e v i r t u e s are, h o w e v e r , m a r r e d b y a s t r o n g streak o f s u s p i c i o n a n d m a d n e s s . I n o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f his c h a r a c t e r , w e see o p p o s i n g trends, n o t a b l y in t h a t o f the T a l m u d i c r a b b i s , w h o s o u g h t to e x a g g e r a t e his virtues, a n d in t h a t o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o i n his Biblical Antiquities d e p i c t s S a u l as w i c k e d a n d c o w a r d l y , o n e w h o is n o t c a l l e d " t h e a n o i n t e d , " the b u r d e n o f w h o s e s e l e c t i o n rests w i t h S a m u e l , w i t h G - d ' s role d i m i n i s h e d , a n d w h o m G - d e m p l o y s as H i s r o d in s m i t i n g the J e w s b e f o r e the a d 2
v e n t o f K i n g D a v i d . I n the c a s e o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s w a s f a c e d w i t h the p r o b l e m o f t r y i n g t o r e c o n c i l e the b i b l i c a l tradition's p r a i s e o f o n e h e r o (Saul) w i t h its e v e n g r e a t e r p r a i s e for his m o r t a l foe, D a v i d ; a n d his p i c t u r e o f S a u l c o n s e q u e n t l y o c c u p i e s a m e a n p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n those o f the r a b b i s a n d o f P s e u d o - P h i l o . M o r e over, the r a b b i s u n d e r s c o r e the s u p e r n a t u r a l a s p e c t o f S a u l ' s h e r o i s m , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , as is his w o n t , d o w n g r a d e s this. L i k e A c h i l l e s , w h o d e l i b e r a t e l y c h o o s e s a short a n d g l o r i o u s life in p r e f e r e n c e to a l o n g life d e v o i d o f glory, a n d like H e c t o r i n t h e Iliad a n d T u r n u s in the Aeneid, w h o e n t e r their final battles k n o w i n g t h a t t h e y m u s t die, S a u l prefers to o b t a i n p r a i s e a n d a n ageless r e n o w n a n d t h u s to w i n a r e p u t a t i o n as truly wise, b r a v e , self-controlled, a n d j u s t — t h e four c a r d i n a l virtues o f the G r e e k s — t h i s in c o n t r a s t w i t h the p i c t u r e o f h i m in r a b b i n i c literature, w h e r e S a u l dies r e p e n t i n g o f his sins in n o t o b e y i n g G - d ' s i n j u n c t i o n to w i p e o u t the A m a l e k i t e s a n d in p u t t i n g to d e a t h the h i g h priest A b i m e l e c h a n d his k i n a n d the p e o p l e o f N o b . A l l this w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d S a u l as o n e o f his f o r e m o s t p a r a d i g m s in d e v e l o p i n g the g o a l s o f his w o r k , b o t h i n t e r m s o f his g e n e r a l a i m s as a H e l l e n i s t i c h i s t o r i o g r a p h e r a n d o f his m o r e specific a p o l o g e t i c aims.
THE A G G R A N D I Z E M E N T OF THE C H A R A C T E R OF S A U L I n the first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s interjects a n u m b e r o f t o u c h e s s i m p l y to a g g r a n d i z e the c h a r a c t e r o f S a u l . T h u s , for e x a m p l e , at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his S a u l n a r r a t i v e , in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the b a c k g r o u n d o f S a m u e l ' s a p p o i n t m e n t o f S a u l as k i n g , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t S a m u e l w a s b e i n g a w a i t e d to bless the sac rifice t h a t the p e o p l e h a d p r e p a r e d (1 S a m . 9:12), J o s e p h u s , in o r d e r to b u i l d u p the a p p o i n t m e n t o f S a u l as k i n g , r e p r e s e n t s S a m u e l n o t m e r e l y as the p r e s i d e r o v e r the
2. Spiro 1953, 120, calls Pseudo-Philo "one o f the great geniuses o f ancient Israel and supreme master o f the black art o f character assassination."
SAUL
J/J
sacrifice b u t as h o s t at a feast (iariav) in the p r e s e n c e o f m a n y (Ant. 6.48). T o b u i l d u p t o w a r d the c l i m a x o f S a u l ' s a p p o i n t m e n t , J o s e p h u s gives the r e a s o n w h y S a m u e l h a d at t h a t h o u r a s s e m b l e d so m a n y p e o p l e , n a m e l y , t h a t h e r e a l i z e d t h a t his d a i l y p r a y e r to G - d to r e v e a l to h i m w h o m H e w o u l d m a k e k i n g w a s n o w a b o u t to b e fulfilled (Ant. 6.49). T h e d r a m a o f S a u l ' s s e l e c t i o n b y G - d is e n h a n c e d b e c a u s e it is at n i g h t (Ant. 6.37-40), as i n P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. 56.3), a n d n o t d u r i n g the d a y (1 S a m . 9:15), a n d w h i l e S a m u e l is tossing w i t h sleeplessness, t h a t G - d 3
c h a r g e s h i m to select the k i n g H e c h o o s e s . T h e suspense is further intensified b e c a u s e o n the d a y b e f o r e S a u l ' s a r r i v a l , G - d h a d a n n o u n c e d t h a t at p r e c i s e l y t h a t h o u r o n the f o l l o w i n g day, S a u l w o u l d c o m e (Ant. 6.49), w h e r e a s in the H e b r e w , the p h r a s e is the v a g u e r " t o m o r r o w a b o u t this t i m e " (1 S a m . 9:16); a n d in the S e p t u a g i n t , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e h o u r at all. T o b u i l d u p a sense o f a n t i c i p a t i o n a r o u n d the a p p o i n t m e n t o f S a u l , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t S a m u e l c a m e o u t t o w a r d S a u l (1 S a m . 9:14), J o s e p h u s states t h a t S a m u e l w a s s e a t e d o n a h o u s e t o p , " a w a i t i n g the c o m i n g o f the t i m e , a n d w h e n the h o u r w a s ripe, h e d e s c e n d e d t o g o t o the s u p p e r " (Ant. 6.49). I n t h e B i b l e , the h o u s e t o p is n o t m e n t i o n e d until later, w h e n , after S a m u e l h a s a l r e a d y m e t S a u l , h e h a s a discussion w i t h h i m t h e r e (1 Sam.
9:25).
I n c o n t r a s t , i n P s e u d o - P h i l o , S a u l is i m p o r t a n t n o t for h i m s e l f b u t s i m p l y as a n i n s t r u m e n t o f p r o p h e c y o f d a y s to c o m e (Bib. Ant. 56.3). T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S a m u e l , w h e n a n n o u n c i n g to S a u l his e l e c t i o n as k i n g , says t h a t " G - d h a s r a i s e d u p y o u r w a y s [erexit vias tuas] a n d t h a t y o u r t i m e shall b e d i r e c t e d [dirigetur tempus tuum]." S a u l ' s h u m b l e w o r d s in r e p l y to S a m u e l a r e t h e n p r e s e n t e d as c o m p a r a b l e to those o f the p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h (Bib. Ant. 56.6). I n this c o n n e c t i o n , o n e o f t h e p r o b l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g J o s e p h u s w a s h o w t o m a k e S a u l , as k i n g , r a t h e r t h a n S a m u e l , the p r o p h e t w h o a n o i n t e d h i m , t h e c e n ter o f a t t e n t i o n , since a p a g a n a u d i e n c e , in all p r o b a b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e d a y s o f the R o m a n Empire, w o u l d have b e e n put off b y a king w h o w a s a w e a k un d e r l i n g i n the h a n d s o f a r e l i g i o u s s t r o n g m a n . J o s e p h u s solves this p r o b l e m b y h a v i n g S a u l p a r t i c i p a t e in the sacrifice at t h e t i m e o f his s e l e c t i o n as k i n g (Ant. 6.57) r a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g S a m u e l p e r f o r m the sacrifice a l o n e , as in t h e B i b l e (1 Sam.
10:8). T h e B i b l e g i v e s the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t S a u l is a p u p p e t o f S a m u e l ' s ,
s i n c e S a m u e l tells S a u l to w a i t at G i l g a l for s e v e n d a y s until h e c o m e s a n d tells h i m w h a t t o d o (1 S a m . 10:8). J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l o m i t s the p h r a s e a b o u t S a u l w a i t i n g for h i m t o tell h i m w h a t to d o , h o w e v e r , a n d says m e r e l y , " T h o u shalt c o m e , w h e n s u m m o n e d b y m e , to G a l g a l a , t h a t w e m a y offer t h a n k s o f f e r i n g s " (Ant. 6.57).
3. As Spiro 1953, 127, has noted, in the Bible, G-d selects Saul as king by day and renounces him at night (1 Sam. 15:11, 16), whereas Pseudo-Philo reverses this (Bib. Ant. 56.3), while, on the other hand, David is not chosen at night (Bib. Ant. 59.3). Spiro suggests that Samuel's "mistake" in selecting Saul may have been due to the blurred vision of the night, but there is no indication of this in Pseudo-Philo.
ji2
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
THE Q U A L I T I E S O F THE HERO A S SEEN IN S A U L J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f S a u l , w h o m , as w e h a v e s e e n , J o s e p h u s c o n s c i o u s l y p l a c e s at the c e n t e r o f t h e stage, e m e r g e s as t h a t o f a h e l l e n i z e d J e w i s h h e r o , w i t h stress p l a c e d u p o n p r e c i s e l y t h o s e qualities t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l t o a G r a e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e . T h e s e qualities are, first, the e x t e r n a l o n e s o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature; s e c o n d , t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f c h a r a c t e r — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e ; a n d third, t h e spiritual attribute o f p i e t y t o w a r d G - d a n d family.
Good Birth I n the first p l a c e , the g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n . O n t h e o n e h a n d , in P s e u d o P h i l o , S a u l ' s father is m e r e l y K i s h , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n o f the latter's a n c e s t r y (Bib. Ant. 56.4); a n d w h e n h e h e a r s t h a t h e is to b e k i n g , S a u l protests t h a t h e is a n o b o d y : " W h o a m I a n d w h a t is m y father's h o u s e , t h a t m y l o r d s h o u l d s p e a k t h u s u n t o m e ? " (Bib. Ant. 56.6). I n the B i b l e , S a u l is m o d e s t ; b u t the a u t h o r o f the n a r rative, at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t o f S a u l , takes p a i n s t o n a m e S a u l ' s a n cestors for five g e n e r a t i o n s , w h i l e S a u l ' s father is t e r m e d " a m i g h t y m a n o f v a l o r " 4
(gibor hayil) (1 S a m . g : i ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e n a m e s o f S a u l ' s b i b l i c a l a n c e s t o r s a r e those o f m e n otherwise u n k n o w n ; a n d hence, rather than give the n a m e s o f such o b s c u r e a n c e s t o r s , J o s e p h u s prefers t o s p e a k o f the g o o d b i r t h (ev yeyovojs) v i r t u o u s c h a r a c t e r (dyadds
and
TO rjdos) o f K i s h , t h e father o f S a u l , in a f o r m u l a t i o n
n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e (1 S a m . 9:1 v s . Ant. 6.45). I n contrast, t h e r a b b i s s p e a k , n o t o f t h e h i g h b i r t h o f S a u l ' s a n c e s t o r s , b u t o f their merits, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e v i r t u e o f his g r a n d f a t h e r A b i e l , w h o d i s p l a y e d his c o n c e r n for t h e p u b l i c w e l f a r e b y l i g h t i n g t h e streets in t h e e v e n i n g so t h a t p e o p l e m i g h t g o m o r e r e a d i l y t o t h e h o u s e s o f s t u d y ( J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d , SheviHt 3.io.34d). T h e r a b b i s g o so far as t o state t h a t t h e r e a s o n S a u l ' s k i n g d o m d i d n o t e n d u r e w a s b e c a u s e n o r e p r o a c h r e s t e d u p o n his a n c e s t o r s a n d h e n c e n o o n e c o u l d p o i n t to a n y i n g l o r i o u s a n c e s t o r s in his line, w h e r e a s R a b b i J o h a n a n c o n c l u d e s t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t a p p o i n t as a n a d m i n i s t r a tor in a c o m m u n i t y a p e r s o n w h o d o e s n o t c a r r y a b a s k e t o f reptiles o n his b a c k (that is, a n i g n o b l e g e n e a l o g y ) , so t h a t , if h e b e c o m e s a r r o g a n t , o n e m a y b e a b l e to tell h i m , " T u r n a r o u n d ! " (Toma 22b). A s for J o s e p h u s , h e d e p i c t s S a u l as n o t s h o w i n g d i s d a i n for o t h e r s despite his g o o d birth. I n this c o n n e c t i o n , J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o , w i t h w h o m he has a large n u m b e r o f parallels, does not m e n t i o n Saul's distinguished
4. Or, as D r i v e r 1913, 69, explains: " H e r e probably, as in 2 K i n g s 15:20, Ruth 2:1, a sturdy m a n o f substance (not o f valour, 2 K i n g s 5:1, etc.), a sturdy, honest (cf. on 10:26) well-to-do country farmer." Josephus thus stresses Kish's g o o d birth and character, omitting the Bible's statement about his strength (Hebrew gibor hayil, Septuagint Svvaros, "strong," "mighty," "powerful") (1 S a m . 9:1), since he wishes at a later point to focus on Saul's strength and bravery.
SAUL
313
a n c e s t r y at all, t h u s g i v i n g us o u r first i n d i c a t i o n o f his intent, w h i c h is the o p p o site o f t h a t o f J o s e p h u s — n a m e l y , to d o w n g r a d e S a u l .
5
Y e t , S a u l ' s n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h m i g h t h a v e s e e m e d to a G r e e k r e a d e r o f t h e B i b l e to h a v e b e e n n e g a t e d b y his b e h a v i o r . T h u s the G r e e k s r e g a r d e d t h e ass as p r o v e r b i a l l y w a n t o n , this b e i n g reflected in the s a y i n g " M o r e w a n t o n t h a n a s s e s " (ovcov vfipioTOTepos,
X e n o p h o n , Anabasis 5.8.3). L e s t S a u l ' s s e a r c h for his father's asses b e
r e g a r d e d , t h e n , as d e g r a d i n g for o n e o f s u c h h i g h b i r t h (1 S a m . 9:3), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t these w e r e fine (/caAcov) asses, in w h i c h K i s h t o o k m o r e d e l i g h t t h a n in a n y t h i n g else t h a t h e p o s s e s s e d (Ant. 6.46).
Physical Attractiveness I n a d d i t i o n to h i g h birth, the g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e p h y s i c a l l y attractive. I n its intro d u c t i o n t o the p e r s o n a l i t y o f S a u l , the B i b l e s i m p l y calls h i m y o u n g (bahur) a n d g o o d 6
(tov) (1 S a m . 9:2). W h i l e it is true t h a t the epithet " g o o d " m a y i m p l y m e n t a l o r spir itual g o o d n e s s , as w e l l as g o o d l i n e s s in stature, the s e c o n d h a l f o f the verse, w h i c h d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o m a n b e t t e r (tov) t h a n he, that h e w a s taller t h a n a n y o f the rest o f the p e o p l e , suggests, t h r o u g h its repetition o f the w o r d tov a n d the l a c k o f a c o n j u n c t i o n " a n d " after " b e t t e r t h a n h e , " t h a t the w o r d " g o o d " h a s in v i e w p h y s ical stature. T h e r a b b i s (Sotah 10a) likewise stress S a u l ' s p h y s i c a l stature, n o t i n g t h a t h e w a s o n e o f the five b i b l i c a l personalities w h o w e r e c r e a t e d in G - d ' s likeness in their o u t s t a n d i n g p h y s i c a l attributes a n d w h o i n c u r r e d p u n i s h m e n t o n a c c o u n t o f this distinctive feature, S a u l ' s b e i n g his n e c k , w h i c h e n a b l e d h i m to t o w e r o v e r his fellow Israelites a n d also w a s the p a r t o f the b o d y t h r o u g h w h i c h h e p l u n g e d his s w o r d in o r d e r to e n d his life (1 S a m . 31:4: Sotah 10a). J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 S a m . 9:2 c o n s i d e r a b l y amplifies its p o r t r a i t o f S a u l : h e is n o t m e r e l y y o u n g a n d tall in stature b u t is also best in s h a p e , c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g h a n d s o m e n e s s (Ant. 6.45). I n particular, w e m a y n o t e J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail a b o u t the h a n d s o m e n e s s o f S a u l (Ant. 6.45), w h i c h , to b e sure, the r a b b i s also cite, r e m a r k i n g t h a t the m a i d e n s e n g a g e d in l e n g t h y c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h h i m — a
statement
9 : 1 1 - 1 3 — i n o r d e r to feast their eyes o n his g o o d looks (Berakot
based on
1 Sam.
4.8b). I n J o s e p h u s ,
the
m a i d e n s ' s p e e c h , h o w e v e r , is in i n d i r e c t r a t h e r t h a n in direct discourse a n d m u c h briefer, p r e s u m a b l y so as n o t to focus u n d u l y o n S a u l ' s p h y s i c a l attractiveness t o the girls (Ant. 6.48). W e d o , nevertheless, see the i m p o r t a n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s attaches t o p h y s i c a l b e a u t y in t h a t h e d e c l a r e s t h a t S a u l s o u g h t n o t o n l y m i g h t a n d b r a v e r y (1 S a m . 14:52) b u t also b e a u t y (/caAAei) in his b o d y g u a r d s (Ant. 6.130).
5. Spiro 1953, 119-37,
s a v s
m
a
t
Saul
w
a
s
a
n
Ephraimite, rather than from the tribe o f Benjamin,
according to Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.4). But all that Pseudo-Philo says here is that Saul, seeking the asses o f his father, c a m e d o w n from M o u n t Ephraim. N o w h e r e does he say that Saul was not from the tribe o f Benjamin. See Dietzfelbinger 1964, 82-85. 6. T h e Septuagint omits mention o f his youth.
514
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
The Cardinal Virtues I n a d d i t i o n to g o o d b i r t h a n d b o d i l y attractiveness, the h e r o m u s t possess the c a r dinal virtues o f w i s d o m , courage, temperance, justice, a n d piety Wisdom.
I n the first p l a c e , in his v e r y i n t r o d u c t i o n to the e p i s o d e o f S a u l , J o s e
p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t h e w a s gifted w i t h a n i n t e l l i g e n c e (Siavoiav,
"understanding")
s u r p a s s i n g his n a t u r a l a d v a n t a g e s o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature (Ant. 6.45). H e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s s h o w s h i m s e l f consistent w i t h his t r e a t m e n t o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l heroes. T h e p i c t u r e o f S a u l as a s a g e is r e i n f o r c e d , at least b y i m p l i c a t i o n , in the state m e n t that w h e n S a m u e l first m e t S a u l a n d l e d h i m to the b a n q u e t c h a m b e r , h e g a v e h i m a p o s i t i o n a b o v e the i n v i t e d guests, w h o w e r e s e v e n t y in n u m b e r
(Ant.
6.52). T h e H e b r e w , o n the o t h e r h a n d , r e a d s " a b o u t thirty" (1 S a m . 9:22). It is, o f c o u r s e , possible t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s H e b r e w (or G r e e k ) text r e a d "seventy," as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t . B u t it is also possible t h a t his text r e a d as o u r H e b r e w d o e s , a n d t h a t h e d e l i b e r a t e l y c h o s e the t r a d i t i o n t h a t g a v e the n u m b e r o f i n v i t e d guests as e x a c t l y seventy. I n t h a t case, J o s e p h u s is p r e s e n t i n g a p i c t u r e o f S a u l , like M o s e s , p r e siding o v e r the s e v e n t y elders, o r like the h e a d o f the g r e a t S a n h e d r i n p r e s i d i n g o v e r his s e v e n t y c o l l e a g u e s . Courage.
T h e s e c o n d o f the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s possessed b y S a u l , a c c o r d i n g to
J o s e p h u s , w a s d e r i v e d f r o m his spirit (^povTy/xa, p r e s u m a b l y " h i g h spirit")
(Ant.
6.45). I n o t h e r w o r d s , S a u l is said to possess the spirited f a c u l t y t h a t is c h a r a c t e r i s tic o f the w a r r i o r class in Plato's i d e a l state. H e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e fol l o w i n g a p a t t e r n in his d e p i c t i o n o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s . T h e spirited q u a l i t y o f S a u l is, o f c o u r s e , to b e s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a m u e l tells S a u l t h a t h e w a s a n o i n t e d to b e p r i n c e o v e r G - d ' s i n h e r i t a n c e (1 S a m . 10:1), J o s e p h u s specifically d e c l a r e s t h a t S a u l w a s s e l e c t e d as k i n g for m i l i t a r y p u r p o s e s , n a m e l y , t o c o m b a t
the
Philistines a n d to d e f e n d the H e b r e w s (Ant. 6.54). I n contrast, the r a b b i s u n d e r s c o r e the s u p e r n a t u r a l a s p e c t o f S a u l ' s h e r o i s m , n o t i n g , for e x a m p l e , t h a t w h e n G o l i a t h c a p t u r e d the tablets o f the L a w , S a u l m a r c h e d sixty m i l e s f r o m S h i l o h to the Philistine c a m p to r e c a p t u r e t h e m a n d re t u r n e d to S h i l o h the s a m e d a y w i t h the a i d o f a n a n g e l (Midrash Samuel 1 1 . 7 8 - 7 9 ; Midrash Psalms 7.63; T o s e f t a - T a r g u m 1 S a m . 4:12). O n the o t h e r h a n d , a p i c t u r e c o m p l e t e l y o p p o s i t e to t h a t o f J o s e p h u s ' s b r a v e S a u l is to b e s e e n in P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , d e p i c t s the y o u t h f u l S a u l as a c o w a r d w h o flees f r o m the battlefield, w h i l e Eli's sons H o p h n i a n d P h i n e h a s d e f e n d the ark at the cost o f their lives (Bib. Ant. 5 4 . 3 - 4 ) . M a n y y e a r s later, w h e n S a u l b e c o m e s k i n g , the g i a n t G o l i a t h r e m i n d s h i m o f this c o w a r d i c e (Bib. Ant. 61.2). I n o r d e r to m a g n i f y the g r e a t n e s s o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s stresses the m i l i t a r y diffi culties, b o t h i n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l , t h a t h e h a d to o v e r c o m e (Ant. 6.67). T h u s the B i b l e states, w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g their r e s p e c t i v e n u m b e r s , that S a u l w a s a c c o m p a -
SAUL
5/5
n i e d b y m e n o f v a l o r a n d b y c e r t a i n b a s e fellows, w h o refused to d o o b e i s a n c e to h i m (1 S a m . 10:26). J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , says t h a t w h i l e S a u l w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y m a n y h o n e s t (dyaQoi) m e n , w h o s h o w e d h i m h o m a g e , t h e n u m b e r o f k n a v e s (Trpovrjpoi)
w a s e v e n g r e a t e r (Ant. 6.67). T o e m p h a s i z e the o b s t a c l e s t h a t
f a c e d S a u l a n d thus to i n c r e a s e the g r e a t n e s s o f his a c h i e v e m e n t , J o s e p h u s further e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e latter g r o u p ' s b a s e n e s s ; for w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t t h e y said, " H o w shall this m a n save u s ? " a n d d e s p i s e d h i m a n d b r o u g h t h i m n o p r e s e n t (1 S a m . 10:27), J o s e p h u s says t h a t t h e y h e l d h i m in c o n t e m p t , d e r i d e d the o t h e r s , a n d n e i t h e r offered h i m p r e s e n t s n o r t o o k a n y p a i n s (airovofj) o r c a r e (Aoyo>) to g a i n his f a v o r (Ant. 6.67). J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to t h e B i b l e o f m i l i t a r y details c o n c e r n i n g S a u l fits i n t o a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f s u c h s u p p l e m e n t a r y r e t o u c h i n g . S a u l ' s ability as a g e n e r a l is i n c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k , w h i c h is u n p a r a l l e l e d in the B i b l e (1 S a m . 11:1), t h a t N a h a s h t h e A m m o n i t e , w h o m h e d e f e a t e d , h a d d o n e m u c h h a r m to t h e J e w s w h o h a d settled b e y o n d t h e r i v e r J o r d a n , h a v i n g i n v a d e d t h e i r t e r r i t o r y w i t h a l a r g e a n d w a r l i k e a r m y (Ant. 6.68). J o s e p h u s a d d s , in a n o t h e r u n p a r a l l e l e d r e m a r k , t h a t N a h a s h h a d r e d u c e d all t h e cities o f the J e w s b e y o n d the J o r d a n to s e r v i t u d e , s e c u r i n g their s u b j e c t i o n n o t o n l y b y force
(IGXVL)
a n d v i o l e n c e (fiia) b u t also b y 7
c u n n i n g (aoiq) a n d i n g e n u i t y (eTrivoiq) (Ant. 6.69). C o n s e q u e n d y in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the e l d e r s o f J a b e s h G i l e a d a s k i n g N a h a s h for s e v e n d a y s ' respite (1 S a m . 11:3), J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s t h e G i l e a d i t e s as so terrorstricken (KaT
t h a t t h e y d a r e d n o t r e p l y to e i t h e r o f N a h a s h ' s p r o p o s e d
a l t e r n a t i v e s b u t c o u l d o n l y b e g for a respite o f s e v e n d a y s (Ant. 6.72). T h e G i l e a dites a r e thus r e d u c e d to d e s p e r a t e straits (dpaqxaviav) (Ant. 6.73). A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t N a h a s h h a d i n t e n d e d to g o u g e o u t the r i g h t eyes o f t h e m e n o f J a b e s h (1 S a m . 11:2), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s the r e a s o n , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e left e y e w a s c o v e r e d b y their b u c k l e r s a n d h e n c e t h a t the r e m o v a l o f the r i g h t e y e w o u l d r e n d e r t h e m utterly u n s e r v i c e a b l e (Ant. 6.70). I n t h e B i b l e , t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t N a h a s h h a d h a b i t u a l l y i m p o s e d this p e n a l t y o f p u t t i n g o u t t h e eyes (1 S a m . 11:2), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , t h r o u g h his use o f the i m p e r f e c t tense (inoLeL),
suggests
t h a t this w a s , i n d e e d , t h e c a s e (Ant. 6.69). T h e h o r r o r o f N a h a s h ' s offer to s p a r e t h e G i l e a d i t e s i f t h e y p u t o u t t h e i r r i g h t eyes is i n c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s
statement,
omitted by the Bible, o f the alternative they faced if they disobeyed, namely, the b e s i e g i n g a n d o v e r t h r o w o f t h e i r cities (Ant. 6.71). I n a d d i t i o n , w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , o n l y t h e p e o p l e o f G i b e a t h - S h a u l a r e m e n t i o n e d as b e i n g t h r e a t e n e d b y N a h a s h (1 S a m . 11:4), J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f all the Israelite cities w e r e
7. Ulrich 1978, 166-70, claims that Josephus's text parallels the Qumran fragment here; but there is a striking verbal coincidence only between the fragment's behazakah and Josephus's iayvi. Otherwise, the major additions in Josephus are, it should be pointed out, not to be found in the Qumran fragment. A comparison of all other passages where the Qumran fragments of Samuel cover the same ground as Josephus yields no other significant instance where Josephus's additions or modifications as noted here are paralleled by the former.
5i6
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
m o v e d to tears a n d grief, w h i l e their fear p e r m i t t e d t h e m to d o n o m o r e until S a u l t o o k things in h a n d (Ant. 6.74). Finally, w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l first m u s t e r s his m e n b e f o r e p r o m i s i n g a i d to t h e p e o p l e o f J a b e s h - G i l e a d o n t h e m o r r o w (1 S a m . 11:8), J o s e p h u s h a s S a u l p r o m i s e to a i d t h e m e v e n b e f o r e s u m m o n i n g t h e Israelites (Ant. 6.76). S a u l ' s forceful l e a d e r s h i p is h e i g h t e n e d b y t h e fact t h a t in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , h e cuts the s i n e w s o f his o x e n a n d t h r e a t e n s to d o l i k e w i s e to t h e a n i m a l s o f all t h o s e Israelites w h o fail t o j o i n h i m a g a i n s t N a h a s h (Ant. 6.77); in t h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e cuts u p a n u n s p e c i f i e d p a i r o f o x e n , r a t h e r t h a n c u t t i n g the s i n e w s o f his o x e n , in m a k i n g his t h r e a t (1 S a m . 11:7). J o s e p h u s builds u p t h e stature o f S a u l as a g e n e r a l b y p r e s e n t i n g e x a g g e r a t e d details o f t h e a c t u a l c a m p a i g n t h a t S a u l w a g e d a g a i n s t N a h a s h . T h u s , t h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e m a r c h itself (1 S a m . 11:11), b u t J o s e p h u s a d d s v i v i d n e s s to t h e a c c o u n t b y n o t i n g t h a t S a u l l e d his m e n in a n all-night m a r c h o f t e n schoenoi, w h i c h is a p p r o x i m a t e l y forty to fifty m i l e s (Ant. 6.79), d o u b l i n g S a u l ' s e x p l o i t , since t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n B e z e k , w h e n c e h e started, a n d J a b e s h - G i l e a d is a c t u a l l y less t h a n t w e n t y m i l e s . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t t h e y a r r i v e d d u r i n g t h e m o r n i n g w a t c h (1 S a m . 11:11), J o s e p h u s h a s S a u l s h o w skill as a strategist, t i m i n g his a r r i v a l e v e n b e f o r e sunrise (Ant. 6.79). J o s e p h u s also d r a m a t i z e s t h e t i m i n g o f t h e assault itself b y stressing t h a t S a u l ' s m e n fell s u d d e n l y (alvioia)s) a n d f r o m all sides u p o n 8
t h e e n e m y . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g a b o u t S a u l ' s p e r s o n a l a c h i e v e m e n t s in t h e b a t d e (1 S a m . 11:11), J o s e p h u s i n f o r m s us t h a t S a u l killed m u l t i t u d e s o f t h e A m m o n i t e s a n d K i n g N a h a s h h i m s e l f (Ant. 6.79). Similarly, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e h a s n o e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t o r e v e n a single a d j e c t i v e in p r a i s e o f S a u l ' s m i l i t a r y p r o w e s s (1 Sam.
11:12), J o s e p h u s e x p l i c i t l y refers to his e x p l o i t as brilliant (XapLTrpov), speaks o f
his m a r v e l o u s r e n o w n (davfxaarr)s
. . . oogrjs) for v a l o r (dvSpeia), a n d s u m s it all u p
b y a d d i n g t h a t t h o s e w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y d e s p i s e d h i m n o w c a m e to h o n o r h i m a n d to d e e m h i m t h e n o b l e s t (dpiarov)
o f all m e n (Ant. 6.80). A n d t h e n , to t o p o f f
his p i c t u r e o f S a u l as g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s a d d s a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l to s h o w t h a t S a u l , as w o u l d a n y g o o d g e n e r a l , p u r s u e d his a d v a n t a g e , for h e n o t e s that, n o t c o n t e n t w i t h h a v i n g r e s c u e d the i n h a b i t a n t s o f J a b e s h , S a u l t h e n p r o c e e d e d to in v a d e the c o u n t r y o f t h e A m m o n i t e s , s u b d u e d all o f it, a n d r e t u r n e d in g l o r y to his o w n l a n d after t a k i n g m u c h b o o t y (Ant. 6.80). N o h i g h e r p r a i s e c o u l d b e b e s t o w e d u p o n a G r e e k hero. Josephus then dramatically highlights w h a t a dreadful e n e m y S a u l h a d to face at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his r e i g n . It is significant t h a t t h e r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n h a s n o s u c h a d d i t i o n a l d e tails o f S a u l ' s g e n e r a l s h i p a g a i n s t N a h a s h , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e it p r e f e r r e d to stress his qualities o f c h a r a c t e r . T o b e sure, t h e m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n d o e s a m p l i f y t h e w i c k e d n e s s o f N a h a s h ; b u t t h e r a b b i s stress his spiritual t h r e a t to t h e J e w s , n o t ing t h a t h e h a d o r d e r e d t h e G i l e a d i t e s to r e m o v e t h e i n j u n c t i o n f r o m t h e T o r a h
8. A similar extrabiblical addition is found in Josephus's account of A b r a h a m ' s c a m p a i g n against
the Assyrians, against w h o m , w e are told, he set out in haste, and u p o n w h o m he fell in an attack that caught the e n e m y by surprise, before they h a d time to a r m (Ant. 1.177).
SAUL
5/7
b a r r i n g the A m m o n i t e s f r o m the c o n g r e g a t i o n o f Israel, o r t h a t h e h a d d e c i d e d to slay the m e m b e r s o f the S a n h e d r i n {Midrash Samuel 14.89; T o s e f t a - T a r g u m 1 S a m . 11:2). A f t e r S a u l ' s v i c t o r y o v e r N a h a s h , the Israelites, a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , t u r n u p o n t h o s e w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y d i s p a r a g e d h i m a n d ask S a m u e l t h a t t h e y b e p e r m i t t e d to p u t t h e m t o d e a t h (1 S a m . 11:12). S a u l i n t e r v e n e s , h o w e v e r , a n d says t h a t n o o n e is to b e p u t to d e a t h , since it w a s G - d w h o b r o u g h t this d e l i v e r a n c e to the Israelites. J o s e p h u s e x p a t i a t e s o n the w i l l i n g n e s s o f S a u l to forgive his e n e m i e s . T h e p e o p l e are p i c t u r e d as a m o b , r e a d y to l y n c h these d e t r a c t o r s . " W h e r e n o w are those m e n ? " t h e y shout: "let t h e m p a y for it!" (Ant. 6.81). S a m u e l is n o t m e n t i o n e d h e r e , in o r d e r to h e i g h t e n the role o f S a u l , w h o , like N e p t u n e in V i r g i l ' s Aeneid (1.132-41) or, b y i m p l i c a t i o n there, a n A e n e a s o r a n A u g u s t u s , quiets the m o b w i t h a s h o w o f l e a d e r s h i p a n d d i p l o m a c y ; for, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e first w e l c o m e s their g o o d w i l l (evvoiav) a n d z e a l (irpodvpilav) t o w a r d h i m , b u t t h e n g o e s further t h a n his b i b l i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t in a c t u a l l y s w e a r i n g t h a t h e w i l l n o t p e r m i t a n y o f his f e l l o w c o u n t r y m e n to b e p u t to d e a t h (Ant. 6.82). I n a s t r o n g l y w o r d e d s t a t e m e n t , e x c e e d i n g the B i b l e ' s o w n , S a u l t e r m s it m o n s t r o u s
(droirov,
" e x t r a o r d i n a r y " " u n n a t u r a l " ) to p o l l u t e (c/>vpai), w i t h b l o o d s h e d a n d m u r d e r o f m e n o f their o w n r a c e , the v i c t o r y g r a n t e d b y G - d to the Israelites (Ant. 6.82). It is m o r e fitting (irpiiTeiv), h e d e c l a r e s , to c e l e b r a t e a feast in a spirit o f m u t u a l g o o d w i l l (irpos dXXr/Xovs evpuevcbs). Y e t , in all the b u i l d u p o f S a u l ' s m i l i t a r y p r o w e s s t h e r e is difficulty in the H e b r e w o r i g i n a l o f the b i b l i c a l text in the s t a t e m e n t t h a t S a u l w a s o n e y e a r o l d w h e n h e b e g a n to rule (1 S a m . 13:1). T h e r a b b i s resolve this p r o b l e m b y stating t h a t h e w a s like a n infant o f o n e year, w h o h a d n o t tasted sin (Toma 22b). T h e c o m m e n t a t o r s , for e x a m p l e , R a s h i , in a n a d d i t i o n to this, stretch the H e b r e w a n d s u g g e s t t h a t it w a s in the first y e a r o f his r e i g n t h a t h e p r o c e e d e d to u n d e r t a k e his exploits. P s e u d o - P h i l o p e r h a p s a l l u d e s to this p a s s a g e w h e n h e states t h a t w h e n h e w a s a p p o i n t e d k i n g , S a u l f o u g h t w i t h the Philistines for o n e y e a r (Bib. Ant. 57.5). M o s t m a n u s c r i p t s o f the S e p t u a g i n t o m i t the v e r s e c o m p l e t e l y (the L u c i a n i c m a n u scripts boc^e^, h o w e v e r , retain it); J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g it like w i s e , e v e n t h o u g h h e g e n e r a l l y favors the L u c i a n i c m a n u s c r i p t s boc^e^. S a u l ' s g r e a t e s t m i l i t a r y c h a l l e n g e c a m e f r o m the Philistines; h e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s 9
h i g h l i g h t s the m a g n i t u d e o f S a u l ' s g e n e r a l s h i p . T h u s h e g i v e s a p r e c i s e (and s e e m i n g l y m o r e a u t h e n t i c ) n u m b e r o f e n e m y f o o t m e n — 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 (Ant. 6 . 9 7 ) — w h e r e the
9. Cf. Josephus, w h o gives the n u m b e r o f the priests slain at N o b as 385 (305, according to the Latin version), in agreement with Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 63.3), as against the Hebrew, w h i c h has 85, and the Lucianic b o c e manuscripts o f the Septuagint, which have 350, and the other manuscripts o f 2
2
the Septuagint, w h i c h read 305 (Ant. 6.260). S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 34, comments that, as often as not, the numbers in the first half o f the Antiquities d o not correspond to those preserved in any version o f the Bible. H e concludes that in these cases, w e d o not k n o w whether it is our manuscripts o f Josephus that are corrupt, or rather Josephus's source, or both, although he concedes the possibility that Josephus m a y intentionally have modified the text o f his source to produce a desired literary effect. A s to the
518
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
B i b l e v a g u e l y a n d tritely d e c l a r e s t h a t the foot soldiers w e r e as n u m e r o u s as s a n d o n the s e a s h o r e (i S a m . 13:5). E l s e w h e r e , t o o , w h e r e the B i b l e l a c k s p r e c i s e figures b o t h in the H e b r e w a n d in the S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n s (1 S a m . 14:46), J o s e p h u s n o n c h a l a n d y d e c l a r e s t h a t after J o n a t h a n ' s g r e a t v i c t o r y o v e r the Philistines, S a u l re t u r n e d to his o w n c i t y after d e s t r o y i n g 60,000 o f the e n e m y (Ant. 6.129). S a u l ' s w a r a g a i n s t the Philistines is r a i s e d to a h i g h e r i d e o l o g i c a l level b y J o s e p h u s , w h o says, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t it w a s in the n a m e o f l i b e r t y (iXevOepia) t h a t S a u l i n s p i r i n g l y a n d fearlessly sent h e r a l d s t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y t o s u m m o n the p e o p l e to w a r a g a i n s t t h e m (Ant. 6.98). W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , the Israelites, in their fear, h i d e in c a v e s a n d thickets f r o m the e n e m y (1 S a m . 13:6), in J o s e p h u s , S a u l is d e p i c t e d as a g o o d p s y c h o l o g i s t , belittling a n d d i s p a r a g i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f the Philistines as i n c o n s i d e r a b l e a n d e n c o u r a g i n g his m e n n o t to fear to d o battle w i t h t h e m (Ant. 6.98). B u t t h e r e is a n o t h e r side to a g r e a t leader, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n A e n e a s ' s d e e p l y felt s y m p a t h y for his c o m r a d e s ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 1.198-207). Similarly, S a u l ' s s y m p a t h y for his p e o p l e in their suffering is stressed in a J o s e p h a n s c e n e w i t h o u t a b i b l i c a l basis. T h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h e i n c u r s i o n s m a d e a g a i n s t t h e Israelites b y the Philistines (1 S a m . 1 3 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) b u t d o e s n o t c o m m e n t o n the feelings o f S a u l , w h o , at this p o i n t , is p o w e r l e s s , since h e h a s o n l y six h u n d r e d m e n . J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , p a i n t s a p i c t u r e o f S a u l s e a t e d o n a lofty hill, t o g e t h e r w i t h his s o n a n d the h i g h priest, w a t c h i n g the Philistine d e p r e d a t i o n s in g r i e v o u s a g o n y (iv
dywviq
oeLvfj) (Ant. 6.107), the s c e n e b e i n g r e m i n i s c e n t o f the d e s c r i p t i o n o f X e r x e s ' m o u r n i n g , w h i l e h e is s e a t e d o n a h e i g h t n e a r the sea, for the loss o f his h o s t at S a l a m i s ( A e s c h y l u s , Persians 4 6 5 - 7 0 ) . I n d e e d , l o n g afterwards, w h e n the c o n s u m i n g g o a l o f S a u l ' s life w a s to seize his rival D a v i d a n d to p u t h i m to d e a t h , h e still h a d , in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , t o o m u c h c o n c e r n for the sufferings o f his p e o p l e to p u r s u e his p r i v a t e v e n d e t t a w h e n t h e i r l a n d w a s b e i n g r a v a g e d b y the Philistines (Ant. 6.281). W h e n w e r e a d the B i b l e , w e m a y w o n d e r w h y S a u l s t o o d aside w h i l e the Philistines r a v a g e d the l a n d o f the Israelites (1 S a m . 1 3 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . T o b e sure, as n o t e d , S c r i p t u r e says earlier t h a t S a u l h a d a m e r e six h u n d r e d m e n w i t h h i m (1 S a m . 13:15), b u t it d o e s n o t a t t e m p t to c o n n e c t these facts. J o s e p h u s presents a defense o f S a u l ' s i n a c t i v i t y b y stating t h a t the Philistines r a v a g e d the c o u n t r y u n d e r the eyes o f S a u l b e c a u s e h e a n d his s o n h a d o n l y six h u n d r e d f o l l o w e r s a n d c o n s e q u e n d y w e r e p o w e r l e s s to d e f e n d it (Ant. 6.106). J o s e p h u s k n e w , h o w e v e r , t h a t c e r t a i n p a s s a g e s in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f S a u l ' s generalship might seem unduly exaggerated a n d not be found credible by some r e a d e r s . H e n c e , for e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t in o n e o f the battles a g a i n s t the Philistines, o n l y S a u l a n d his s o n J o n a t h a n in S a u l ' s a r m y h a d s w o r d s
n u m b e r 300,000, the same figure is found in Pseudo-Philo, w h o states that the j u d g e K e n a z took the field with that n u m b e r o f m e n (Bib. Ant. 27.1).
SAUL
5/9
o r spears (1 S a m . 13:22), i n a s m u c h as t h e Philistines h a d k e p t the Israelites f r o m f o r g i n g a r m s (1 S a m . 13:19), J o s e p h u s qualifies this s t a t e m e n t b y asserting t h a t it w a s o n l y m o s t o f S a u l ' s m e n w h o h a d n o w e a p o n s (Ant. 6.105). S a u l ' s m a g n e t i s m as a g e n e r a l is i n c r e a s e d in J o s e p h u s , for w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t t h e Israelites w h o h a d f o r m e r l y j o i n e d the Philistines n o w t u r n e d to a t t a c h t h e m s e l v e s t o S a u l (1 S a m . 14:21), in J o s e p h u s , o n h e a r i n g o f S a u l ' s v i c t o r y o v e r t h e e n e m y , t h e y c o m e s t r e a m i n g (Trpoopeovoi)
to h i m
(Ant.
6.119). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e speaks o f t h e g r e a t discomfiture a m o n g t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 14.20), J o s e p h u s p l a c e s t h e spotiight o n S a u l a n d n o t e s t h a t h e p u r s u e d t h e e n e m y , w h o h a d b e e n s c a t t e r e d o v e r t h e w h o l e c o u n t r y s i d e (Ant. 6.116). S a u l ' s v i c t o r y o v e r t h e Philistines is all t h e g r e a t e r in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , for w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t t h e Israelites s m o t e t h e Philistines f r o m M i c h m a s h to A i j a l o n (1 S a m . 14:31), J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t the n u m b e r o f Philistines slain w a s in t h e tens o f t h o u s a n d s (Ant. 6.120), a n d later gives the n u m b e r o f t h o s e killed as 60,000 (Ant. 6 . 1 2 9 ) .
10
A n o t h e r b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e t h a t p r e s e n t e d p r o b l e m s is t h e s t a t e m e n t in w h i c h S a u l tells his servants t h a t h e w i l l g i v e his d a u g h t e r M i c h a l in m a r r i a g e to D a v i d o n c o n d i t i o n t h a t h e b r i n g h e r a h u n d r e d Philistine foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25). T h i s r e q u i r e m e n t m u s t h a v e s e e m e d u n c o u t h to J o s e p h u s , a n d so h e substitutes t h e d e m a n d t h a t D a v i d b r i n g h i m t h e h e a d s o f six h u n d r e d o f t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.197; cf. also 7.25). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t S a u l h a d n o m e r c e n a r y m o t i v e s in m a k i n g his d e m a n d o f D a v i d a n d h e n c e d e s i r e d n e i t h e r silver n o r g o l d (Ant. 6.201-2). A g o o d g e n e r a l m u s t b e a b l e to g e t his t r o o p s to f o l l o w h i m w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n ; a n d t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t S a u l ' s soldiers t o l d h i m , " D o w h a t e v e r s e e m s g o o d to y o u " (1 S a m . 14:36). J o s e p h u s a c c e n t u a t e s their e a g e r n e s s b y s a y i n g t h a t S a u l ' s sol diers, far f r o m h e s i t a t i n g
(OVK
OKVOVVTCOV)
to f o l l o w h i m , s h o w e d g r e a t a l a c r i t y
(TrpodvpLiav) in o b e y i n g his o r d e r (Ant. 6.122). E v e n after his initial fit o f m e n t a l illness, S a u l s h o w s his qualities o f m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p a g a i n s t t h e Philistines, f o r c i n g t h e m — a d e e d t h a t is, at m o s t , to b e in f e r r e d f r o m t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 1 7 : 3 ) —
1 1
to a b a n d o n their first c a m p a n d to t a k e u p
a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n (Ant. 6.170). A g a i n , after D a v i d kills G o l i a t h , the B i b l e m e n t i o n s n o t h i n g o f S a u l ' s l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e Israelites in the e n s u i n g r o u t o f t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 17:52). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , h i g h l i g h t s S a u l ' s g e n e r a l s h i p a n d exalts his v i c t o r y b y a d d i n g t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail o f t h e n u m b e r o f slain Philistines as 30,000 a n d
10. O n 60,000 as a broad figure, particularly for the size o f an army, see the midrashim cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 2:331; 4:13, 267, and 398. G i n z b e r g , however, fails to note this passage from Jose phus. See also Josephus's extrabiblical addition that the n u m b e r o f Philistines slain after the death o f Goliath was 30,000 (Ant. 6.192). O n Josephus's habit o f giving exact numbers, see S.J. D . C o h e n 1979, 38. 11. T h e Bible says that the Philistines stood on one side o f a mountain (1 S a m . 17:3); and inasmuch as this is the first time that a mountain is mentioned, Josephus apparendy inferred that they h a d c h a n g e d the site o f their c a m p . In any case, however, the Bible says nothing about their b e i n g forced to move.
520
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the n u m b e r o f w o u n d e d as 60,000 (Ant. 6 . 1 9 1 - 9 2 ) .
12
T h e Bible remarks merely that
the Israelites d e s p o i l e d the Philistine c a m p (1 S a m . 17:53), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , p u t t i n g the spotlight o n S a u l , says t h a t h e d e s t r o y e d the p a l i s a d e a n d set fire to it as w e l l (Ant. 6.192). A n d y e t , since the B i b l e says t h a t S a u l , s e e i n g the h o s t o f t h e Philistines at S h u n e m , " w a s afraid a n d his h e a r t t r e m b l e d g r e a t l y " (1 S a m . 28:5), the r e a d e r m a y well conclude that Saul w a s cowardly. Josephus obviates such a conclusion by a d d i n g t h a t the Philistine force w a s n u m e r o u s (iroXXr)) a n d s u p e r i o r to S a u l ' s o w n t r o o p s (Ant. 6.328). T h e g r e a t e s t e v i d e n c e o f S a u l ' s c o u r a g e is to b e seen in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f the e n d o f his life. T h e f a m o u s s c e n e w i t h t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r , in particular, e v i d e n c e s s o m e s u b d e b u t significant c h a n g e s .
1 3
M o s t strikingly, the e p i s o d e is p r e
s e n t e d as the 7rept7reVeta, the r e v e r s a l o f f o r t u n e o f a tragedy, so m u c h f a v o r e d b y H e l l e n i s t i c historians o f the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l . I n this c a s e , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S a m u e l sees S a u l as a p p r o a c h i n g a final c h a n g e o f for t u n e (reXos . . . rrjs /xerajSoA^?) (Ant. 6.335). H e r e J o s e p h u s is f o l l o w i n g a p a t t e r n in stressing the t h e m e t h a t h e cites in his p r o e m , t h a t G - d r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h e s a c c o r d i n g to o n e ' s deserts (Ant. 1.14). W h e n w e a n a l y z e this s c e n e in detail, w e see t h a t w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l is filled w i t h fear w h e n S a m u e l p r e d i c t s t h a t h e will die the f o l l o w i n g d a y (1 S a m . 28:20), for J o s e p h u s , it is u n b e c o m i n g for S a u l to s h o w fear (Ant. 6.337), e s p e c i a l l y in v i e w o f t h e fearless b e h a v i o r t h a t h e will m a n i fest the n e x t d a y ; a n d so h e says t h a t S a u l w a s m a d e speechless t h r o u g h g r i e f (XvTrrjs) a n d fell t o the g r o u n d e i t h e r t h r o u g h h u n g e r (as t h e B i b l e suggests) o r t h r o u g h the s h o c k o f t h e r e v e l a t i o n . J o s e p h u s , m o r e o v e r , builds u p the d r a m a t i c q u a l i t y o f the s c e n e b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t the w i t c h h a d o n l y o n e c a l f (a detail u n m e n t i o n e d b y 1 S a m . 28:24), w h i c h she h a d b r o u g h t forth a n d s l a u g h t e r e d so as t o serve S a u l (Ant. 6.339). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t she g a v e S a u l s y m p a t h y a n d c o n s o l a t i o n (Ant. 6.340-42); a n d she d i d all this (since she k n e w t h a t h e w a s to die the f o l l o w i n g d a y ) n o t for the sake o f r e t u r n favors, as m e n b y n a t u r e are w o n t t o d o . A s J o s e p h u s p u t s it, o n e s h o u l d t a k e h e r as a n e x a m p l e o f hospitality, a q u a l i t y t h a n w h i c h n o n e is m o r e likely to m a k e G - d g r a c i o u s , a n d that, w e m a y r e m a r k , b o t h the J e w s a n d the G r e e k s h o n o r e d in h i g h m e a s u r e . T h e f o r e m o s t v i r t u e o f S a u l , his c o u r a g e , is m a n i f e s t as w e l l in the e p i s o d e t h a t follows; for i m m e d i a t e l y after S a u l has b e e n t o l d b y S a m u e l , w h o h a s b e e n raised
12. O n 30,000 as a round number, for example, for the n u m b e r o f angels in M o s e s ' bodyguard, see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 2:306. G i n z b e r g fails to note our passage as a parallel, however. A s to the n u m b e r 60,000, it will be recalled that Josephus (Ant. 6.129) also gives the n u m b e r o f Philistines slain from M i c h mash to Aijalon as 60,000. 13. A s B r o w n 1992, 190, remarks, Josephus's portrayal o f the witch o f E n d o r is particularly re markable in that she is his most positively portrayed female character, and this despite the fact that she is not a matriarch or a prophetess and, in fact, practices a profession that is c o n d e m n e d in the strongest terms in the Bible (note, in particular, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" [Exod. 22:17]). Indeed, Josephus goes out o f his w a y to offer a l o n g e n c o m i u m o f her (Ant. 6.340-42).
SAUL
521
f r o m t h e d e a d b y t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r , t h a t h e is to die, J o s e p h u s e m b a r k s o n a m o s t r e m a r k a b l e e n c o m i u m o f S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50). H e i n t r o d u c e s the p a s s a g e w i t h a striking, e l a b o r a t e p r e f a c e i n w h i c h h e i n d i c a t e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w h a t h e is a b o u t to say: " B u t n o w , " h e d e c l a r e s , " I shall t o u c h o n a s u b j e c t profitable [avpL^epovra]
t o states, p e o p l e s , a n d n a t i o n s ,
14
a n d o f interest to all g o o d m e n —
o n e w h e r e b y all s h o u l d b e i n d u c e d to p u r s u e v i r t u e a n d to aspire t o t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t m a y p r o c u r e t h e m g l o r y [8ofav] a n d e t e r n a l r e n o w n [pLvrjpLrjv], o n e , m o r e over, t h a t s h o u l d instill into t h e h e a r t s o f k i n g s o f n a t i o n s a n d rulers o f cities a g r e a t desire [emdu/Lu'av] a n d z e a l [airovo-qv] for n o b l e d e e d s , s h o u l d stimulate t h e m t o face d a n g e r s a n d d e a t h for t h e i r c o u n t r y ' s sake, a n d t e a c h t h e m to despise all ter rors [oeivcov]" (Ant. 6.343). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t o p r a i s e S a u l for his h e r o i s m , since, despite t h e fact t h a t h e k n e w , t h r o u g h the p r o p h e c y o f S a m u e l , o f his i m p e n d i n g d e a t h , a n d those o f his sons, in b a t d e w i t h t h e Philistines, h e d e t e r m i n e d n o t to shrink f r o m it or, b y p r e f e r r i n g to live, to b e t r a y his p e o p l e t o t h e e n e m y o r to d i s h o n o r his status as k i n g (Ant. 6 . 3 4 4 - 4 5 ) . T h e r e s u l t i n g p o r t r a i t is r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h a t o f H o m e r ' s A c h i l l e s , w h o k n e w t h a t i f h e r e m a i n e d t o fight a g a i n s t t h e T r o j a n s , h e w o u l d g a i n g l o r y b u t lose his life, a n d y e t c h o s e this p r e m a t u r e d e a t h (Iliad 9 . 4 1 0 - 1 6 ) . It l i k e w i s e recalls t h e final c o m b a t b e t w e e n H e c t o r a n d A c h i l l e s , in w h i c h , after H e c t o r h a s t h r o w n his s p e a r a n d it h a s b e e n d r i v e n far b a c k f r o m t h e shield o f A c h i l l e s so t h a t h e is n o w w i t h o u t a spear, h e r e a l i z e s t h a t h e m u s t die a n d y e t says: " L e t m e at least n o t die w i t h o u t a s t r u g g l e , i n g l o r i o u s , b u t d o s o m e b i g t h i n g first, t h a t m e n to c o m e shall k n o w o f it" (Iliad 22.304-5). T h e p a r a l l e l s c e n e s i n H o m e r m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s m i n d h e r e , i n a s m u c h as e l s e w h e r e h e s h o w s his k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r (e.g., in Ag. Ap. 1.12). J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t l i k e w i s e recalls t h e s c e n e in w h i c h T u r n u s tells his sister t h a t h e is r e s o l v e d to f a c e A e n e a s , d e t e r m i n e d t o b e a r w h a t bitterness t h e r e is in t h e d e a t h t h a t h e h a s b e e n t o l d a w a i t s h i m ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 1 2 . 6 7 6 - 8 0 ) . Similarly, S a u l prefers a b r a v e d e a t h for his sons r a t h e r t h a n a l o n g life w i t h o u t s u c h r e n o w n .
1 5
For h i m
self, h e prefers to o b t a i n g l o r y (iircuvov) a n d ageless m e m o r y (dy-qpoj pLvrjpLrjv, Ant. 6.345), w o r d s h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e ageless p r a i s e (dyrjpwv iiraivov) t h a t t h o s e w h o d i e d f i g h t i n g for A t h e n s h a d g a i n e d , a c c o r d i n g to Pericles in his F u n e r a l O r a t i o n (ap. T h u c y d i d e s 2.43.2). B y f o l l o w i n g this c o u r s e , S a u l h o p e d to g a i n a r e p u t a t i o n as j u s t (dvSpetos),
(SIKCUOS),
brave
a n d self-controlled (owcfrpcov) (Ant. 6.346), t h r e e o f t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l
v i r t u e s o f t h e G r e e k s . H e is t h u s p o r t r a y e d b y J o s e p h u s as a m o d e l for all, a n d es p e c i a l l y for k i n g s (Ant. 6 . 3 4 9 ) ,
w n o
s
e
e
^
t
o
o b t a i n g l o r y (oo£av) a n d e t e r n a l r e n o w n
14. Note the very similar language employed by Polybius, who likewise states that his work has been written for "the political type, the man interested in the doings of nations, cities, monarchs" (9-1-4-5)15. Similarly, in the rabbinic aggada (especially Tanhuma B, Lev. 82), Saul is praised for his courage in taking his sons with him to a certain death.
522
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
(/jLvrnjLrjv alojviov) (Ant. 6.343); a n d his e x p l o i t will, says J o s e p h u s , instill into o t h e r s a g r e a t desire (eindvpilav) a n d z e a l (airovhrjv)
for n o b l e d e e d s
(TCOV
KOLXWV)
a n d stim
ulate t h e m to defy d a n g e r a n d terror a n d d e a t h in fighting for their c o u n t r y .
16
W e m a y see h e r e i n a m a j o r c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer 23) a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. 5 9 , 64.5, 64.8), as a g a i n s t J o s e p h u s (Ant. 6.344), as to the p u r p o s e o f S a m u e l ' s p r o p h e c y , since the f o r m e r i n d i c a t e t h a t it w a s to call S a u l t o r e p e n t a n c e t h r o u g h his h e r o i c d e a t h for his sins, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t the p r o p h e c y is i n t e n d e d to s u m m o n S a u l to s h o w h i m s e l f a m o d e l o f the g r e a t l e a d e r a n d c o u r a g e o u s fighter. I n this r e s p e c t , S a u l is d e p i c t e d in r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n
17
as b e i n g e v e n g r e a t e r t h a n D a v i d , i n a s m u c h as D a v i d re
m a i n e d b e h i n d , f e a r i n g to lose his life in b a t d e t o g e t h e r w i t h his s o n A b s a l o m , w h e r e a s S a u l w e n t into b a t d e k n o w i n g t h a t h e w o u l d n o t r e t u r n alive. S a u l ' s m o tive is thus like t h a t o f the h e r o e s A c h i l l e s , H e c t o r , a n d T u r n u s — s h e e r g l o r y a n d r e n o w n (ev(f>r) pitas) after d e a t h (Ant. 6.349). I n the b a t d e t h a t follows, S a u l ' s b r a v e r y is m a g n i f i e d b y the fact t h a t w h e r e a s the B i b l e s p e a k s m e r e l y o f the Philistines as n u m b e r i n g in the h u n d r e d s a n d t h o u sands (1 S a m . 29:2), J o s e p h u s e v o k e s the p i c t u r e o f X e r x e s m a r s h a l i n g his t r o o p s ( H e r o d o t u s 7.60), since h e a n a c h r o n i s t i c a l l y speaks o f the Philistines as r e v i e w i n g their forces b y n a t i o n s , k i n g d o m s , a n d satrapies (Ant. 6.351), the last t e r m b e i n g a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e h a d the Persians in m i n d . A s to S a u l ' s final battle w i t h the Philistines, the B i b l e is e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y brief, n o t i n g o n l y t h a t the Israelites fled, a n d t h a t the Philistines f o l l o w e d h a r d u p o n S a u l , w h o w a s b a d l y w o u n d e d (1 S a m . 3 1 : 1 - 3 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , a d d s a n u m b e r o f details t o b u i l d u p S a u l ' s b r a v e r y (Ant. 6 . 3 6 8 - 6 9 ) . W h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t m a n y o f the Israelites p e r i s h e d in the b a t d e (2 S a m . 1:4), J o s e p h u s m a g nifies this b y n o t i n g t h a t m a n y tens o f t h o u s a n d s w e r e slain (Ant. 7.2). W e are t o l d t h a t S a u l a n d his sons " s t r u g g l e d [dycovL^opievoi] n o b l y [yevvalats,
recalling Saul's
h i g h - b o r n station, as n o t e d a b o v e ] a n d t h r e w all their a r d o r [npoOvfjilq] into the fight, as t h o u g h their entire g l o r y [ S o ^ ? ] rested solely o n their d y i n g b e c o m i n g l y [/caAcos] a n d d e s p e r a t e l y h a z a r d i n g all a g a i n s t the e n e m y , for n o t h i n g w a s left t h e m " (Ant. 6.368). I n this w a y , like N i s u s in V i r g i l ' s Aeneid (9.424-45), t h e y d r e w the a t t e n t i o n o f the e n e m y t o t h e m s e l v e s a n d thus p e r i s h e d , b u t o n l y after, like S a m s o n , t h e y h a d slain m a n y o f t h e Philistines, w h i l e e n a b l i n g their c o u n t r y m e n to flee. I n the struggle, S a u l lost all b u t a f e w o f the ablest m e n a r o u n d h i m (Ant. 6.370). J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t m a n y tens o f t h o u s a n d s o f the H e b r e w s w e r e slain (Ant. 7.2), w h e r e a s the n u m b e r is n o t specified in 2 S a m . 1:4. S a u l himself, w e are told, f o u g h t m a g n i f i c e n d y (Xaparpcos) a n d r e c e i v e d n u m e r o u s w o u n d s . F r o m the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 31:4), o n e m i g h t w o n d e r a b o u t S a u l ' s c o u r a g e in t h a t at
16. In a similar extrabiblical addition, Josephus remarks that it is right to admire Samson for his valor, his strength, and his nobility (fjLeyaX6<j)povos) in death (Ant. 5.317). Cf. also the gready amplified version of Uriah's death (Ant. 7.138-40). See S. K . Williams 1975, as well as Attridge 1976a, 114, n. 2. 17. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:238, n. 80, for citations.
SAUL
523
first, h a r d p r e s s e d t h o u g h h e w a s , h e s u m m o n s his a r m o r b e a r e r to slay h i m r a t h e r t h a n k i l l i n g himself. I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , n o possible c h a r g e o f c o w a r d i c e c a n b e l e v e l e d a g a i n s t S a u l , for it is c l e a r t h a t h e h a s r e c e i v e d so m a n y w o u n d s t h a t h e is n o l o n g e r a b l e to g o o n a n d is, in fact, e v e n t o o w e a k to kill h i m s e l f (Ant. 6.370). F i nally, J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e m o u r n i n g for S a u l , a d d i n g t h a t t h e p e o p l e o f J a b e s h b u r i e d S a u l a n d his sons in t h e fairest spot in t h e country, c a l l e d A r o u r a (Ant. 6 . 3 7 7 ) —
m e v e i
T P
A a c
e , the r e a d e r o f J o s e p h u s w i l l r e c a l l , w h e r e S a u l , in his
s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t D a v i d , h a d u r g e d his fellow t r i b e s m e n a n d friends to r e m a i n l o y a l to him—(Ant. 6.251), a n d t h a t t h e y b e a t their breasts a n d b e w a i l e d t h e m . I n p r a i s e o f S a u l ' s c o u r a g e , J o s e p h u s e d i t o r i a l i z e s , insisting t h a t t h e " s t o u t - h e a r t e d " (eviftvxoi), o f d a n g e r " (rtov Seivwv
" g r e a t l y d a r i n g " (pLeyaXoroXpioi),
Kara^povrjraC)
terms
"contemptuous
c a n justly be applied only to heroes such
as S a u l , s i n c e t h o s e a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y less n o b l e (yevvalov) s t o r m y seas (oaXeveiv)
and
w h o g o off to the
o f c h a n c e in w a r , u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l r e t u r n safely,
w h e r e a s S a u l w e n t k n o w i n g t h a t t h e result w o u l d b e fatal b o t h for h i m s e l f a n d for his sons a n d y e t w a s n o t a f r a i d (Ant. 6.347). H e r e , t o o , w e s h o u l d n o t e t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n r e g a r d i n g S a u l ' s l a c k o f fear. O n l y s u c h a p e r s o n d e s e r v e s t o b e c a l l e d t r u l y c o u r a g e o u s (avbpeiov),
says J o s e p h u s (Ant. 6.348). S a u l t h u s b e
c o m e s t h e m o d e l k i n g (see G o o d e n o u g h 1 9 2 8 , 5 5 - 1 0 4 ) , since, as J o s e p h u s says in w h a t s o u n d s like a n a p o t h e g m , " t h e g r e a t n e s s o f t h e i r p o w e r f o r b i d s t h e m n o t m e r e l y t o b e b a d to t h e i r subjects, b u t e v e n to b e less t h a n w h o l l y g o o d " (Ant, 6.349). S a u l ' s c o u r a g e is built u p i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h t h a t o f his s o n a n d Jonathan,
1 8
heir-apparent,
j u s t as V i r g i l ' s Aeneid m a g n i f i e s n o t m e r e l y t h e h e r o , A e n e a s , b u t also
his s o n a n d h e i r a p p a r e n t A s c a n i u s (see F e l d m a n 1 9 5 2 - 5 3 , 3 0 3 - 1 3 ) . T h u s , in v i v i d l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e e x p l o i t o f J o n a t h a n in killing t w e n t y o f the Philistines (1 S a m . 1 4 : 1 - 1 5 ) , J o s e p h u s a d d s c o n s i d e r a b l e c o l o r to the s c e n e b y p r e f a c i n g it w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f S a u l , his s o n , a n d the h i g h priest w a t c h i n g t h e d e v a s t a t i o n o f t h e l a n d w h i l e in a state o f d e e p e s t a n g u i s h (Ant. 6.107),
a
s
n o t e d a b o v e . T h e e x p l o i t is
built u p b y h a v i n g J o n a t h a n p r o p o s e t o his a r m o r b e a r e r t h a t t h e y s e c r e d y sally o u t (Kpv(/)a . . . eKopapueiv) into t h e e n e m y ' s c a m p a n d c r e a t e c o n f u s i o n a n d p a n i c (rapaxr)v
epLTroiTJoou Kal Oopvfiov) a m o n g t h e m (Ant. 6.107). It i n d i r e c d y r e d o u n d s
t o t h e c r e d i t o f S a u l , the i n s p i r i n g force b e h i n d this p r o p o s e d initiative, t h a t J o n a t h a n ' s a r m o r b e a r e r n o t only, as in t h e B i b l e , is p r e p a r e d to j o i n h i m in w h a t e v e r h e d o e s (1 S a m . 14:7), b u t also, as in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , w i l l d o so gladly, e v e n t h o u g h it m a y m e a n his d e a t h (Ant. 6.108). J o n a t h a n ' s e x p l o i t is t h u s r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e similar e x p l o i t o f t h e y o u t h f u l N i s u s a n d E u r y a l u s , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to V i r g i l , ventured
forth
into
the
enemy
camp
o f the
Rutulians
(Aeneid 9 . 1 7 6 - 5 0 2 ) .
J o n a t h a n ' s e x p l o i t is m a g n i f i e d , f u r t h e r m o r e , b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , stressing h o w
18. Jobling 1978, 4-25, insightfully remarks that the character of Jonathan is the most important key for solving (or mediating) the theological problem of the story of Amalek.
524
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
i m p r e g n a b l e the e n e m y ' s p o s i t i o n w a s , since it w a s b e l i e v e d t o b e a b s o l u t e l y i m possible for a n y m a n , n o t m e r e l y to scale the Philistines' c r a g s , b u t e v e n t o a p p r o a c h t h e m (Ant. 6 . 1 0 8 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s t h e n presents a v i v i d p o r t r a y a l o f J o n a t h a n a n d his a r m o r b e a r e r c r e e p i n g u p the e n e m y ' s cliff despite g r e a t h a r d s h i p a n d f o r c i n g their w a y o v e r the difficulties in their p a t h , a n d t h e n o f the p a n i c a n d c o n fusion in the e n e m y c r e a t e d b y their e x p l o i t (Ant. 6 . 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) . T h e e l e m e n t o f sur prise is stressed b y the a d d i t i o n t h a t the e n e m y w e r e a s l e e p (Ant. 6.113), as are the R u t u l i a n s in V i r g i l (Aeneid 9 . 1 8 9 - 9 0 ) . W h e n J o n a t h a n a n d his a r m o r b e a r e r fall u p o n t h e m , p r e c i s e l y as A b r a h a m fell u p o n the A s s y r i a n s w h e n t h e y w e r e a s l e e p (Ant. 1.177), a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail, J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r a b l y amplifies the p a n i c a m o n g the e n e m y c a u s e d b y J o n a t h a n ' s e x p l o i t (1 S a m . 1 4 : 1 5 - 1 6 , 20), r e m a r k i n g t h a t s o m e f l u n g o f f all their a r m s a n d fled, w h i l e the g r e a t e r p a r t , n o t r e c o g n i z i n g their c o m r a d e s b e c a u s e o f the m a n y nationalities o f w h i c h their a r m y w a s c o m p o s e d , t u r n e d to fight o n e a n o t h e r (Ant. 6 . 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s t h e n a d d s the g r u e s o m e detail t h a t s o m e p e r i s h e d b y the s w o r d , w h i l e others, as t h e y fled, w e r e d r i v e n o v e r the r o c k s a n d h u r l e d h e a d l o n g . A l l in all, it is a d e e d t h a t r e d o u n d s to the g l o r y o f J o n a t h a n ' s father S a u l , w h o , t h e r e a d e r w o u l d as s u m e , h a d instilled s u c h fearlessness in his s o n . Temperance.
T h e third o f t h e c a r d i n a l virtues in S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r t h a t J o s e p h u s
e m p h a s i z e s is t e m p e r a n c e , w h i c h h e identifies w i t h his m o d e s t y (Ant. 6.63). T h i s is o n e o f S a u l ' s m o s t o u t s t a n d i n g qualities, a n d it is d e v e l o p e d b o t h b y J o s e p h u s a n d b y the r a b b i s t o a d e g r e e far b e y o n d the B i b l e . T h u s , in t h e scriptural a c c o u n t , w h e n S a m u e l d e c l a r e s t h a t all t h a t is d e s i r a b l e in Israel is i n t e n d e d for S a u l a n d for his f a m i l y (1 S a m . 9:20), S a u l , in modesty, a n s w e r s : "Is n o t m y f a m i l y the h u m b l e s t o f all the families o f the tribe o f B e n j a m i n ? W h y , t h e n , h a v e y o u s p o k e n to m e i n this w a y ? " (1 S a m . 9:21). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , d r a m a t i z e s S a u l ' s m o d e s t y e v e n fur t h e r b y h a v i n g h i m d e c l a r e bitterly to S a m u e l t h a t h e is b u t m o c k i n g (irai^eLs) m a k i n g s p o r t (yiXwra
rideadai)
and
o f h i m in m a t t e r s t o o h i g h for his station (Ant.
6.51). T h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n S a u l ' s h u m i l i t y a n d the h i g h station for w h i c h h e is d e s t i n e d is a u g m e n t e d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t b y i n c r e a s i n g the n u m b e r o f guests at the feast at S a m u e l ' s h o u s e f r o m " a b o u t t h i r t y " (1 S a m . 9:22) to seventy, as n o t e d above.
1 9
T h e T a l m u d criticizes S a u l for his e x c e s s i v e m i l d n e s s a n d r e g a r d s this as s u c h a d r a w b a c k in a r u l e r as t o justify his b e i n g d e p o s e d (Toma 22b). J o s e p h u s , c o n fronted w i t h the n e g a t i v e G r e e k attitude t o w a r d m e e k n e s s , e n d e a v o r s to s h o w t h a t
19. Contrast the extreme modesty ascribed to Saul by the rabbis, w h o note that his fear that his fa ther might b e c o m e anxious concerning "us" if he and his servant should prolong their search for his fa ther's asses (1 S a m . 9:5) indicates that he placed his servant on a level with himself (Tosefta Berakot 4:1). Cf. also other passages cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:231, n. 51. T h e rabbis likewise (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:231, n. 52) remark that Saul w a s so modest that even w h e n the kingship was offered to him, he refused until the U r i m and the T h u m m i m o f the high priest h a d b e e n consulted.
SAUL
525
S a u l w a s n o t so h u m b l e . H e n c e , J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s to e x p l a i n S a u l ' s m o d e s t y in k e e p i n g silent, for e x a m p l e , a b o u t his b e i n g a n o i n t e d b y S a m u e l . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e r e a d m e r e l y t h a t " c o n c e r n i n g the m a t t e r o f t h e k i n g d o m , w h e r e o f S a m u e l s p o k e , h e [Saul] t o l d h i m [Saul's u n c l e ] n o t " (1 S a m . 10:16), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s S a u l ' s r e t i c e n c e as d u e to fear o f j e a l o u s y a n d distrust, a n d t h e n p r o c e e d s t o m o r a l i z e t h a t s u c h is h u m a n n a t u r e t h a t n o o n e , n o t e v e n friend o r k i n s m a n , s h o w s u n w a v e r i n g l o y a l t y o r affection w h e n distinctions a r e g i v e n o t h e r s b y G - d , b u t i n s t e a d r e g a r d s these h o n o r s w i t h m a l i c e a n d e n v y (Ant. 6.59). L e s t S a u l ' s m o d e s t y in h i d i n g after h e h a d b e e n c h o s e n k i n g (1 S a m . 10:21) b e r e g a r d e d as a sign o f shyness, w e a k n e s s , fear, o r f a i n t h e a r t e d n e s s , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t h e " p r o m p d y t o o k h i m s e l f a w a y , n o t w i s h i n g , I i m a g i n e , to a p p e a r e a g e r to t a k e t h e s o v e r e i g n t y " (Ant. 6.63). S a u l ' s m o d e s t y at this t i m e b e c o m e s t h e o c c a s i o n for a p a n e g y r i c b y J o s e p h u s o n S a u l ' s restraint (iyKpdreiav) a t i o n (oaxfrpoovvrjv)
and moder
(Ant. 6.63); for w h e r e a s m o s t p e o p l e , at t h e slightest success,
b u r s t w i t h j o y , h e a c t u a l l y stole a w a y a l t h o u g h it w a s n o t w i t h o u t t r o u b l e t h a t h e d i d this (/cat Trepl
TOVTO
irovelv). S c r i p t u r e states t h a t w h e n S a m u e l a n n o u n c e d to
all t h e Israelites t h a t S a u l h a d b e e n c h o s e n k i n g , S a u l c o u l d n o t b e f o u n d , since h e h a d c o n c e a l e d h i m s e l f (1 S a m . 10:21). G - d t h e n reveals t h a t S a u l h a d h i d h i m s e l f a m o n g t h e b a g g a g e . N o w , to t h e G r a e c o - R o m a n reader, the p i c t u r e o f t h e tall, h a n d s o m e S a u l hiding a m o n g the b a g g a g e m i g h t well have s e e m e d u n w o r t h y o f o n e w h o h a d j u s t b e e n c h o s e n king. J o s e p h u s , to b e sure, p r e s e n t s t h e s c e n e m o r e c o l o r f u l l y b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t S a u l ' s future subjects w e r e baffled a n d p e r p l e x e d at his d i s a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 6.64). N e v e r t h e l e s s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t s u c h u n d u e
modesty
m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d negatively, h e e x p l a i n s t h a t the r e a s o n w h y S a u l h i d h i m s e l f w a s t h a t h e d i d n o t w i s h to a p p e a r to b e t o o a m b i t i o u s for t h e s o v e r e i g n t y (Ant. 6.63). H e r e , as f r e q u e n d y J o s e p h u s , f o l l o w i n g the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l , supplies a c o n scious, r a t i o n a l m o t i v e for S a u l ' s a c t i o n .
2 0
It is interesting t h a t w h e n J o s e p h u s
s p e a k s o f S a u l ' s m o d e s t y h e refers to it as restraint (eyKpdreiav)
and moderation
(aa)(f)poGvvrjv) (Ant. 6.63), r a t h e r t h a n b y A r i s t o d e ' s c o n t e m p t u o u s t e r m for h u m i l ity (puKpoi/jvxta,
"littleness o f soul"). H e t h e n m o r a l i z e s , a g a i n in a n a p o l o g e t i c
m o o d , t h a t S a u l differed r a d i c a l l y f r o m the u n d u l y p r o u d m a n w h o rushes t o dis p l a y h i m s e l f b e f o r e the w h o l e w o r l d . J o s e p h u s is thus careful to stress t h a t S a u l ' s s e l f - c o n c e a l m e n t w a s a sign n o t o f shyness o r t i m i d i t y o r f a i n t h e a r t e d n e s s , rather of modesty.
21
but
C o n s e q u e n d y J o s e p h u s o m i t s the b i b l i c a l detail (1 S a m . 10:22)
t h a t S a u l h i d h i m s e l f a m o n g t h e b a g g a g e , since, p r e s u m a b l y , h e r e g a r d e d this as a sign o f t i m i d i t y a n d h e n c e d e g r a d i n g , a n d states m e r e l y t h a t G - d i n d i c a t e d t h e p l a c e w h e r e S a u l w a s h i d i n g , w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g w h a t this w a s (Ant. 6.65). Justice.
Not
only does Josephus
emphasize
S a u l ' s qualities
of wisdom,
c o u r a g e , a n d t e m p e r a n c e ; h e also cites his sense o f j u s t i c e , since h e , e d i t o r i a l i z i n g ,
20. For further examples in Josephus, see Attridge 1976a, 40, n. 4. 21. So also the rabbis (Megillah 13b).
526
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
d e c l a r e s , after J o n a t h a n a p p e a l s to h i m , t h a t thus a j u s t c a u s e
(SIKCUOS
Xoyos) p r e
v a i l e d o v e r a n g e r a n d fear (Ant. 6.212). J o s e p h u s increases S a u l ' s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f j u s t i c e as a g a i n s t his attitude in the B i b l e , w h e r e S a u l g o e s to l o o k for his father's asses a n d first passes t h r o u g h the hill c o u n t r y o f E p h r a i m a n d o t h e r l a n d s b e f o r e t r a v e r s i n g the territory o f his a n c e s t r a l tribe, the B e n j a m i n i t e s (1 S a m . 9:4). I f so, w e m a y ask, b y w h a t r i g h t d i d S a u l trespass o n the territories o f the o t h e r tribes b e fore s e a r c h i n g his o w n territory? A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s reverses the o r d e r o f S a u l ' s m o v e m e n t s : n a m e l y , h e first g o e s t h r o u g h the territory o f his father's tribe a n d o n l y later passes o v e r to t h a t o f the o t h e r tribes (Ant. 6.46). T h e r e is a n o b v i o u s p r o b l e m in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t w h e n S a u l hesitates to g o to the p r o p h e t S a m u e l b e c a u s e h e d o e s n o t h a v e a gift for h i m (1 S a m . 9:7). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t S a u l t h o u g h t t h a t h e c o u l d g a i n k n o w l e d g e f r o m the p r o p h e t b y b r i b i n g h i m w i t h a gift. T h e m e d i e v a l c o m m e n t a t o r R a s h i (ad loc.) e x p l a i n s that S a u l w a s u n a w a r e o f the fact that S a m u e l ' s p r a c t i c e w a s n o t to a c c e p t gifts. J o s e p h u s states e x p l i c i d y o f S a u l a n d his s e r v a n t t h a t "their i g n o r a n c e t h a t the p r o p h e t a c c e p t e d n o r e w a r d m i s l e d t h e m " (Ant. 6.48). Piety.
I n a d d i t i o n to the e x t e r n a l v i r t u e s o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e n e s s a n d
to the four c a r d i n a l virtues, J o s e p h u s also ascribes to S a u l the v i r t u e o f p i e t y (euaejSeta, Ant. 6.160). T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t G - d d i d n o t a n s w e r S a u l w h e n h e a s k e d w h e t h e r h e w o u l d b e v i c t o r i o u s o v e r the Philistines (1 S a m . 14:37), J o s e p h u s has S a u l p i o u s l y d e c l a r e t h a t it w a s n o t w i t h o u t c a u s e t h a t G - d h a d n o t a n s w e r e d , since H e h a d f o r e w a r n e d "us o f all H i m s e l f a n d s p o k e to us e v e n b e f o r e w e i n q u i r e d o f H i m " (Ant. 6.123). A further i n d i c a t i o n o f S a u l ' s p i e t y t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses is his r e s p e c t for a n o a t h . I n the t r e a t m e n t o f the e p i s o d e o f S a u l ' s o a t h to slay a n y o n e w h o v i o l a t e d his edict, e v e n if it w e r e his o w n s o n J o n a t h a n , J o s e p h u s , in a d d i t i o n to h e i g h t e n i n g the sense o f d r a m a so b e l o v e d b y I s o c r a t e a n historians, u n d e r s c o r e s S a u l ' s fidelity to his w o r d b y h a v i n g S a u l stress t h a t e v e n if it w e r e J o n a t h a n w h o v i o l a t e d the edict, h e w o u l d p u t h i m to d e a t h a n d t h u s propitiate G - d , as t h o u g h J o n a t h a n w e r e n o k i n to h i m (Ant. 6.124). I n c o n t r a s t , in the B i b l e , S a u l d o e s n o t d e c l a r e that h e will slay his son, b u t m e r e l y t h a t J o n a t h a n shall die, a n d d o e s n o t a d d t h a t h e shall d o so as t h o u g h h e w e r e n o t r e l a t e d t o h i m (1 S a m . 14:39). M o r e o v e r , j u s t as S a u l ' s b r a v e r y is h i g h l i g h t e d v i a the b u i l d u p o f the c o u r a g e o f his son J o n a t h a n , so his o w n p i e t y is m a g n i f i e d t h r o u g h t h a t o f J o n a t h a n , w h i c h the latter a p p e a r s to h a v e i n h e r i t e d a n d w h i c h h e manifests t o w a r d his father, S a u l . I n the B i b l e , w h e n J o n a t h a n confesses t h a t h e v i o l a t e d S a u l ' s e d i c t in tasting o f the honey, h e d e c l a r e s : " H e r e a m I: I shall d i e " (1 S a m . 14:43). J o s e p h u s
elaborates
c o n s i d e r a b l y o n J o n a t h a n ' s n o b i l i t y a n d m a g n a n i m i t y in f a c i n g d e a t h at the h a n d s o f his father. " V e r y s w e e t t o m e , " h e d e c l a r e s , " w e r e d e a t h u n d e r g o n e for the sake o f y o u r p i e t y [ei5aej8eta?]" (Ant. 6.127). T h e s c e n e is v e r y r e m i n i s c e n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s in his a c c o u n t o f I s a a c ' s w i l l i n g n e s s to b e sacrificed (Ant. 1.232), since I s a a c , t o o , r e c e i v e s w i t h j o y his father's w o r d s i n f o r m i n g h i m t h a t G - d h a s c o m -
SAUL
527
m a n d e d t h a t h e b e sacrificed. T h e d r a m a is further i n c r e a s e d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , w h i c h is r e m i n i s c e n t o f L i v y ' s n a r r a t i v e o f the i m p o s i t i o n o f the d e a t h p e n a l t y b y t h e c o n s u l L u c i u s J u n i u s B r u t u s u p o n his t w o sons for t r e a s o n ( L i v y 2.5); for, w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e r e is silence a m o n g the p e o p l e w h e n h e m a k e s this s t a t e m e n t (1 S a m . 14:39), in J o s e p h u s , the m u l t i t u d e calls u p o n h i m to d o as h e h a s said h e w i l l (Ant. 6.125). T h e r e a f t e r , w h e n the lot i n d i c a t e s t h a t it is J o n a t h a n w h o is t h e culprit, the b i b l i c a l S a u l says: " T h o u shalt surely die, J o n a t h a n " (1 S a m . 14:44). B u t in J o s e p h u s w e a r e r e m i n d e d o f the sacrifice o f I p h i g e n i a b y h e r father A g a m e m n o n (cf, e.g., A e s c h y l u s ' s Agamemnon 2 2 8 - 3 0 , a n d E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis), for S a u l s w e a r s to slay his s o n , " r e s p e c t i n g his o a t h m o r e t h a n t e n d e r ties [filXrpcov, " l o v e , " " a f f e c t i o n " ] o f f a t h e r h o o d [yeveoews]
a n d o f n a t u r e [<£uaeco?]"
(Ant. 6.126). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , w h i t e w a s h the c h a r a c t e r o f S a u l in this matter. T h u s , S c r i p t u r e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n the r e a s o n why, i f the Israelites w e r e so tired fol l o w i n g their r o u t o f t h e Philistines, S a u l f o r b a d e t h e m to e a t until e v e n i n g (1 S a m . 14:24). J o s e p h u s tries to satisfy the q u i z z i c a l r e a d e r b y s p e c u l a t i n g t h a t S a u l d i d so e i t h e r t h r o u g h e x u l t a t i o n at a v i c t o r y so u n e x p e c t e d , "for m e n a r e a p t to lose c o n trol o f r e a s o n
2 2
w h e n thus blest b y f o r t u n e , " o r t h r o u g h i g n o r a n c e (Ant. 6 . 1 1 6 ) .
23
J o s e p h u s , t h e n , in all c a n d o r , refers to this r a s h v o w as a d r e a d f u l (Seivov) a n d v e r y b l a m e w o r t h y (TTOAA^V e^ov Kardpuepajjiv) d e e d .
2 4
A similar i n c r e a s e d stress u p o n S a u l ' s p i e t y is to b e s e e n w h e n S a m u e l c o m m u n i c a t e s to S a u l G - d ' s o r d e r to e x t e r m i n a t e the A m a l e k i t e s ; a n d S a u l , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , r e a s o n s (XoyL^opuevos) t h a t o b e d i e n c e (neLOapxlav) to G - d lies n o t m e r e l y in g o i n g to w a r a g a i n s t t h e A m a l e k i t e s b u t e v e n m o r e in d o i n g so w i t h r e a d i n e s s (iroLpLOTrjra) a n d s p e e d (rdxos) d e v o i d o f d e l a y (dva^oXrjs) (Ant. 6 . 1 3 4 ) .
25
I n a n a d d i t i o n to 1 S a m . 20:24, J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t o n the n e w m o o n , S a u l s h o w e d r e g a r d for p i e t y in t h a t h e c a m e to the feast o n l y after p u r i f y i n g h i m s e l f in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o p e r c u s t o m (Ant. 6.235). T h e B i b l e itself p r e s e n t s a n i n c o n s i s t e n t p i c t u r e o f S a u l ' s piety. T h u s S a m u e l tells S a u l t o g o d o w n to G i l g a l , " a n d b e h o l d I w i l l c o m e d o w n t o y o u " (1 S a m . 10:8). T h i s suggests t h a t S a u l s h o u l d g o d o w n to G i l g a l at o n c e , w h e r e a s a c t u a l l y a
22. One is reminded that Josephus similarly, in an extrabiblical addition, remarks that it was be cause Saul had lost his reason that he stripped offhis clothes and began to prophesy (Ant. 6.223). 23. The Septuagint was undoubtedly Josephus's source for the latter supposition, since it says that Saul showed great ignorance (-qyvorjaev dyvoiav fieydXrjv) on that day (1 Sam. 14:24). 24. Similarly, Josephus condemns Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter in fulfillment of his vow to offer up thefirstcreature that should meet him if he return from batde victoriously, "for he had not by reflection [Xoyia^co] probed what might befall or in what aspect the deed would appear to them that heard of it" (Ant. 5.266). 25. Similarly, the rabbis, as Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:238, n. 80, remarks, conclude that not even David was Saul's equal in piety. They stress, in particular, that whereas David had many wives and concu bines, Saul had only one wife. They also praise him for his scrupulousness in observing the ordinances with regard to sacrifices (see citations in Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:232, nn. 58, 59).
528
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e elapses b e f o r e h e d o e s so, w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , d e t r a c t s f r o m t h e p o r t r a i t o f S a u l as p i o u s l y o b e d i e n t to t h e m a n o f G - d . J o s e p h u s , a c c o r d i n g l y , re solves t h e p r o b l e m b y h a v i n g S a m u e l state: " T h o u shalt c o m e , w h e n s u m m o n e d by m e , to G i l g a l " (Ant. 6.57). A g a i n , w e h e a r o f S a u l ' s d i s o b e d i e n c e in offering a sacrifice i n s t e a d o f w a i t i n g for
S a m u e l (1 S a m . 1 3 : 8 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , e x p l a i n s this a w a y b y stressing
t h a t S a u l d i d so u n d e r t h e i m p u l s e o f necessity, since his t e r r o r i z e d t r o o p s w e r e d e serting h i m in their i m p a t i e n c e (Ant. 6.103). T h e B i b l e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , speaks o n l y o f t h e Israelites s c a t t e r i n g f r o m S a u l , w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g their t e r r o r (1 S a m . 13:11). S a u l , t o o , s u c c u m b s to this terror, as s h o w n b y his s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e Philistines w i l l d e s c e n d u p o n h i m (1 S a m . 13:12); in J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , t h e r e is a n o b j e c t i v e basis for S a u l ' s fear, for h e n o t e s t h a t S a u l h a d a c t u a l l y h e a r d a r e p o r t (aKorjs) t h a t the Philistines i n t e n d e d t o c o m e d o w n u p o n h i m (Ant. 6.103). A l t h o u g h the Bible presents a glorious picture o f Saul's religious fervor while p r o p h e s y i n g , it is e m b a r r a s s i n g t o r e a d t h a t S a u l s t r i p p e d o f f his c l o t h e s a n d p r o p h e s i e d in t h e n u d e (1 S a m . 19:24). J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y c o n c e r n e d h o w s u c h a n a c t i o n w o u l d affect S a u l ' s r e p u t a t i o n , offers a w o r d o f e x p l a n a t i o n , n a m e l y , t h a t S a u l d i d so, " l o s i n g his r e a s o n " (eKc^pcov) a n d u n d e r the i m p u l s e o f a m i g h t y d i v i n e spirit (VTTO TOV 7TOXXOV TrvevpLcxTos iXavvopLevos) (Ant. 6.223). O n e is r e m i n d e d o f A g a m e m n o n ' s a p o l o g y in w h i c h h e a s c r i b e s to the g o d s t h e i n f a t u a t i o n (an?) t h a t d e p r i v e d h i m o f r a t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , so t h a t h e s o u g h t t o c o m p e n s a t e for t h e loss o f his o w n mistress b y d e p r i v i n g A c h i l l e s o f his: " N o t I w a s the c a u s e o f this act, b u t Z e u s a n d m y p o r t i o n a n d t h e E r i n y s w h o w a l k s in darkness; t h e y it w a s who
in t h e a s s e m b l y p u t w i l d i n f a t u a t i o n in m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o n t h a t d a y w h e n
I arbitrarily t o o k A c h i l l e s ' p r i z e f r o m h i m . S o w h a t c o u l d I d o ? D e i t y w i l l a l w a y s h a v e its w a y " ( H o m e r , Iliad 1 9 . 8 6 - 9 0 ) . A similar e x p l a n a t i o n is g i v e n b y H o m e r for G l a u c u s ' s a c t in e x c h a n g i n g g o l d e n a r m o r for b r o n z e , n a m e l y , t h a t Z e u s h a d t a k e n a w a y his u n d e r s t a n d i n g (<j>pevas efe'Aero) (Iliad 6.234-36). A g a i n , A u t o m e d o n ' s foolishness i n s e r v i n g b o t h as a c h a r i o t e e r a n d as a s p e a r m a n is said to b e the w o r k ofa
g o d , w h o h a s p u t this p l a n in his b r e a s t a n d thus d e p r i v e d h i m o f his e x c e l l e n t
u n d e r s t a n d i n g (igeXeTo (jypivas iodXds) (Iliad 1 7 . 4 6 9 - 7 0 ) . P e r h a p s the m o s t t r o u b l e s o m e e p i s o d e in S a u l ' s life, c e r t a i n l y f r o m a t h e o l o g i cal v a n t a g e p o i n t , in v i e w o f his piety, i n v o l v e d t h e A m a l e k i t e s . J o s e p h u s
under
scores S a u l ' s a l a c r i t y i n p e r f o r m i n g t h e c o m m a n d m e n t to w i p e o u t t h a t n a t i o n b y h a v i n g h i m reflect t h a t o b e d i e n c e to G - d in this m a t t e r l a y n o t m e r e l y in u n d e r t a k i n g this c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A m a l e k i t e s b u t e v e n m o r e in t h e e a g e r n e s s a n d haste t h a t k n e w n o d e l a y (Ant. 6.134). J o s e p h u s builds u p the s c e n e a n d S a u l ' s m i l itary ability b y a d d i n g details a b o u t S a u l ' s s t r a t e g y (Ant. 6.135). W h e r e a s the B i b l e says merely, " A n d S a u l s m o t e t h e A m a l e k i t e s " (1 S a m . 15:7), J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t Saul posted n u m e r o u s pickets a n d a m b u s c a d e s a r o u n d the ravine w h e r e the A m a l e k i t e s w e r e s t a t i o n e d in o r d e r b o t h t o m o l e s t t h e m in o p e n w a r f a r e a n d to fall u p o n t h e m u n e x p e c t e d l y o n t h e r o a d s (Ant. 6.135). H e e l a b o r a t e s also o n S a u l ' s siege o f the A m a l e k i t e s , p r e s u m a b l y d r a w i n g u p o n his o w n m i l i t a r y e x p e r i e n c e
SAUL
529
a n d his k n o w l e d g e o f R o m a n siege w a r f a r e , n o t i n g t h a t h e m a n a g e d t o c a p t u r e the A m a l e k i t e cities b y e n g i n e s o f w a r a n d b y m i n i n g o p e r a t i o n s a n d e x t e r i o r o p p o s i n g walls, as w e l l as b y s t a r v i n g t h e m into s u b m i s s i o n . J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s to d e f e n d w h a t m o s t h u m a n e r e a d e r s w o u l d h a v e f o u n d w e l l n i g h i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , n a m e l y , the s l a u g h t e r b y S a u l o f t h e A m a l e k i t e w o m e n a n d infants, n o t i n g t w o r e a s o n s w h y S a u l d i d n o t d e e m this s a v a g e (wpuov) o r t o o c r u e l (aKXrjporepov)
for h u m a n n a t u r e (avBpamivrjs . . . vo€0)s), first t h a t
t h e y w e r e e n e m i e s , a n d , s e c o n d l y t h a t it w a s G - d w h o b a d e h i m to d e s t r o y t h e m (Ant. 6.136). If, i n d e e d , this w a s a d i v i n e c o m m a n d , the r e a d e r m a y w e l l ask w h y S a u l d i s o b e y e d it. T h e r a b b i s cite S a u l ' s f e e l i n g o f m e r c y as the r e a s o n , h a v i n g S a u l a r g u e t h a t e v e n i f the adults h a d s i n n e d , surely the c h i l d r e n a n d the c a t d e w e r e guildess (Toma 2 2 b ) .
26
P s e u d o - P h i l o , in a p a s s a g e c l e a r l y d e r o g a t o r y to S a u l ,
d e c l a r e s t h a t S a u l s p a r e d A g a g , the A m a l e k i t e k i n g , b e c a u s e the latter
had
27
p r o m i s e d t o s h o w h i m h i d d e n treasures (Bib. Ant. 5 8 . 2 ) . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s c o m p a s s i o n (oiKTto) as the m o t i v e for S a u l ' s s p a r i n g o f A g a g (Ant. 6.137); b u t in a n a d d i t i o n m a n i f e s t i y c a l c u l a t e d t o a p p e a l to his G r a e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e , h e also a d d s a n aesthetic m o t i v e , n a m e l y , t h a t S a u l s p a r e d h i m o u t o f a d m i r a t i o n for his beauty
(KOLXXOS)
a n d his stature (pueyedos), the v e r y s a m e qualities that, as n o t e d
a b o v e , J o s e p h u s h a d stressed in S a u l ' s c h o i c e o f his o w n b o d y g u a r d s (Ant. 6.130). J o s e p h u s , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d , says t h a t it w a s the k i n g , n o t the c h i l d r e n , w h o m S a u l s a v e d , a n d this despite the fact t h a t it w a s the f o r m e r w h o h a d d o n e s u c h injuries t o the H e b r e w s (Ant. 6.138). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s to h e i g h t e n the d r a m a t i c in terest o f t h e p a s s a g e b y c o n t r a s t i n g , in a n u n b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S a u l ' s e x u l t a t i o n at his success w i t h G - d ' s displeasure a t his c o n d u c t (Ant. 6 . 1 4 1 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s stresses t h e g r a v i t y o f S a u l ' s sin, for h e n o t e s G - d ' s o u t r a g e in t h a t after H e h a d d e f e a t e d the e n e m y , t h e y s h o u t e d their d i s d a i n for H i m s u c h as t h e y w o u l d h a v e s h o w n t o n o h u m a n k i n g (Ant. 6.142). Y e t S a u l ' s r e p u t a t i o n is u p h e l d b y several a d d i t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the first p l a c e , as n o t e d , S a u l s h o w s his g r a t i t u d e to G - d for g i v i n g h i m the v i c t o r y o v e r t h e A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 6.145), w h e r e a s the B i b l e is silent a b o u t this p o i n t (1 S a m . 15:13). S e c o n d l y J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t the Israelite p e o p l e w e r e S a u l ' s p a r t n e r s in this a c t o f s i n n i n g a g a i n s t G - d (Ant. 6.139). I n o r d e r to save the r e p u t a t i o n o f S a u l , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l h a s n o t h i n g to s a y t o S a m u e l in e x p l a n a t i o n o f his b e h a v i o r in s p a r i n g A g a g (1 S a m . 15:20), J o s e p h u s ' s S a u l c l a i m s t h a t h e h a s b r o u g h t A g a g to S a m u e l so t h a t t h e y m a y d e c i d e his fate t o g e t h e r (Ant. 6.146). N o s u c h m o tive, w e m a y n o t e , is m e n t i o n e d w h e n , earlier, S a u l a c t u a l l y saves A g a g ' s life, for
26. T h e rabbis seek to diminish Saul's guilt by noting that it was D o e g w h o persuaded him to spare A g a g , on the ground that since the Torah prohibits slaying the animal and its young on the same day, surely it is less permissible to slay m e n and children simultaneously (Midrash Samuel 18.99-100). 27. Since, in Pseudo-Philo, Saul is only a rod whereby G - d punishes the Israelites, and inasmuch as he was never appointed king in good faith, G - d denounces him for his sin but does not renounce him, as Spiro 1953, 128, remarks.
530
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t h e n h e d o e s so n o t c o n d i t i o n a l l y b u t a b s o l u t e l y i m p e l l e d , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , b y a d m i r a t i o n for A g a g ' s b e a u t y a n d stature (Ant. 6.137). Finally, w h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e h a s S a u l b e g S a m u e l to p a r d o n his sin (1 S a m . 15:25), J o s e p h u s a d d s S a u l ' s p r o m i s e to b e w a r e o f r e p e a t i n g s u c h a n offense in the future (Ant. 6.151). A s to the p r o b l e m o f t h e o d i c y r a i s e d b y this i n c i d e n t , J o s e p h u s , w h o g e n e r a l l y d o e s n o t t h e o l o g i z e , e x p l a i n s , in a n u n s c r i p t u r a l p a s s a g e , t h a t G - d refused to p a r don
Saul
on
(xprjaroTrjTos)
the
grounds
that
to
show
mercy
(in ie IKE las)
and
kindness
to t h e o p p r e s s o r is to b e g e t c r i m e u n w i t t i n g l y a n d to e n c o u r a g e t h e
i n c r e a s e o f o p p r e s s i o n (Ant. 6 . 1 4 4 ) .
28
T h e n , in a v e r y c o n s i d e r a b l e e l a b o r a t i o n o f
t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:22-23), J o s e p h u s stresses h o w m u c h G - d rejoices in those w h o are r e a d y to die r a t h e r t h a n to transgress H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s (Ant. 6 . 1 4 7 - 5 1 ) . I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:22), S a m u e l asks S a u l h o w G - d w o u l d l o o k u p o n a sacrifice t a k e n f r o m t h e A m a l e k i t e s ' a n i m a l s , w h i c h H e h a d d o o m e d to d e s t r u c t i o n , unless it b e , h e a d d s sarcastically, t h a t S a u l r e g a r d s t h e sacrifice o f t h e m to G - d as e q u i v a l e n t t o d e s t r o y i n g t h e m (Ant. 6 . 1 5 0 ) .
29
I n o r d e r to d e n i g r a t e S a u l , at least t e m p o r a r i l y , n o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s h a v e S a u l d i s o b e y G - d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t in s p a r i n g A g a g , b u t h e e v e n c a u s e s h i m to c o m p o u n d this sin b y r e t u r n i n g h o m e e x u l t a n t at his success, as t h o u g h h e h a d c o m m i t t e d n o sin at all b u t h a d s t r i c d y d o n e G - d ' s b e h e s t (Ant. 6.141). W h e n S a u l g r e e t s S a m u e l after his v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k , in the B i b l e , h e says t h a t h e h a s p e r f o r m e d t h e c o m m a n d m e n t o f G - d (1 S a m . 15:13), b u t in J o s e p h u s , h e stresses, in a s h o w o f d e c e i t a n d self-satisfaction (Ant. 6.145), t h a t all o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d s h a v e b e e n p e r f o r m e d b y h i m . S a u l ' s d i s o b e d i e n c e to G - d is h e r e all t h e m o r e ironic, since h e starts b y r e n d e r i n g t h a n k s to G - d for t h e v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k , a g r a t i t u d e n o t e x p r e s s e d b y h i m in t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:13). I n d e e d , S a u l ' s failure to o b e y t h e b e h e s t o f G - d to e x t e r m i n a t e the A m a l e k i t e s c o m p l e t e l y m a r k s a t u r n i n g p o i n t in his career, as w e l l as in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f h i m . U p until this i n c i d e n t , as w e h a v e s e e n , it h a s b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s p r a c t i c e to e x a g g e r a t e S a u l ' s n o b l e qualities a n d to a p o l o g i z e for his failings, b u t w i t h this transgression, h e b e c o m e s i n c r e a s i n g l y critical o f S a u l . A s e c o n d i n c i d e n t t h a t p r e s e n t e d a m a j o r c h a l l e n g e for J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f the p i o u s S a u l w a s his responsibility for t h e m u r d e r o f A b i m e l e c h the h i g h priest a n d the priests o f N o b . I n this instance, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e sinfulness o f S a u l b y s a y i n g t h a t S a u l w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e d e a t h s o f t h r e e h u n d r e d priests a n d p r o p h e t s (Ant. 6.268), w h e r e a s the B i b l e gives the n u m b e r o f priests killed as e i g h t y -
28. Similarly, in the rabbinic tradition, a voice from heaven tells Saul, in connection with the mercy that he shows A g a g , " B e not overjust" (Midrash Samuel 18.100). 29. N . G. C o h e n 1963-64, 325-27, after quoting Ant. 6.150-52, and c o m p a r i n g it with 1 S a m . 15:22-27, remarks on the similarity in order and in content between the two passages and notes that even the prose paraphrase o f the poetical p r o p h e c y in 1 S a m . 15:22-23 (=Ant. 6.150) closely conforms to the content o f the original. But, w e m a y c o m m e n t , the proper point o f comparison is, rather, Ant. 6.147-50 and 1 S a m . 15:22-23, from w h i c h w e see h o w m u c h Josephus elaborates on Scripture.
SAUL
331
30
five, p l u s a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r o f o t h e r s in N o b (1 S a m . 2 2 : 1 8 ) . J o s e p h u s s p e c i fies t h a t S a u l s l e w n o t o n l y priests b u t p r o p h e t s as w e l l , w h e r e a s the B i b l e m a k e s no mention o f prophets. I n a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s h a s a l o n g , u n s c r i p t u r a l d i g r e s s i o n , a l m o s t T a c i t e a n in its b a l a n c e d structure a n d in its b i t i n g t o n e , in w h i c h his m a i n p o i n t is t h a t S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r suffered b e c a u s e o f his a c c e s s i o n to p o w e r , since it is in the n a t u r e o f m e n , w h e n t h e y a r e in p r i v a t e a n d h u m b l e stations, to b e k i n d l y (imeiKeis),
mod
e r a t e (fjL€Tpioi\ j u s t , a n d p i o u s , b u t t h a t o n c e t h e y attain to p o w e r , t h e y cast off their stage m a s k s (TTpooiDTreia) a n d s h o w a u d a c i t y (roXp^av), recklessness (dwrovoiav), a n d c o n t e m p t (Kara<j>p6vrjaLv) for t h i n g s h u m a n a n d d i v i n e (Ant. 6 . 2 6 2 - 6 8 ) . T h i s m o r a l i z i n g a n d p s y c h o l o g i z i n g t o n e , as w e l l as this p a r t i c u l a r motif, is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e Antiquities as a w h o l e (see A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 85). I n J o s e p h u s , D a v i d realizes t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h S a u l is a slave o f his suspicions, for, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , after h e h a s a l l o w e d S a u l to e s c a p e w h e n h e w a s w i t h i n his p o w e r in t h e c a v e , D a v i d says t h a t S a u l o u g h t n o t t o listen t o w i c k e d m e n w h o m a k e u p lies, w h i l e h o l d i n g his best friends in s u s p i c i o n (Ant. 6.285). C a l u m n y (SiajSoA^) d e c e i v e s ; d e e d s s h o w o n e ' s t r u e i n t e n t i o n . T h e fact t h a t h e is e a g e r to d e s t r o y a m a n , D a v i d , w h o h a d a l l o w e d h i m to slip a w a y w h e n h e w a s in his p o w e r , s h o w s , says D a v i d , t h a t S a u l is i m p i o u s t o w a r d G - d (Ant. 6.288). J o s e p h u s stresses S a u l ' s w i c k e d n e s s in persisting in his a i m o f t r y i n g to slay D a v i d ; a n d yet, D a v i d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y a g r e e s , p e r h a p s w i t h t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y p o l i t i c a l situation in t h e R o m e o f D o m i t i a n ' s d a y in view, says t h a t e v e n t h o u g h S a u l is a w i c k e d (-rToviqpos) m a n , it is m o n s t r o u s to slay h i m b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n c h o s e n b y G - d (Ant. 6.312). I n his final s u m m a r y o f S a u l ' s r e i g n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t S a u l c a m e to a m i s e r a b l e e n d , a n d it is c l e a r t h a t J o s e p h u s feels t h a t his e n d w a s justified, b e c a u s e o f t w o sins, first, his d i s o b e d i e n c e o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d to w i p e o u t the A m a l e k i t e s , a n d s e c o n d , his d e s t r u c t i o n o f A b i m e l e c h the h i g h priest a n d his f a m i l y (Ant. 6.378). B u t , in this c o n n e c t i o n , t h e r e is a r e d e e m i n g feature to S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r — h i s sense o f r e m o r s e . W e see this in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h w h e n D a v i d spares S a u l at E n g e d i , S a u l n o t o n l y w e e p s (1 S a m . 24:16) b u t m o a n s a n d wails aloud, declaring that D a v i d h a d brought h i m only g o o d whereas he h a d b r o u g h t D a v i d affliction, m a r v e l i n g in a m a z e m e n t ( a n o t h e r addition) at D a v i d ' s f o r b e a r a n c e (Ant. 6.290). S a u l t h e n s h o w s true m a g n a n i m i t y i n a s c r i b i n g to D a v i d , in y e t a n o t h e r n o n s c r i p t u r a l a d d i t i o n , the r i g h t e o u s n e s s o f the a n c i e n t s , as s h o w n in their s p a r i n g their e n e m i e s (Ant. 6.290). M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l s i m p l y states t h a t h e h a s s i n n e d , w i t h o u t e x p a n d i n g o n it (1 S a m . 26:21), in J o s e p h u s , S a u l p a t i e n t i y e n u m e r a t e s his sins w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e p o i g n a n c y (Ant. 6. 317); h e h a s p u r s u e d a m a n w h o h a s g i v e n m a n y p r o o f s o f his loyalty, h e h a s f o r c e d h i m
30. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint (boc e ) give the number of priests slain as 350; the other manuscripts give 305. 2
2
532
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
t o l i v e in e x i l e for so l o n g , h e h a s p l a c e d h i m i n t e r r o r o f his life, a n d h e h a s d e p r i v e d h i m o f friends a n d k i n .
3 1
In another supplementary
r e m a r k (cf. i S a m .
26:21), J o s e p h u s s h o w s h o w g r a t e f u l S a u l is b y h a v i n g h i m t h a n k D a v i d for s p a r i n g his life (Ant. 6.316). H e t h e n p r o c e e d s t o e x a l t S a u l ' s m a g n a n i m i t y b e y o n d t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 26:21) b y m a k i n g S a u l d e c l a r e t h a t h e d i d n o t l o v e his o w n s e l f as m u c h as h e w a s l o v e d b y D a v i d a n d b y h a v i n g h i m e l a b o r a t e o n all t h e h a r d ships t h a t h e h a d c a u s e d D a v i d (Ant. 6.317). Finally, S a u l ' s p i e t y s e e m s t o b e u l t i m a t e l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t h e c o m mitted suicide. In v i e w o f Josephus's o w n strong h a r a n g u e to his m e n o n t h e o l o g i c a l g r o u n d s a g a i n s t s u i c i d e w h e n t h e y w e r e i n d e s p e r a t e straits at J o t a p a t a
(War
3 . 3 6 1 - 8 3 ) , it is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t h e s a y s n o w o r d in c r i t i c i s m o f S a u l ' s s u i c i d e , w h e t h e r d o n e d i r e c d y (1 S a m . 31:4) o r a t his r e q u e s t b y t h e A m a l e k i t e (2 S a m . 1:9-10). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t S a u l h a d r e c e i v e d n u m e r o u s w o u n d s after
fighting
m a g n i f i c e n d y so t h a t h e w a s n o l o n g e r a b l e t o h o l d o u t o r t o e n d u r e u n d e r t h e e n e m y b l o w s (Ant. 6.370). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e v e n raise t h e q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r S a u l ' s a c t w a s a s u i c i d e , l e t a l o n e a n unjustified s u i c i d e . I n fact, i n his e n c o m i u m o n S a u l , h e m a k e s it c l e a r t h a t S a u l fell fighting for his s u b j e c t s (Ant. 6.345). T h e a l t e r n a t i v e , as h e e x p o u n d s it t h e r e , w o u l d h a v e b e e n for h i m t o c l i n g t o life, t o b e t r a y his p e o p l e t o t h e e n e m y , a n d t o d i s h o n o r t h e d i g n i t y o f k i n g s h i p (Ant. 6 . 3 4 4 ) .
32
I n t r u t h , t h e f a c t t h a t J o s e p h u s , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S a u l ' s e n d , d o e s n o t e v e n r a i s e t h e issue o f s u i c i d e — a t h e m e t h a t is so i m p o r t a n t in t h e Jewish
War i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h J o t a p a t a a n d M a s a d a — m a y b e d u e t o his o w n p a n g s o f c o n s c i e n c e a t his o w n
31. Similarly, the rabbis stress Saul's feeling o f remorse for having executed the priests of N o b , a n d they note that this remorse secured p a r d o n for him (cf. Tanhuma B 3.45 a n d other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:238, n n . 7 8 , 79). 32. In v i e w o f the strong opposition to suicide, especially in rabbinic literature (Baba Qamma 91b), it is not surprising that the midrashic tradition is exercised over Saul's suicide a n d justifies it o n the ground that h e did so to avoid falling into the hands of his adversaries, w h o , he feared, w o u l d abuse a n d torture h i m before finally executing h i m (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 34.19). A n o t h e r rabbinic tradition even asserts that Samuel advised Saul to c o m m i t suicide as a n atonement for his sins (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 33)In the M i d d l e A g e s the v i e w was expressed that a person w h o fears that he will b e subjected to un bearable pain m a y take his o w n life (Tosafot o n Gittin 57b). O n e Spanish rabbi, the R i t b a (Rabbi Y o m T o v b e n A b r a h a m Ishbili) in the thirteenth century, justified Saul's suicide o n the grounds that Saul feared that the e n e m y w o u l d force h i m to betray his faith; a n d in the sixteenth century, the M a h a r s h a l (Rabbi S o l o m o n Luria) in Poland concluded that Saul was permitted to kill himself because h e h a d the status o f G - d ' s anointed one, a n d that therefore it w o u l d have b e e n a profanation o f G - d ' s n a m e to have allowed himself to undergo torture. T h e latter v i e w is close to Josephus's statement (Ant. 6.344) that for Saul to have clung to life w o u l d have dishonored the dignity o f kingship (rrjs jSaaiAcia? aJJLajfxa).
T h e key point in the rabbinic defense o f Saul's suicide is that it was the certainty o f his death
that justified it. T h e same question, as to the justifiability o f suicide, has, o f course, been asked about the Sicarii at M a s a d a . See G o r e n 1964, 7 - 1 2 ; Spero 1970, 3 1 - 4 3 ; Frimer 1971, 27-43; R a b i n o w i t z 1971, 31-37; Kolitz 1 9 7 1 , 5 - 2 6 ; H o e n i g 1972,100-15; Trimble 1 9 7 7 , 4 5 - 5 5 ; Feldman 1984b, 779-89; a n d G o l d stein 1989, 100, n. 7.
SAUL cowardice,
3 3
533
a n e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t m a y also a c c o u n t for his p r a i s e o f t h e d e f e n d e r s
o f M a s a d a (War 7 4 0 5 ) , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p o f t h e S i c a r i i , w h o m h e so d e s p i s e d . M o r e likely, h o w e v e r , since J o s e p h u s a g a i n a n d a g a i n justifies his o w n a c t i o n s in t h e w a r a g a i n s t R o m e , h e w a s n o t so c o n s c i e n c e - s t r i c k e n . R a t h e r , his glorification o f S a u l , w i t h its c l e a r a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t h e g a v e his life for his p e o p l e , is p a r t o f J o s e p h u s ' s s t u d i e d a t t e m p t to p r e s e n t his J e w i s h h e r o e s in a m o l d t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l to n o n - J e w i s h r e a d e r s . T h e q u a l i t y o f pietas, h o w e v e r , is to b e s e e n n o t o n l y in r e v e r e n c e for G - d b u t also in d e v o t i o n to o n e ' s father a n d family. T h u s , in the B i b l e , after S a m u e l a n o i n t s S a u l a n d sends h i m forth, h e cites a n u m b e r o f signs t h a t will c o m e to p a s s a n d says, q u i t e v a g u e l y , t h a t w h e n t h e y o c c u r , S a u l is to d o w h a t e v e r his h a n d "finds to d o " (1 S a m . 10:7). J o s e p h u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , uses this s c e n e as a n o c c a s i o n t o a c c e n t u a t e S a u l ' s pietas, since h e h a s S a m u e l specifically s e n d S a u l to salute (aCT7racrai) his father a n d his kinsfolk after the p r e d i c t e d signs h a v e c o m e a b o u t (Ant. 6.57)S a u l s h o w s d e v o t i o n n o t o n l y to m e m b e r s o f his i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y b u t also to his k i n s m e n generally. T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l saves t h e K e n i t e s f r o m t h e destruction that he perpetrates o n the Amalekites because they h a d s h o w n kind ness t o t h e Israelites w h e n t h e y h a d left E g y p t (1 S a m . 15:6), J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n e w f a c t o r for his s p a r i n g t h e m , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e y w e r e k i n s m e n o f R a g u e l (Jethro), the father-in-law o f M o s e s (Ant. 6 . 1 4 0 ) .
SAUL'S NEGATIVE
34
QUALITIES
N o t all o f S a u l ' s qualities w e r e positive, h o w e v e r , a n d J o s e p h u s h a d to c o p e w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f h o w to d e a l w i t h his m a d n e s s a n d j e a l o u s y . A s to the former, J o s e p h u s , in a n a p o l o g e t i c stance, e x p l a i n s it as a m e d i c a l disorder. T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t it is d u e to a n evil spirit f r o m G - d (1 S a m . 1 6 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) , J o s e p h u s ra tionalizes, o m i t t i n g , as d o e s T h u c y d i d e s i n his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p l a g u e (2.47-54), t h e role o f G - d in c a u s i n g t h e illness, a n d presents i n s t e a d a c l i n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f S a u l ' s m a l a d y , n a m e l y , t h a t h e w a s b e s e t b y s t r a n g e disorders, as w e l l as b y evil spirits, w h i c h c a u s e d h i m suffocation a n d s t r a n g l i n g (Ant. 6.166). A g a i n , t h e B i b l e says t h a t it w a s t h e servants o f S a u l w h o s o u g h t a m u s i c i a n t o r e m o v e t h e evil spirit
33. So Spiro, 135. Spiro further argues that it was natural, in the climate of the patriotic feeling against Rome, to praise the king who gave his life for his people. But Josephus was far from endorsing the patriots' rebellion. 34. The rabbis, too, cite the relationship of the Kenites to Moses, but they stress, rather, the hospi tality shown by Jethro to Moses, noting that although this hospitality was prompted by selfish motives on the part of Jethro, who wanted Moses to marry one of his daughters, still one ought to be grateful for a good deed regardless of the intent (Berakot 63b; see also the other parallels cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:232, n. 60). Josephus, however, on the contrary, in his presentation stresses kinship, not hos pitality; and there is thus no implied criticism of the Kenites' motives.
534
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
(i S a m . 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , l o o k i n g u p o n S a u l ' s state as a m e d i c a l disor der, says t h a t p h y s i c i a n s tried t o c u r e h i m (Ant. 6.166). S a u l ' s j e a l o u s y o f D a v i d is a n o t h e r d e f e c t in S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r . T h i s j e a l o u s y is stressed b y s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n s f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t . T h u s the B i b l e r e c o r d s t h a t after D a v i d r e t u r n e d f r o m the s l a u g h t e r o f the Philistines a n d w a s p r a i s e d b y the w o m e n , S a u l b e c a m e fearful o f D a v i d ' s r i v a l r y a n d r e m o v e d h i m f r o m his p o s t as his p e r s o n a l a t t e n d a n t , m a k i n g h i m , rather, a c a p t a i n o v e r a t h o u s a n d m e n (1 S a m . 18:13). T h e B i b l e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n S a u l ' s m o t i v e for these acts, b u t J o s e p h u s avers t h a t S a u l r e m o v e d D a v i d as a r m o r b e a r e r b e c a u s e h e t h o u g h t t h a t this p l a c e d h i m t o o c l o s e t o his p e r s o n (1 S a m . 18:13). J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t s in m a k i n g S a u l e x p l a i n t h a t h e g a v e D a v i d a b e t t e r post, " b u t o n e , as h e t h o u g h t , safer [da^aXearepav]
for h i m s e l f " (or, w i t h o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s , " m o r e t r e a c h e r o u s for
h i m " [i.e., D a v i d ] ) (Ant. 6.195). T h e n , in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f the J o s e p h a n a c c o u n t o f the E g y p t i a n s a s k i n g M o s e s t o l e a d a c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d b e slain (Ant. 2.243),
a
s
w
e
^
a s
> ° f c o u r s e , o f the b i b l i c a l a c
c o u n t o f D a v i d a n d U r i a h the Hittite (2 S a m . 11:2-27), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t S a u l p r o p o s e d to s e n d D a v i d into b a t d e a g a i n s t the e n e m y in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d thus m e e t his d e a t h (Ant. 6.195). H e r e , t o o , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s takes steps t o di m i n i s h S a u l ' s sin. T h u s , J o s e p h u s , in this a l i g n i n g h i m s e l f w i t h m a n y m a n u s c r i p t s o f the S e p t u a g i n t , o m i t s a l t o g e t h e r the a c c o u n t o f S a u l ' s a t t e m p t o n D a v i d ' s life w h i l e the latter w a s p l a y i n g his h a r p (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . T h e fact t h a t this i n c i d e n t is to b e f o u n d in the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n , w h i c h J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y follows in S a m u e l , indicates, in all probability, a d e l i b e r a t e o m i s s i o n o f it b y h i m . H e also o m i t s the fact (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , likewise c i t e d b y the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n , t h a t S a u l r e n e g e d o n his p r o m i s e to g i v e his d a u g h t e r M e r a b in m a r r i a g e to D a v i d (Ant. 6.196). Y e t , J o s e p h u s amplifies, in a w a y r e m i n i s c e n t o f this p a s s a g e , the m o t i v e s b e h i n d S a u l ' s offer o f his d a u g h t e r in m a r r i a g e to D a v i d i f h e b r i n g s h i m the h e a d s o f six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant. 6.197). " S o will m y d e s i g n s a g a i n s t h i m s u c c e e d a d m i r a b l y , " h e says, "for I shall b e rid o f h i m , y e t c a u s e his d e a t h at the h a n d s o f o t h e r s a n d n o t m y o w n " (Ant. 6.198). W h e n , i n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , D a v i d n e x t hesitates b e c a u s e o f his h u m b l e r a n k (Ant. 6.200), S a u l flatters h i m into u n d e r t a k i n g the p e r i l o u s feat a n d d e c l a r e s , w i t h o b v i o u s insincerity, as the r e a d e r realizes, t h a t b o t h h e a n d his d a u g h t e r p r e f e r a gift o f six h u n d r e d Philistine h e a d s to w h a t o t h e r s m i g h t r e g a r d as m o r e d e s i r a b l e o r m o r e m a g n i f i c e n t presents (Ant. 6.202). C o n v e r s e l y , h e e l a b o rates o n S a u l ' s fulfillment o f his p r o m i s e to D a v i d to give h i m his d a u g h t e r M i c h a l as his wife (Ant. 6.204); for, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e n o t e s m e r e l y t h a t S a u l d i d g i v e M i c h a l to D a v i d (1 S a m . 18:27), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s his m o t i v e s , n o t i n g t h a t h e d i d so b e c a u s e h e s a w t h a t it w o u l d b e d i s g r a c e f u l either to h a v e a p p e a r e d to h a v e l i e d o r t o h a v e h e l d o u t t h e p r o s p e c t o f m a r r i a g e m e r e l y in o r d e r t o b r i n g a b o u t D a v i d ' s d e a t h in a n i m p o s s i b l e e n t e r p r i s e (Ant. 6.204). J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that S a u l w a s g r e a d y afraid (/careSetae), a n d that it w a s b e c a u s e h e w a s u n a b l e to c o n c e a l his fears t h a t D a v i d w o u l d take b o t h his k i n g d o m a n d his life that h e r e s o l v e d to slay h i m (Ant. 6.205). For a time, J o n a t h a n ' s a r g u -
SAUL
5
3
5
merits p e r s u a d e S a u l t o desist f r o m t r y i n g t o p u t D a v i d t o d e a t h , for, as J o s e p h u s says, i n a n u n s c r i p t u r a l c o m m e n t , a j u s t c a u s e prevails o v e r a n g e r (opyrjs) a n d fear (6^ov) (Ant. 6.212). B u t S a u l ' s suspicions a r e n o t a b a t e d , a n d h e c o n t i n u e s t o seek to slay D a v i d . I n t h e B i b l e , S a u l sends m e s s e n g e r s t o D a v i d ' s h o u s e t o w a t c h h i m a n d t o slay h i m t h e f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g (1 S a m . 19:11). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , officers a r e sent t o b r i n g h i m b e f o r e a c o u r t s o that h e m a y b e tried (Ant. 6.215). A c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , S a u l sends three g r o u p s o f m e s s e n g e r s t o t a k e D a v i d , a n d w h e n t h e y all fail, b e c a u s e t h e y b e g i n t o prophesy, h e h i m s e l f sets o u t t o seize D a v i d (1 S a m . 19:20-22). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t t h e m e s s e n g e r s a r e a r m e d a n d also a d d s , as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t , t h a t w h e n S a u l sets o u t , h e d o e s so i n a r a g e (opyiodeis)
(Ant.
6.221-22). Y e t , J o s e p h u s p l a y s d o w n S a u l ' s r a g e b y h a v i n g his d a u g h t e r M i c h a l a p p e a l t o h i m after she saves h e r h u s b a n d D a v i d ' s life, s a y i n g t h a t h e r h u s b a n d h a d s e c u r e d h e r a i d b y t h r e a t e n i n g t o kill h e r i f she d i d n o t a i d h i m , a n d t h a t s h e c a n n o t i m a g i n e t h a t S a u l is as desirous o f his e n e m y ' s d e a t h as o f s a v i n g h e r life (Ant. 6.219). I n r e s p o n d i n g t o this p l e a , S a u l e m e r g e s as s u p e r i o r t o A c h i l l e s , w h o s e w r a t h , w h i c h is t h e t h e m e o f t h e Iliad, so a b s o r b s h i m that h e w i t h d r a w s f r o m t h e fighting a n d refuses t o listen e v e n t o t h e a d m o n i t i o n o f t h e t u t o r o f his y o u t h , P h o e n i x (Iliad 9.432-605). A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e h a s S a u l bitterly d e c l a r e t o his servants t h a t n o n e o f t h e m h a s disclosed t o h i m t h a t his o w n s o n J o n a t h a n h a s stirred u p D a v i d a g a i n s t h i m (1 S a m . 22:7-8), J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o a c c o u n t for S a u l ' s invective b y d e c l a r i n g that h e h a d b e e n t h r o w n into n o o r d i n a r y (OVK els TVXOVTO)
c o n f u s i o n (Sopvfiov) a n d d i s m a y (rapaxrjv) (Ant. 6.250). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is,
c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h a t h e w a s n o t really a w a r e o f w h a t h e w a s doing. I n a n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f S a u l ' s irrational b e h a v i o r , J o s e p h u s , after n o t i n g t h e h i g h priest A b i m elech's r e q u e s t t o S a u l n o t t o r e g a r d w i t h suspicion (vTTOTnevarjs) his a c t o f h u m a n ity (<j)i\avdp(x)TTiav) in g i v i n g f o o d a n d a r m s t o D a v i d a n d i n p r o p h e s y i n g c o n c e r n i n g his future, presents a p s y c h o l o g i c a l analysis, in t h e f o r m o f a n a p o t h e g m , n o t f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l narrative (1 S a m . 22:17), as t o w h y S a u l r e m a i n s u n m o v e d , n a m e l y , that fear is s t r o n g e n o u g h t o discredit e v e n a truthful p l e a (Ant. 6.258). N o t w i s h i n g t o p r e s e n t S a u l as a c o l d - b l o o d e d m u r d e r e r ,
35
in contrast t o t h e
Bible, w h i c h states that S a u l sent m e s s e n g e r s t o D a v i d ' s h o u s e t o w a t c h h i m a n d t h e n to slay h i m (1 S a m . 19:11), J o s e p h u s asserts that S a u l sent officers t o p r e v e n t D a v i d ' s e s c a p e so that h e c o u l d b r i n g h i m before a c o u r t t o b e s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h (Ant. 6.215).
SUMMARY T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s m o r e s p a c e , as c o m p a r e d w i t h his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e , t o his a c c o u n t o f S a u l t h a n t o a l m o s t a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y a n d , a b o v e a l l , t h e fact t h a t his e n c o m i u m o f S a u l is l o n g e r t h a n t h a t o f a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l figure, M o s e s i n c l u d e d , s h o u l d alert u s t o S a u l ' s i m p o r t a n c e a n d f a s c i n a t i o n for J o s e p h u s .
35. Cf. Josephus's unscriptural notice that King Solomon removed Joab from the altar, where he had sought refuge, so as to bring him to the judgment hall to make his defense (Ant. 8.14).
536
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
I n his p o r t r a y a l o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s o c c u p i e s a m e a n p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h a t o f the t a l m u d i c r a b b i s , w h o e x a g g e r a t e his virtues, a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical
Antiq
uities, w h o d e n i g r a t e s h i m . H e builds u p the c h a r a c t e r o f S a u l b y inserting a n u m b e r o f t o u c h e s t h a t c u l m i n a t e in his a p p o i n t m e n t as king. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l e m e r g e s as a m e r e p u p p e t o f the p r o p h e t S a m u e l , in J o s e p h u s , h e is p o r t r a y e d as b e i n g o n a p a r w i t h S a m u e l , in w h o s e sacrifices h e j o i n s . I n d e p i c t i n g the qualities o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his g o o d birth, w h i l e t a k i n g c a r e to i n d i c a t e t h a t h e n e v e r t h e l e s s d i d n o t s h o w d i s d a i n for those o f lesser birth. H e stresses S a u l ' s p h y s i c a l b e a u t y since this w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d t o his n o n J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p . H e p o r t r a y s h i m as a sagelike figure p r e s i d i n g o v e r a S a n h e d r i n like g r o u p o f s e v e n t y A b o v e all, h e a g g r a n d i z e s the c o u r a g e o f S a u l in his m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p a n d exploits, stressing the m i l i t a r y difficulties t h a t h e h a d to o v e r c o m e , e x a g g e r a t i n g the ferocity o f the e n e m y , a n d h i g h l i g h t i n g the skill t h a t h e d i s p l a y e d as a strategist, in c o n t r a s t b o t h to the r a b b i n i c portrait, w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s the su p e r n a t u r a l a s p e c t o f his m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t s , a n d to P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o d e p i c t s h i m as a c o w a r d . I n particular, J o s e p h u s m a g n i f i e s S a u l ' s g e n e r a l s h i p a n d his a b i l ity a n d m a g n e t i s m as a p s y c h o l o g i s t in a r o u s i n g his t r o o p s a g a i n s t his g r e a t e s t m i l itary c h a l l e n g e , the Philistines. M o r e o v e r , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l t o u c h , S a u l s h o w s s y m p a t h y for his p e o p l e in their suffering. A b o v e all, J o s e p h u s a g g r a n d i z e s the h e r o i s m o f S a u l in g o i n g into his final b a t d e , k n o w i n g full w e l l , f r o m the p r o p h e c y o f S a m u e l , t h a t h e is d e s t i n e d t o p e r i s h in it. J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s , e v e n b e y o n d the B i b l e , S a u l ' s q u a l i t y o f m o d e r a t i o n , w h i c h h e identifies w i t h modesty, a l t h o u g h h e is careful to a v o i d a s c r i b i n g to h i m e x t r e m e modesty, since h e r e a l i z e d t h a t s u c h a q u a l i t y w o u l d b e r e g a r d e d n e g a t i v e l y b y his p a g a n readers. W e see S a u l ' s c o n c e r n for j u s t i c e in t h a t h e first s e a r c h e s the t e r r i t o r y o f his o w n tribe b e f o r e g o i n g t h r o u g h t h a t o f the o t h e r tribes w h e n s e e k i n g his father's asses. J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s a w a y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in the B i b l e ' s p i c t u r e o f S a u l ' s piety. I n particular, h e takes c a r e to p r e s e n t a defense o f S a u l ' s s l a u g h t e r o f the A m a l e k i t e w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e offering a n aesthetic m o t i v e for his s p a r i n g the A m a l e k i t e k i n g , A g a g , a l t h o u g h h e is careful n o t t o w h i t e w a s h S a u l ' s a c t i o n c o m p l e t e l y . I n the case o f the m u r d e r o f A b i m e l e c h a n d the priests o f N o b , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a priest, e x a g g e r a t e s S a u l ' s responsibility. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b y stressing S a u l ' s f e e l i n g o f r e m o r s e , J o s e p h u s increases the r e a d e r ' s s y m p a t h y for h i m . H e p r o t e c t s S a u l ' s r e p u t a t i o n b y s a y i n g n o t a w o r d a b o u t the sinfulness o f his suicide; i n d e e d , h e d o e s n o t e v e n raise the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r his d e a t h w a s a sui cide. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s stresses S a u l ' s pietas t o w a r d m e m b e r s o f his f a m i l y a n d t o w a r d his k i n s m e n generally. A s t o S a u l ' s m a d n e s s , J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s , e x p l a i n i n g this c l i n i c a l l y as a m e d ical disorder. In the c a s e o f S a u l ' s j e a l o u s y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s takes m e a s u r e s to di m i n i s h this, n o t a b l y b y o m i t t i n g the s c e n e in w h i c h S a u l seeks to kill D a v i d w h i l e the latter is p l a y i n g his h a r p . J o s e p h u s likewise e m p h a s i z e s t h a t S a u l , in his p u r s u i t o f D a v i d , w a s not really aware o f w h a t he w a s doing.
C H A P T E R
F I F T E E N
David
I n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n t h e r e is a l m o s t n o figure, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f M o s e s himself, w h o is o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n D a v i d , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e his b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y is s o c h a r m i n g b u t a l s o b e c a u s e h e is r e g a r d e d as t h e a u t h o r o f t h e B o o k o f P s a l m s (Baba Batra 14b) (see S a r n a 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 : 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 ) , w h i c h h a s p r o v e n so p o p u l a r ,
and,
a b o v e a l l , b e c a u s e h e is s a i d t o b e t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h (see F l u s s e r 1 9 7 1 b ) . A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s , i n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e i n t h e Jewish Antiquities, w a s c o n fronted w i t h a d i l e m m a w h e n h e c a m e to the personality o f D a v i d .
1
O n the o n e
h a n d , D a v i d e x e m p l i f i e d so m a n y o f t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l t o his p a g a n a u d i e n c e i n his a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f t h e i r c a l u m n i a tors. B u t , o n the other h a n d , J o s e p h u s
himself w a s descended from the
Has-
m o n e a n kings r a t h e r t h a n from the line o f D a v i d ; a n d , moreover, a n y reference to D a v i d as t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e R o 2
m a n s as e n c o u r a g i n g r e v o l t , s i n c e t h e m e s s i a h w a s g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as a p o l i t i -
1. T h e r e has been nothing even approaching a full-length study o f Josephus's portrait o f D a v i d . T h e only treatments thus far have been v e r y brief summaries in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 4 9 - 5 5 (which simply lists, in a far from exhaustive fashion, but citing rabbinic parallels in several instances, a n u m b e r o f places w h e r e Josephus departs from the Bible); H o l l a d a y 1977, 75-77; Wojcik 1980, 22-25; a n d D a n i e l 1981, 79-80. M o s t recendy, Villalba i V a r n e d a 1986, 268-71, simply lists the passages w h e r e Josephus adds to, omits from, or otherwise modifies the biblical account, without explaining w h y he does so in each instance. N o n e o f these accounts even notes, let alone tries to explain, the relatively diminished importance o f D a v i d in Josephus. T h e typical point o f view seems to b e that Josephus's account o f D a v i d contains litde that is noteworthy, as B e n t w i c h 1914, 157, asserts. 2. N e u s n e r 1984 argues that the messiah concept is insignificant in most early rabbinic works; yet this m a y b e d u e to the general eagerness o f the rabbis not to provoke the R o m a n s into abrogating the special privileges enjoyed b y the Jews. I f so, Josephus w o u l d b e in accord with this rabbinic trend; a n d this w o u l d b e explained b y his desire not to offend his R o m a n benefactors, since a messiah, ipso facto, implied revolt against R o m e with a v i e w to establishing an independent state. A s to whether these mes sianic expectations were avoided or, m o r e likely, suppressed in the composition o f the M i s h n a h , it 537
538
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
3
c a l l e a d e r w h o w o u l d reestablish a n i n d e p e n d e n t J e w i s h state. H e n c e , w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e d e l i b e r a t e a m b i g u i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t " D a n i e l also w r o t e a b o u t t h e e m p i r e o f the R o m a n s a n d t h a t it [ a m b i g u o u s ] w o u l d b e d e s o l a t e d b y t h e m [ a m b i g u o u s ] " (Ant. 10.276). I n o r d e r n o t to offend the R o m a n s , h e c r y p t i c a l l y says t h a t h e d o e s n o t t h i n k it p r o p e r to e x p l a i n the m e a n i n g o f the stone in D a n . 2 : 3 4 - 3 5 , 4 5 , " s i n c e I a m e x p e c t e d to w r i t e o f w h a t is p a s t a n d d o n e a n d n o t o f w h a t is to b e " (Ant. 10. 210). T h e stone, as M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 , 6:175, n. c, h a s c o m m e n t e d , w a s r e g a r d e d in a n c i e n t J e w i s h e x e g e s i s as a s y m b o l o f the m e s s i a h , w h o w o u l d p u t a n e n d t o the R o m a n E m p i r e (Ant. 10.210).
4
I n fact, J o s e p h u s n e v e r m e n t i o n s D a v i d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the m e s s i a h . H e is c o n t e n t to s a y m e r e l y t h a t D a v i d ' s h o u s e will b e g l o r i o u s a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 7.94). W h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, the p r o p h e t N a t h a n assures D a v i d t h a t G - d will es tablish the t h r o n e o f his k i n g d o m f o r e v e r (2 S a m . 7:31; 1 C h r o n . 17:12), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y that D a v i d r e j o i c e d g r e a d y to k n o w t h a t the r o y a l p o w e r w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h his d e s c e n d a n t s , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t this w o u l d b e f o r e v e r (Ant. 7.94). I n contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d
c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o r e m a r k s that
the
p r o p h e t S a m u e l , m i s t a k e n l y t h i n k i n g t h a t E l i a b , the oldest s o n o f Jesse, w a s the o n e to b e a n o i n t e d k i n g , d e c l a r e s , " B e h o l d , the h o l y o n e , t h e a n o i n t e d o f the L - r d " (sanctus christus=meshiah
ha-qadosh),
c l e a r l y referring t o h i m as m e s s i a h , 5
" a n o i n t e d " (Bib. Ant. 59.2), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a v o i d s the w o r d
xpioros.
E v e n in t e r m s o f s h e e r l e n g t h o f his a c c o u n t , w e c a n see t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s s o m e w h a t d e e m p h a s i z e d D a v i d , as c o m p a r e d w i t h S a u l , in t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f the 6
n a r r a t i v e d e a l i n g o n l y w i t h D a v i d . M o s t significant, w e m a y n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s
should be recalled that the M i s h n a h is primarily a codification o f law, and hence such discussion w o u l d really be a digression in it. 3. For a s u m m a r y o f rabbinic views on messianic expectations, see Blidstein 1971, 11:1410-12. 4. Josephus could not agree with the rabbinic picture o f an eschatological D a v i d w h o , in the days to come, w o u l d be the viceroy o f the messiah, likewise n a m e d D a v i d (Sanhedrin 98b), let alone o f a D a v i d w h o w o u l d live forever (Midrash Psalms 5.52, 57.298, 75.340; 2 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 45.125). 5. T h e r e can be n o doubt that the n a m e o f D a v i d was b y Josephus's time intimately connected with the messianic age. A l r e a d y the prophet H o s e a declares that "afterward shall the children o f Israel return a n d seek the L - r d their G - d a n d D a v i d their king" (3:5). T h e very fact that M a t t h e w (1:1-17) a n d L u k e (3:23-38), contemporaries o f Josephus's, trace the ancestry o f Jesus qua messiah back to D a v i d is a strong indication that such a g e n e a l o g y was expected for a messiah as a matter o f course by this time. Indeed, the messianic concept is almost never mentioned without adding a reference to the k i n g d o m o f the house o f D a v i d , so that the appellative "son o f D a v i d , " or even " D a v i d " itself, b e c o m e s almost the personal n a m e o f the messiah. W e m a y call attention, in particular, to the words o f R a b b i J u d a h the Prince at the end o f the second century, presumably reflecting an older and popular tradi tion: " D a v i d , king o f Israel, is alive a n d vigorous" (Rosh Hashanah 25a). 6. T h u s , he has 1,153 lines o f G r e e k in the L o e b text in his version o f the story o f Saul alone (Ant. 6.45-156, 250-70, 327-50, 368-78) as c o m p a r e d with 427 lines in the H e b r e w a n d 673 lines in the Rahlfs edition o f the Septuagint (1935), giving a ratio o f 2.70:1 for Josephus as opposed to the H e b r e w and 1:71:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is 2
J
1.58:1). O n the other hand, for D a v i d alone (Ant. 6.157-92, 224-34, 239-49, 7 5 292-309, 3 2 1 - 2 6 , 351-67,7.394), Josephus has 3,330 lines, as opposed to 1,570 in the H e b r e w a n d 2,478 in the Septuagint,
DAVID
539
e n c o m i u m for S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) o f 55 lines is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 V t i m e s as l o n g 2
as t h a t o f D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 ) , w h i c h c o m p r i s e s 15 7 lines. 2
D e s p i t e t h e o b v i o u s s i g n i f i c a n c e o f D a v i d , as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h , for t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s t h a t s p e a r h e a d e d the J e w i s h r e v o l t a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s , o b v i o u s l y sensitive t o a c h a r g e o f disloyalty if h e w e r e to m e n t i o n t h e in f l u e n c e o f t h e m e s s i a n i c i d e a , totally suppresses t h e m e s s i a n i c a s p e c t o f t h e revolt a n d refers t o D a v i d o n l y i n f r e q u e n d y in the Jewish
War, n o t i n g m e r e l y D a v i d ' s
w e a l t h (War 1.61); t h e fact t h a t h e w a s the father o f S o l o m o n , the first b u i l d e r o f t h e T e m p l e (War 5.137) ( i m p l y i n g t h a t S o l o m o n is m o r e f a m o u s ) ; t h e fact t h a t h e a n d S o l o m o n built t h e first w a l l o f J e r u s a l e m (War 5.143); a n d t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h D a v i d e x p e l l e d t h e C a n a a n i t e p o p u l a t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m a n d e s t a b l i s h e d his o w n p e o p l e t h e r e (War 6.439).
DAVID IN PHILO, RABBINIC L I T E R A T U R E , AND PAGAN L I T E R A T U R E In contrast to Josephus's d o w n g r a d i n g o f David's importance, w e m a y note that P h i l o , w h o g e n e r a l l y h a s v e r y little to s a y a b o u t the b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e o t h e r t h a n t h e P e n t a t e u c h , elevates h i m , r e f e r r i n g to h i m n o t m e r e l y as o n e o f t h e disciples (yvwpLfjLOL) o f M o s e s (De Confusione Linguarum 11.39) (iraipoi,
a
n
d as o n e o f his c o m p a n i o n s
De Somniis 2 . 3 7 . 2 4 5 ) — w o r d s that, as G o o d e n o u g h ( 1 9 5 3 - 6 8 , 9:94) h a s
n o t e d , P h i l o c o m m o n l y uses in a n a l l e g o r i c a l s e n s e — b u t as a m e m b e r o f t h e i n n e r circle o f M o s e s , a diaodjrrjs g u i l d (dlaoos),
(De Plantatione 9.39) a n d h e n c e a m e m b e r o f t h e m y s t i c
a t e r m also u s e d , in particular, o f d e v o t e e s o f D i o n y s u s in their r e v
els. F o r P h i l o (ibid.), D a v i d in his P s a l m s w a s m o v e d to a n e c s t a s y o f h e a v e n l y a n d d i v i n e l o v e (ovpdviov
Kal Beiov epcora), w h i l e his w h o l e m i n d w a s s n a t c h e d u p in
h o l y f r e n z y (otorpos,
"insane passion," "madness," a t e r m used o f the B a c c h i c
M a e n a d s ) (Euripides, Bacchae 665) b y a d i v i n e possession (dela Karoxrj), w h e r e i n h e f o u n d his g l a d n e s s in G - d a l o n e . I n d e e d , P h i l o refers to D a v i d as term that means "more than h u m a n " deaireaios
fleoWaio?,
a
(De Plantatione 7.29) (see L S J , 7 9 5 , s.v.
II).
I n e v e n g r e a t e r c o n t r a s t to J o s e p h u s , the r a b b i s e l e v a t e D a v i d to t h e p o i n t w h e r e R a b b i A k i v a , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus's, declares that o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , D a v i d will sit o n a t h r o n e a d j a c e n t to t h a t o f G - d
(Sanhedrin
38b). E v e n his p u p i l Y o s e b e n H a l a f t a protests, s a y i n g , " A k i v a , h o w l o n g w i l l y o u p r o f a n e t h e S h e c h i n a h ? " (i.e., b y p l a c i n g a h u m a n b e i n g side b y side w i t h G - d ) . A
thus giving a ratio of 2.12:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Hebrew, a n d 1.34:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the Hebrew is again 1.58:1). For the passages that in volve both Saul and David (Ant. 6.192-223, 235-38, 272-91, 310-20, 7.1-6), there are 508 lines in Jose phus, 260 lines in the Hebrew, a n d 402 in the Septuagint, thus giving ratios o f 1.95:1 for Josephus as against the H e b r e w and 1.26:1 for Josephus as against the Septuagint (the ratio of the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is almost exacdy the same as in the Saul pericope: 1.55:1).
540
JOSEPHUS'S
BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
late a g g a d a , p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d u p o n a n o l d e r tradition, h a s a s c e n a r i o w h e r e i n o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , at a g r e a t b a n q u e t p r e p a r e d b y G - d for the r i g h t e o u s , G - d offers the w i n e c u p for the r e c i t a t i o n o f g r a c e successively to A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , M o s e s , a n d J o s h u a , e a c h o f w h o m d e c l a r e s h i m s e l f u n w o r t h y o f the h o n o r b e c a u s e o f sins h e h a s c o m m i t t e d . Finally, G - d t u r n s to D a v i d , w h o a c c e p t s the h o n o r (Beth Hamidrash
[ed. Jellinek] 5 . 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 6.25-26]). H e n c e , w e see t h a t e s c h a -
t o l o g i c a l l y at least a c c o r d i n g to this tradition, D a v i d , despite his c r u e l t y t o w a r d the M o a b i t e s a n d the A m m o n i t e s , w h o m h e m a d e to pass t h r o u g h b r i c k kilns a n d u n d e r saws a n d a x e s o f i r o n (2 S a m . 12:31), a n d t o w a r d the sons o f R i z p a h , w h o m h e d e l i v e r e d to the G i b e o n i t e s to b e h a n g e d (2 S a m . 21:9), a n d despite, o f c o u r s e , the affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 2 7 ) , a p p e a r s to o c c u p y a p o s i t i o n s u p e r i o r e v e n to t h a t o f M o s e s himself. I n the T a l m u d , R a b b i H u n a (third c e n t u r y ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t S a u l s i n n e d o n l y o n c e , w h e r e a s D a v i d s i n n e d t w i c e (in b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e for the d e a t h o f U r i a h a n d in t a k i n g a census), a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o the t h i r d - c e n t u r y R a v , e v e n a t h i r d t i m e (in listening to the evil reports o f Z i b a a g a i n s t M e p h i b o s h e t h ) (Yoma 22b); a n d y e t these sins d i d n o t c a u s e his d o w n f a l l . P a g a n writers, o n the o t h e r h a n d , like J o s e p h u s , w e r e r e l u c t a n t to e n h a n c e the i m p o r t a n c e o f D a v i d . I n d e e d , w e find o n l y t h r e e e x t a n t references t o K i n g D a v i d in p a g a n w r i t e r s b e f o r e the s p r e a d o f Christianity, n a m e l y , in A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r in the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. (ap. C l e m e n t , Stromata, 1.21.130.3), w h o m e n t i o n s a T y r i a n a r c h i t e c t n a m e d H y p e r o n , w h o w a s b o r n o f a J u d a e a n m o t h e r o f the tribe o f D a v i d ; in N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ant. 7.101), w h o r e m a r k s t h a t A d a d o s ( B e n - h a d a d ) , the r u l e r o f D a m a s c u s , w a g e d w a r a g a i n s t D a v i d ; a n d a g a i n in N i c o l a u s (ap. Ant. 1 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 3 ) , w h o n o t e s t h a t H e r o d o p e n e d D a v i d ' s t o m b in o r d e r to take the w e a l t h that w a s b u r i e d there. E v e n in these t h r e e references, it will b e n o t e d , t h e r e is n o t h i n g said in p r a i s e o r defense o f D a v i d , despite the fact t h a t b o t h A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r a n d N i c o l a u s h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w l e d g e o f the J e w s a n d o f 7
J e w i s h h i s t o r y a n d g e n e r a l l y l o o k e d u p o n t h e m w i t h favor. I n t h e c a s e o f N i c o l a u s , s u c h n e g l e c t m a y b e b e c a u s e N i c o l a u s w a s s e c r e t a r y to K i n g H e r o d the G r e a t , w h o s e n o n - D a v i d i c d e s c e n t surely r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t his l e g i t i m a c y as a J e w ish ruler. It is significant, in this c o n n e c t i o n , that w h e n H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) refers to the f o u n d i n g o f J e r u s a l e m , h e m e n t i o n s , n o t D a v i d , w h o w a s the figure responsible, a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , for the c o n q u e s t o f J e r u s a l e m , but Moses.
DAVID'S QUALITIES A s in his portraits o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l figures, J o s e p h u s builds u p D a v i d b y n o t i n g his g e n e a l o g y , his a p p e a r a n c e , his w e a l t h , a n d his possession o f the four c a r d i n a l
7. A l e x a n d e r
Polyhistor wrote a Tlepi
'IovSaicav: for the fragments a n d discussion, see Stern
1974-84, 1:157-64. O n Nicolaus's knowledge o f the Jews, see W a c h o l d e r 1962 and Stern 1974-84, 1:227-60.
DAVID
541
v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e — , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e fifth v i r t u e , piety, as w e l l as hospitality, generosity, a n d gratefulness. T o r o u n d o u t his p o r t r a i t , J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s D a v i d as a p o e t . It is significant t h a t i n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n S a m u e l is t o l d t o select a k i n g f r o m a m o n g t h e sons o f Jesse t o t a k e t h e p l a c e o f S a u l , G - d d e c l a r e s t h a t h e h a s r e j e c t e d Jesse's eldest s o n , a l t h o u g h S a m u e l ' s first i n c l i n a t i o n w a s t o select h i m , b e c a u s e w h e r e a s m e n l o o k a t t h e o u t e r a p p e a r a n c e , G - d sees t h e h e a r t (1 S a m . 16:7). I n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f this p a s s a g e , G - d states t h a t h e is s e e k i n g o n e w h o is d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n p i e t y (evoefteia), j u s t i c e (oiKaioavvrj),
fortitude (dvSpela), a n d o b e
d i e n c e (7T£i0c6), o f w h i c h qualities b e a u t y o f soul ( T O rrjs iftvxrjs . . .
KOLXXOS)
consists
(Ant. 6.160).
Genealogy T h e g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n . T h e r a b b i s , w e m a y n o t e , g i v e D a v i d a v e r y dis t i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:82), t r a c i n g his l i n e a g e b a c k t o M i r i a m (Sifre Numbers 78); t o O t h n i e l , t h e first j u d g e i n Israel (ibid.); a n d t o B o a z , w h o is identified w i t h I b z a n , t h e j u d g e o f B e t h l e h e m (Baba Batra 91a). H i s g r a n d father O b e d d e v o t e d his life totally t o t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d , h e n c e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ness o f his n a m e , " s e r v a n t . " B u t J o s e p h u s is careful t o soft-pedal D a v i d ' s g e n e a l ogy, so t h a t w h e n h e tells t h e story o f R u t h , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t O b e d b e g a t Jesse a n d t h a t Jesse b e g a t D a v i d ( R u t h 4:22), J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s t h e p a s s a g e j u s t e n o u g h t o g i v e D a v i d a d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y b u t w i t h o u t stressing it unduly. H e n c e , his s t a t e m e n t is: " O f O b e d w a s b o r n Jesse, a n d o f h i m D a v i d , w h o b e c a m e k i n g a n d b e q u e a t h e d his d o m i n i o n t o his p o s t e r i t y for t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r a t i o n s " (Ant. 5.336), p r e s u m a b l y i n o r d e r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t D a v i d ' s line w o u l d e n d after t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t e x p e c t a r e n e w a l o f the line thereafter. A s t o D a v i d ' s father, Jesse, h e is d e p i c t e d in r a b b i n i c literature, i n a v i e w a s c r i b e d a l t e r n a t e l y t o t h e s e c o n d - c e n t u r y Palestinian O s h a i a h o r t h e fourthc e n t u r y B a b y l o n i a n R a v a a n d Z e v i d , as o n e o f the greatest s c h o l a r s o f his t i m e a n d as o n e o f t h e four w h o d i e d free o f all sin (Berakot 58a; Shabbat 55b). J o s e p h u s m i g h t , like t h e G o s p e l o f L u k e (3:23-38), h a v e t r a c e d D a v i d ' s l i n e a g e b a c k t o A d a m o r , like t h e G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w ( 1 : 1 - 1 7 ) , t o A b r a h a m , o r at least t o J u d a h ; b u t J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s d o i n g s o , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e it w o u l d h a v e i m p l i e d t h a t D a v i d w a s t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h . I n fact, J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o e m p h a s i z e , rather, t h e m o d e s t o r i g i n s o f D a v i d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t his w h o l e p u r p o s e i n i n c l u d i n g t h e story o f R u t h i n a h i s t o r i c a l w o r k , t o w h i c h t h e story w o u l d s e e m t o h a v e little r e l e v a n c e , is to s h o w h o w e a s y it is for G - d t o p r o m o t e e v e n o r d i n a r y (eTrirvxdvras)
folk, s p r u n g
f r o m s u c h m o d e s t ancestry, t o a r a n k as illustrious as t h a t t o w h i c h H e r a i s e d David. J o s e p h u s ' s d o w n g r a d i n g o f D a v i d m a y b e s e e n in t h e e p i t h e t nak,
"child,"
" l a d , " w h i c h h e uses o f h i m a t t h e t i m e o f his a n o i n t i n g b y S a m u e l (Ant. 6.164). T h i s is in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e r a b b i n i c v i e w t h a t D a v i d w a s t w e n t y - e i g h t at t h a t t i m e
542
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
(Seder Olam 12) (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:248, n. 18). T h e w o r d irais c o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t D a v i d w a s a slave, a m e a n i n g it h a s in t h e War (1.82 [bis] a n d 1.340) a n d t e n t i m e s in t h e Antiquities,
i n c l u d i n g 7.330 (in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h D a v i d ' s servants), as
w e l l as o n c e in the Life (223), a l t h o u g h it s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w o r d a p p e a r s 98 t i m e s in t h e War, 762 t i m e s in the Antiquities, a n d 20 t i m e s in the Life in the 8
sense o f c h i l d . W h e n S a u l seeks s o m e o n e t o c u r e his disorder, the H e b r e w speaks o f D a v i d as a m a n o f v a l o r a n d a m a n o f w a r (1 S a m . 16:18), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s d e scribes h i m as a m e r e b o y (eri irais) in y e a r s (Ant. 6.167), a l t h o u g h a short t i m e later, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e is d e s c r i b e d as a y o u t h (veavloKos) (Ant. 6.194). Appearance J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y stresses, in several e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s , t h e h a n d s o m e n e s s o f his h e r o e s . I n i n t r o d u c i n g D a v i d , the H e b r e w says t h a t h e w a s r u d d y
('ademoni),
c
w i t h beautiful eyes (yefeh einayim), a n d g o o d l y (tov) t o l o o k u p o n (1 S a m . 16:12). T h e S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s the w o r d " r u d d y " b y irvppaKrjs,
"fiery r e d " ; J o s e p h u s , in his
p a r a p h r a s e , s p e a k s o f D a v i d as a c h i l d as b e i n g r u d d y (gavdos,
actually "yellow,"
w i t h a t i n g e o f r e d ; "fair," " g o l d e n " ) in skin (xpodv), w i t h eyes t h a t w e r e p i e r c i n g (yopyos,
" g r i m , " " f i e r c e , " " t e r r i b l e , " a t e r m u s e d b y A e s c h y l u s , Seven against Thebes
537, a n d E u r i p i d e s , Phoenissae 146, w i t h r e f e r e n c e to P a r t h e n o p a e u s , the s o n o f M e l e a g e r a n d A t a l a n t a , w h o w a s o n e o f the h e r o e s w h o m a r c h e d a g a i n s t T h e b e s ) 9
(Ant. 6 . 1 6 4 ) . J o s e p h u s p e r h a p s uses £ a v 0 o V ° h e r e t o r e m i n d r e a d e r s o f E s a u ' s n i c k n a m e E d o m ("red"), w h i c h , in fact, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s in t e r m s o f the " t a w n y " (£av96s) p o t t a g e t h a t J a c o b g a v e h i m in e x c h a n g e for his rights as
firstborn
son
(Ant. 2.2 a n d 3). H e n c e , far f r o m a s s o c i a t i n g D a v i d w i t h the m e s s i a h w h o will o v e r t h r o w the R o m a n E m p i r e , J o s e p h u s m a y r a t h e r b e c o n n e c t i n g D a v i d w i t h R o m e , w h i c h w a s itself said to b e identified w i t h E s a u o r E d o m .
1 1
T h e use o f the a d j e c -
8. T h e first occurrence o f nais in extant literature, according to LSJ, s.v. I l l , with the m e a n i n g o f "slave" or "servant" is in the fifth century B.C.E. in Aeschylus (Choephoroe 653) and in Aristophanes (Acharnians 395); and it appears with this m e a n i n g frequendy thereafter. Finley 1980, 96, remarks on the d e h u m a n i z i n g connotation o f the term, w h i c h h a d its counterpart in the term " b o y " in the South o f the United States. Aristophanes (Wasps 1297-98, 1307), as he notes, invents an e t y m o l o g y for this term from the w o r d iraUiv, "to beat," a j o k e that points to a harsh reality. See G i b b s and Feldman 1985-86, 295-96. A c c o r d i n g to an u n k n o w n midrash, quoted b y Talqut ha-Makiri, Ps. 118.28 (p. 214, ed. Buber), cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:246, n. 11, w h e n Jesse sought to have relations with one o f his slaves, his o w n wife disguised herself as the slave; and the child thus born, namely, D a v i d , was given out to be the son o f the freed slave. 9. T h e w o r d yopyos is found, in a doubtful reading, in Euripides (Supplicants, 322), where it refers to the fierce look o f the G o r g o n s , w h o turn people to stone with their gaze. 10. W e m a y here note that £avQ6s is used by Josephus only for Esau, D a v i d , and (Ant. 4.79) the red heifer. H e n c e , the association with Esau is veritably unique. 11. T h e identification o f E d o m and R o m e in extant literature goes b a c k at least to the second cen tury (Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 7.11, ed. M a n d e l b a u m , p. 134). T h e identification o f Esau with R o m e like wise goes back, at least so far as extant literature is concerned, to the middle o f the second century (Jerusalem T a l m u d , 7 a W V 4 . 8 . 6 8 d ; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 65.21, 67.7).
DAVID
543
tive ^avdos m a y also, in the m i n d of the literate reader, serve to associate David with the heroes o f Homer's two great epics, inasmuch as Achilles h a d tawny h a i r (Iliad 1.197, 23.141), as did Odysseus (Odyssey 13.399, 4 3 1 ) .
12
Wealth In addition to handsome appearance, another requisite quality of a hero, such as a M i d a s o r an Oedipus, was the possession of wealth. O n e of the stock anti-Jewish charges was that the J e w s w e r e a nation of beggars. Josephus is therefore espe cially concerned to answer this charge. Thus, whereas the Bible declares simply that David smote the Philistines a n d says nothing about his plundering them (2 Sam. 5:25), Josephus specifies that w h e n David plundered the Philistines' camp, he found in it great wealth (Ant. 7.77). In his final s u m m a r y of David's virtues, J o s e phus declares that he left behind such wealth as no other king, w h e t h e r of the He brews o r of other nations, ever did (Ant. 7.391). Moreover, in one of the few refer ences to David in the Jewish
War (1.61), he declares that K i n g J o h n Hyrcanus
opened the t o m b of David, "wealthiest of kings," a n d extracted therefrom 3,000 talents. A similar statement is found in Josephus's version of the same story in the Antiquities (13.249), w h e r e it is said that David "surpassed all other kings in wealth." Wisdom O n e of the charges against the J e w s was that they h a d contributed no useful in ventions for mankind (Apollonius M o l o n , ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148). In reply, Josephus underscores David's possession of the first of the cardinal virtues, wisdom (Ant. 7.158), in an addition to the biblical text that cites David's strange behavior in fasting while his child was sick, but bathing a n d eating after the child h a d died (2 Sam.
12:23). After quoting David's explanation that n o w that the child was dead,
there was no w a y that he could bring him back to life again, Josephus adds: "At these words they [the people] praised the king's wisdom [oocfrla] a n d understand ing" (SidvoLa, "thinking faculty," "intelligence," "sagacity," which Plato [Republic 6.51 i D ] identifies with the geometrical o r mathematical state o f mind, the second highest degree of knowledge). T h e latter t e r m is the same w o r d that Josephus uses with respect to Saul (Ant. 6.45), just as it is the quality that David prays that his son a n d successor S o l o m o n m a y have (Ant. 7.381). Hence, w e see that the same w o r d , Sidvoia, is used by Josephus with regard to all three great kings—Saul, David, a n d Solomon. O n e of the marks o f a great statesman, as w e see, for example, in Thucydides'
12. Perhaps Josephus's substitution of ^avdos for the Septuagint's TTvppdKiqs was because he wanted to avoid associating D a v i d with the shedding o f blood, since, according to rabbinic tradition (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:247, - 3)J David's ruddy complexion indicated that he was destined to shed blood. Consequendy, the prophet Samuel was terrified when he beheld the "red" David, w h o m he sur mised to b e a second Esau. n
j
544
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
portrait of Pericles (2.65.5), is his ability to foresee (irpovovs) the future. David, too, is described as being most apt in perceiving (vorjoai) a n d understanding (ovviSeiv) the course o f future events (Ant. 7.391). David's quality of irpovoia ("watchful care" o r "foresight") has particular significance, because Josephus usually employs the t e r m with reference to G - d ' s providence; a n d hence one has h e r e a case of imitatio D-i
on the p a r t o f D a v i d (see C h a r l e s w o r t h 1 9 3 6 , 1 0 7 - 3 2 ) . T h u s , whereas the
Bible states that David's m e n w e r e v e r y good to Nabal's m e n (1 S a m . 25:15), J o s e phus not only amplifies David's instructions to his m e n by adding that he told t h e m not to h a r m his flocks, in the belief that he was obliging a good m a n a n d one w o r t h y of such forethought (irpovoia) (Ant. 6.296); but he also adds a second time that D a v i d showed complete foresight (irpovoia) t o w a r d Nabal's shepherds (Ant. 6.300). J o s e p h u s adds to the Bible (2 S a m . 3 . 3 6 - 3 9 ) that David's c o n c e r n to show respect to A b n e r after the latter h a d been treacherously slain gave each of the peo ple grounds to think that he, too, w o u l d receive the same forethought (irpovoia) that the corpse o f A b n e r h a d received (Ant. 7.43). Moreover, J o s e p h u s adds that after Absalom's ill-fated rebellion, the rebels b l a m e d themselves because they h a d not appealed to D a v i d to abate his anger a n d to show the same foresight (irpovoia) in their b e h a l f that h e h a d previously displayed (Ant. 7.259). Finally, w h e n David, j u s t before his death, gives his charge to his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n , Josephus, in his p a r a p h r a s e of 1 K i n g s 2:7, states that D a v i d instructed S o l o m o n to hold the sons o f Barzilai in all h o n o r a n d care (irpovoia) (Ant. 7.387). A n d yet, as noted, D a v i d is not praised unduly by Josephus. T h u s , in an extra biblical addition, w h e n G - d tells the p r o p h e t S a m u e l w h a t qualities to look for in the king, David, w h o is about to be anointed, He lists piety (evoefteia), (SiKaioovvrj),
justice
fortitude (dv8p€ia), a n d obedience (ireiOa)), "qualities w h e r e o f beauty
o f soul consists" (Ant. 6.160). A g a i n , in the Bible, w h e n S a u l seeks out someone to cure his disorder, one of his y o u n g m e n mentions that he h a d seen a son o f Jesse, that is, David, a n d proceeds to describe h i m as "skillful in playing, a n d a mighty m a n of valor, a n d a m a n of w a r a n d p r u d e n t in affairs [lit., skillful in speech], a n d a comely person" (1 S a m . 16:18). J o s e p h u s , in his paraphrase, substitutes for "pru dent in affairs" "in other w a y s w o r t h y of regard" (Ant. 6.167). In the next sentence, w h e r e the Bible states that S a u l sent to Jesse to have him send David, his son, to h i m (1 S a m . 16:19), J o s e p h u s elaborates by having Saul state that he wishes to see David, having h e a r d o f his comeliness a n d valor, but again omitting mention of his wisdom (Ant. 6.167).
Courage T h e quality of courage is always one of the m a j o r virtues that are sine q u a n o n for the leader, while an emphasis o n military details is w h a t one w o u l d expect from one w h o h a d served as a general, such as Josephus. A s for David's courage, in a n extrabiblical addition, informing the p r o p h e t S a m u e l o f the qualities to be sought in a king, G - d , as w e have seen, lists, in w h a t
DAVID
5 4 5
is virtually a revised canon of the cardinal virtues, piety, justice, b r a v e r y (dvSpeia), a n d obedience (Ant. 6.160). J o s e p h u s magnifies David's victory over the giant G o liath by accentuating the terror inspired by Goliath, for whereas the Bible states m e r e l y that Goliath's spear b e a r e r w e n t before him (1 S a m . 17:7), J o s e p h u s de clares that m a n y followed him, c a r r y i n g his a r m o r (Ant. 6.171). W h e r e a s the Bible offers n o explanation as to w h y D a v i d was not in the c a m p with Saul at the time w h e n Goliath hurled his challenge (1 S a m . 1 7 : 1 2 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s carefully explains that the reason was that Saul h a d sent him a w a y to his father u p o n the outbreak of the war, being content with the latter's three sons, w h o m Jesse h a d dispatched to share the dangers of the campaign (Ant. 6.175). W h e r e a s in the Bible, David, ac cepting the challenge to fight Goliath, says simply, "Let n o man's h e a r t fail within him; thy servant will go and fight with the Philistine" (1 S a m . 17:32), Josephus's D a v i d has a n elaborate speech w o r t h y of a Homeric hero, in which he declares that he will bring d o w n the presumption (aXa^ovela) mighty
(vifjrjXov) giant before him,
(KaTayeXaoTos)
(Ant. 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 0 ) .
13
of the foe by throwing the
so that he will b e c o m e a
laughingstock
Like the true hero, D a v i d enters u p o n his c o m b a t
with n o expectation of r e w a r d , w h e t h e r m o n e t a r y o r personal (the g r a n t of the king's daughter in marriage), as is cited by Saul's m e n in the biblical version (1 Sam.
17:25).
J o s e p h u s , in an extrabiblical detail, indicates that David's goal in rushing (op/jLTjois) to fulfill Saul's m a n d a t e to bring a h u n d r e d foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25) h u n d r e d heads (Ant. 6.197) of the Philistines was to win r e n o w n (KXCOS) ardous a n d incredible (irapafioXos
o
r
s
^
for a h a z
Kal aTnoros) exploit (Ant. 6.198), the v e r y same
type of goal about which Achilles was singing w h e n the embassy came to t r y to persuade h i m to reenter the fighting against the Trojans (Iliadg.iSgiKXea
avopcov).
Indeed, in the case of David's rescue of the inhabitants of K e i l a h , Scripture says simply that D a v i d saved them (1 S a m . 23:5); but J o s e p h u s enlarges u p o n this by stating that the exploit a n d its success did not remain confined to those w h o h a d witnessed them, but that the fame (>rjpLrj) of it was noised a b r o a d (Ant. 6.272). J o s e phus, in a n extrabiblical addition, states that Saul knew the mettle (p6vr}pia, "mentality," "bravery," "courage," "high spirit") a n d h a r d i h o o d (evroXpula, "hero ism," "determination," "bravery") of D a v i d (Ant. 6.250). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d inquires of G - d twice w h e t h e r to go to battle against the Philistines, inas much as his m e n are afraid (1 S a m . 23:3), in Josephus, as soon as G - d signifies on
13. For the literate Graeco-Roman reader, the very word "laughingstock" would have called to mind its use in Aristophanic comedy (Clouds 849, with reference to Phidippides; Frogs 480, with refer ence to Dionysus; Thesmophoriazusae 226, with reference to Mnesilochus). Such readers would also have recalled the use of the same word in Herodotus 8.100, where he refers to the Persians as ridiculous in the eyes of the Greeks. Likewise, the reader would have recalled another of Josephus's favorite authors, Plato, who has Socrates declare that the jury ought to feel far more disgraced to condemn a man who makes the city ridiculous than the one who holds his peace (Apology 35B). Indeed, Aristophanes, in Plato's Symposium 189B, draws a contrast between others laughing with him and becoming ridiculous in their eyes.
546
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the first inquiry that He will grant them v i c t o r y he throws himself (i^coppurjaev) with his companions upon the Philistines (Ant. 6 . 2 7 1 - 7 2 ) . Josephus's picture of David as one whose achievements will d e m a n d great toil (TTOVOL) (Ant. 6.275) * obviously an addition to the biblical statement in which s
J o n a t h a n tells David m e r e l y that he will be king, a n d that J o n a t h a n will be next to him (1 S a m . 23:17). T h e scene is reminiscent of several passages in H o m e r w h e r e the w o r d irovog in itself signifies "batde," a n d w h e r e the phrase TTOVOV e'xeiv is equivalent to pudx^odaL, "to fight" (e.g., Iliad 6.7j; Odyssey 12.117). T h e scene also r e calls Virgil's statement that it was of such great difficulty to found the R o m a n peo ple (Aeneid 1.33), just as it evokes Aeneas's instructions to his son Ascanius before the former's final batde with Turnus, in which he declares that his son should l e a r n manliness (virtutem) a n d true toil (verum laborem) from himself, but luck from others (Aeneid 1 2 . 4 3 5 - 3 6 ) . Josephus's David is bolder than his biblical counterpart (1 S a m . 2 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , in that whereas the latter does not give A b n e r his name, let alone mention that he is a fugitive, after his bold exploit in entering Saul's camp, Josephus's David boldly identifies himself: "I, son of Jesse, the fugitive from you" (Ant. 6.315). O n e is r e minded of Odysseus's reply to Polyphemus the Cyclops w h e n asked to identify himself after his daring exploit in putting out the eye of the Cyclops (Odyssey 9 . 3 6 4 - 6 7 ) , although Josephus's David is clearly m o r e explicit in identifying him self. David's b r a v e r y is correspondingly increased as that of his enemies is exagger ated. Thus, w e r e a d in the Bible that Abner, the general of Saul's son Ish-bosheth, "showed himself strong" (mitehazeq) (2 S a m . 3:6). In Josephus's paraphrase, A b n e r is not only strong but also clever (ovveros,
"intelligent," "bright," "sharp," "saga
cious," "sly," "resourceful," "ingenious") a n d well-disposed (cvvovs,
"benevolent,"
"enjoying great favor") t o w a r d the populace (Ant. 7.22). W h e n David makes his pact with A b n e r (2 S a m . 3:13), in Josephus's version, he not only asks A b n e r to bring back his wife, Michal, Saul's daughter, to him, but he recalls h o w he h a d w o n her, namely, through an act of b r a v e r y in obtaining the heads of six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant. 7.25). T h e r e is further dramatization of David's b r a v e r y in Josephus's version (Ant. 7.61)
of the biblical passage in which the Jebusites in J e r u s a l e m sarcastically p r o
claim that the blind and the l a m e will repel his forces (2 S a m . 5:6). In Josephus's version, the Jebusites' statement is taken literally, and they, in their sublime con fidence in the strength of their walls, are said to have actually placed on the wall of J e r u s a l e m those w h o h a d lost an eye o r a leg o r w e r e crippled in order to mock K i n g David (Ant. 7.61). J o s e p h u s thereupon embellishes the simple biblical state m e n t (2 S a m . 5:7) that David took the stronghold of Zion by stating that he dis played great zeal (onovbrj) a n d a r d o r (TrpoOvfila) and thus struck terror into any others w h o might conceivably t r y to treat him as the Jebusites h a d done (Ant. 7.62). David's v a l o r is increased in Josephus's account of the combat with the Philistines, inasmuch as, whereas Scripture declares v e r y simply that David smote
DAVID
547
the Philistines in Baal-Perazim (2 S a m . 5:20), J o s e p h u s has a long excursus in which he explicitly attempts to refute the view, a p p a r e n t l y widespread, that it w a s a small a r m y o f Philistines that opposed the Hebrews, a n d that, to j u d g e f r o m their failure to p e r f o r m any courageous o r n o t e w o r t h y act on this occasion, the latter showed themselves slow a n d c o w a r d l y (Ant. 7.74). In fact, says J o s e p h u s , the Philistines attacked D a v i d w i t h a n a r m y three times as large as the previous one (Ant. 7.75). A p p a r e n d y to j u d g e from David's periodic inactivity in the Bible, he w a s thought to be lazy a n d careless; a n d so Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, forcefully declares that D a v i d decided to m a r c h against the Philistines so as to counteract the charge that he w a s idle (apyos,
"not working") o r slack (pqQvpios,
"careless," "carefree," "sluggish," "indifferent," "frivolous," "light-hearted") in his conduct of affairs (Ant. 7.96). W h e r e a s the Bible remarks simply that it c a m e to pass that D a v i d smote the Philistines (2 S a m . 8:1), J o s e p h u s has D a v i d show mili t a r y a c u m e n by ordering his m e n to stay in seclusion a n d equip themselves for w a r (Ant. 7.97). He decides to advance against the Philistines only w h e n he sees that they are adequately p r e p a r e d . David's success as a fighter is heightened b y the fact that J o s e p h u s goes out o f his w a y to cite Nicolaus o f Damascus's words about David's great opponent, A d a dos (Ben-hadad), the king of Syria, w h o w a g e d m a n y battles against David, the last of which w a s fought on the Euphrates, far from David's h o m e territory, w h e r e A d a d o s was defeated (Ant. 7.101). T h e fact that A d a d o s is t e r m e d b y Nicolaus the most vigorous (apioros
. . . pcbpLrj, "best in strength") a n d courageous (dvhpeia)
of
kings serves, o f course, to increase the stature o f his victorious o p p o n e n t as well. D a v i d also shows m o r e outrage in Josephus's version of the incident w h e r e his envoys to the A m m o n i t e s r e t u r n after the latter have shaven off half their beards a n d cut their garments in the middle (2 S a m . 10:5). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d tells the m e n simply to stay in J e r u s a l e m until their beards g r o w back, Josephus's D a v i d is indignant (rfyavaKTrjae) a n d makes it plain that he will not overlook the insult (vfipis) a n d outrage (77/007777 Aa/a 07x0V, a w o r d with connotations of being be spattered with mud) (Ant. 7.120). J o s e p h u s also increases the b r a v e r y o f D a v i d by noting that the S y r i a n forces that opposed him consisted of 80,000 infantry a n d 10,000 cavalry (Ant. 7.127), w h e r e a s the Bible does not specify the size of the S y r i a n force (2 S a m . 10:16). Here J o s e p h u s follows his practice of giving precise n u m b e r s for the Bible's imprecise ones. O n e of the problems posed by the biblical account of D a v i d is that it is J o a b , David's general, w h o seems to m a k e the m a j o r military decisions, with a resultant loss of credit for David. For example, in the Bible, it is J o a b w h o masterminds the strategy b e h i n d the attack on the A m m o n i t e s (2 S a m . 11:20). In Josephus, however, D a v i d presents a long military critique o f Joab's plan o f attack a n d argues persua sively that the a r m y ought to have tried to take the enemy's city with m o u n d s a n d engines (Ant. 7 . 1 4 2 - 4 5 ) . A s things stand in the Bible, David's courage w o u l d seem to be flawed w h e n , on
548
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the news o f the rebellion o f his son A b s a l o m , he tells his followers to flee (2 S a m . 15:14). In J o s e p h u s , David's reputation for courage is preserved b y having h i m call together his friends (who thus p r e s u m a b l y share in his decision to withdraw) a n d by entrusting the entire m a t t e r to G - d as a j u d g e (Ant. 7.199). In addition, w h e r e a s in the Bible, Hushai, David's friend, refers to D a v i d a n d his m e n as mighty (giborim) a n d to D a v i d as a m a n of w a r ('ish milhamah) (2 S a m . 17:8), an epithet used of G - d Himself in Moses' song at the S e a of Reeds (Exod. 15:3), Josephus's Hushai accentuates the military prowess of D a v i d b y referring to his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d b y acknowledging that he is a v e r y able
(iKavtoTaros)
general w h o — t h e m a r k of a true g e n e r a l — c a n foresee (TTpoihelv) the enemy's ruses (Ant. 7.217). In an extensive addition to the biblical text, Hushai then predicts that David's m e n will take h e a r t at the thought that the king is beside them, a n d that then, while the batde rages, David's sudden a p p e a r a n c e will be sufficient to inspire his m e n to face d a n g e r v a l i a n d y (Ant. 7.218). Josephus, realizing that it might well be asked w h y D a v i d himself did not p a r ticipate in the batde against A b s a l o m , considerably amplifies the scriptural state m e n t that this w a s because the people refused to allow him to do so, on the g r o u n d that his presence w a s w o r t h ten thousand soldiers (2 S a m . 18:3). J o s e p h u s editori alizes b y remarking that the people's decision was v e r y wise (aocfxxjTaros) a n d b y rationalizing that if they w e r e defeated while D a v i d was present, they w o u l d lose all their hope, whereas if one p a r t o f their forces w e r e defeated a n d w e r e to fall back u p o n David, he w o u l d reinvigorate them, with the result that the e n e m y w o u l d surmise that there w a s still a n o t h e r a r m y with h i m (Ant. 7.23). A similar p r o b l e m arises concerning David's agreeing, following his n a r r o w es cape from the Philistine giant Ishbi-benob, to go out no longer to batde (2 S a m . 21:7). T h e Bible's reason as to w h y his m e n swear that they will not allow D a v i d to j o i n t h e m in batde henceforth is that they cannot abide the thought o f "the l a m p of Israel," that is, David, being quenched. In Josephus, it is not David's soldiers w h o thus swear but D a v i d himself w h o is forced by his c o m m a n d e r s to swear that he will never again go forth to batde; moreover, J o s e p h u s amplifies the reason w h y they do so, namely, their fear that his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d zeal (rrpodvpLia, "en thusiasm," "confidence," "good cheer," "eagerness to fight") will cause him to suffer some injury a n d thus deprive the people of benefits past a n d future (Ant. 7.300). In his v e r y brief s u m m a r y of David's virtues, while J o s e p h u s does declare that D a v i d possessed e v e r y virtue (apery) that should be found in a king, the one virtue o f his that he singles out for special recognition is b r a v e r y (dvhpeios) (Ant. 7.390); a n d he adds that in war, D a v i d was the first to rush into danger, encouraging his m e n not by orders but b y example. M a n y years later, the two virtues of D a v i d that his great-grandson A s a is said b y J o s e p h u s to have singled out for emulation are courage (dvhpeia) a n d piety (evoefieia) (Ant. 8.315). A n d yet, in o r d e r n o t to emphasize David's courage unduly, Josephus's S a u l makes n o m e n t i o n o f David's d a r i n g (roXpnqpos) a n d c o u r a g e (eviftvxia)
(Ant.
DAVID
549
6.181). T h e J o s e p h a n David, to be sure, is a m o r e dashing h e r o than he is in the Bible, as w e can see in Josephus's statement that w h e n the lion rose against D a v i d , the latter lifted him by the tail (rather than b y the b e a r d , as in 1 S a m . 17:35), a n d killed h i m by smashing (irpoap^as)
him u p o n the g r o u n d (Ant. 6.182),
r a t h e r than, as the H e b r e w text has it, by m e r e l y "smiting him" (ve-hikitiv). O n the o t h e r h a n d , Saul, in an addition to the Bible (1 S a m . 17:37), p r a y s that David's zeal (irpoQvpiia, "enthusiasm," "confidence," "eagerness," "courage") a n d hardiness (roXpua, "courage," "daring," "boldness," "audacity") m a y be r e w a r d e d by G - d (Ant. 6.184); but again this element is s o m e w h a t diminished by the fact that S a u l refers to D a v i d as a child (-rrais), a w o r d not in the H e b r e w o r in the Septuagint, a n d not implied by the Bible. A g a i n , J o s e p h u s increases the magnitude of David's v i c t o r y over G o l i a t h by adding to the biblical n a r r a t i v e (1 S a m . 17:48) the fact that Goliath, in his contempt for his opponent, c a m e at him at a slow pace, confident o f slaying, w i t h o u t a n y trouble, one w h o was u n a r m e d (Ant. 6.188); but h e r e again he calls attention to David's youthfulness by calling h i m "child" (noiis). Even w h e n David's status as a h e r o is elevated by Josephus, it is not so much for his o w n sake as to increase the d r a m a of the situation. Thus, whereas in the Bible, there is n o indication of Saul's motive in making David captain over a thousand (1 Sam. 18:13), Josephus explains that he did so because he hoped, by sending him into batde, that he w o u l d meet his death (Ant. 6.195). Here one notes a close p a r allel to the motive that Josephus ascribes to Pharaoh's appointing Moses to lead a campaign against the Ethiopians—namely, that the sacred scribes of the Egyp tians h o p e d both to defeat their enemies and, at the same time, to do a w a y with Moses by guile (Ant. 2.243). T h e literate r e a d e r would, at this point, p r o b a b l y have been r e m i n d e d of Perseus, w h o , w h e n he stood in the w a y of his mother's m a r r i a g e with Polydectes, was sent by the latter to fetch the head of one of the G o r g o n s — a mission that Polydectes assumed w o u l d bring about his d e a t h .
14
Even w h e n J o s e p h u s recounts David's daring exploit in entering Saul's c a m p while the latter lay sleeping (1 S a m . 26:12), Josephus ascribes David's success, not only to his daring (roA/xa), but also to the favorable opportunity (Kaupos), that is, his taking advantage of the exact time a n d m o m e n t w h e n he could enter u n o b t r u sively (Ant. 6 . 3 1 3 ) .
15
Notwithstanding the statement in the preface of his Antiquities (1.14) that the main lesson to be l e a r n e d from a study of his history is that those w h o obey the will of G - d prosper, while those w h o do not suffer irretrievable disasters, J o s e p h u s
14. Josephus does not, however, exaggerate David's prowess, as do the rabbis, who, for example, declare that David as a young man killed four lions and three bears in one day (Midrash Samuel 20.5) and that he could kill eight hundred men with a single thrust of his javelin (Mo ed Qatan 16b). Nor does he have the marvelous detail that the five stones that David selected for the encounter with Goliath came to him of their own accord (Midrash Samuel 21.1). 15. Cf. Pindar, Pythian Odes 4.286: i.e., in effect, "time and tide wait for no man." c
550
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
elsewhere tends to d o w n g r a d e the divine element in the achievements o f his bibli cal heroes. In the case o f David, however, h e stresses his dependence u p o n G - d , saying that it w a s because D a v i d w a s e v e r y w h e r e attended by G - d that he achieved success (Ant. 8.196). This, as has been suggested, J o s e p h u s did so as not to aggrandize the f o r e r u n n e r of the messiah, w h o was destined to o v e r t h r o w Roman hegemony
Temperance David's t e m p e r a n c e is praised in Josephus's eulogy of him, in which he refers to him as self-controlled (aoxj>p(x)v, "sensible," "prudent," "reasonable," "temperate," "modest") a n d mild (emei/orfc "moderate," "considerate," "understanding," "gen erous," "magnanimous," "kind," "genial," "friendly," "gende," "peaceable") (Ant. 7.391). Holladay suggests that J o s e p h u s has substituted euae'jSeia, "piety," a n d Treida), "obedience," for aco^poavvrj a n d cfrpovrjois (Holladay 1977, 7 6 - 7 7 ) ; but, as w e have seen, wisdom is one o f the virtues J o s e p h u s ascribes to David, j u s t as is moderation. W e see David's modesty displayed in Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e o f David's state m e n t w h e n S a u l offers him his armor. In the Bible, D a v i d v e r y simply says, "I can not go with these, for I have not tried them" (1 S a m . 17:39). But Josephus's D a v i d exhibits particular courtesy a n d modesty in declaring, "Let this fine apparel be for thee, O king, for thou a r t able to w e a r it, but suffer me, as thy servant, to fight j u s t as I will" (Ant. 6.185). Moreover, after D a v i d refrains from taking Saul's life, even though he has him in his power, S a u l expresses a m a z e m e n t at David's forbearance (pLeTpLorrjs, "restraint," "moderation," "modesty") (Ant. 6.290). Conversely, Nabal is presented as a kind of anti-David; the quality o f churlishness (nevalah), associated with his v e r y n a m e (1 S a m . 25:25), is r e n d e r e d in J o s e p h u s b y the negative o f aoj(f)poGvvr], namely, dc/ypoavvrj (Ant. 6.302) (as w e see in Plato, Protagoras, 332E). W e perceive the importance o f m o d e r a t i o n in the appeal, absent in the scrip tural original (1 S a m . 25:27), that Abigail, the wife of Nabal, makes to D a v i d in Josephus's version, w h e r e she states that it becomes D a v i d to show himself mild (rfpuepos, "gende," "tender") a n d h u m a n e ((^iXdvOpwrros, a virtue that, as I have r e marked, is closely associated with justice) (Ant. 6.304). Moreover, Abigail herself, in a n addition by J o s e p h u s to the biblical text (1 S a m . 25:3), is said to have attained the h o n o r of becoming David's wife because o f h e r modest (aojpojv) a n d upright (hiKaios) character, a n d also, p r e s u m a b l y secondarily, because of h e r b e a u t y (Ant. 6.308), whereas the Bible calls attention to h e r good understanding a n d to h e r beauty alone (1 S a m . 25:3). A n a n t o n y m of m o d e r a t i o n is excessive ambition (irXeove&a); a n d it is this qual ity that, in an addition to the Bible (2 S a m . 3:27), J o s e p h u s decries w h e n he edito rializes about J o a b ' s treacherous slaying of Abner, declaring that from this act one m a y perceive to w h a t lengths o f recklessness m e n will go for the sake o f ambition (rrXeove^ta) a n d p o w e r (dpxrj) (Ant. 7 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) .
DAVID
55/
Josephus's emphasis on modesty a n d decorum is evident from his treatment of the episode in which David is despised by his wife Michal for acting like a fool in taking off most of his clothes a n d for dancing with a b a n d o n before the ark in the presence of the servant girls (2 S a m . 6:14-23). In the Bible, David replies that he w o u l d dance thus again, w h e r e u p o n the narrator, in obvious approval of David, declares that from that m o m e n t on Michal was d o o m e d to childlessness. In J o s e phus, Michal's criticism of David is balanced by h e r invoking blessings u p o n him (Ant. 7 . 8 7 - 8 9 ) . We see the same quality of mildness in David's exhortation to H a n u n after the death of the latter's father, Nahash, king of A m m o n . W h e r e a s the Bible declares merely that D a v i d sent to comfort H a n u n (2 S a m . 10:2), Josephus adds that David exhorted him to b e a r his father's death with resignation (rrpqcos, "softly," "mildly," "indulgendy" "patiendy" "calmly") (Ant. 7.117). David's moderation m a y likewise be seen in Josephus's addition in which he has him exhort his officers a n d men, w h e n sending them out to war, to show themselves mindful of the fact that he h a d treated them mildly (pueTplcos, "having the right measure," "suitably," "moderately," "modesdy") (Ant. 7.235; cf. 2 S a m . 18:4). David's moderation is stressed also in Josephus's version of the statement of Saul's grandson Mephibosheth to David (2 S a m . 19:29 vs. Ant. 7.270). In the scrip tural version, Mephibosheth acknowledges that even though all his father's house w e r e deserving of death at David's hands, yet David h a d shown magnanimity in placing Mephibosheth at his o w n table. Josephus goes further in stressing David's forbearing (puerpLos, "moderate," "restrained," "reasonable") a n d kind ( x p ^ T O ? , "good," "noble," "friendly") nature in forgetting his maltreatment at the hands of Saul a n d in treating Mephibosheth no less well than the most h o n o r e d of his rela tions. T h e virtue of temperance is closely connected with obedience a n d respect for authority (Attridge 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . Indeed, as w e have seen, w h e n Josephus enumerates his canon of the cardinal virtues (Ant. 6.160), he lists obedience (rreiOo}) as one of them. T h e opposite is the w a n t of j u d g m e n t (d<j>poavvin) displayed by Nabal in r e fusing to present gifts to David (Ant. 6.302).
Justice W h e n G - d lists the qualities that Samuel is to seek w h e n he is about to select D a v i d as king (Ant. 6.160), justice, as w e have seen, is one of these. W h e n the p r o p h e t Samuel anoints David, he exhorts him, in an extrabiblical addition, to be just (oiKaiov) a n d obedient (KCLTTIKOOV) to G - d ' s commandments, for thereby he will become splendid (XapiTrpov) a n d r e n o w n e d (TT€pi^6r)Tov) a n d will attain glori ous fame (KX4OS
aoloip.ov) (Ant. 6.165); the w o r d dotSi/xov, meaning "sung of" a n d
"famous in song o r s t o r y " a n d recalling Achilles' singing of the glorious deeds of m e n (/cAea avoptov) (Homer, Iliad 9.189), refers to one w h o is w o r t h y of having an
552
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
epic sung about h i m .
1 6
Likewise, w h e n he is about to die, in his charge to his suc
cessor, S o l o m o n , David, in an extrabiblical addition (i K i n g s 2:3), urges that he ad here to the laws, that is, to justice, by being impartial a n d by yielding neither to favor (xapt>s) n o r to flattery (Qameia) (Ant. 7.384). C o u p l e d with justice, as noted, is the virtue of h u m a n i t y (<j>i\avSpamia). It is sig nificant, therefore, that in his final eulogy of David's character, Josephus stresses that, a m o n g other qualities, he was just (biKaios) a n d h u m a n e (<j>i\avdpa)7Tos), qual ities that, he says, are especially appropriate for kings (Ant. 7.391). It is significant that whereas Josephus's source at one point, 1 C h r o n . 22:12, has David exhort S o l o m o n to piety a n d courage, Josephus's David adds justice (Ant. 7.328). W h e n David prays on behalf of his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n (1 C h r o n . 29:19), whereas in Scripture he asks that his son m a y be pious in keeping the commandments, in Josephus, he singles out justice in praying that S o l o m o n m a y have a sound (vyirjs) a n d just (SLKCLLOS) mind, strengthened by all virtuous qualities (Ant. 7.381). Justice, says Josephus, in an editorial comment, which is an addition to the biblical text, prevails over anger a n d fear (Ant. 6.212), a n d does so inevitably, as D a v i d points out to Abigail apropos of h e r churlish husband, Nabal (Ant. 6.305) (see Schlatter 1932, 40; a n d Pfeifer 1967, 6 1 - 6 2 ) . In emphasizing, through his addition to the biblical narrative, the m e r c y that David showed to Saul, Josephus is also stressing the former's justice; and, indeed, Saul
explicidy
compliments
David
for
having
shown
the
righteousness
(oiKcuoovvrj) of the ancients, w h o b a d e those w h o captured their enemies in a lonely place to spare their lives (Ant. 6.290). This emphasis on David's mercy m a y be seen in the fact that whereas w h e n David, finding Saul in his power, surrepti tiously cuts off a piece of his clothing, a n d it is not clear w h e t h e r he does so at his o w n initiative o r at that of his m e n (1 S a m . 24:5), Josephus makes clear that he did so on the counsel of his men. Indeed, Josephus adds that they counseled him even to cut off Saul's head, but that David, with his strong sense of mercy, refused to do so. W h e r e a s in the Bible, David afterwards (hharei-keri) feels remorse (1 S a m . 24:6), in Josephus, he repents forthwith (evOvs) a n d remarks, in an addition to the Bible, "Even though he treats m e ill, yet I must not do the like to him" (Ant. 6.284). In ad dition, whereas in the Bible, David, quite unmagnanimously quotes the ancient proverb "Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness," implying that Saul's wicked deeds have begotten his o w n d o o m (1 S a m . 24:14), Josephus's merciful David omits these words (Ant. 6.289). W h e r e a s the Bible's David simply declares that his m e n h a d done no h a r m to Nabal's shepherds (1 S a m . 25:7), Josephus's David charges his m e n to see to it that Nabal's flocks remain safe (Ant. 6.295). He stresses that his m e n should, presum ably in the n a m e o f justice, hold it m o r e important than all else to w r o n g no m a n .
16. The word doi
DAVID
5
5
3
T h a t D a v i d in J o s e p h u s is forever looking at the good side of people is also clear from the instructions that he gives to his m e n (Ant. 6.296), totally unparalleled in the H e b r e w (1 S a m . 2 5 : 1 - 7 ) , in the belief that he w a s obliging a good m a n a n d one w o r t h y of such consideration. T h e kindness a n d m e r c y of D a v i d are likewise, as w e have noted, contrasted with the churlishness of Nabal (1 S a m . 25:10), which J o s e phus exaggerates, for, whereas the biblical Nabal declares sarcastically that "there are m a n y servants n o w a d a y s that break a w a y from their masters," Josephus's Nabal uses stronger language in remarking that n o w a d a y s fugitives
(SpaTTerai,
" r u n a w a y slaves") think m u c h of themselves a n d boast of deserting their masters (Ant. 6.298). If, in the end, D a v i d does not show his v a u n t e d m e r c y t o w a r d Nabal, J o s e p h u s is careful to justify this by adding to the Bible (1 S a m . 2 5 : 5 - 8 ) that at the time w h e n Nabal was shearing his sheep, D a v i d sent ten of his m e n to greet h i m and to j o i n him in p r a y i n g that Nabal might be so employed for m a n y years to come; but, nevertheless, Nabal rebuffed their request for food (Ant. 6 . 2 9 7 - 9 8 ) . In o r d e r to justify David's anger at Nabal, Josephus, in a n extrabiblical addition, em phasizes that D a v i d displayed a forbearance remarkable in a roving b a n d of out laws, such as David's force was, a n d that D a v i d felt ought to be r e w a r d e d (Ant. 6.297). J o s e p h u s elaborates considerably in justifying David's anger at Nabal, adding that D a v i d w a s a n g r y not m e r e l y at Nabal's ingratitude t o w a r d one w h o had shown h i m such kindness ((f>iXavOpa)TT[a), but at his insult a n d abuse w h e n he had done h i m n o injury (Ant. 6.299). T h a t for Josephus's David, a n integral p a r t of justice is m e r c y is likewise clear from the fact that J o s e p h u s omits the extreme lan guage with which D a v i d vows that should he leave anything of Nabal's possessions by morning, G - d should do likewise to him (1 S a m . 2 5 : 2 1 - 2 2 vs. Ant. 6.301). David's quality of m e r c y is likewise emphasized in Josephus's version of Abishai's statement to D a v i d urging him to smite Saul, w h o m he has in his p o w e r (1 S a m . 26:8 vs. Ant. 6.312). A s J o s e p h u s describes it, Abishai not only wishes to kill Saul but even darts f o r w a r d (cbpparjKOTO) to do so, a n d hence the fact that D a v i d stops h i m is all the m o r e effective in illustrating David's sense of mercy. Likewise, David's m a g n a n i m i t y to S a u l is amplified by Josephus's considerable expansion of Saul's biblical statement, acknowledging David's love for him; this in contrast to the t e r r o r in which he has forced D a v i d to live (1 S a m . 26:21 vs. Ant. 6.317). M o r e over, in the incident in which D a v i d reclaims M i c h a l from h e r second husband, w h e r e the Bible paints a picture of Michal's husband weeping as he accompanies his wife (2 S a m . 3:16), Josephus, realizing that such a scene w o u l d m a k e D a v i d a p p e a r heardess, omits these details (Ant. 7.26). A g a i n , in an addition to the Bible (2 S a m . 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) , J o s e p h u s depicts the w o m a n of Tekoa as thanking D a v i d for his kindness (xprjoTOTrjs)
in taking pity on
her old age a n d h e r near-childlessness (Ant. 7.184). S h e then successfully seeks as surance of h u m a n e treatment (<j)i\av6pamia). A k i n to this quality of i\avQpamia is David's unselfishness. Indeed, h e is given the epithet "benefactor" (evepyerrjaavros)
(Ant. 7.291), which w a s applied to Hel
lenistic kings, such as Ptolemy III Euergetes I (r. 2 4 6 - 2 2 1 B.C.E.) a n d Ptolemy V I I
554
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Euergetes II (r. 1 4 5 - 1 1 6 B.C.E.). T h u s , unselfishness is seen particularly in J o s e phus's version of the famous episode w h e r e David, after the census, is given a choice o f three punishments—seven years o f famine, three m o n t h s of fleeing be fore his foes, o r three days o f pestilence (2 S a m . 24:13). W h e n D a v i d chooses the last, the Bible offers n o reason for his choice (2 S a m . 24:14). J o s e p h u s , however, carefully explains the reason for David's choice, namely, that if he h a d asked for the famine, it w o u l d a p p e a r that he did so since this w o u l d pose n o risk to himself, inasmuch as he h a d a great deal o f grain stored up. If, on the other h a n d , he h a d chosen the three months of defeat, people would say that he h a d done so because he h a d nothing to fear personally, inasmuch as he h a d the bravest m e n a r o u n d him. T h e r e f o r e , to show that he was not selfish, he chose the pestilence, since this w o u l d afflict all in his kingdom alike (Ant. 7 . 3 2 2 - 2 3 ) .
17
C o n n e c t e d with the quality of cfriXavOpwTrla is that of gratitude. T h u s J o s e p h u s elaborates on the c o n c e r n that D a v i d shows for the r e m n a n t of the house of Saul (2 S a m . 9:1), adding, in particular, that beside the other qualities that he possessed was the virtue o f being ever mindful o f those w h o h a d benefited him at a n y time (Ant. 7.111). J o s e p h u s spells out the w a y in which D a v i d sought to show his grati tude to Barzillai for providing him w i t h sustenance, namely, that he w o u l d cherish him in old age with e v e r y honor; he also promises to take care o f h i m a n d to p r o vide for him (Ant. 7.272). Even after Barzillai, because o f his old age, declines David's generous offer, D a v i d asks him to leave his son C h i m h a m with him so that he m a y bestow the benefits of hospitality u p o n him (Ant. 7.274). In contrast, David's gratefulness is m u c h less p r o n o u n c e d in the H e b r e w original, w h e r e it is Barzillai w h o proposes that his son take his place in accompanying D a v i d to J e r u s a l e m (2 S a m . 19:38). Finally, w e can see David's scale of values in the fact, added by J o s e p h u s to the biblical narrative (2 S a m . 29:24), that D a v i d says that he admires A r a u n a h ' s liberality (aTrXorrjs, "simplicity" "plainness," "generosity," "liberality") a n d greatness of soul (pLeyaXoifivxla) (Ant. 7.332), that aristocratic p r i d e so central in Aristode's description (Nicomachean i^/w^s" 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 A 3 3 - 1 1 2 5 A 3 5 ) o f the ideal personality. Allied to the attribute o f ^iXavOpwrrla is also the quality o f generosity.
18
We may
note, for example, the extrabiblical addition (1 S a m . 27:9 vs. Ant. 6.323) concern ing David's generosity in giving to K i n g Achish a portion o f the spoils that he h a d taken from his raids on the Geshurites, Gizirites, a n d Amalekites. T h e r e was al most no quality m o r e deeply appreciated in antiquity t h a n hospitality. Hence, Josephus's amplification o f the r e p a y m e n t m a d e by D a v i d for the hospitality shown to h i m by Achish, king of the Philistines (Ant. 6.326), w o u l d have evoked greater admiration for David. In the Bible, D a v i d declares merely, "Therefore,
17. See also Talqut 2.165. Cf. Midrash Psalms 17.4; Midrash Samuel 31.1; Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 8 (begin ning) (ed. Friedmann, 39); Pesiqta Rabbati 11; targum on 1 Chron. 21:13. 18. See Amstutz 1968, 4 2 - 4 3 , on the juxtaposition of arrXorins and fMeyaXoipuxia in Ant. 7.332. He concludes that the former term stresses the spontaneity of the gift.
DAVID
555
thou shalt k n o w w h a t thy servant will do" (i S a m . 2 8 : 1 - 2 ) , whereas J o s e p h u s adds that
David
promptiy
(Trpodvpuajs, "eagerly,"
promised to r e p a y his good offices (evepyeolas)
"enthusiastically"
"willingly")
a n d hospitality (gevlas) (Ant. 6.326).
O n e m a y w o n d e r w h y J o s e p h u s depicts D a v i d in a m o r e favorable light h e r e t h a n e l s e w h e r e — p e r h a p s it was in o r d e r to answer those J e w - b a i t e r s w h o argued that J e w s w e r e trustworthy only to their fellow J e w s but hated non-Jews. T h e p o r t r a y a l o f D a v i d shows that a J e w is true to his w o r d to a non-Jew a n d appreciates assis tance rendered. Indeed, J o s e p h u s likewise amplifies on the biblical statement (1 S a m . 29:6) w h e n h e has K i n g Achish testify to the great zeal (oTrovorj) a n d friend liness (evvoia, "goodwill," "kindness," "empathy," "loyalty," "devotion," "faithful ness") that D a v i d has shown h i m (Ant. 6.355). W e are given a picture o f D a v i d the gracious host in Josephus's addition to the Bible's statement (2 S a m . 3:20) that D a v i d m a d e A b n e r a n d his m e n a feast (Ant. 7.30). J o s e p h u s embellishes the scene by stating that D a v i d received h i m in friendly (iXo(f)p6va)s) fashion a n d entertained him with splendid (XapL-rrpos) a n d lavish (7roXvT€Xrjs) feasts that lasted m a n y days. T h e same qualities of kindness (XJO^CTTO?) a n d gendeness (rjpuepos) are shown in David's treatment o f A b n e r ' s corpse; and, indeed, in this connection, J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d irpovoia^ usually employed for divine providence, to describe David's care for A b n e r ' s b o d y (Ant. 7.43). G i v e n the emphasis placed on the r e c o v e r y of the corpse o f one w h o h a d died in batde in antiquity, this w o u l d have been especially appreciated by a p a g a n G r a e c o - R o m a n audience, which would, for example, have recalled Priam's em bassy to Achilles in Homer's Iliad, book 24, seeking to recover the b o d y of Priam's son, Hector. T h e same quality of hospitality is found in Josephus's c o m m e n t , with out parallel in the Bible (2 S a m . 5:3), that w h e n the tribal leaders c a m e to p a y h o m a g e to D a v i d at H e b r o n , he entertained (KarevoDxrjoas) a n d treated t h e m hos pitably (<j>iXo<j)povri<japL€vos)i a n d then sent them to bring all the people to him (Ant. 7-54)David's generosity even to his enemies is seen, moreover, in Josephus's addition to the biblical text (2 S a m . 18:5), w h e r e he threatens to do himself some injury if his rebellious son A b s a l o m should meet death (Ant. 7.235). It is this greatness o f m i n d (pbeyaXoi/jvxla), combined with his liberality (aTrXoTrjs, "generosity," "sim plicity," "plainness"), that D a v i d admires in A r a u n a h ; a n d by implication these are qualities o f D a v i d himself (Ant. 7.322, not paralleled in 2 S a m . 24:24). W e m a y note that the quality of pueyaXoiffvxla is that lofty, princely posture with which a gift is bestowed (Amstutz 1 9 6 8 , 4 2 - 4 3 ) . W h i l e the w o r d says nothing direcdy about the gift itself, it implies that the d e m e a n o r o f the giver is extraordinary. C o n n e c t e d with the virtue o f justice is the e n o r m o u s responsibility to tell the truth. W h e n J o s e p h u s editorializes about David, he stresses that he was just (SIKCLIOS)
by nature a n d looked only to the truth in giving j u d g m e n t (Ant. 7. n o ) .
Josephus's David, moreover, stresses m o r e than his biblical c o u n t e r p a r t (2 S a m . 3:28) his c o n c e r n to be true to the pledge that he h a d sworn to A b n e r (Ant. 7.40). W h e r e a s in Scripture, M e p h i b o s h e t h says to D a v i d m e r e l y that he, the king, is an
556
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
angel of G - d (2 S a m . 19:28), in Josephus, he declares his full confidence that n o calumny will enter David's mind, because his mind is just (SiKaia) a n d loves the truth (dXrjdeiav
ayaTrwaa),
which G - d also wishes to prevail (Ant 7.269). T h a t
David does not listen to lies a n d calumny is highlighted in Josephus's addition to David's biblical speech to Saul (2 S a m . 24:10 vs. Ant 6.285). J o s e p h u s editorializes that calumny (SiafioArj) deceives, "while actions clearly reveal the honest friend; words are inherendy either true o r false, but deeds show one's real intention" (Ant 6.286). T h e rabbis, on the other h a n d , are careful not to whitewash David of the charge of slander (Toma 22b), since he believed Ziba's denunciation of his master Mephibosheth that the latter was planning to overthrow David (Ant 7. 2 0 5 - 6 ) .
Piety W h e n Josephus contrasts David a n d his successor, S o l o m o n , the one quality that he singles out as the virtue through which David attained his glory is piety (evoepeia)
(Ant 8.196). Even much later, w h e n Josephus comes to the reign of
Asa,
he carefully notes two virtues, courage (dvhpeia) a n d piety (evoefieia), in which this king imitated his great-great-grandfather David (Ant 8.315). In the first place, w e m a y note the close connection between justice a n d piety for Josephus. T h u s Josephus, in the introduction to his account of David's affair with Bathsheba, states that this sin was something exceptional, since David was by nature righteous (OIKOLIOS) a n d G - d - f e a r i n g (deooePrjs), the first t e r m a p p a r e n d y applying to his treatment of h u m a n beings and the second to his attitude t o w a r d G - d (Ant 7.130). W h e n he instructs his son Solomon, David, in an extrabiblical addition, tells him to rule with piety (evoeficos) a n d justice (hiKaiws) (Ant 7.356). S h o r d y thereafter, he promises S o l o m o n that he will prosper if he shows himself pious (evoefirjs) a n d just (OIKOLIOS) (Ant 7.374). Finally, as he is about to die, David, in his third admonition to S o l o m o n , charges him to be j u s t (SiKaiw) t o w a r d his subjects a n d pious (evoefiei) t o w a r d G - d (Ant 7.384). Indeed, before going off to batde, David, in an addition to Scripture (2 S a m . 10:9), is said to put his trust in G - d a n d in the justice of his cause (Ant 7.122). David's piety is emphasized in a n u m b e r of extrabiblical passages in Josephus. In his account of David's combat with Goliath, Josephus contrasts David's piety with Goliath's blasphemy, so that whereas the Bible says m e r e l y that Goliath taunted the armies of the living G - d (1 S a m . 17:36), Josephus quotes David as say ing that Goliath h a d both insulted the Israelite a r m y and blasphemed G - d (Ant 6.183). In an expansion of the biblical statement (1 S a m . 17:46), w h e n David speaks before the encounter, he stresses his confidence in G - d as a protector w h e n all other forces are unavailing (Ant
6.187). A t the conclusion of the encounter,
whereas the Bible states that David carried Goliath's a r m o r to his o w n tent a n d brought his h e a d to J e r u s a l e m (1 S a m . 17:54), Josephus's David emphasizes his de pendence upon G - d for his victory by dedicating Goliath's sword to G - d 6.192). Moreover, Josephus repeatedly stresses G - d ' s care (npovoia)
(Ant
for all of
DAVID
557
David's affairs (Ant. 6.181, 1 9 6 , 203, 280; 7.65, 7 1 - 7 7 , 90, 122). Indeed, one of the most obvious marks of David's piety is his gratitude to G - d for his care of the Is raelites. W h e n David gives instructions to S o l o m o n with regard to the Temple, he urges him to be w o r t h y of G - d ' s providence (Trpovoia) by being pious, just, a n d brave (Ant. 7.338). In his dying charge to S o l o m o n , he reiterates that if S o l o m o n transgresses a n y of the C o m m a n d m e n t s , he will turn G - d ' s watchfulness (Trpovoia) into hostility (Ant. 7.385). David shows his piety w h e n , in contrast to the Bible, w h e r e he simply tells the assembly of Israel to bring up the ark, since it h a d been neglected (1 C h r o n . 13:3), in Josephus, he specifically associates this neglect with the misfortunes that the Is raelites have suffered (Ant. 7.79). G - d ' s explicit approval of David's piety is indicated in the addition, having n o counterpart in Scripture (2 S a m . 7 : 4 - 1 7 ) , in which G - d bids Nathan to tell David that he approves of his purpose a n d desire to build a Temple, adding that n o one before h a d h a d it in his m i n d to build one (Ant. 7.92). Indeed, Josephus elsewhere casually states that it was David himself w h o erected the Temple (Ant. 1.226). O n e passage that might well have cast a shadow on David's piety is the state m e n t of David to J o n a t h a n that if Saul should ask w h e r e he is, J o n a t h a n should reply that he has gone to Bethlehem to participate in the annual family sacrifice (zevah; Septuagint, Ovoia) there (1 S a m . 20:6; cf. 20:28). Josephus, a p p a r e n d y real izing that this w o u l d suggest that David was r e a d y to p e r f o r m sacrifices outside of J e r u s a l e m , has David go to a festival celebration (ioprrf), without indicating that 2
a n y sacrifice was involved (Ant. 6.227, 3 6 ) A n o t h e r incident that seems to cast doubt upon David's piety is the one in which D a v i d asks Ahimelech the priest for the shewbread, even though such b r e a d was reserved for priests alone (1 S a m . 2 1 : 4 - 7 ) . In Josephus's version, David's piety is preserved because he simply requests provisions for his journey, with n o notion of their sacred character. (Ant. 6 . 2 4 3 - 4 4 ) . Still a n o t h e r passage that seems to cast into question David's reputation for piety is the episode in which David appears to accuse G - d , for he says that if it be the L - r d W h o has stirred up Saul against him, then He ought to accept an offer ing (1 S a m . 26:19). Indeed, the rabbis go so far as to declare that David came to grief because of this statement, a n d that G - d , in punishment, caused him to un dertake the census that resulted in a pestilence (Berakot 62b). Josephus totally omits this assertion on David's p a r t (Ant. 6.316). T h e chief difficulty with David's reputation for piety, however, is the incident with Bathsheba. According to the Talmud, this is one of five incidents that are read in the synagogue but not translated (Megillah 25a), presumably because of their embarrassing nature. It is significant that Josephus parallels the Talmud's di rective in omitting the first three of these—Reuben's intercourse with his father's concubine Bilhah (Gen. 35:22), the second account of the G o l d e n C a l f (Exod. 3 2 : 2 1 - 2 5 ) , a n d the blessing of the priests (Num. 6:24-27). T h e two passages that J o s e p h u s does include are significandy both connected with David, namely, the
55#
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Bathsheba incident (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 1 7 ) a n d the beginning of the incident involving David's son A m n o n and T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:1). In truth, the inclusion of these pas sages would a p p e a r to detract from the stature of David; a n d the rabbis, indeed, seek to free David from blame in the Bathsheba affair by remarking that he h a d decreed that everyone going forth to batde was required to divorce his wife, so that Bathsheba would actually have been divorced by U r i a h w h e n David h a d relations with h e r (Shabbat 5 6 a ) . Moreover, they exonerate him because of his wholehearted penitence after the deed (Shabbat 30a). Still another view is that David did not ac tually go through with the act at all but merely contemplated it, o r that U r i a h de served death for disobeying David's o r d e r to go h o m e to his wife (Shabbat 56a). Josephus, on the other hand, does not cover up David's sin but candidly declares that although he was by nature righteous (ou
(deooefiei),
nevertheless he fell into this grave e r r o r (Ant. 7.130). T h e fact that Josephus elabo rates the account of the death of Bathsheba's husband U r i a h considerably by un derscoring the b r a v e r y that he showed in batde augments the guilt of David (2 S a m . 11:17 vs. Ant. 7 . 1 3 9 - 4 0 ) . T h a t the prophet Nathan generalizes in Josephus, in a passage that has no counterpart in the Bible (2 S a m . 12:1), that it is the w a y of kings, w h e n they fall into a passion (6pyrj), to be m o r e influenced by this than by a sense of justice (SiKaia)) (Ant. 7.147), clearly implies that David was thus derelict in that most important of virtues for a ruler, justice. In contrast to the simple biblical statement in which David says to Nathan, "I have sinned against the L - r d " (2 S a m . 12:13), Josephus says that David was dismayed (rapaxOevros) troubled (ovoxedevros)
a n d gready
a n d admitted his impiety with tears of grief, "for," adds
Josephus, "he was, as all agreed, a G - d - f e a r i n g (deooefir/s) m a n and never sinned in his life except in the matter of Uriah's wife" (Ant. 7.153). Josephus then also elab orates on the statement of G - d ' s acceptance of David's repentance (Ant. 7.153). Josephus has heightened the role of G - d in this incident by omitting Nathan's p r e diction that continuing warfare within David's house would result from this sin (2 S a m . 12:10) (so Wojcik 1980, 24), presumably because such rebellion would be less u n d e r divine control than a single rebellion would be. By having G - d Himself de clare, after David's confession, that He is no longer displeased with him, Josephus thus closes the matter, whereas in the Bible, G - d ' s forgiveness is relayed through Nathan (2 S a m . 12:13 vs. Ant. 7.153). T h e incident that follows (the death of the child that Bathsheba b o r e to David) (2 S a m . 12:15-23) might suggest that G - d ' s forgiveness of David was not complete, and that the consequences of his sin with Bathsheba w e r e continuing to make themselves felt. Josephus avoids this implication, however, by remarking that the great misfortune that overtook David's household resulted from the following (roiavTiqs) cause (Ant. 7.162), thus connecting it with w h a t follows, namely, David's son Amnon's ravishing of the latter's sister Tamar, rather than with w h a t h a d gone before (Wojcik 1980, 25). T h e opposite of David's own piety is to be seen in Absalom's impiety (dae'jSeia) and audacity (roXpua), since A b s a l o m was guilty of much greater acts of lawlessness
DAVID
5
5
9
(Trapavofjucorepoi) in his seeking the kingship, which h a d not been given him by G - d (Ant 7.198). In the preface to his Antiquities, as noted above, Josephus states that the main lesson to be learned from his w o r k is that G - d rewards those w h o follow His laws a n d punishes those w h o do not (Ant 1.14). In his David narrative, Josephus illus trates this affirmation by editorializing, for example, about Nabal in almost the same language used in his preface (Ant 6.307), whereas Scripture has no such r e mark (1 S a m . 25:38). T h e problem of theodicy arises in connection with the census initiated by David, since, according to the Bible, it was G - d w h o incited David to undertake the census for which he was later punished (2 S a m . 24:1). T h e r e a d e r of the scrip tural account m a y well ask w h e t h e r its presentation is reconcilable with the con cept of h u m a n free will. According to the other biblical version of this event, it was Satan w h o incited David to undertake the census (1 C h r o n . 21:1); but this simply raises the further question w h y G - d permitted Satan to do so, a n d w h y David should then be punished (Poznanski 1 8 8 7 , 1 ; Schlatter 1 9 1 0 , 4 1 ; cited by R a p p a p o r t 1930, 131, n. 238). Josephus solves the problem of theodicy here by omitting refer ence to the incitement of David by either G - d or Satan (Ant 7.318). T h e most significant point about David's piety, however, is that Josephus uses it to diminish the status of David, inasmuch as he ascribes to G - d achievements that are imputed to David himself in the Bible. His doing so is particularly striking, inasmuch as elsewhere, as w e have seen, Josephus diminishes the role of G - d . In his entire version of the story of Ruth (Ant 5 . 3 1 8 - 3 6 ) , Josephus n o w h e r e speaks of G - d , despite His being mentioned seventeen times in the biblical n a r r a tive, except, v e r y suddenly, at the v e r y end (Ant 5.337). T h e r e he declares that the reason w h y he has told the story which, after all, has only tangential interest for his history is that he wished to show the p o w e r of G - d and the ease with which He promotes even o r d i n a r y folk to rank as illustrious as that to which He raised David, w h o h a d sprung from such ignominious ancestry. Hence, the v e r y mention of G - d here is due only to Josephus's aim of connecting David's origin with the di vine will. W e m a y note as well that the role of the prophet Samuel is decreased a n d that of G - d is increased in the account of the choice of David as king. In the Bible, G - d tells Samuel that he was mistaken in supposing that David's older brother Eliab was to be anointed (1 S a m . 11:6); Josephus, on the other hand, explicidy declares that Samuel mistook G - d ' s design (Trpovoia) (Ant 6.158). In the Bible, Samuel assumes that Jesse's eldest son is to be anointed; but in Josephus, Samuel pointedly asks G - d , a n d G - d direcdy replies that m e n and G - d do not see things in the same w a y W h e r e a s in the scriptural account, Jesse calls his sons to pass before Samuel, w h o avers that G - d has not chosen any of them (1 S a m . 1 6 : 8 - 1 0 ) , in Josephus, Samuel direcdy asks G - d which of them He has chosen to be king (Ant 6.162). Similarly, the role of G - d in David's victory over Goliath is heightened. T h e Bible states that David hastened to meet Goliath, but makes no mention of G - d ' s
j6b
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
help (i S a m . 17:48). Josephus, on the other hand, asserts that David was accompa nied by "an ally [avybfjuaxos] invisible to the foe, and this was G - d " (Ant. 6.189). T h e net result is to play d o w n David's o w n role in this v i c t o r y
1 9
G - d ' s role is likewise heightened in David's success in avoiding Saul. For whereas Scripture says that David fled a n d came to Samuel (1 S a m . 19:18), J o s e phus has David tell S a m u e l that it was with G - d ' s aid that he h a d t u r n e d out to be so fortunate; a n d J o s e p h u s himself comments editorially that it was this v e r y thing, G - d ' s aid to David, that was the reason for Saul's hatred of him (Ant. 6.220). Later, in contrast to the Bible, w h e r e Saul simply declares that he knows that David will be king (1 S a m . 24:21), Josephus's Saul declares that it is his firm belief that it is G - d w h o is reserving the kingdom for him (Ant. 6.291). Again, w h e n J o n a t h a n calls u p o n G - d to be the witness of his covenant with David (1 S a m . 20:12), Josephus's J o n a t h a n elaborates by ascribing to G - d the qualities of being e v e r y w h e r e extended (/cexf/xevos—"poured out," "diffused") a n d of knowing men's thoughts before they are expressed (Ant. 6.230). Moreover, Josephus, in reporting the calumnies of the m e n of Ziph, adds to the biblical account by referring to David as a G - d - f a v o r e d m a n (OeocfriXrjs) (1 S a m . 23:25 vs. Ant. 6.280). Josephus remarks that David realized that it was by the will (PovXrjois) of G - d that he prospered, whereas the Bible at this point has n o c o m p a r a b l e c o m m e n t (2 Sam.
7:1 vs. Ant. 7.90). Likewise, the Bible says nothing of the role of G - d in
David's success in conquering Betah a n d Berothai (2 S a m . 8:8), but Josephus explicidy affirms that the conquest c a m e about with the encouragement of G - d , w h o gave him success in w a r (Ant. 7.105). To be sure, in connection with David's victory over Edom, the Bible says that G - d gave David victory w h e r e v e r he w e n t (2 S a m . 8:14); but Josephus elaborates on this point b y remarking that G - d granted him success, not only w h e n he him self fought, but also w h e n he sent Abishai with a force against the Edomites (Ant. 7.109) (so in 1 C h r o n . 18:12). In the account of the affair of Bathsheba, after David's admission of guilt, Nathan tells David, "The L - r d also hath put a w a y thy sin; thou shalt not die" (2 Sam.
12:13). In Josephus, G - d speaks direcdy rather than through Nathan, and
promises to preserve both David's life a n d his kingdom (Ant. 7.153). T h e Bible says nothing of G - d ' s role in the rivalry between Israel and J u d a h for David's favor (2 S a m . 19:44), whereas in Josephus, the leaders of Israel declare that it is because David has received from G - d authority over all that he must be considered a relative of all (Ant. 7.277). Josephus's heightening of G - d ' s role m a y also be seen in the fact that on three
19. The idea that G-d grants an alliance ( a i ^ a ^ i a ) to those whom he favors is found in connec tion with Moses' exhortation at the Sea of Reeds (Ant. 2.332). As Attridge 1976a, 7 8 - 7 9 , notes, the role of G-d as helper (ftorjdos) and ally (au^axos) occurs throughout the first half of the Antiquities in Jose phus's paraphrase of the Bible.
DAVID
56/
occasions, w h e r e the Bible makes n o mention of David's prophetic activity, a n ac tivity that, of course, has G - d as its source, J o s e p h u s does so. In the first case, w h e r e a s Scripture declares that the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e mightily u p o n D a v i d but does n o t indicate that h e w e n t on to prophesy (1 S a m . 16:13), J o s e p h u s says explicidy that w h e n the divine spirit h a d come u p o n him, he began to prophesy (Ant. 6.166).
20
T h e second instance w h e r e J o s e p h u s qualifies D a v i d as a p r o p h e t is in a n
extrabiblical addition w h e r e D a v i d uses the w o r d "temple" in connection with the site o f A r a u n a h ' s threshing floor (2 S a m . 24:24 a n d 1 C h r o n . 22:1 vs. Ant. 7.334); w h e r e u p o n Josephus, in a n editorial c o m m e n t , remarks that D a v i d accurately (evoToxcos) predicted the future, a n d that G - d thus sent h i m as a p r o p h e t t o fore tell that his temple w o u l d b e built b y his son. T h e third reference to David's prophetic p o w e r s is in Solomon's statement, after he has completed the construc tion o f the Temple, that most o f the future events that G - d has revealed (1 K i n g s 8:15 says m e r e l y "promised") to D a v i d have already come to pass a n d that the rest will follow (Ant. 8.109). O n the o t h e r h a n d , w e m a y p e r h a p s ask w h y J o s e p h u s diminishes the role o f miracles in David's achievements, since the net result o f his doing so is to accentu ate David's o w n role in these. T h e answer w o u l d seem to be that Josephus, in line with his usual practice, downgrades the role o f miracles also in David's case, since his rationalistic readers w o u l d have looked askance at t h e m .
21
Not only w e r e such miraculous elements likely to have p r o v e d incredible to Josephus's readers; they might also have unduly magnified D a v i d in the minds o f his audience; a n d Josephus, as w e have seen, w a s eager to avoid this, lest he irri tate the R o m a n s , w h o m a y have been a w a r e that the messiah (by definition a J e w ish political rebel) would, it w a s said, b e descended from D a v i d .
22
20. Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities (59.4), which parallels Josephus in so many respects, speaks of David at this point not as prophesying but as singing a psalm. On the other hand, the rabbis refer to him as a prophet (Seder Olam 20; Mekilta Bo [Petihta] 2a); and, indeed, the term "thefirstprophets" is said to refer to Samuel, David, and Solomon (Sotah 48b; Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 9.24b). See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:249-50, n. 24.
21. In this, Josephus stands in clear contrast to the treatment of David by the rabbis, who, for ex ample (see Amstutz 1968), note that when Samuel had poured the oil on David's brothers, it miracu lously remained in the horn, but when he poured it upon David, it poured of itself, the drops miracu lously turned to diamonds and pearls, and the horn itself remained as full as before. Likewise, Josephus avoids magical elements, such as the rabbinic view that David afflicted Goliath with leprosy in casting his evil eye upon him (see Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 21.2; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 127 [ed. Mandelbaum]; and Midrash Samuel 21.109, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:252, n. 43). Josephus also does not have the tradi tion known to Pseudo-Philo that the angel Cervihel gave David strength to kill Goliath (Bib. Ant. 61.5),
or the rabbinic tradition that an angel cast Goliath to the ground face downward so that the mouth that had blasphemed G-d might be choked with earth (Midrash Psalms 19.160, 244, 533; Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 107; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 4.4; and Midrash Samuel 21.109, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:252, n. 43).
22. Josephus does not have the tradition that David was one of the few over whom the evil incli nation had no power (Baba Batra 17a) or that the world was created for the sake of David (i.e., the mes siah) (Sanhedrin 98b). Indeed, the rabbis present an elaborate picture of the heavenly bodies and the an-
562
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
David as Poet and Scholar In view of the importance of music in the lives of the ancients, it is surprising that Josephus does not put greater stress upon David's achievements as a musician. J o s e phus says merely, adding to the Bible, that David composed songs (cuSat) and hymns (vfjuvoi) to G - d in various meters, some in trimeters a n d others in pentameters (2 Sam.
22:1-23:7 and 1 C h r o n . 16:7 vs. Ant. 7.305). W h e r e a s the Bible says that David
and his captains set apart for the service those w h o should prophesy with lyres, harps, and cymbals (1 C h r o n . 25:1), in Josephus, it is David alone w h o makes musi cal instruments and instructs the Levites in their use (Ant. 7.305-6). Josephus, how ever, hardly goes so far in this matter as the rabbis, w h o speak of David's poetic ge nius in superlative terms, even to the point of stating that he recited a p o e m while he was yet in his mother's w o m b (Berakot 10a) and that a h a r p was suspended above his bed that played by itself as soon as midnight came (Berakot 3b). A n o t h e r difference between the J o s e p h a n a n d rabbinic portraits of David is that Josephus does not refer to D a v i d as a student and scholar of Torah. T h e r a b bis, in contrast, emphasize that so great was his devotion to study that he con tented himself with sixty breaths of sleep, that is, little m o r e than half an h o u r (Sukkah 2 6 b ) .
23
A P P E A L T O P O L I T I C A L , LITERARY, AND R O M A N T I C
INTERESTS
W h e r e a s the rabbis stress the religious achievements of David, Josephus appeals to the political, literary and romantic interests of his readers. In particular, Josephus felt the need to tone d o w n David's revolutionary ideals, especially as these might conjure up the goals of the revolutionary groups fighting the Romans. Thus, whereas the Bible declares that everyone w h o was in debt o r was discontented gathered a r o u n d David (1 S a m . 22:2), Josephus, a p p a r e n d y realizing that it was just such people w h o h a d j o i n e d the revolutionaries a n d w h o h a d b u r n t the city archives of J e r u s a l e m to destroy the record of debts (War 2.427), omits this state ment, mentioning m e r e l y that all w h o w e r e in w a n t (xpela) o r in fear of K i n g Saul j o i n e d him (Ant. 6.247).
gels running to meet him whenever he leaves Paradise in order to present himself to G-d (Beit Hamidrash 5.167-68 and 6.25-26, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:272, n. 128). 23. So great was David's diligence that, according to rabbinic tradition, even the angel of death had to resort to a ruse of distracting him in order to claim him, since the angel was powerless so long as he was studying (Shabbat 30b). Indeed, David's one desire was that it be G-d's will that a traditional statement might be reported in his name in this world (Tevamot 96b-97a). He is depicted as a halakhic authority who was the head of a beth din (Berakot 4a). Indeed, an anonymous rabbi from the period of thefirsttwo centuries C.E. (hence perhaps chronologically contemporaneous with Josephus) is quoted as declaring that Mephibosheth was so called because he humiliated David in Halakhah (Berakot 4a); hence we may assume that, according to rabbinic tradition, David's reputation as a scholar must have been very high.
DAVID
563
Moreover, one of the qualities of the ideal ruler is that he seeks to prevent dis sension.
24
Hence, whereas G - d tells David in the biblical version that He will give
S o l o m o n peace (1 C h r o n . 22:9), in Josephus, G - d promises David that He will give S o l o m o n the greatest of all blessings, not only peace but also freedom from civil dissension (ardaeis
i^vXioi)
(Ant. 7.337). Similarly, w h e n David commends
S o l o m o n to the people (1 C h r o n . 28:4), he adds, in Josephus's version, the request that his other sons refrain from civil dissension (fir) crraaid^eiv), n o w that he has chosen S o l o m o n to succeed him, and enjoins the leaders of the people to show obedience (necda)) to S o l o m o n (Ant. 7 . 3 7 2 - 7 3 ) , a quality that, as w e have seen, he himself exemplified (Ant. 6.160). F u r t h e r m o r e , in his charge to Solomon, the bibli cal David tells him to be strong and of good courage (1 C h r o n . 22:12), whereas J o s e p h u s has him exhort the chiefs of the people to assist him, adding that, should they do so, they will enjoy peace and good o r d e r (evvofila), with which G - d repays pious, j u s t m e n (Ant. 7.341). O n e will recall that evvofila is personified as the daugh ter of Themis ("Law, Justice," Hesiod, Theogony 902) and is the tide of a p o e m by Tyrtaeus (2, cf. Aristode Politics 5.7.1307A1). J o s e p h u s felt it desirable to appeal not only to the political interests of his read ers but also to their literary and especially their dramatic propensities. Thus, J o s e phus builds u p the d r a m a surrounding David's challenge to Goliath and adds to the biblical account that w h e n David h e a r d the Philistine giant reviling and abus ing the Israelite army, he became indignant (1 S a m . 17:26 vs. Ant. 6.177). T h e r e is further d r a m a in that David terms Goliath's Philistine followers ofxo^vXoi ("of the same descent," "belonging to the same tribe") (Ant. 6.187), which is n o r m a l l y r e served for J e w s in Josephus but in this case is applied to dogs, w h o are said to be fellow c o u n t r y m e n of the Philistines. T h e d r a m a of David's surprise attack upon the Amalekites (Ant. 6 . 3 6 2 - 6 3 ) is likewise increased by the addition of details not found in the original, w h e r e w e are told that the Amalekites were spread all over the ground, eating and drinking, be cause of all the great spoil that they h a d taken from the Philistines (1 S a m . 3 0 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . In Josephus's version, we h e a r that some w e r e at their m o r n i n g meal, while others w e r e already drunk and relaxed with wine and actually regaling themselves with their spoils. T h e gory details that follow are also Josephus's own, namely, that some w e r e surprised at the outspread tables, that streaming blood ac tually swept the food away, that others were, ironically, even drinking to each
24. Hence, when Abishai urges David to put Shimei to death for revolting (2 Sam. 19:23), Josephus, while having David answer in substantially the same vein as the Bible, uses this political terminology, declaring that the sons of Zeruiah should not stir up new disorders (rapaxai) and dissension (ardais) (Ant. 7.265). Furthermore, whereas the Bible terms Sheba a base fellow (2 Sam. 20:1) and the Septuagint calls him a transgressor (napdvopios), Josephus again uses political language and calls him a lover of dis sension (ardaei xatpcoi') (Ant. 7.278), thus, in effect, enduing this biblical scene with a contemporary tinge; i.e., there is here an implied attack upon those who, in his opinion, had sown dissension in Jew ish ranks, and whom he attacks so bitterly in books 2 and 7 of the Jewish War and in books 18 and 20 of the Antiquities in discussing the background to the revolution against the Romans in his own day.
564
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
other's health w h e n they w e r e slain, a n d that still others w e r e plunged in a drunken sleep. O n e is reminded of the similar description—again a dramatic J o s e p h a n addition to the Bible (Gen. 1 4 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) — a c c o r d i n g to which A b r a h a m slew some of the Assyrians, likewise while they were asleep, whereas he put to flight others w h o w e r e not yet asleep, but w h o , like the Amalekites here, were in capacitated by drunkenness (Ant. 1.177). Josephus's source for his additions m a y well have been Herodotus, w h o has a similar account of Cyrus's victory over his drunken a n d sleeping opponents (1.211). Josephus increases the d r a m a of David's victory over the Amalekites by making it, in an extrabiblical addition to 2 S a m . 1:1, occur on the same day as the batde that resulted in the death of Saul (Ant. 7.1). T h e r e is also increased d r a m a because of the contrast between the defeat of Saul a n d the victory of David, for whereas in the Bible, the r e p o r t of the Amalekite is that m a n y of the people of Saul h a d fallen, Saul and J o n a t h a n a m o n g them (2 S a m . 1:4), in Josephus, the r e p o r t is exagger ated, for w e are told that m a n y tens of thousands of the Hebrews h a d been slain (Ant. 7.2). T h e r e is an increased romantic element almost from the v e r y beginning of Josephus's version of David. Thus, although the Bible says v e r y simply that the w o m e n sang that Saul h a d slain his thousands while David h a d slain his ten thou sands (1 S a m . 18:7), Josephus has added a romantic element, namely, that it was (older) w o m e n (yvvaiKes) w h o sang about Saul, whereas it w a s maidens (irapQevoi) w h o sang the praises of David (Ant. 6.193). W h e r e a s the biblical text declares that Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David but gives n o reason for this (1 S a m . 18:20), Josephus the romanticist explains that this was because David h a d shown himself so fortunate (oievirpaycov,
"continuing in
good fortune," a h a p a x legomenon) in all things by his extraordinary v a l o r that he w o n the h e a r t not only of the people but of the v e r y daughter of the king himself (Ant. 6.196). In addition, Josephus adds the fact that Michal h a d such a great pas sion for David that it betrayed h e r (Ant. 6 . 1 9 6 , 215). T h e r o m a n c e is heightened by the fact that whereas in the Bible, Saul offers David his older daughter M e r a b as a r e w a r d for his v a l o r (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , Josephus omits the promise of the older daughter a n d romantically highlights David's humble reply to Saul's offer of the younger Michal (Ant. 6 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ) . T h e r e is no biblical parallel for Saul's gallant reply that he desires no m o n e y o r wedding gifts, since that w o u l d be tantamount to selling his daughter rather than giving h e r in marriage, but rather that he wishes in a son-in-law only courage (dvopeia) a n d every other virtue (dperrj) (Ant. 6.200). T h e r e is, as well, considerable romantic amplification of the simple biblical state m e n t that the king desired not a d o w r y but a hundred Philistine foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25). Josephus's version, set forth at considerably greater length, declares that Saul desired neither gold n o r silver but six h u n d r e d Philistine heads, "for to myself no gift could be m o r e desirable [iroQeivorepov]
or magnificent [XapLTrporepov] than
that" (Ant. 6 . 2 0 1 - 2 ) . T h e r o m a n c e is increased by the fact that David's love for Michal is so great that he proceeds immediately (evOvs) to fulfill Saul's request
DAVID
565
without waiting to deliberate reasonably w h e t h e r the proposed enterprise was possible o r difficult (Ant. 6.203). T h e r o m a n c e is still further increased by the fact that whereas, in the Bible, after David fulfills Saul's request, w e are told that Saul gave him Michal as his wife (1 S a m . 18:27), Josephus portrays a Saul w h o would have liked, even so, to avoid fulfilling his promise, but finally goes through with it because it would have been disgraceful to a p p e a r to have lied o r to have m a d e the offer m e r e l y in o r d e r to bring about David's death on an impossible mission (Ant. 6.204). T h e literate p a g a n r e a d e r would almost certainly have thought here of the tasks imposed u p o n Perseus, upon Bellerophontes, a n d upon Psyche in the famous myths. T h e romantic flavor in Josephus is further accentuated by the suspense in herent in the fact that Michal's n a m e is not mentioned until the v e r y end of the episode (Ant. 6.204). T h e r e is an added romantic element in that whereas Scrip ture states simply that Michal w a r n e d David that he would be slain if he did not escape immediately (1 S a m . 19:11), Josephus augments the d r a m a by recalling that she was the daughter of the v e r y king w h o was trying to m u r d e r her husband a n d by citing her threat to commit suicide if David should be killed (Ant. 6.215). T h e r e is further r o m a n c e in Michal's prayer that G - d m a y prolong the hours of the night so that h e r husband m a y have m o r e time to escape from h e r father (Ant. 6.216). Josephus adds details to Michal's ingenious stratagem, which she, in h e r passion for her husband, invents, that is, by the manipulation of the liver beneath the bed clothes, she convinces Saul's messengers, w h o h a d been sent by Saul to seize David, that it is David w h o lies there gasping for breath (Ant. 6.217). Josephus, moreover, further elaborates Michal's defense, which in the Bible is simply that David h a d threatened to kill h e r if she would not aid his escape (1 S a m . 19:17). Josephus's Michal adds that he h a d terrified her with his threat, and that she h a d thus acted u n d e r constraint (Ant. 6.219). O f course, the p r i m e example of amplification by Josephus for the sake of in creased romantic element is in his version of David's affair with Bathsheba, as noted above. In this, w e m a y contrast the emphasis by the rabbis on David's as ceticism, for they p o r t r a y him as slaying the evil inclination by denying himself the pleasures that are permitted by the law (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 5 . 2 0 c ) .
25
T h e friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d D a v i d is also presented with greater poignancy In contrast to the Bible, w h e r e J o n a t h a n declares that he will speak to his father about David, without any indication of the line of reasoning that he will use (1 Sam.
19:3), Josephus, in a scene reminiscent of Haemon's appeal to his father
C r e o n for his beloved Antigone (Sophocles, Antigone 6 8 3 - 7 2 3 ) , spells out the rea soning that J o n a t h a n plans to use, namely, that his father ought not to seek to put to death one w h o h a d rendered so m a n y services to the people and, indeed, to Saul himself (Ant. 6.208). T h e r e is likewise a buildup in the atmosphere surround ing the encounter of father a n d son; for whereas Scripture says nothing about
25. Cf. Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2.20a, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6: 272, n. 128.
566
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Saul's m o o d w h e n J o n a t h a n came to him (i S a m . 1 9 : 4 - 5 ) , J o s e p h u s elaborates u p o n the episode a n d adds a touch of irony by describing him as cheerful (lAapov, "happy") a n d joyful (xatpovra, "rejoicing") (Ant 6.209). T h e scene is m o r e effective because J o n a t h a n adds the argument that if Saul w e r e to slay David, he w o u l d be h a r m i n g a kinsman, since he was m a r r i e d to Saul's o w n daughter, w h o would, he points out in a touch of pathos, experience w i d o w h o o d before even embarking on the j o y of w e d d e d life (Ant 6.210). Josephus does much to highlight the friendship of J o n a t h a n with David. Thus, Scripture has J o n a t h a n ask David w h a t he desires him to do for him (1 S a m . 20:4). Josephus adds to David's reply the moving words that he knows that he is r e a d y to grant him any favor o r to do anything in his behalf (Ant 6.226). Indeed, J o n a t h a n is David's alter ego, for to him, too, in an extrabiblical addition, are ascribed the qualities of pity (OIKTOS)
a n d friendship (<j)i\ia) (Ant 6.228).
A n d yet, Josephus is careful to avoid the implication that the friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d D a v i d was a homosexual love affair. Hence, whereas such a conclu sion might have been d r a w n from the scriptural words that J o n a t h a n loved D a v i d as he loved his o w n soul (1 S a m . 18:1; 20:17), Josephus omits this statement com pletely (Ant 6.193, 232); a n d somewhat later w e h e a r only of Jonathan's affection (evvoia,
"empathy," "devotion," "goodwill," "faithfulness") for D a v i d (Ant 6.236).
T h a t friendship is, however, dramatized by the fact that whereas, according to the Bible, J o n a t h a n arises from his father's table in fierce anger (1 S a m . 20:34), J o s e phus is much m o r e dramatic, since in his version, J o n a t h a n then (rore) not m e r e l y leaves but rushes (iKirrjoiqaas,
"leaps forth") from the feast (Ant 6.239). Josephus
adds that he passed the night in tears, being prevented by grief from tasting a morsel. Surely Josephus's version of David's parting from J o n a t h a n is also m o r e poignant. In the Hebrew, w e are told that they kissed one a n o t h e r a n d w e p t to gether until D a v i d w e p t m o r e than J o n a t h a n (1 S a m . 20:41). J o s e p h u s adds that they bewailed their youth, the companionship that was begrudged t h e m a n d their imminent separation, which, J o s e p h u s remarks, seemed to them nothing less than death itself (Ant 6.241). Again, w h e n D a v i d a n d J o n a t h a n r e n e w their covenant (1 S a m . 23:18), Josephus adds that J o n a t h a n repeated his oath of lifelong mutual affection a n d fidelity a n d invoked curses upon himself should he violate their covenant (Ant 6.276). A n d yet, as w e have noted, Josephus omits the statement of Jonathan's love for David as his o w n soul (1 S a m . 18:1 vs. Ant
6.193), a statement
that the Bible repeats (1 S a m . 18:3), as well as the reference to J o n a t h a n ' s stripping off of his clothing a n d giving it to D a v i d (1 S a m . 18:4), presumably because of the embarrassing implications. Instead, Josephus states that J o n a t h a n reverenced D a v i d for his virtue (Ant 6.206). Josephus, on similar grounds, omits the statement in David's elegy for J o n a t h a n that Jonathan's love for him surpassed that of the love of a w o m a n (2 S a m . 1:26 vs. Ant 7.5), presumably since the r e a d e r might have suspected a homosexual relationship, which Josephus's J e w i s h readers, at least,
DAVID
567
might have found distasteful, in view of the Pentateuch's strict prohibition of such a practice (Lev. 18:22). Finally, while it is true, as remarked, that Josephus is careful not to build up the portrait of David unduly in o r d e r to avoid the aggrandizement of the figure w h o was to be the forefather of the political messiah destined to overthrow the R o m a n Empire, nonetheless he is careful to omit the unseemly details of David's pretend ing to be a m a d m a n , w h o , according to Scripture, scrabbled on the doors of the gate in G a t h a n d let his spittle fall d o w n upon his beard (1 S a m . 2 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . In J o s e phus's version, David foams at the m o u t h a n d displays "all the other symptoms of madness" but without specifying details (Ant. 6.245).
SUMMARY A p r i m a r y reason for Josephus's amplification of David's virtues is to answer antiJ e w i s h attacks; but he m a y also simply be alerting his G r a e c o - R o m a n readers a n d his Hellenistic J e w i s h compatriots to the virtues that he insists his J e w i s h contem poraries possessed in their o w n right. Thus, he stresses David's wealth, presumably because the J e w s w e r e accused by such satirists as M a r t i a l a n d J u v e n a l of being a nation of beggars. In particular, he stresses the courage of David, as he does that of the other biblical heroes, because the J e w s h a d been reproached with cowardice by such notorious J e w - b a i t e r s as Apollonius M o l o n . Josephus also stresses David's hospitality, unselfishness, generosity, gratefulness, and humanity, again because the J e w s h a d been charged with hatred of the h u m a n race by such calumniators as Apollonius M o l o n a n d Lysimachus. Moreover, he notes the stress placed by D a v i d on the avoidance of political dissension (ardais),
which h a d cost the J e w s so heav
ily in the w a r against the Romans. F u r t h e r m o r e , there is, in o r d e r to make the nar rative m o r e appealing to his readers, an increased romantic element, especially in Josephus's amplification of the love of David a n d Michal a n d of the friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d David. A n d yet J o s e p h u s is careful not to praise David in overwhelming terms; a n d w h e n his status is elevated, it is not so much for his o w n sake as to answer the J e w haters o r to increase the d r a m a of the situation. Moreover, whereas he has down g r a d e d the divine element in the achievements of his other biblical heroes, J o s e phus emphasizes that David's accomplishments are due to divine assistance. J o s e p h u s has diminished the importance of David as king both in the sheer length of his general treatment a n d of his final encomium, especially as c o m p a r e d with K i n g Saul, and, m o r e important, in terms of qualities of character. T h e fol lowing explanations for his doing so suggest themselves: (1) Josephus himself was descended
from the H a s m o n e a n
kings, rather than from the line of David.
(2) D a v i d was extremely important for Christianity as the ancestor of the messiah, a n d while it is true that Jesus himself appears to assert that the messiah is not de scended from David (cf. M a t t . 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 5 , M a r k 1 3 : 3 5 - 5 1 , Luke 2 0 : 4 1 - 4 4 ) , a n d some
j68
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
of his contemporaries ( J o h n 7:41—42) are said to be u n a w a r e of a connection of Jesus with the House of David, nonetheless, by the time of Paul, Christians already believed that Jesus was descended from the family of David (Rom. 1:3), so that the Gospels (Matt. 1:1—17; Luke 3:23-38) have genealogies, differing to be sure in de tails, but agreeing in deriving Jesus' descent from David. Hence, to counteract the importance of David for the Christians, Josephus m a y have diminished his signifi cance, just as, we m a y guess, he m a y have reacted against the claims of Christian ity in his original version of the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 1 8 . 6 3 - 6 4 ) (see Feldman 1965, 9 : 4 8 - 5 1 on Ant. 1 8 . 6 3 - 6 4 ; a n d 1 9 8 2 , 1 7 9 - 9 9 , 2 8 8 - 9 3 )
a n
d even possibly in his
version of the Flood story, in which he omits any reference to a covenant (SiadrjKr)) between G - d and m a n , so important for Christianity, as A n d r e Paul (1985, 4 7 3 - 8 0 ) has suggested. Hence, Josephus develops the passage in Ruth about David's genealogy just enough to give him a distinguished ancestry but without stressing it unduly. T h e diminished emphasis on miracles in David's career m a y likewise perhaps be seen as a reply to Christians, w h o emphasized Jesus' miracles, and m a y be in line with the point of view expressed in the story of R a b b i Eliezer, w h o appealed to miracles, yet was overruled and even excommunicated
(Baba
Me&a 59b). (3) He has omitted all reference to David as ancestor of the messiah, despite the fact that such a tradition was a p p a r e n d y widespread in his era, because he wished to stress to his Hellenistic J e w i s h readers his o w n repugnance for the concept o f an independent J e w i s h state. To the extent that his R o m a n patrons were a w a r e of the beliefs of J e w i s h messianism, they would have objected to a p o litical figure w h o would seek to reestablish an independent J e w i s h state, precisely the goal of the revolutionaries against R o m e in Josephus's o w n day, w h o m he at tacks so bitterly T h e fact that David is spoken of as £avdos ("tawny") might remind the r e a d e r of Esau, whose pottage is similarly described by Josephus; and hence this might associate David with the Romans, the descendants of Esau, according to rabbinic tradition. (4) Josephus's downplaying of David, to some degree, m a y 26
reflect a m o r e general stance, as seen in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities
and in
27
some of rabbinic l i t e r a t u r e . W e m a y note, in particular, the stories of Josephus's
26. See, however, Mendels 1992, 2 6 1 - 7 5 , who notes that although Pseudo-Philo, like most of the Jews of his time, has messianic hopes, he seems to be against a messiah in the present. Mendels argues that even the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:23-26, 9:2-13,10:47-52), which are full of messianic allusions, nevertheless tone down messianism. There can be litde doubt, nevertheless, that by the time of Josephus, there was vigorous expectation of a Davidic messiah, at least in certain circles, as we can see in a number of documents—the Qumran scrolls, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Psalms of Solomon. See Collins 1987, 104-5. 27. Neusner 1987c, 265-82, concludes that the messiah idea has no place of consequence in the Mishnah, although he admits that it later became a driving force in rabbinic circles. Cf. Schifmian 1987, 235-46, esp. 242, who comments on the lack of emphasis on messianism in Tannaitic materials, and suggests that "the experience of the destruction of the nation and its cult center in the first revolt [66-74], d prohibition of even visiting the ruins of Jerusalem in the second, must have led the sages to seek other means for the immediate redemption of Israel." a n
m
e
DAVID
569
contemporaries R a b b i J o h a n a n ben Zakkai a n d J o s h u a ben Hananiah, w h o sought a modus vivendi with the R o m a n s a n d hence w e r e eager not to antagonize them with talk of a messianic king. Such downgrading m a y also be seen in J o s e phus's use of the t e r m "lad" in referring to David at the time of his being anointed king. Josephus's portrait of D a v i d is thus a n important a n d typical reflection of c o n t e m p o r a r y considerations—political, religious, a n d c u l t u r a l — t h a t influenced his entire a p p r o a c h to historiography.
28
28. I should like to express my sincere thanks to Harold W. Attridge and David Flusser for most helpful comments on this chapter.
CHAPTER
SIXTEEN
Solomon
Taken as a whole, the first half of the Antiquities, in its modified p a r a p h r a s e of the Bible, is gready concerned with the agenda of the essay Against Apion, namely, de fending the J e w s against the charges of their enemies. In this respect, Josephus's portrayal of K i n g S o l o m o n becomes a p r i m e showcase for the defense. W h a t is at tempted here for the first time is a full-scale evaluation of Josephus's portrayal of Solomon.
1
O n e m a j o r problem confronting Josephus was h o w to treat S o l o m o n in com parison with his father, David. O n the one hand, as noted, Josephus is careful not to praise David unduly, particularly inasmuch as Josephus himself was descended from the H a s m o n e a n kings rather than from the rival line of David, a n d inasmuch as David was identified as the ancestor of the anticipated messiah, a figure w h o would clearly be a n a t h e m a to the R o m a n s , Josephus's patrons, since the messiah was supposed to establish an independent J e w i s h state, obviously through revolt against the R o m a n s . W e m a y note that whereas the Bible enumerates w h a t David h a d p r e p a r e d for S o l o m o n (i C h r o n . 2 2 : 1 4 - 1 9 ) , Josephus puts greater emphasis on Solomon's o w n e n o r m o u s achievement by having David reassure Solomon: "Do not be dismayed [tcaian Xayeis] at the magnitude [jieyeOos] of the labor, n o r shrink [d7roSeiAiaaas] from it" (Ant. 7.339). A c c o r d i n g to the biblical statement, found in
1. The first attempt to survey Josephus's treatment of Solomon, Sarowy 1900, 4 4 - 4 8 , compares Josephus's account with that of the Bible; but the survey is hardly systematic and merely summarizes, without analysis, the high points of Josephus's account where it differs from that of the Bible. My own prior study, "Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon" (Feldman 1976, 69-98), is a mere sketch and does not attempt to be exhaustive. Van der Meulen 1978 likewise makes no attempt to be exhaustive and is concerned (69-78) primarily with challenging my equation of Solomon with Oedipus. It is surprising that Lassner 1993 makes no mention at all ofJosephus's treat ment of the Queen of Sheba narrative. 570
SOLOMON
57/
both the H e b r e w text a n d in the Septuagint, David h a d already amassed n o less than a h u n d r e d thousand talents of gold a n d a million talents of silver (1 C h r o n . 22:14). These huge sums w o u l d have m a d e D a v i d a wealthier king than S o l o m o n , for the latter, according to 1 K i n g s 10:14, received in one year 6 6 6 talents of gold a n d w o u l d have required 150 years to accumulate a sum equal to that accumulated by his father. J o s e p h u s diminishes this a p p a r e n d y fantastic sum, a n d in the process accomplishes his purpose of downplaying David's role a n d magnifying Solomon's in the building of the Temple by changing the figures of David's accumulation to ten thousand talents of gold a n d one h u n d r e d thousand talents of silver (Ant. 7.340). Similarly, whereas the Bible reports that D a v i d gave an additional gift for the Temple of three thousand talents of gold a n d seven thousand talents of refined silver (1 C h r o n . 2 9 : 3 - 4 ) , Josephus, again seeking to diminish the role of D a v i d a n d to heighten that of S o l o m o n a n d to avoid an a p p a r e n d y implausible sum, omits the mention of the silver (Ant. 7.378). Likewise, w e m a y note that the omission by Josephus, in his version of Solomon's p r a y e r to G - d , of the n a m e of D a v i d serves to keep attention focused on S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 3 : 6 - 7 vs. Ant. 8.23). W h e r e a s in Solomon's address to the people on the occasion of the consecration of the Temple, he cites David's n a m e n o fewer t h a n five times (1 Kings 8 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) , in Josephus's version, he mentions him only once (Ant. 8.109). F u r t h e r m o r e , whereas in the Bible, w h e n w e are told that S o l o m o n , in his old age, u n d e r the influence of his foreign wives, worshipped their gods, he is twice c o m p a r e d , in this respect, unfavorably with his father D a v i d (1 K i n g s 11:4, 6), J o s e p h u s omits this comparison (Ant. 8.194). O n the other hand, David was clearly a p o p u l a r figure; and, as w e see in J o s e phus's evasive treatment o f the meaning of the stone that, in Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m , destroys the kingdom of i r o n — a reference to a messianic r e a l m that w o u l d make an end of the R o m a n E m p i r e — h e a p p a r e n d y felt that to have omitted the passage altogether w o u l d be a clear indication that he h a d sold out to the R o m a n s (Ant. 10.210). Hence, it m a y be significant that Josephus, in his parallel to the pas sage in which A d o n i j a h is informed of David's decision to seat S o l o m o n u p o n the royal throne, omits the statement, which w o u l d elevate S o l o m o n excessively, in which David's servants congratulate h i m with the prayer that G - d m a y m a k e the n a m e a n d throne of S o l o m o n even m o r e famous than David's (1 K i n g s 1:45-47 vs. Ant. 7.360). W e see h o w J o s e p h u s elevates Solomon's stature in that whereas he is not cited by n a m e in the biblical accounts of G - d ' s appearance to the p r o p h e t Nathan in which He refers to David's successor over w h o m He watches (2 S a m . 7:12; 1 C h r o n . 17:11), in Josephus, Solomon's standing is highlighted by G - d ' s climactic prediction that after David's death, the Temple will be brought into being "by his son, a n d successor to the kingdom, whose n a m e will be S o l o m o n " (Ant. 7.93). S i m ilarly, J o s e p h u s has D a v i d tell S o l o m o n that S o l o m o n was chosen by G - d to be king even before his birth (Ant. 7.338), whereas in the Bible, w e read m e r e l y that a son is to be b o r n to D a v i d (1 C h r o n . 22:9).
572
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
THE RABBINIC P O R T R A I T OF S O L O M O N It is instructive to c o m p a r e Josephus's treatment of S o l o m o n with that of the r a b 2
binic tradition. O n the one hand, the rabbis stress Solomon's wisdom, noting that w h e n G - d appeared to him in a d r e a m and gave him permission to ask for what ever he wished, he chose wisdom, realizing that once he possessed it, all else would come of itself (Pesiqta Rabbati 14.59; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1, no. 9). A c c o r d ing to another tradition, he fasted forty days in o r d e r that G - d should grant him wisdom; consequendy, because of his humility, his wish was fulfilled, a n d he be came "the father of wisdom" (Midrash Proverbs 1.1; see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:282, n. 18). Solomon's wisdom was even greater than that of A d a m , A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , and Moses (see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:130, a n d 6:283, nn. 1 9 - 2 2 ) . A l t h o u g h his wise proverbs n u m b e r only eight hundred, they are equal to three thousand, inasmuch as each m a y be interpreted in two o r even three different ways (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1, nos. i o - n ) . W e even find a tradition that A l e x a n d e r the Great, w h e n he conquered J e r u s a l e m , found Solomon's books of wisdom a n d gave them to his teacher Aristode, w h o derived all he knew from them ( A b r a h a m Bilbago, Derek Emunah 4 6 b ; see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6 . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 , n. 18). S o l o m o n excelled the wisest m e n of all nations, even the Egyptians and the others of the East (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 12.13d). He even understood the language of beasts and birds (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1, no. 9; Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah i . n ) .
3
In midrashic literature, in contrast to Josephus, w h o stresses his wisdom as a king and as a judge, S o l o m o n emerges as a prototype of the talmudic sage, for he is able to analyze the reasons for the c o m m a n d m e n t s of the Torah. Since, to the rabbis, there is no wisdom other than knowledge of the Torah, it is Solomon's great mastery of the T o r a h that is praised (for citations, see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , c
6.282, n. 18). It is even said that he introduced the concept of the eruv (Eruvin 21b) (permitting the carrying of objects on the S a b b a t h in courtyards), the washing of the hands before a meal (Shabbat 14b), a n d the extension of the list of prohibited marriages (Tevamot 21a). He was so sure of himself that he could even have decided cases without resort to witnesses, since he h a d the gift of being able to penetrate people's thoughts, h a d he not been prevented by a heavenly voice (Rosh Hashanah 2 ib). S o great was Solomon's reputation for wisdom as a j u d g e that even animals submitted their disputes to him (Tanhuma B, introduction, 157). In fact, he sought to be like Moses himself but was deterred by a heavenly voice quoting Deut. 34:10: "There arose not a prophet again in Israel like Moses" (Rosh Hashanah 21b). In particular, there are a n u m b e r of stories illustrating h o w Solomon's wisdom surpassed that of his father, David. For example, in the case of one of David's ser vants w h o b o r r o w e d an egg with the promise to return all that would come from
2.
On the portrayal of Solomon in the rabbinic tradition, see Faerber 1901 and Ginzberg 1909-38,
4:123-76, and 6:277-303. 3.
See Ibn Hasdai, Ben ha-Melek
ve-ha-Nazir 24
(Ginzberg 1909-38,
4:138-41,
and 6:287-88, n.
34).
SOLOMON
52?
it, David ruled that since from the egg would come chickens, which, in t u r n , would produce further eggs, and so on, he was liable to p a y a huge sum. S o l o m o n , how ever, advised the debtor to sow boiled peas in order to demonstrate that chickens cannot be produced from a boiled egg (see citations in Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:285, n. 27). W e find similar awe of Solomon's wisdom exhibited, according to the rabbinic 4
tradition, in Solomon's decision in the case of the three m e n w h o could not find the m o n e y that they h a d hidden before the onset of the S a b b a t h (cited by A d o l f 5
Jellinek, Beit Hamidrash 4 [1867] .'86-87), as well as in the incident of the slave w h o claimed that he was his master's son (ibid., 1 4 5 - 4 6 ) ,
6
and that of the double-
headed son w h o claimed a double portion of his father's inheritance (ibid., 7
1 5 1 - 5 2 ) . Such stories, with their eerie, unreal, bizarre, and miraculous quality, are notably absent from Josephus's narrative. In another instance, w h e n both the l e a r n e d and the ignorant refused to believe Solomon's saying that "one m a n a m o n g a thousand have I found, but a virtuous w o m a n a m o n g all these have I not found" (Eccles. 7:28), he proved his point w h e n a husband could not summon enough courage to kill his wife, whereas the wife was r e a d y to m u r d e r him (ibid., 1 4 6 - 4 7 ) . Likewise, he shows his wisdom in imparting three rules of conduct to one of his servants, namely, to t u r n in for the night before dark, not to cross a swollen river, and not to betray a secret to a w o m a n (ibid., 1 4 8 - 5 0 ) . S o l o m o n is also c o m m e n d e d for his piety in that, unlike his father, K i n g David, w h o first built a h o m e for himself and then gave thought to building a temple for G - d , Solomon's first thought was to build the Temple, which he completed in seven years, whereas it took him thirteen to build his o w n palace {Sanhedrin 104b; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1, no. 5); and the fact that he showed greater concern for building the Temple than for constructing his own palace is used as an argu ment, unsuccessfully to be sure, to prevent his being included a m o n g those w h o have no portion in the future world.
See the discussion in Ginzberg 1909-38, 4:130-42. 5. Solomon exhibited his wisdom in this case by telling the three men a story of a maiden and a youth who promised each other under oath not to enter into a marriage without the other's permis sion. When the parents of the maiden betrothed her to someone else, whom she loved, the maiden offered the youth a tremendous bribe in order to get him to agree to the marriage. The youth mag nanimously gave his consent but refused to accept the bribe. On their way home, the couple were held up by a highwayman, who, when told the story of the maiden's life, declined to steal the money. Solomon then asked the three contestants which of the three—the maiden, the youth, or the highway man—had acted most nobly. When the third said that he admired the highwayman, Solomon realized that the man himself must be full of greed for money. 6. According to this tradition, Solomon was able to discover the truth by having the father's corpse exhumed and then by dyeing one of the bones with the blood of each of the claimants. Since the blood of the slave showed no affinity with the bone, Solomon concluded that he was a false claimant. 7. In this case, Solomon showed his wisdom by pouring hot water on one of the heads of the doubleheaded son, whereupon both mouths cried out. This led Solomon to the conclusion that he was really only a single being. 4.
574
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
However, the oral tradition is also critical of Solomon. Indeed, Faerber 1901, 1, remarks that there is n o other figure about w h o m w e find so m a n y contradictory opinions in ancient J e w i s h literature as K i n g S o l o m o n . Thus, he is depicted as an archrationalist w h o is led into sin by his logical method. T h e tradition also remarks that, wise as he was, he still w a s unable to determine the rationale of the com m a n d m e n t concerning the r e d heifer (Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.23, no. 4), the ashes of which are sprinkled on those w h o are ritually defiled in o r d e r to cleanse them. Moreover, the rabbis depict the degeneration of S o l o m o n in graphic terms (Sanhedrin 20b). A t first, he reigned over the higher beings; that is, his p o w e r reached the realm of angels a n d spirits. But after he h a d sinned he reigned over only this world, a n d eventually his p o w e r w a s restricted to the L a n d o f Israel alone, a n d still later only to J e r u s a l e m , a n d even later only to his couch, a n d finally only 8
over his staff. A n o t h e r tradition (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1, no. 10) asserts that he traveled as a beggar for three years from city to city, seeking to atone for his sins, and that while doing so, he w r o t e the Book of Ecclesiastes.
THE I M P O R T A N C E O F S O L O M O N F O R J O S E P H U S T h e key figure in Josephus's attempt to answer the charge, m a d e by A p i o n , that the J e w s h a d not produced a n y eminent sages is S o l o m o n (Ag. Ap. 2.135). S u m m a rizing the greatness of S o l o m o n , before discussing his deviations from J e w i s h tra dition, J o s e p h u s asserts, in an extrabiblical addition, that he w a s the most illustri ous (ivSogoraros)
of all kings, the most beloved by G - d (deofaXeoraTos),
a n d the
most outstanding in understanding (cfrpovrjoei) a n d wealth of those w h o h a d ruled the Hebrews (Ant. 8.190). O n e indication of the importance of S o l o m o n for Josephus m a y be seen from the fact that he cites m o r e external evidence to support his account of S o l o m o n than he does for any other biblical personality. Indeed, he devotes no fewer than eight p a r a g r a p h s of his narrative to adducing evidence from the Tyrian archives of the correspondence between K i n g H i r a m of Tyre a n d S o l o m o n a n d to informing the inquisitive r e a d e r that copies of these letters are available even in his o w n d a y (Ant. 8 . 5 5 - 5 6 , 1 4 4 - 4 9 ) . He apologetically explains to the r e a d e r that the reason w h y he has dealt with Solomon's relations with the Tyrians in such great detail is that he wants his readers to k n o w that his account is absolutely true (Ant. 8.56). He quotes from two non-Jewish writers, M e n a n d e r a n d Dios, to confirm his state ments concerning the relations between S o l o m o n and H i r a m (Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 4 9 ) . M o s t remarkably, he engages in a long a n d seemingly utterly irrelevant digression to explain that no king of Egypt w a s called p h a r a o h after Solomon's father-in-law (actually J o s e p h u s w a s mistaken—native p h a r a o h s ruled until 341 B.C.E.); all this
8. The rabbis differ (Sanhedrin 20b) as to whether Solomon regained his power. One view is that he was first a king and then a commoner. The other view is that he was a king, then a commoner, then a king again.
SOLOMON
575
establishes the point that the books of the J e w s agree with those of the Egyptians in m a n y details (Ant. 8 . 1 5 5 - 5 9 ) . Finally, in his classic apologetic work, Against Apion, Josephus makes m o r e ref erences to S o l o m o n than to any other biblical figure except Moses; here in his effort to prove the antiquity a n d prominence of the J e w s , he devotes no fewer than twenty-two p a r a g r a p h s to reproducing evidence from the Phoenician
chronicles
and from Dios and M e n a n d e r of Ephesus in o r d e r to confirm the historicity of the friendship between H i r a m and S o l o m o n a n d the wisdom of S o l o m o n (Ag 1.106-27). T h a t Josephus sees fit to reproduce verbatim in the essay Against ( 1 . 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 117-20) the words of Dios and M e n a n d e r found in the
Ap.
Apion
Antiquities
( 8 . 1 4 7 - 4 9 , 1 4 4 - 4 6 ) , as he does in n o other case, shows h o w important he regarded this evidence from Dios and M e n a n d e r concerning Solomon. O n e test of the importance that Josephus attaches to a given pericope is the sheer a m o u n t of space that he devotes to it as compared with the coverage in the 9
Bible itself. Josephus's account of Solomon stands in a ratio of 2.56 to that of 1 Kings, and of 2.17 to those of 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles combined (1 Kings 1 : 1 1 - 1 1 : 4 3 [672 lines], 1 C h r o n . 2 2 : 2 - 2 3 : 1 , 28:1-29:30 [122 lines]; Josephus, Ant. 7 . 3 3 5 - 4 2 , 3 4 8 - 6 2 , 3 7 0 - 8 8 , 392, 8.2-211 [1,721 lines]).
10
Hence, at least from this point of view,
the S o l o m o n pericope was clearly one of great importance for Josephus. W e m a y see the aggrandization of S o l o m o n in Josephus's effective use of G - d ' s prediction (2 S a m . 7:12; 1 C h r o n . 17:11; Ant. 7.93), even before Solomon's birth, that David w o u l d have a son by that n a m e w h o would build the Temple. V e r y signifi candy, at the height of his greatest achievement, the dedication of the Temple, S o l o m o n is accorded greater stature through Josephus's repetition of this predic tion (Ant. 8.110), for it shows that S o l o m o n was favored by G - d .
9. For the Hebrew, I have used the standard edition of the biblical text with the commentary of Malbim n.d.; for the LXX, I have used Rahlfs 1935. For Josephus, I have used the LCL text of Thack eray 1926-34, 4:1930; Thackeray and Marcus 1926-34, 5:1934; and Marcus 1934-37, 6:1937. 10. For the Solomon pericope, there is evidence that Josephus used a Hebrew text (e.g., Ant. 8.21 [Josephus follows the Hebrew order; cf. 1 Kings 3:1 ff.], 8.54 [cypresses rather than pines], 8.59 [3,300 rather than 3,600 overseers], 8.64 [the length of the Temple as 30 cubits vs. 25 in the Septuagint], 8.123 [Solomon celebrated Tabernacles for fourteen days vs. seven in the Vaticanus manuscript of the Sep tuagint]). There is also evidence that he used a Greek text (e.g., Ant. 8.13 [Josephus reads Solomon for Absalom], 8.17 [the oath is mentioned at this point], 8.57 [20,000 baths of oil vs. twenty measures of oil in the Hebrew], 8.72 [Josephus closely follows the wording of 2 Chron. 3:14], 8.77 [Hebrew omits that the pillars were fourfingersin thickness], 8.81 [the bases of the lavers were five cubits in length vs. four in Hebrew, six cubits in height vs. three in Hebrew], 8.140 [head ofa calf vs. Hebrew "a rounded top"], 8.202 [Septuagint on 1 Kings 11:22 adds, "So Ader returned to his country"]). In addition, he occa sionally disagrees with both (e.g., Ant. 8.61 [Solomon began to build the Temple 592 (Hebrew and Lu cianic 480) years after the Israelites' exodus from Egypt]), 8.64 [the height of the Temple was 60 cubits vs. 30 in the Hebrew and 25 in the Septuagint]). Rahlfs 1911, 3:92, asserts that for the story of Solomon, Josephus follows the Masoretic text even though it deviates strongly from the Septuagint. He is fol lowed by van der Meulen 1978, 25, who asserts that Josephus in this pericope always follows the Ma soretic text. Both seem to be mistaken.
576
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Inasmuch as the ancients attached such significance to names a n d their m e a n ing,
11
a n o t h e r indication of the i m p o r t a n c e of S o l o m o n for J o s e p h u s m a y be seen
in the fact, without basis in the biblical text (i K i n g s 8 : 1 2 - 6 1 ) , that, according to Solomon's statement to the people at the dedication of the Temple, it was G - d Himself w h o h a d given h i m his n a m e even before he was b o r n , foretelling w h a t he was to be called (Ant. 8 . n o ) . W e m a y see the i m p o r t a n c e o f S o l o m o n in Josephus's statement (Ant. 7.375), not found in 1 C h r o n . 28:11 a n d m e r e l y implied in 1 C h r o n . 28:1, that it was in the sight of all that D a v i d gave to S o l o m o n the p l a n a n d a r r a n g e m e n t o f the building o f the Temple. Solomon's achievement is also highlighted by Josephus's unscriptural state m e n t (Ant. 7.342) that in building the Temple, S o l o m o n was doing something that his ancestors should have done long before, inasmuch as they h a d disobeyed G - d ' s c o m m a n d to build a temple after they h a d taken possession o f Palestine. In Josephus's account, the focus is on S o l o m o n rather than o n the J e w i s h peo ple generally. T h u s , in the biblical narrative, G - d tells S o l o m o n that if the J e w s a n d their children t u r n a w a y from following Him, He will cut t h e m off (1 K i n g s 9:6). In Josephus, it is S o l o m o n w h o m G - d w a r n s that He will cut him off root a n d b r a n c h if h e turns to the w o r s h i p o f foreign gods (Ant. 8.127). Additionally, the fact that J o s e p h u s assigns to S o l o m o n a reign twice as long as that conceded to him in both o f the accounts in the Bible (1 K i n g s 11:42; 2 C h r o n . 9:30) a n d in the Septuagint adds to the stature of the king, for h e is depicted as reigning eighty years, a p e r i o d exceeded b y n o k n o w n Greek, R o m a n , o r O r i e n t a l sovereign (Ant. 8 . 2 1 1 ) .
12
R a p p a p o r t notes that the Bible speaks o f Solomon's old
age (1 K i n g s 11:4) a n d suggests that this reference is the basis for Josephus's figure (Rappaport, 5 8 , no. 239); but it is J o s e p h u s , a n d n o other extant source, that takes the initiative in doubling the n u m b e r o f years o f his reign. Finally, in his extrabiblical e n c o m i u m , J o s e p h u s asserts that S o l o m o n sur passed all other kings in good fortune (evoaipuoviq)™
wealth (nXovrcp), a n d practi
cal wisdom (<j)povrjO€i) (Ant. 8.211).
SOLOMON'S VIRTUES In the list o f virtues that David, in Josephus's account, exhorts S o l o m o n to culti vate, he is urged to be pious, just, a n d brave (evoefirjs a>v Kal SiKaios Kal
dvSpetos)
11. See, e.g., the account of how Odysseus was given his name by his grandfather (Homer, Odyssey 19.405-12).
12. Agathonius of Gades, according to Cicero (De Senectute 19), reigned for 80 years and lived for 120. 13. As to the importance of good fortune, cf. Cicero's Pro Lege Manilla (16.47), where he notes that commands and armies had been entrusted to Maximus, Marcellus, Scipio, and Marius, among others, not only because of their military skill but also because of their good fortune, and that Pompey had like wise enjoyed uncommonly good fortune.
SOLOMON
577
(Ant. 7.338). It is, in fact, the same virtues of piety (evaefieiq),
justice
a n d fortitude (dvhpeia)
are set forth by G - d
that, together with obedience (ireidoi),
(hiKaioovvrj),
Himself to S a m u e l as those that constitute beauty of soul a n d that He seeks in a king (Ant. 6 . 1 6 0 ) .
14
In the case of S o l o m o n , his virtues are especially prominent,
inasmuch as, whereas in the biblical text, K i n g H i r a m of Tyre blesses G - d for hav ing given David a wise son (1 Kings 5:21), in Josephus's version, H i r a m praises G - d for having given to S o l o m o n not only wisdom but every virtue (Ant. 8.53). Such praise is especially effective coming from a non-Jew. W e see a n o t h e r dimension of Solomon's virtue in that, in Josephus's version, he is concerned that his children be virtuous. In the Bible, S o l o m o n reminds G - d of His promise to perpetuate the kingdom if his descendants walk in G - d ' s ways (1 K i n g s 8:23-26). Josephus, too, has S o l o m o n remind G - d of his promise to David that the kingship will r e m a i n in his line, but has him add the v e r y important r e quest, which goes beyond the biblical wording, that G - d grant his sons the virtue in which he delights (Ant. 8.113). Indeed, whereas the Bible emphasizes that c
S o l o m o n transcended all the other kings of the earth in wealth (le osher) a n d wis d o m (1 K i n g s 10:23), Josephus substitutes Solomon's virtue (dperrjv)
for wealth (Ant.
8.182).
Upbringing Solomon's precociousness, like that of Moses a n d Josiah, is highlighted by J o s e phus through his stress on the fact, not mentioned in the corresponding biblical passage (1 K i n g s 2:12), that w h e n S o l o m o n ascended the throne, he was only four teen (Ant. 8.2, 2 1 1 ) ,
15
still, clearly, a m e r e youth
(viov
rr)v
r)\ii
W h e r e a s the biblical text declares m e r e l y that S o l o m o n loved the L - r d , walk ing in the statutes of his father (1 K i n g s 3:3), Josephus makes a point of stressing that he was not hindered by his youth from dealing j u s d y a n d observing the laws, a n d that he p e r f o r m e d all tasks with as great scrupulousness (aKpifieias)
as do
those of a d v a n c e d age a n d m a t u r e wisdom (Ant. 8.21). Josephus emphasizes that w h e n G - d offered to give S o l o m o n w h a t e v e r he might wish, S o l o m o n did not r e spond by asking for wealth, as one so young might have been expected to do, but rather requested, as only a truly m a t u r e person would do, an understanding m i n d (Ant. 8.23). T h e youth of S o l o m o n is likewise stressed in Josephus's account of Solomon's j u d g m e n t in the case of the two w o m e n . T h e r e , in a modification to Scripture, he orders both children cut in half, w h e r e u p o n w e h e a r that all the peo ple secredy m a d e fun of S o l o m o n as a m e r e lad (pbeipaKiov)
(Ant. 8.32).
14. Similarly, the qualities of character possessed by Hezekiah that are singled out for special praise by Josephus are his kindly (xprjorrj), just (Si/ccua), and pious (evaejSij?) nature (Ant. 9.260). 15. According to the Seder Olam 14, Solomon was only twelve when he succeeded to the throne. Other sources, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:277, n. 1, indicate that he was thirteen.
578
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Wealth Although, as w e have seen, S o l o m o n did not ask G - d for wealth, nevertheless G - d r e w a r d e d h i m with great w e a l t h .
16
In fact, whereas in the Bible, Solomon's
provisions for one day consisted of, a m o n g other items, a h u n d r e d sheep (i Kings 5:2-3), in Josephus, this becomes a h u n d r e d fatted sheep (Ant. 8.40). Moreover, Josephus has added birds a n d fish to the list. T h e fact that Josephus juxtaposes wealth (TTXOVTOV) a n d glory (86%av) indicates 17
h o w much importance he attached to wealth (Ant. 8.129). This juxtaposition m a y be motivated by Josephus's desire to answer the charge (see M a r t i a l 1 2 . 5 7 . 1 - 1 4 ; J u venal 3 . 1 0 - 1 6 , 3.296, 6 . 5 4 2 - 4 7 ) that the J e w s w e r e impecunious beggars (so Begg !993> 238, n. 1 5 8 7 ) .
18
Josephus is, nevertheless, concerned to avoid gross exaggerations of Solomon's wealth and to offer explanations to make it m o r e plausible. Thus, whereas the Bible simply states that S o l o m o n h a d twelve thousand horsemen (1 K i n g s 5:6), Josephus is careful to explain that half of them attended the king in J e r u s a l e m , while the rest w e r e scattered a m o n g the royal villages (Ant. 8.41). The Qualities of Leadership In contrast to the true statesman is the demagogue w h o caters to the mob, as w e see in Plato's allegories of the ship a n d of the beast (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 7 - 8 9 A 2 , 6 . 4 9 3 A 6 - C 8 ) , a n d w h o is concerned with his own h o n o r a n d glory. Hence, w e m a y see significance in the famous d r e a m in which G - d promises S o l o m o n not merely, as in the Bible, that He will lengthen his days (1 K i n g s 3:14), but also that he will preserve his kingdom for his descendants for a v e r y long time (Ant. 8.24). A key quality of a leader is his concern for his subjects. Josephus emphasizes this quality in his description of the scene at the close of the consecration of the Temple (Ant. 8.124). According to the Bible, the people blessed the king and j o y fully w e n t on their w a y (1 K i n g s 8:66). Josephus adds the crucial phrase that they thanked the king for his providential care (Trpovolas) of them a n d for the display that he h a d m a d e and prayed to G - d to grant them S o l o m o n as king for a long time. A n o t h e r essential quality in a leader is the ability to inspire his people. T h a t S o l o m o n possessed this quality m a y be seen in Josephus's extrabiblical r e m a r k that when, after the dedication of the Temple, the people proceeded h o m e w a r d ,
16. One of the seven qualities that the rabbinic sages enumerated as most appropriate for the right eous is wealth (Awt 6.8). Indeed, one of the four prerequisites for prophecy (Nedarim 38a) is wealth. 17. The combination of wealth and glory appears several times in Josephus: War 6.442; Ant. 8.166, 8.394, 10.272. 18. Begg 1993a, 122, n. 766, appositely notes that in a number of other places, Josephus accentu ates the wealth that the Jews acquired from their defeated enemies.
SOLOMON
579
so inspired w e r e they that they accomplished the j o u r n e y without fatigue (Ant. 8.124 vs. 1 K i n g s 8:66). Wisdom A s noted, Josephus's star witness to disprove the contention that the J e w s h a d p r o duced n o wise m e n was, of course, S o l o m o n . But a p p a r e n d y if w e m a y j u d g e from the statement of the e m p e r o r Julian, w h o was, on the whole, not unsympathetic to the J e w s (although w e should, of course, r e m e m b e r that he lived almost a millen n i u m a n d a half after Solomon), S o l o m o n h a d his detractors. J u l i a n asks w h e t h e r S o l o m o n is at all comparable to the gnomic poets Phocylides a n d Theognis or the r e n o w n e d orator Isocrates; a n d he proceeds to declare as self-evident that the ex hortations of Isocrates are superior in wisdom to Solomon's proverbs. He then r e duces Solomon's wisdom to absurdity by noting that he h a d been led astray by the arguments of a w o m a n (Contra Galilaeos 2 2 4 C - D ) . Solomon's choice of wisdom is highlighted in Josephus to an even greater de gree than it is in the Bible. David's p r a y e r to G - d in the Bible is that S o l o m o n m a y be given a perfect heart (levav) (1 C h r o n . 29:19); but in Josephus, his p r a y e r is that he m a y be given a sound (vyirj) a n d just mind (hidvoiav) (Ant. 7.381). In contrast to Solomon's o w n request in the Bible for an understanding heart (lev) (1 K i n g s 3:9), Josephus's S o l o m o n requests a sound mind (vovv vyirj) a n d good practical wisdom ((f>p6vrjGLV dyaOfjv) (Ant. 8.23). It is this G - d - g i v e n wisdom (/car' iTTL^poavvr/v
TOV
Oeov) that, J o s e p h u s later stresses, led S o l o m o n to surround the Temple m o u n t with great works above at the top (Ant. 15.398). "For it was not gold or silver or other f o r m of wealth," Josephus says of S o l o m o n , "that he asked to be bestowed upon him, as a m a n a n d a young one might have done—such are considered by most m e n as almost the only things w o r t h y of regard a n d as gifts of G - d , " but wisdom (Ant. 8.23; cf. 1 Kings 3:6 a n d n ) . O n e is r e m i n d e d o f Solon's long p o e m , in which he states that everyone strives for gold a n d profit (1.43), each in a different way, whereas gain thus arrived at can never satisfy m a n , and, indeed, the result will be his ruin (1.73-76). T h e r e are several touches in Josephus's account of S o l o m o n that indicate that he h a d Oedipus in mind. Indeed, support for the equation of S o l o m o n and Oedi pus appears at the v e r y beginning of Josephus's account of S o l o m o n . In the bibli cal narrative, G - d w a r n s D a v i d through Nathan that if S o l o m o n sins, He will punish h i m "with the r o d of m e n a n d with the stripes of the children of m e n " (2 S a m . 7:14). In Josephus's narrative, G - d says that He will punish S o l o m o n with sickness (vooco) a n d barrenness of the soil (yr)s dc/>oplq) should he sin (Ant. 7 . 9 3 ) .
19
Later, in Solomon's p r a y e r at the dedication of the Temple, he specifies as the evils
19. One is reminded of the passage in Josephus (Ant. 9.289) in which he notes that G-d sent a pesti lence (Xoifiov) upon the Samaritans because they had worshipped strange gods, whereupon they con sulted an oracle as to how to free themselves from this and were told that they should worship G-d.
580
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
with which the J e w s will be smitten if they should sin "unfruitfulness of the soil [yrjs d/ca/)77ta] o r a destructive pestilence [cf>dopq Aoi/xi/o)]" (Ant. 8.115). T h e anal ogy with the opening scene of Sophocles' Oedipus the King is striking, w h e r e w e are told of the plague from which Thebes is wasting a w a y (<j>Qivovaa) (25-29). T h e plague has afflicted the blossom of the land and its herds, a n d it is manifest in the b a r r e n pangs of w o m e n (TOKOLGL
re dyovois
yvvaiKtov).
T h e w o r d "sickness" (vooos), with which G - d threatens S o l o m o n if he should disobey Him (Ant. 7.93), is a leitmotif throughout Sophocles' play. A p o l l o is a p pealed to as a deliverer from the sickness that has afflicted the city (Oedipus the King 150).
T h e w o r d likewise occurs in lines 217 a n d 303 with reference to the plague.
Its central place in the play is shown by the fact that w h e n the messenger comes to Oedipus with the news of the death of K i n g Polybus, his first reaction is to ask w h e t h e r he died through treachery o r disease (vooos) (960). T w o lines later, he r e peats: "Ah, he died, it seems, of diseases" (voaois) (962). A m a j o r theme of the play, as K n o x 1957, 32, remarks, is Oedipus's Trepnrereia from fame a n d h o n o r to utter uncleanliness, becoming finally a pollution that must be covered up (1426). A n d at the end of the play, the thought of disease (by implication, the plague) recurs, w h e n Oedipus, blind a n d miserable though he is, asserts that he is sure of at least this much, namely, that neither disease n o r anything else can destroy him ( 1 4 5 5 ) .
20
In the biblical version of the crucial scene in which G - d appears to S o l o m o n a n d bids him ask for w h a t e v e r he wishes, S o l o m o n twice mentions his father, David, and the great kindness that G - d h a d shown him because he h a d walked in faithfulness a n d righteousness before Him (1 Kings 3:5-9); thus the focus is to a considerable degree upon David. Josephus's S o l o m o n omits all mention of David a n d focuses instead completely u p o n S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.23). Moreover, in contrast to the brief biblical statement, in which S o l o m o n asks for "an understanding m i n d to govern thy people, that I m a y discern between good and evil" (1 K i n g s 3:9), in Josephus's version, there is much m o r e of a buildup to a climax in Solomon's an swer (Ant. 8.23). T h e r e w e are told that S o l o m o n asked for "the most excellent a n d greatest gifts, most pleasant to G - d to confer a n d most beneficial for m a n to r e ceive. . ., a sound mind and good understanding wherewith I m a y j u d g e the peo ple,
having truth a n d justice in me." T h e key incident illustrating Solomon's wisdom is the case of the two harlots
w h o gave birth to children, one of w h o m died, while both claimed the living child as her own (1 K i n g s 3 : 1 6 - 2 8 ) . In the first place, Josephus, in an extrabiblical r e mark, calls attention to the sheer difficulty of the case, a n d adds that it was trou blesome to find a solution (Ant. 8.26). Indeed, to emphasize the case's difficulty Josephus uses no fewer than three different words (Svaxepfjs ["laborious"], SVOKOXOV
["hard"], eiriirovov
["troublesome"]). He then further, in a direct address to
20. One is reminded likewise of the picture drawn by Hesiod (Works and Days 212 ff.), whom Jose
phus elsewhere (Ant. 1.108, Ag. responding to man's sins.
Ap. 1.16)
mentions by name, and who likewise paints a picture of nature
SOLOMON
581
his readers in the first person (which he rarely uses), a n d with a n additional refer ence to the difficulty of the case, asserts that he has thought it necessary to explain the subject o f the suit so that c o n c e r n e d readers might have some idea of h o w diffi cult (OVGKOXOV,
"troublesome," "harassing") the case was. He then, true historian
that he is, like Thucydides, w h o looks upon history as a guide to future decision making (1.22), mentions a further p u r p o s e in recounting this event at length, namely, so that w h e n people in the future encounter such an incident, they m a y l e a r n from Solomon's wisdom (dyxtvotas, "sagacity" "ready wit," "shrewdness"). To emphasize Solomon's impartial a n d wise handling of the case, w h e r e a s the Bible gives n o indication as to h o w S o l o m o n interrogated the w o m e n (1 K i n g s 3:22), in J o s e p h u s , after the first w o m a n speaks, S o l o m o n takes the initiative to ask the o t h e r w o m a n to present h e r rebuttal (Ant. 8.30). T h e Bible simply describes the actual p r o c e d u r e by which S o l o m o n asks for a sword a n d orders that the living child be cut in two (1 K i n g s 3 : 2 3 - 2 7 ) .
21
A s the case is there described, w e h e a r only
the king's decision, with no indication as to h o w he h a d arrived at it (1 K i n g s 3:27). J o s e p h u s explains that the king recognized the w o r d s spoken b y each of the m o t h ers as h e r true sentiments a n d consequendy a w a r d e d the child to the m o t h e r w h o h a d cried out to p r e v e n t its division (Ant. 8.33). T h e r e is n o indication in the bibli cal narrative as to w h a t punishment, if any, S o l o m o n inflicted u p o n the guilty mother, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s w e are told that he c o n d e m n e d h e r for h e r wicked ness both in having killed h e r o w n son a n d in being eager to see h e r friend's child destroyed (Ant. 8.33). T h e r e is significant difference between the biblical version a n d Josephus's n a r rative regarding the reaction o f the people to this j u d g m e n t . In the former, their response is to fear S o l o m o n because they see that the wisdom o f G - d is in h i m to do justice (1 K i n g s 3:28). In J o s e p h u s , the reaction is not fear but conviction, since they consider his j u d g m e n t a great sign (Sefy/xa) a n d p r o o f (reKpuripiov) o f the king's p r u d e n c e ((frpovrjaews) a n d wisdom (ooias). C o n s e q u e n d y they respond by listen ing to h i m as to one possessed of a godlike (Oeiav) understanding (oidvoiav)
(Ant.
8.34). A key addition in Josephus's version o f this incident is his statement that w h e n n o one could see w h a t j u d g m e n t to give, but all w e r e mentally blinded, as by a rid dle, S o l o m o n alone found a solution (Ant. 8.30). T h e r e are, it appears, four key el ements in this statement that do not a p p e a r in 1 K i n g s 3 : 2 3 - 2 7 (whether in the He brew, the Septuagint, o r the Lucianic version): (1) J o s e p h u s indicates that others h a d attempted a n d failed to d e t e r m i n e w h o the real m o t h e r was; (2) these others are spoken o f as mentally blinded (rfj hiavola TeTu^Acu/xcWv); (3) to solve the ques tion required the use o f intelligence (Sidvoia); 4) the case is c o m p a r e d to a riddle (alviypLdTi).
21. Montgomery 1951,109, cites a close parallel from Indian lore, and notes that Hugo Gressmann has assembled twenty-two such parallels. Cf. Scott 1955, 262-379, esp. 270-71.
582
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS W h a t is particularly striking is that all four elements are found in Sophocles'
Oedipus the King. T h e r e w e find that others h a d a p p a r e n d y attempted but failed to solve the Sphinx's question (391-94); second, Oedipus solves the riddle of the S p h i n x by the use of his intelligence (yvcofjurj), a n d the intellectual rivalry between Oedipus a n d Teiresias culminates in Oedipus's taunting Teiresias with failure of his intelligence (vovs) (371); third, w e find a reference to Teiresias's blindness in Oedipus's accusation: "You are blind in ears a n d mind a n d eyes" (371); a n d fourth, the Sphinx's question is t e r m e d a riddle (393). Indeed, Oedipus sarcastically asks the blind p r o p h e t Teiresias w h y he did not solve the riddle (cuviy/xa) of the S p h i n x a n d thus save the city of Thebes (391-92). O n the other hand, a n d most signifi c a n d y it is Oedipus alone w h o solves the Sphinx's riddles (aiVy/xara) (1524-25) a n d w h o , ironically, is to go through a reversal (TTepnrereia) from sight to blindness (454) w h e n he discovers his true identity. This irony of Oedipus, the mentally blind m a n w h o has physical sight at the beginning of the play, is particularly stressed by the contrast with Teiresias, the physically blind m a n w h o has mental sight (454). T h e riddle of the S p h i n x is the supreme test of Oedipus's intelligence, as the case of the two harlots is of Solomon's. In both cases, it is their self-confident wis d o m that is their undoing. A s for Oedipus, w h e n , as the parts of the puzzle fall into place revealing his real identity, he begins to lose control of himself, J o c a s t a com ments that Oedipus does not, "like a m a n in control of his m i n d [evvovs], j u d g e the present on the basis of the past" ( 9 1 5 - 1 6 ) .
22
A s K n o x 1957, 1 8 3 - 8 4 , following a sug
gestion by J e b b , remarks in an insightful note, the first p a r t of the v e r y n a m e of Oedipus is close in sound a n d thus reminiscent of otSa, "to know," a w o r d that is constandy on Oedipus's lips; indeed, it is his knowledge that makes Oedipus the decisive a n d confident ruler (rvpavvos) Van
he is.
der M e u l e n 1978, 7 5 - 7 7 , on the other hand, stresses Oedipus's impotence
a n d diminished knowledge, as opposed to divine omnipotence a n d foresight, not ing that in the end, it becomes clear that Oedipus is convinced that he must p a y for w h a t he has done a n d affirms the divine w o r l d order. In particular, v a n der M e u l e n notes that in Seneca the Younger's tragedy Oedipus, which, he says, tells us h o w the personality of Oedipus was regarded in Josephus's o w n day, inasmuch as Seneca (4 B . c . E - 6 5 C.E.) was his older contemporary, Oedipus acknowledges r e sponsibility for the suffering that he has caused to the land (1058). V a n d e r M e u l e n remarks that the acceptance of his fate, so crucial in the portrait of Oedipus, is missing in Josephus's portrait of S o l o m o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , the story that S o l o m o n allowed himself to be misled by w o m e n at the end of his life has n o parallel in the story of Oedipus. Finally, v a n der M e u l e n notes a distinct difference between Oedipus a n d S o l o m o n , in that the latter died ingloriously (Ant. 8.196) a n d that mis fortunes befell the Hebrews because of his acts (Ant. 8.211). Moreover, inasmuch as
22. It is this quality of being rational (evvovs) that Prometheus, according to Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound 444), bestowed upon mankind after its previous state of savagery.
SOLOMON
383
J o s e p h u s attacks the Greeks for their untrustworthiness, throughout his essay Against Apion, he could hardly have used a G r e e k literary figure as his model. T h e G r e e k sages, J o s e p h u s contends in Against Apion, are hardly models of h u m a n wis dom. If, v a n der M e u l e n concludes, Josephus h a d written about G r e e k mytholog ical figures, he w o u l d have p o r t r a y e d Achilles as a G r e e k Saul a n d Oedipus as a G r e e k S o l o m o n rather than the reverse. V a n der M e u l e n thus objects to the thesis that J o s e p h u s has modeled Solomon's character on Oedipus (Feldman 1 9 7 6 , 82-86). In reply, it m a y be noted that the comparison of biblical figures with G r e e k mythological figures is hardly unique to Josephus. A r t a p a n u s , w h o is generally thought to have been a J e w (see Holladay 1983, 1:189
a n
d 195, n. 8a), says in obvi
ous pride, for example, that Moses was called Musaeus by the Greeks, a n d that he b e c a m e the teacher of the famous musician O r p h e u s (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.27.3). W i t h similar pride, A r t a p a n u s notes that Moses was called by the n a m e of the G r e e k god H e r m e s because of his ability to interpret the sacred writings (ap. Euse bius, Pr. En 9.27.6). T h e i m p o r t a n t point is that Josephus is selective in his parallels. It is not that S o l o m o n is in all respects similar tc Oedipus, any m o r e than A b r a h a m is com pletely equivalent to a Stoic philosopher simply because he gives a p r o o f for the existence of G - d (Ant. 1.156) that is similar to that of the Stoic Cleanthes, o r that he is being equated with Heracles simply because Josephus cites, in obvious pride, Cleodemus-Malchus's statement that Heracles was j o i n e d in his African cam paign by t w o of A b r a h a m ' s sons by K e t u r a h , and that he m a r r i e d the daughter of one of them (Ant. 1.241). Rather, S o l o m o n is portrayed as having Oedipus's wis d o m a n d as going beyond it; that is, S o l o m o n is, with respect to his wisdom, a greater Oedipus. Moreover, a n d above all, v a n der M e u l e n has not taken into ac count the four parallels noted above that p o r t r a y S o l o m o n , like Oedipus, as a solver o f a riddle. F u r t h e r m o r e , as I have noted, there is little indication that J o s e phus k n e w Latin, let alone the works of Seneca, as v a n der M e u l e n claims. O n the other h a n d , there is v e r y good reason for thinking that Josephus knew the works of Sophocles. It is instructive to c o m p a r e Josephus's treatment of this incident with that of the rabbis. In the first place, the rabbis add a supernatural dimension to the story by presenting the tradition that the two w o m e n w h o claimed the child w e r e really not h u m a n at all but rather w e r e spirits w h o w e r e sent by G - d to manifest Solomon's wisdom (Makkot 23b). T h e y add still another supernatural dimension by asserting that w h e n S o l o m o n presented his decision, a voice from heaven confirmed that this was indeed the m o t h e r of the child. In Josephus, on the other hand, the focus is on S o l o m o n a n d his h u m a n wisdom; the w o m e n are m o r e h u m a n than ever, a n d the d r a m a is consequendy heightened. To illustrate the greatness of Solomon's wisdom, Josephus goes beyond even the biblical statement that Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of the children
584
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
of the E a s t
23
a n d all the wisdom of Egypt (1 K i n g s 5:10 vs. Ant. 8.42). Josephus's
version adds to Solomon's wisdom by explaining that the Egyptians are said to excel all m e n in u n d e r s t a n d i n g
24
a n d then goes even further by remarking that
these same Egyptians w e r e not only a little inferior to but actually fell far short of S o l o m o n in sagacity (Ant. 8.42). Moreover, whereas, according to the Bible, S o l o m o n composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 K i n g s 5:12), Josephus has expanded this to 3,000 books of proverbs a n d similitudes (irapafioXibv K a l et/covcov) and 1,005 books of odes a n d songs (Ant. 8 . 4 4 ) .
25
It is not merely in the quantity of his wisdom that Josephus's S o l o m o n is pre eminent. M o r e important, whereas, according to the Bible, Solomon's wisdom consisted in speaking in proverbs a n d parables about beasts, birds, fish, a n d trees (1 K i n g s 5:13), Josephus, realizing that educated Greeks and R o m a n s looked u p o n philosophy as the highest f o r m of wisdom (cf. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5 . 3 . 8 - 9 ) , proudly boasts that there was n o f o r m of nature with which S o l o m o n was not ac quainted o r that he passed over without examining (Ant. 8.44). T h e r e a d e r will note that the w o r d that J o s e p h u s uses for "without examining" (dve^eraarov)
is
precisely the one that Socrates employs in his famous phrase at his trial in which, in effect, he summarizes his mission as a philosopher, 6 dve^eraaros
filos
ov
fiiajTos dvOpconq), "the unexamined life is not w o r t h living for a m a n " (Plato, Apol ogy 38A). Josephus then goes on, in a further extrabiblical remark, to state that S o l o m o n studied the forms of nature philosophically (e^iXooo^rjoe),
that is, pre
sumably, critically, a n d that he manifested the most complete knowledge of their several properties. This knowledge of the w o r l d of nature is stressed by the earlier author of the Book of W i s d o m , w h o puts into Solomon's m o u t h the statement that G - d has given him "an unerring knowledge of the things that be, to k n o w the or dering of the w o r l d a n d the working of the elements" (GTOLX^IWV,
presumably the
four elements basic to G r e e k natural philosophy) (7:17). Because, as noted, exorcising demons was regarded as the sign of special p o w e r in a wise m a n , J o s e p h u s develops a w h o l e description, without basis in the biblical text, of S o l o m o n as possessor of G - d - g i v e n skill in the a r t of exorcising demons
23. Josephus (Ant. 8.42) here follows the Septuagint in translating the Hebrew benei qedem as "the ancients." 24. Cf. Herodotus 2.121, who declares that the Egyptians surpassed all other people in wisdom. Elsewhere also, when the Egyptian priests duplicate Moses' feat of turning a staff into a python (Ant. 2.286), Moses admits to Pharaoh, "Indeed, O King, I too do not disdain the wisdom [oofta] of the Egyptians." Schorr 1940, in a note on Ant. 8.42, compares Talqut Reuveni: "Ten types of wisdom de scended to the world. The Egyptians took nine, and the rest of the world one." 25. For 1,005 Septuagint reads 5,000. Josephus thus follows the Hebrew text so far as the num ber is concerned, but diverges from it by speaking of booh of odes. Rengstorf 1973-83, 2:25, s.v. CLKCOV, suggests that the term may refer to allegories. Here, too, Josephus, in the interest of credibility, avoids the exaggeration, such as is found in the rabbinic tradition (Eruvin 21b), that Solomon had 3,000 simil itudes for every statement of the Torah and 1,005 arguments for every statement of the Scribes. Cf. Ecclus. 47:15: "Thou didst gather parables like the sea." m
e
SOLOMON (Ant. 8 . 4 5 - 4 9 ) .
26
585
" G - d , " he says, in an addition to the Bible (i K i n g s 5:10),
"granted h i m knowledge of the a r t used against demons for the benefit and heal ing of m e n " (Ant. 8.45). S o l o m o n is further said to have composed i n c a n t a t i o n s
27
by which illnesses w e r e relieved, a n d to have left behind forms of exorcism that successfully enabled those possessed by demons to drive them out. T h e n , in an e x t r a o r d i n a r y digression, Josephus relates that he himself h a d seen h o w a certain c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w n a m e d Eleazar, in the presence of Vespasian, h a d freed m e n w h o w e r e possessed by demons by putting to their nose a r i n g
2 8
that
h a d u n d e r its seal one of the roots prescribed by S o l o m o n , d r a w i n g the demons out through their nostrils and finally adjuring the demons never to c o m e back into them, invoking Solomon's n a m e and reciting the incantations that S o l o m o n h a d composed (Ant. 8 . 4 6 - 4 9 ) . To prove that it was through S o l o m o n that the d e m o n h a d been expelled, Eleazar ordered the d e m o n to o v e r t u r n a cup full of w a t e r that he h a d placed nearby. W h e n the cup was overturned, Josephus Solomon's understanding (ovvecns)
and wisdom (oo^ia)
comments,
w e r e clearly revealed,
since it w a s a p p a r e n d y through S o l o m o n that this miracle h a d occurred. Well a w a r e that all this digression is without scriptural basis, J o s e p h u s concludes that he has recounted this incident so that all m e n m a y see from this revelation of Solomon's understanding and wisdom (avveais
Kal ao(f>ia) the greatness of his na
ture a n d the extent to which G - d favored him, a n d so that n o one u n d e r the sun m a y be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of every kind (Ant. 8.49). A s in o t h e r portions of the S o l o m o n pericope, J o s e p h u s avoids details that w o u l d seem incredible to the sophisticated r e a d e r here. Hence, w e do not find such data (recorded in the rabbinic tradition) as that S o l o m o n h a d spirits a n d demons as his personal attendants, w h o m he could send w h e r e v e r he wished at short notice; that he grew tropical plants in Palestine with the help of ministering spirits, w h o secured w a t e r for h i m from India; that animals also w e r e subservient to him; that eagles transported h i m w h e r e v e r he wished; that spirits aided h i m in the construction of the Temple; that he delivered the land of A r a b i a from an evil spirit (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4 : 1 4 9 - 5 3 , a n d 6 : 2 9 1 - 9 3 , nn. 4 8 - 5 6 ) ; that he pos sessed c h a r m s against demons and illnesses;
29
and that he h a d a piece of tapestry,
26. For an analysis of this passage, see Duling 1985, 1-25. For rabbinic parallels, see Rappaport n. 241. 27. Such a book is the Testament of Solomon. See the translation and commentary by Duling 1987, 935-87; and see also Duling 1988, 8 7 - 1 1 2 . Conybeare 1898-99, 1 1 - 1 2 , conjectures that the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, in its original form, may have been the very collection of incantations that, accord ing to Josephus, was composed and bequeathed by Solomon. Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:291, n. 48, remarks that the recognized authorities of rabbinical Judaism condemned the use of the conjuring books as cribed to Solomon. 28. This magic ring is also referred to in the Testament of Solomon 5. 29. See Rappaport 1930, 56, no. 273, and 131, n. 241. The fourth-century Medicina Plinii 3.15.7 like wise notes the efficacy of the name of Solomon on amulets as a cure for tertian fever. On the use of the name of Solomon in magical papyri and amulets, see Bonner 1950, 208 ff., and Duling 1975, 235-52. 1930, 131,
j86
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
no smaller than sixty miles square, on which he flew through the air so swiftly that he could eat breakfast in Damascus a n d supper in M e d i a (see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:162). Evidence of Solomon's wisdom is to be seen in the fact that, according to J o s e phus, the m a i n b o n d of friendship between H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n was their passion (em^u/xia) for learning
(aortas, "wisdom")
(Ag. Ap. I . I I I ) . G r e a t importance should
be attached to Josephus's addition that H i r a m , the king of Tyre, sent S o l o m o n tricky problems (oo<j)iopuara, "subtie questions," "sly tricks") a n d enigmatic sayings (\6yovs
alviy/jLaTajSeis, "riddles"), requesting that he clear them up for him a n d
solve his difficulties (aiTopias)
(Ant. 8.143). Here, as in Josephus's version of
Solomon's adjudication of the case of the two mothers, he is presented as a kind of Oedipus solving riddles. Josephus proceeds to praise Solomon's wisdom in the highest terms. Inasmuch as S o l o m o n was clever (Seivov) a n d keen-witted
(avverov),
none of the riddles proved too difficult for him, and he successfully solved them all by force of reason (XoyiopLto), as did Oedipus (see the discussion by K n o x 1 9 5 7 , 1 8 ) , whose bitterest w o r d of condemnation, which he hurls at Teiresias (Sophocles, Oedipus the King 433) and at C r e o n (ibid., 540), is pucopos ( "stupid") a n d whose r e p utation for wisdom is based p r i m a r i l y on his ability to solve the riddle of the S p h i n x — ( a solution he arrived at through sheer intelligence, rather than, as he r e marks, by the birds that a seer such as Teiresias might have used ( 3 9 6 - 9 8 ) . K n o x has rightly r e m a r k e d that the swift action o f Oedipus is founded on reflection, which, in turn, indicates a great intelligence ( K n o x 1957, 18). T h e most romantic context through which S o l o m o n demonstrates his wisdom is the visit of the Q u e e n of Sheba. Ullendorff speaks of Josephus's version of this episode as a slightiy expanded a n d somewhat "smartened u p " version of the bib lical narrative, doubtless reflecting the state of c o n t e m p o r a r y interpretation, yet essentially faithful to the biblical narrative a n d completely innocent of the accre tions that w e find in the talmudic tradition (see Ullendorff 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 , 4 9 1 - 9 2 ) . In the latter, for example, the Q u e e n of S h e b a is aggrandized to the point w h e r e she is said to have a r e a l m so rich that dust is m o r e valuable than gold there; a n d its trees, dating from the beginning of time, suck u p w a t e r that flows from the G a r d e n of Eden (Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:143). Josephus likewise avoids emphasizing the magi cal element, such as the tale in the Midrash's account of the h o o p o e that reported to K i n g S o l o m o n (who understood the languages of birds a n d beasts) that there existed a land ruled by the Q u e e n of Sheba, which was not yet subject to him (see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4 . 1 4 2 - 4 4 , a n d 6.289, n. 39). Nevertheless, there are a n u m b e r of touches in this pericope that lend greater glory to the figure of S o l o m o n . In particular, Josephus's statement that the Q u e e n of S h e b a was thoroughly trained (8La7T€7rovrjpL€vrjv) in wisdom (oofta)
and, r e
markable in other ways, ruled over Egypt a n d Ethiopia vastiy magnifies the wis d o m of S o l o m o n , inasmuch as Egypt h a d the reputation of being an extremely an cient land a n d one that possessed m e n of the greatest wisdom (see Herodotus, bk. 2, passim). A s for Ethiopia, its inhabitants w e r e r e n o w n e d for their wisdom, piety,
SOLOMON
587
a n d bravery, a n d are t e r m e d blameless by H o m e r [Iliad 1.423) (Feldman 1 9 9 1 a , 348-49)Solomon's wisdom is emphasized by Josephus's extrabiblical remark that the Q u e e n of Sheba's strong desire to see S o l o m o n arose from the reports that she h e a r d e v e r y d a y about his country (Ant. 8.165). In the belief that hearsay is likely to lead to false opinion, she decided to visit S o l o m o n to see for herself (Ant. 8.166). A s to the queen's m e t h o d of ascertaining Solomon's wisdom, the Bible says that she c a m e to test him with riddles (behidot) (1 K i n g s 10:1). Riddles, as understood in the Bible, cannot be solved without previous knowledge, presumably through di vine inspiration, as w e see, for example, in the case of Samson's riddle, which could not have been solved except through previous knowledge of Samson's ex ploit of slaying the lion (Judg. 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) . Hence, the implication of the Bible's state m e n t is that the queen wished to find out w h e t h e r the source of Solomon's wisdom was divine inspiration. O n the other hand, in Josephus's formulation, the queen comes not with riddles of this sort but with challenging questions a n d asks S o l o m o n to solve their difficult (dnopov, "impossible") meaning (Ant. 8.166). Thus, v e r y significandy everything appears to depend u p o n Solomon's h u m a n wisdom rather than u p o n divine inspiration. J o s e p h u s further dramatizes Solomon's wisdom in his portrayal of the w a y in which S o l o m o n solves the queen's problems (Ant. 8.167). T h e Bible simply says that he answered all h e r questions (1 K i n g s 10:3), whereas Josephus asserts that Solomon
"was studious
[(^LXOTLPLOS,
"eager," "anxious," "zealous," "lavish,"
"prodigal," "generous"] to please h e r in all ways, in particular by mentally [ovveoei]
grasping
[oo^lopLara]
[KaTaXapL^avopuevos] with
ease
the
ingenious
problems
she set him a n d solving [eTreXvero] them m o r e quickly than anyone
could have expected" (Ant. 8.167). T h e emphasis here is on Solomon's speed in an swering the queen's questions, as w e see not merely from Josephus's statement that he solved them m o r e quickly than anyone expected but also from Josephus's use o f the w o r d ovveois to describe Solomon's mental process, since this w o r d refers to the faculty o f quick comprehension a n d m o t h e r wit (see L S J , 1712, s.v. ovveois II). T h e reference to the queen's questions as oo^lofjuara ("ingenious contrivances") w o u l d recall to the r e a d e r the use of this w o r d in connection with the tricky p r o b lems that K i n g H i r a m of Tyre sent S o l o m o n , which the latter solved by the force of reason (Ant. 8.143). In this respect, S o l o m o n would r e m i n d one of Prometheus, w h o is said to have discovered numbering, preeminent a m o n g ingenious devices (oo(j)iopidTcov) (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 459). T h e w o r d oo^Lopua
might also well
r e m i n d the r e a d e r of the use of this w o r d in Sophocles' Philoctetes (14) with reference to the wily Odysseus's plan w h e r e b y he hoped to obtain Philoctetes' bow, which, according to an oracle, was the only w e a p o n with which Troy could be captured. T h e scene would likewise r e m i n d the reader, as does Josephus's version o f Solomon's decision in the case of the two w o m e n claiming the same baby, o f Sophocles' Oedipus, whose characteristic action is the fait accompli a n d whose characteristic epithet is raxvs
("swift") ( K n o x 1957, 1 5 - 1 7 , 188). O n e of the lessons
588
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
stressed by Sophocles in his Oedipus the King, as seen in the remarks of the chorus, "Swift [raxets] thinkers are not safe" (617), is the danger of making decisions too quickly Oedipus defensively replies, twice using the w o r d "swift" in the following two lines: " W h e n a swift plotter moves secredy against me, I must be swift with m y counterplot." T h e words "swift" (raxvs, (rdxos,
7 6 5 , 9 4 5 , 1131,
142, 430, 1234, 1429) a n d "swiftness"
1154) recur as a leitmotif throughout the play, being used
three times by Oedipus a n d once each by the Second Messenger, C r e o n , the C h o rus,
Jocasta, a n d the Herdsman. T h a t speed remains the characteristic trait of
Oedipus m a y be seen from the fact that, after his identity has become known, Oedipus uses the phrase "as quickly as possible" on three occasions: "Take m e a w a y from this place as quickly as possible" (on rdx^ora quickly as possible" (oircos rdxtora, quickly as possible" (ooov rdxiod\
1340), "Hide m e a w a y as
1410), a n d " T h r o w m e out of this land as
1436). O n e of the themes of the play is the dan
ger of speed; for, like Oedipus, those w h o are quick to think things out are not in fallible (617). A n o t h e r indication that Josephus h a d Oedipus in m i n d in his portrayal of S o l o m o n m a y be seen in his extrabiblical r e m a r k that w h e n he was informed by a prophet that his kingdom, except for one tribe, would be t o r n from his son, he was sorely troubled that almost all the good things for which he w a s envied
(^TJXCJTOS)
w e r e changing for the worse. This r e m a r k is reminiscent of the closing words of the C h o r u s in Sophocles' Oedipus the King especially since the latter alludes to Oedipus as a solver of riddles, a trait that w e have likewise noted in Josephus's portrait of S o l o m o n , a n d since it refers to the envy directed at Oedipus: "See here is that Oedipus w h o knew the famous riddles a n d was most mighty, on whose fortunes w h a t citizen did not look u p o n with envy [£^Ao/]?" (1524-26).
Courage and Skill in Battle In the famous d r e a m in which G - d offers S o l o m o n w h a t e v e r he wishes a n d in which S o l o m o n chooses wisdom, G - d , in turn, pleased with Solomon's choice, promises, in the biblical version, to give him riches a n d h o n o r (1 Rings 3 : 5 - 9 ) . In Josephus's paraphrase, however, G - d significandy adds that he will bestow upon S o l o m o n victory over his enemies (Ant. 8.24). It is interesting to note, however, that, aside from a brief mention (Ant. 8.160), in accordance with the Bible (1 K i n g s 9:20; 2 C h r o n . 8:7), of Solomon's conquest of those Canaanites w h o w e r e still un submissive, Josephus has nothing to say of S o l o m o n the conqueror in the Antiqui ties. To be sure, to the biblical statement that S o l o m o n built G e z e r (1 K i n g s 9:17), he does add the remark, which w o u l d underscore Solomon's effectiveness as a mil itary strategist, that he did so because it was naturally strong a n d could be useful in times of war
o r revolution (Ant. 8.152).
Nevertheless, Josephus h a d to face the fact that one of the most telling proofs offered by that arch-Jew-baiter A p i o n to demonstrate that the laws of the J e w s w e r e unjust a n d their religious ceremonies faulty was that they w e r e not masters of
SOLOMON
589
a n empire but h a d been slaves of various nations (ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.125), j u s t as the fact that calamities h a d constandy befallen them w o u l d seem to confirm that the gods did not favor them. In reply, J o s e p h u s recalls that D a v i d
and
S o l o m o n h a d subjugated m a n y nations (Ag. Ap. 2.132). W h e r e a s the Bible states that all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to Egypt served S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 5:1) but does not connect this fact with w h a t follows, that is, his tremendous quantity of provisions for a single d a y (1 K i n g s 5:2), Josephus does link the t w o items, as serting that all these provisions w e r e brought daily by the f o r e i g n e r s ,
30
thereby ac
centuating Solomon's great p o w e r (Ant. 8.40). Temperance and Modesty Even before S o l o m o n actually succeeds D a v i d as king, J o s e p h u s gives us an in stance of Solomon's m o d e r a t i o n (Ant. 7.361). A c c o r d i n g to the biblical account, w h e n A d o n i j a h , Solomon's brother, w a s t h w a r t e d in his attempt to seize the royal p o w e r during David's lifetime a n d sought asylum, asking that S o l o m o n swear not to slay him, S o l o m o n gives a n equivocal answer, namely, that if A d o n i j a h proves worthy, he will not be h a r m e d , but if not he will be put to death (1 K i n g s 1:51-52). Josephus's version describes Solomon's response in terms that are significandy dif ferent (Ant. 7.362). H e r e w e are told that with great mildness (ripuepcos) a n d m o d e r ation (oaxfrpovtos) he let off A d o n i j a h a n d o r d e r e d him to go back to his o w n house without a n y fear (pLrjSev vcfropcopievov, "viewing with n o suspicion"), although, on the other h a n d , asserting his strength as a ruler, he firmly a n d resolutely w a r n e d h i m that if he w e r e ever again caught in an attempt at revolution, he w o u l d have only himself to blame for his punishment. To be sure, J o s e p h u s still h a d to cope with the fact that S o l o m o n was responsi ble for the later a p p a r e n d y ruthless killing of A d o n i j a h . H e thus goes out of his way, in an extrabiblical addition, to r e m i n d the r e a d e r that even in the lifetime of Solomon's father, David, A d o n i j a h h a d attempted to seize the royal p o w e r (Ant. 8.3). In the biblical account, A d o n i j a h notes m e r e l y that the kingdom h a d b e e n taken from him a n d given to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 2:15). J o s e p h u s goes on to r e p o r t w h a t A d o n i j a h claims to be his response to this state of affairs, namely, that he w a s "willing a n d h a p p y to serve u n d e r him a n d was satisfied with the present state of affairs" (Ant. 8.4). H e n c e the r e a d e r has less sympathy for Adonijah's subsequent request to Bathsheba that she aid h i m in changing the status quo by p r o m o t i n g his m a r r i a g e to David's w i d o w Abishag (Ant. 8.5). For him to m a r r y h e r w o u l d be tan t a m o u n t to claiming the kingship for himself, even though he maintains that his fa ther, by reason of his age, h a d actually not h a d intercourse with her, a n d that she
30. Significandy, inasmuch as Josephus apparendy realized that his sophisticated readers would find gross exaggerations hard to believe and would, in fact, tend to discredit the entire account, he does not have a statement such as that Solomon's real needs of food were far greater, since each of Solomon's wives needed a similar quantity of provisions each day for the banquets that they arranged (Baba Mezia 86b).
590
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
was still a virgin. In justification of Solomon's action in putting A d o n i j a h to death, w e might well say, then, that A d o n i j a h , while asserting that he was renouncing his o w n claim to the throne a n d granting Solomon's legitimacy, was really guilty of concealing his true intention. In his reply to his mother's intercession on behalf of Adonijah, S o l o m o n , in an addition not found in i K i n g s 2:22, sees right through the request a n d realizes that A d o n i j a h is really reaching for greater things, namely, the kingdom itself, on the grounds that he is the elder b r o t h e r and, in particular, has the support of powerful friends, J o a b the c o m m a n d e r a n d A b i a t h a r the priest (Ant. 8.9). S o l o m o n thus righdy realized that a p o w e r struggle was afoot, a n d that, especially since this was the v e r y beginning of his reign, he could not afford to show weakness. Even so, the severity of Solomon's action is reduced, since in J o s e phus's version, S o l o m o n does not actually take an oath of vengeance (Ant. 8.9 vs. 1 K i n g s 2:23-24). Indeed, whereas in the Bible, w h e n S o l o m o n pronounces A b i athar deserving of death, he is not told precisely w h y (1 K i n g s 2:26), in Josephus, S o l o m o n carefully tells him that it is because he j o i n e d Adonijah's rebellion (Ant. 8.10). Josephus, as w e can see in his account of Saul (Ant. 6.63), identifies moderation with modesty. But the virtue of modesty always presents a problem, namely, that excessive modesty especially in a ruler, is n o virtue at all. Josephus's S o l o m o n r e solves this problem by following the middle path. In particular, whereas in the Bible, w h e n G - d appears to S o l o m o n in a d r e a m a n d offers to give him w h a t e v e r he wishes, S o l o m o n responds by stating that he is but a little child w h o does not know h o w to go out o r come in (1 K i n g s 3:7), Josephus, regarding this as excessive modesty omits this passage altogether. Because he h a d already established Solomon's reputation for wisdom so solidly, Josephus felt secure in citing extrabiblical evidence from M e n a n d e r to the effect that S o l o m o n was modest enough to admit that he h a d actually been outwitted by a young Tyrian lad, A b d e m o n , w h o always successfully solved the problems sub mitted to him by S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.146). He then further cites a writer n a m e d Dios, w h o composed a history of Phoenicia which asserted that S o l o m o n a n d H i r a m ex changed riddles on the understanding that the one w h o was unable to solve them w o u l d p a y a forfeit (Ant. 8.149; Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) . A t first, H i r a m paid heavily, being unable to solve Solomon's riddles, but afterwards they w e r e solved for him by A b demon, w h o , in turn, p r o p o u n d e d others that S o l o m o n was unable to solve, a n d so in the end S o l o m o n paid H i r a m m o r e back than H i r a m h a d originally paid him. T h u s Josephus graphically demonstrates h o w honest, honorable, a n d mag nanimous S o l o m o n was t o w a r d his non-Jewish friends.
Justice In his initial instructions to S o l o m o n , as w e have noted, David urges him to try to be w o r t h y of G - d ' s providence by being pious, j u s t (SLKCUOS),
a n d brave, and, sig
nificandy in view of the R o m a n s ' great respect for law, to keep the C o m m a n d -
SOLOMON
591
merits a n d the laws that He h a d given the Israelites through Moses, a n d not to p e r mit others to transgress them (Ant. 7.338). W h e n D a v i d orders that S o l o m o n be anointed king, he instructs him to rule with piety a n d justice (hiKaiws) (Ant. 7.356). H e reiterates these instructions in the presence of the national leaders, assuring him of prosperity if he will show himself pious, j u s t (SIKOLIOV),
a n d observant of the
country's laws (Ant. 7.374). In a further p r a y e r by David, whereas the biblical text focuses on the request that S o l o m o n be pious and keep all the c o m m a n d m e n t s of the Pentateuch (1 C h r o n . 19:29), Josephus's David puts the emphasis on justice, praying that S o l o m o n might have a sound (vyirj) and just (SIKCUOV)
mind, strength
ened by all virtuous (apeTrjs) qualities (Ant. 7.381). W e see the same difference of emphasis in David's dying charge to S o l o m o n . W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d urges S o l o m o n to live piously, walking in G - d ' s ways a n d keeping His c o m m a n d m e n t s (1 K i n g s 2:2-3), Josephus's D a v i d exhorts S o l o m o n not m e r e l y to be pious t o w a r d G - d but also to be just (hiKaico) to his subjects, not yielding to favor o r flattery (Ant. 7.384). W h e r e a s the Bible states only that S o l o m o n walked in the statutes of D a v i d (1 K i n g s 3:3), J o s e p h u s stresses that S o l o m o n was not hindered by his youth from dealing jusdy, observing the laws, o r r e m e m b e r i n g the injunctions of his dying fa ther; rather, he p e r f o r m e d all his tasks as scrupulously as do those of a d v a n c e d age a n d m a t u r e wisdom (Ant. 8.21). T h e r e a d e r of the Bible might well ask w h e t h e r S o l o m o n was justified in his seemingly harsh action in punishing Shimei. However, he is m o r e clearly justified in doing so in Josephus's version, for whereas the Bible says m e r e l y that Shimei cursed D a v i d (1 K i n g s 2:8), J o s e p h u s reports that he did so repeatedly (Ant. 7.388). Moreover, whereas in the Bible, S o l o m o n asks simply w h y Shimei h a d not kept "the oath of the L - r d and the c o m m a n d m e n t that I have charged thee with" (1 K i n g s 2:43), J o s e p h u s builds u p the apology for Solomon's action by stressing that Shimei "had m a d e light of his c o m m a n d s a n d — w h a t was w o r s e — h a d shown n o regard for the oaths sworn to G - d " (Ant. 8.19). Josephus's handling of this case ac tually enhances Solomon's reputation for justice. T h e biblical account indicates merely that Shimei was being punished for the wickedness that he h a d done to D a v i d (1 K i n g s 2:44). A r e a d e r might well ask why, if D a v i d h a d seen fit not to p u n ish Shimei at the time, S o l o m o n should have been so vindictive as to punish him so long afterwards. T h e Bible is silent on this matter (1 K i n g s 2:44), but J o s e p h u s was already well a w a r e of this objection, for he has S o l o m o n actually teach Shimei (and Josephus's readers) a lesson in the philosophy of punishment: evildoers gain nothing by not being punished at the time of their crimes. Rather, during the time in which they think themselves secure because they have suffered nothing, their punishment increases a n d becomes m o r e serious than that which they w o u l d have suffered at the time of their wrongdoing (Ant. 8.20). Significantly, in the crucial scene in which G - d in a d r e a m offers S o l o m o n w h a t e v e r gift he wishes, in the Bible, S o l o m o n asks for an understanding m i n d to govern the people (1 K i n g s 3:9). For Josephus, such wisdom is surely important;
592
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
a n d S o l o m o n does, indeed, ask for a sound mind a n d good understanding (Ant 8.23), but the key point is that he regarded these gifts as necessary so that he might j u d g e the people in truth a n d justice. W e m a y discern a n o t h e r indication of the importance of justice for J o s e p h u s in an addition that he makes to the biblical description of Solomon's palace. W h e r e a s the Bible is content m e r e l y to give the dimensions of the various parts of the palace (1 K i n g s 7 : 2 - 5 ) a n d states that it contained a porch of j u d g m e n t (1 K i n g s 7:7), J o s e phus adds further details on the use of the palace for the administration of justice (Ant 8.133). In particular, he describes a great and beautiful hall, supported by m a n y pillars, built to a c c o m m o d a t e a large audience for j u d g m e n t s a n d state cases a n d to provide a place w h e r e litigants might gather. W h e r e a s the Bible is content merely to mention the porch of j u d g m e n t (1 K i n g s 7:7), J o s e p h u s describes it as magnificent (8ia7Tp€7Trjs) (Ant 8.134). Connected
with the
quality of justice
are the virtues of
magnanimity
(
31
T h e Bible notes that in r e t u r n for the gifts of w o o d and gold that H i r a m gave to S o l o m o n , S o l o m o n gave H i r a m twenty cities in Galilee (1 K i n g s 9:11). T h e n , con t r a r y to w h a t w e w o u l d expect in view of the w a r m friendship between S o l o m o n a n d Hiram, the Bible reports that H i r a m was displeased with this gift (1 K i n g s 9 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . In Josephus's version, S o l o m o n is much m o r e generous, in that he p r e -
31. On Josephus's ascription of the quality of generosity to Jews generally, see his statements on vintagers (Ant. 4.235-36), opposition to selfishness in general (Ant. 4.238), and the Israelites' magna nimity to the Benjaminites (Ant. 5.167).
SOLOMON
593
sents H i r a m with w h a t he calls great gifts (Ant. 8.141), sending him every year, as the Bible indicates, grain, wine, a n d oil (2 C h r o n . 2:10); a n d H i r a m is much m o r e pleased, since, as Josephus explains, he was always in need of these things, inas much as he inhabited an island. A s to Solomon's gift of the cities in Galilee to H i r a m , this presents two p r o b lems. In the first place, w e m a y well w o n d e r at Solomon's readiness to give up a portion of the biblical L a n d of I s r a e l .
32
Second, it is embarrassing w h e n one's gift
does not find favor. Josephus offers an explanation as to w h y S o l o m o n gave H i r a m these cities in Galilee, namely, that the area was not far from Tyre (2 C h r o n . 2:10). A s to Hiram's displeasure with the gift, Josephus's H i r a m explains that he has n o need (Sefcrflcu) of the cities (Ant. 8.142). S o l o m o n likewise manifests his generosity t o w a r d the Q u e e n
of Sheba.
W h e r e a s the Bible says that S o l o m o n gave h e r all that she requested, in addition to w h a t he gave h e r according to his ability (1 Kings 10:13), Josephus's S o l o m o n goes further in his generosity, showing his magnanimity (ixeyaXo^poavvrjv)
b y giv
ing h e r w h a t she asks for even m o r e readily than w h a t he presented to h e r of his o w n choice (Ant. 8.175).
Piety A n indication of the importance of the virtue of piety for Josephus's S o l o m o n m a y be seen from the fact that the n o u n "piety" (cvocficia) occurs six times a n d the ad jective "pious" (evo€fir)s) five times in his S o l o m o n pericope, whereas the f o r m e r t e r m appears thirty-six times a n d the latter eleven times in the entire first eleven books of the Antiquities, which contain Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e of the Bible. This means that 23 percent of the occurrences of these words are found in connection with S o l o m o n , even though the S o l o m o n pericope constitutes only about 7 p e r cent (252 p a r a g r a p h s out of 3,777) of the portion of Josephus's w o r k relating to the biblical period. A s already noted, in his initial instructions to S o l o m o n , David urges him to be pious (€vo€fir)s), just, a n d brave (Ant. 7.338). Thereafter, w h e n he gives orders to have S o l o m o n anointed king, David, in an extrabiblical addition, instructs his son to rule with piety (evoeftws)
a n d justice (Ant. 7.356). W h e n David
commends
S o l o m o n to the leaders of the people, he assures him that G - d ' s promises will be fulfilled, a n d that his reign will be prosperous, if he shows himself to be pious (evae^rj) a n d j u s t a n d an observer of the nation's laws (Ant. 7.374). Finally, in his dying charge to S o l o m o n , D a v i d exhorts S o l o m o n to be just to his subjects a n d
32. See the comment on this passage by thefifteenth-centuryAbarbanel. He concludes that giving away part of the Land of Israel is contrary to accepted Jewish law, and that the cities were to remain part of the Land of Israel, but that they were given to Hiram to extract their produce during the period of the contract.
594
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
pious (cvoe^et)
t o w a r d G - d , a n d to keep His commandments, since if he trans
gresses a n y of His ordinances, he will t u r n G - d ' s kind watchfulness into hostility (Ant. 7 . 3 8 4 ) . This coupling of piety a n d justice is, significandy a leitmotif running through Sophocles' Oedipus the King a n d Oedipus at Colonus. T h u s w e find Oedipus's state m e n t that he has c o m e to Colonus "as one sacred and pious" (Upos evoefirjs
re)
(Oedipus at Colonus 287). In an obvious reference to himself, Oedipus says that the gods "look on the god-fearing a m o n g m e n
[TOV
evoefirj
fipoTCJv]
and on the god
less, a n d that never yet hath escape been found for an impious mortal on the earth" (Oedipus at Colonus 279). Oedipus's concern with piety is seen also in his r e quest to Antigone to lead him "to a spot w h e r e I m a y speak a n d listen within piety's domain [evoefielas]"
(Oedipus at Colonus 1 8 8 - 9 1 ) . T h a t piety is (ironically,
since Oedipus has proved to be the most impious of men, in that he has slain his o w n father a n d m a r r i e d his o w n mother) also associated with Oedipus is seen in Creon's words n e a r the end of Oedipus the King (1429-31) ordering Oedipus to be taken into the house as quickly as possible, [evoeftelas]
"for it best accords with piety
that kinsfolk alone should see a n d h e a r a kinsman's woes." Similarly,
the attribute of justice is constandy associated with Oedipus. He is declared by the C h o r u s to c o m e from a just (SIKCLIOS)
race ( Oedipus at Colonus 938); he attacks C r e o n
for using the plea of justice (SLKCLIOV)
craftily (Oedipus at Colonus 762); a n d he refers
sarcastically to C r e o n as "the righteous" (hUaiov) (Oedipus at Colonus 992) but, a few lines later, designates him as one w h o is not a just m a n (Oedipus at Colonus 1000). This association of justice with Oedipus is seen in m a n y other places as well, often indirecdy.
33
Like A e n e a s in Virgil's Aeneid, S o l o m o n is portrayed by Josephus as distin guished particularly for his piety t o w a r d his parents. Thus, in an extrabiblical touch, S o l o m o n shows piety in the h o n o r he exhibits at his father's funeral. W h e r e a s in the Bible, w e are told m e r e l y that David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David (1 K i n g s 2:10), Josephus expatiates that S o l o m o n in terred him with the splendor customary at royal funerals a n d buried a great abun dance of wealth with him (Ant. 7.392). S o l o m o n , in an addition to the biblical text, shows e x e m p l a r y piety t o w a r d his mother. Thus, according to the Bible, w h e n Bathsheba makes h e r request on be half of A d o n i j a h , S o l o m o n says simply: "Ask on, m y mother, for I will not deny you" (1 K i n g s 2:20). Josephus's version, however, is much m o r e elaborate and rep resents compliance with h e r request as a matter of piety: "It is a sacred duty," he asserts, "to do everything for a m o t h e r " (Ant. 8.8). He then reproaches h e r for even suggesting that she is not sure to obtain w h a t she will request. We can perceive Solomon's reputation for piety in the extrabiblical r e m a r k that w h e n J o a b , realizing that S o l o m o n would seek to avenge his participation in
33.
See Oedipus the King 280, 675,
831-32, 880, 913, 957,
971, 1028, 1138,
851-53, 883-89, 1282-83; Oedipus at Colonus 740-42, 806-7, 825, 1202,
1498.
SOLOMON
595
Adonijah's plot, fled for refuge to the altar, he imagined that he would be safe there because of Solomon's piety (evaefieias)
t o w a r d G - d (Ant. 8.13). In contrast,
the Bible says merely that he fled to the tent of the L - r d , with no indication that he relied on the king's piety in doing so (1 K i n g s 2:28). F u r t h e r m o r e , and most im portant, whereas the Bible declares that S o l o m o n thereupon sent Benaiah to kill J o a b , a p p a r e n d y with no regard for the sanctity of the altar a n d with no concern for giving J o a b an opportunity to defend himself (1 K i n g s 2:29), Josephus, clearly a w a r e that this w o u l d raise serious questions about Solomon's reputation for piety and justice, adds that S o l o m o n sent Benaiah with orders to remove him from the altar, presumably so that there w o u l d be no desecration of the altar itself, a n d to bring him to the j u d g m e n t hall in o r d e r to give him an opportunity to defend him 34
self (Ant. 8 . 1 4 ) . W h e r e a s the biblical narrative declares simply that J o a b paid the price for putting to death two m e n (Abner and Amasa) m o r e righteous than he a n d says nothing, one w a y o r the other, about Solomon's role therein (1 K i n g s 2:32), Josephus explicidy exculpates S o l o m o n and declares him blameless for Joab's death (Ant. 8.15). In fact, v e r y significandy the only reason w h y D a v i d him self did not put J o a b to death, according to Josephus's addition to the biblical ac count (1 K i n g s 2:5), was that J o a b h a d hitherto been stronger and m o r e powerful than David (Ant. 7.386). It was out of envy (tpqXoiwi'av),
says Josephus, in another
addition to the Bible (1 K i n g s 2:5), that J o a b h a d killed A b n e r and A m a s a , a n d this again helps to justify Solomon's action (Ant. 7.386). T h e Bible r e p o r t s that S o l o m o n loved the L - r d , w a l k e d in the statutes o f D a v i d , a n d sacrificed at the high places (1 K i n g s 3:3). It then states that S o l o m o n w e n t to G i b e o n to sacrifice there (1 K i n g s 3:4), but it does n o t c o n n e c t this w i t h w h a t follows, namely, t h a t at G i b e o n , G - d a p p e a r s to S o l o m o n in a d r e a m a n d promises to give h i m w h a t e v e r he asks for (1 K i n g s 3:5). J o s e p h u s , in typical fashion, connects these r e m a r k s a n d states specifically that b y v i r t u e o f h a v i n g offered the sacrifices, S o l o m o n seemed to h a v e h o n o r e d G - d greatly, a n d that, as a result, G - d a p p e a r e d to h i m t h a t night a n d b a d e h i m choose w h a t gifts He should confer u p o n h i m in r e t u r n for his piety (evoefieias)
(Ant.
8.22). This piety manifests itself in Solomon's reaction w h e n he awakens after the d r e a m in which G - d promises him the gift of wisdom (1 K i n g s 3:15). In the Bible, w e are told merely that S o l o m o n awoke, and behold it was a dream. In Josephus's version, S o l o m o n responds with such spontaneous enthusiasm that he actually at once leaps from his bed and, in his piety, does obeisance to Him (Ant. 8.25). Solomon's greatest act of piety was, of course, the building of the Temple in J e r u s a l e m . W e m a y note the v e r y significant fact that neither in K i n g s n o r in Chronicles is it stated that S o l o m o n laid the foundations of the Temple. In r a b binic tradition, it is David w h o lays the foundations (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin
34. The rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 48b-49a) has a lengthy account ofJoab's trial before the court headed by King Solomon.
596
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
10.2.29a), whereas J o s e p h u s specifically states that it was S o l o m o n w h o did so (Ant. 8.63). To keep the focus on S o l o m o n , J o s e p h u s omits the statement that S o l o m o n brought in the things—the silver, the gold, a n d the vessels—that D a v i d h a d dedi cated (1 K i n g s 7:51 vs. Ant. 8.99). In adding g r e a d y to the details about Solomon's Temple, J o s e p h u s w o u l d a p p e a r in m a n y cases to be d r a w i n g upon his o w n observations a n d experience as a priest. W h e r e a s the Bible is content to identify the various parts of the building a n d to indicate their dimensions a n d the materials used (1 K i n g s 5:31; 2 C h r o n . 2:8), J o s e p h u s gives additional details that call attention to the careful planning of the structure (Ant. 8.63). In particular, he notes that S o l o m o n h a d the foresight to lay the foundation v e r y deep in the g r o u n d a n d to use as material strong stones ca pable of resisting the w e a r of time. These stones w e r e such as w o u l d grow to the soil a n d be a base a n d support for the structure to be erected u p o n them. Because of their strength from below, they could easily b e a r the great mass (including the precious ornaments) resting on them, the weight of which was n o less than that of the other parts, all of which w e r e designed both for height a n d massiveness a n d for graceful beauty a n d magnificence. F u r t h e r m o r e , he remarks that it was built up to the r o o f of white m a r b l e (Ant. 8.64). J o s e p h u s adds a second story to the building (Ant. 8.64), such as is not found in the biblical account (1 K i n g s 6 : 2 - 3 6 ; 2 C h r o n . 3:3-4:22). In a nonscriptural s u m m a r y of his description of the vessels in the Temple, Josephus states that S o l o m o n m a d e all these things at much expense (TToXvreXws) and with great magnificence (jieyaXoTrpeircos) to the h o n o r of G - d , sparing n o cost a n d acting with utmost munificence (^iXoripiia) (Ant. 8.95).. In describing the Tem ple courts, J o s e p h u s adds to the biblical narrative (1 Kings 7:51) the statement that the third court was so wonderful as to be beyond all words, a n d even, so to speak, beyond all sight, since S o l o m o n filled up with earth great valleys, into which one could not look without difficulty, since they w e r e of such great depth (Ant. 8.97). He likewise adds details concerning the a r r a n g e m e n t of the furniture in the Temple (Ant. 8 . 1 0 4 - 5 ) . Josephus gives precise n u m b e r s about the Temple w h e r e these are missing in the Bible. Thus, for example, the Bible simply states that S o l o m o n m a d e side chambers r o u n d about, without specifying their n u m b e r (1 K i n g s 6:5); Josephus, however, perhaps on the basis o f a passage in Ezekiel (40:17), which speaks of thirty chambers, specifies that there w e r e thirty small chambers, each of which was five cubits in length a n d width a n d twenty cubits in height. These, surrounding the structure on the outside, w e r e to hold it together by their compactness and n u m ber; furthermore, there w e r e doors within them leading from one to the other (Ant. 8 . 6 5 - 6 6 ) . W h e r e a s the Bible asserts that the n u m b e r of vessels in the Temple w e r e exceedingly m a n y (1 K i n g s 7:47), J o s e p h u s is v e r y specific in stating that there w e r e twenty thousand vessels of gold a n d forty thousand of silver (Ant. 8.89). A c c o r d i n g to the biblical text, there w e r e five candlesticks on the right side a n d five on the left (1 K i n g s 7:49); in Josephus's version, these have become n o fewer than ten thou-
SOLOMON
597
sand l a m p stands (Ant. 8.90). T h e Bible does not cite the n u m b e r of pitchers, bowls, censers, priesdy garments, a n d musical instruments (1 Kings 7:50); but J o s e phus specifies that there w e r e 80,000 pitchers, 100,000 bowls of gold, 200,000 of silver, 20,000 golden censers, 50,000 other censers, 1,000 high priesdy vestments, 10,000 vestments for o r d i n a r y priests, 200,000 trumpets, 200,000 linen robes for Levites, a n d 40,000 other musical instruments for singing psalms (Ant. 8 . 9 1 - 9 4 ) .
35
Josephus's additions also enhance the dazzling effect of the Temple. O n several occasions (e.g., Ant. 8.97), he remarks h o w individual aspects, such as the sacred precinct that S o l o m o n m a d e outside the main p a r t of the Temple (corresponding to the Women's C o u r t in Herod's Temple), w e r e wonderful (OavfxaaTov) a n d sur passing all description (Xoyov iravros . . . ju,€i£ov). W h e r e a s in the biblical descrip tion, w e are told m e r e l y that S o l o m o n overlaid the whole Temple with gold (1 K i n g s 6:21), Josephus elaborates on the effect, namely, that the entire Temple, b y virtue of the radiance of its gold overlay, gleamed a n d dazzled the eyes of those w h o entered (Ant. 8.68). W h e r e a s the Bible simply describes the m a n n e r of the building, noting, for example, that the Temple was built of stone finished at the q u a r r y a n d that no tool of iron was used in building it (1 K i n g s 6:7), Josephus adds the editorial c o m m e n t that the whole construction was carried out with great skill (Ant. 8.69). A s to the nonuse of iron tools, again Josephus explains that the stones that w e r e used w e r e "cut fine a n d laid together so n e a d y a n d smoothly that to the beholder there a p p e a r e d no sign of the use of mallets o r other work-tools, but all the material seemed to have fitted together naturally without the use of these things, so that their fitting together seemed to have come about of itself rather than through the force of tools" (Ant. 8.69). He elaborates on the Bible's description that S o l o m o n covered the Temple with paneling and j o i n e d planks of cedar (1 K i n g s 6:9) by adding that he overlaid the Temple on both the inside a n d the outside with boards fastened together with thick chains to lend support a n d strength (Ant. 8.70). Even w h e r e Josephus follows the biblical description closely, he presents a Greek like chorus o f reaction to that description. Thus, in an extrabiblical comment, he remarks that one would m a r v e l to see h o w cunningly the drums of the wheels, which w e r e carved in relief of the same design and united with the sides of the bases, w e r e fitted into the rims of the lavers (Ant. 8.83). Josephus particularly praises the naturalism of the artwork of the Temple. Thus, in describing the base of the laver, Josephus adds to the biblical account (1 Kings 7:36) the statement that the paws of the eagle a n d the lion on which the laver rested w e r e so well fitted to gether that to one looking at them they seemed so realistic as to be one natural growth (av/jL^vra) (Ant. 8.84). F u r t h e r m o r e , Josephus accentuates the beauty and wealth of the Temple (Ant. 8.88); in the Bible, w e are told that H i r a m m a d e lavers, shovels, a n d basins (1
35. These numbers have no biblical basis, nor are they paralleled in the rabbinic literature. Most likely they come from a lost midrash, since it is typical for some of the rabbis to exaggerate the glory of the Temple. Cf., e.g., Rabba's remark to this effect (Tamid 29a).
jg8
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
K i n g s 7:40; 2 C h r o n . 4:11); but J o s e p h u s describes these vessels as being like gold in brightness a n d beauty. Josephus remarks that S o l o m o n spared n o cost in preparing everything for the Temple, but, rather, acted with utmost magnificence in adorning it (Ant. 8.95). A n o t h e r instance w h e r e Josephus adds to the magnifi cence of the Temple is his remark that S o l o m o n set up the bronze altar before the Temple opposite the door, so that w h e n the d o o r was opened, those within the Temple w e r e in a position to see the altar a n d the splendor of the sacrifices (Ant. 8.105). A good example of h o w Josephus's comments a d d to the impression of the Temple's magnificence m a y be seen by comparing the biblical statement noting the completion of the temple ("Thus the w o r k that K i n g S o l o m o n did on the house of the L - r d was finished") (1 K i n g s 7:51) a n d Josephus's much m o r e elabo rate summary, with its air of a m a z e m e n t a n d awe, and its emphasis on Solomon's wealth, zeal, and efficiency: "These works, then, a n d these great a n d beautiful buildings a n d offerings for the Temple K i n g S o l o m o n completed in seven years, making such display both of wealth a n d zeal that the work, which any beholder w o u l d think could hardly have been constructed in the whole course of time [ev TCQ Travrl.
. . xpdvco], was finished in a space of time that was v e r y short w h e n com
p a r e d with the magnitude of the Temple" (Ant. 8.99). Although the magnificence of the Temple a n d of the palace are described in the Bible, w e are told only v e r y briefly about the unusual almug w o o d , such as has not been seen "to this day," which w a s brought by Hiram's fleet from O p h i r a n d that was used to make supports for the Temple a n d for the palace, as well as lyres a n d harps (1 K i n g s 1 0 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s adds a n u m b e r of specific details to en hance this description (Ant. 8 . 1 7 6 - 7 7 ) . First of all, w e are told that the w o o d was brought on a single day; second, that it far surpassed in size a n d beauty any that h a d ever been brought to S o l o m o n before; third, that in addition, pine was brought, which was most unusual, in that it was similar in appearance to the w o o d of fig trees, but whiter a n d m o r e gleaming. Indeed, in connection with the last item, Josephus, editorially a n d apologetically, explains w h y he has mentioned this detail, namely, that n o one m a y r e m a i n ignorant of the nature of genuine pine a n d its difference from other kinds (Ant. 8.178). He also adds to the magnificence of Solomon's drinking cups. In the Bible, w e are told merely that they w e r e m a d e of gold (1 Kings 10:21), whereas J o s e p h u s says that they w e r e m a d e not only of gold but also of precious stones a n d w e r e fashioned with the greatest a r t ((friXorexv&v) (Ant. 8.180). Here, however, as in his account of Solomon's magical powers, J o s e p h u s avoids extravagant details, such as the tradition that the large, heavy stones used in build ing the Temple rose a n d settled by themselves in their p r o p e r places (Midrash Exo dus Rabbah 52.4). In particular, w e do not find in Josephus any of the marvelous de tails telling of Solomon's capture of Asmodeus, king of the demons, in o r d e r to get the shamir, the stone that splits rocks, which he needed for the construction of the Temple, since he h a d been forbidden by G - d to use iron tools (Gittin 68a), as well as the incident in which Asmodeus p a l m e d himself off as K i n g S o l o m o n (see
SOLOMON Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4 : 1 6 6 - 7 2 , a n d 6:299,
n
n
jgg
- 8 0 - 8 5 ) . To be sure, Josephus, in an
extrabiblical comment, explains that it was possible to complete the building of the Temple in the brief period of seven years because G - d assisted in the w o r k (Ant. 8.130), but he avoids explaining precisely h o w G - d helped in the building a n d cer 36
tainly does not, like the rabbinic t r a d i t i o n , mention the aid of angels a n d spirits. A m a j o r indication of Solomon's supreme faith m a y be seen in Josephus's ver sion of Solomon's address to the people on the occasion of the dedication of the Temple. W h e r e a s in the Bible, S o l o m o n speaks sweepingly of the fulfillment of G - d ' s prophecies to David (1 K i n g s 8:15), Josephus's S o l o m o n is a m a n of even greater faith in that he asserts that some of the prophecies h a d been fulfilled but then adds confidendy that the others will likewise come to pass (Ant. 8.109). T h e n , in an addition to the biblical version (1 K i n g s 8 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) , Josephus has S o l o m o n ex hort the people not to despair of anything that G - d has promised them but rather to have faith in view of w h a t they h a d already seen (Ant. 8. n o ) . Josephus adds to Solomon's reputation for piety through his portrayal of Solomon in his prayer upon the dedication of the Temple. In the biblical version, Solomon arises from his knees with his hands spread out toward heaven (1 Kings 8:54). J o s e phus's Solomon is much m o r e demonstrative in his piety. He throws (piiffas) himself upon the ground and does obeisance (irpooKwrioas)
for a long time (Ant. 8.n8).
W e see Josephus's stress on Solomon's piety in the latter's final exhortation to the people at the dedication of the Temple. According to the Bible, S o l o m o n urged the people to keep the c o m m a n d m e n t s (1 K i n g s 8:58). Josephus's S o l o m o n speaks in terms of the virtues, emphasizing to the people that they have received their blessings (SiKaLoavvrjv), 8.121).
37
because
of the two virtues of piety (evoefieiav)
a n d justice
a n d that they will keep them if they hold to these virtues (Ant.
Finally, in an editorial comment, Josephus cites the truism that it is much
m o r e difficult to preserve than to acquire something (Ant. 8.121). W h e n the building of the Temple has been completed, S o l o m o n orders the leaders of the people not merely, as w e find in the biblical text, to bring in the ark (1 K i n g s 8:1; 2 C h r o n . 5:2) but to assemble all the people in o r d e r to see the Tem ple a n d to j o i n them in bringing the ark into it (Ant. 8.99). W h e r e a s the Bible speaks of the sacrifices p e r f o r m e d then (1 K i n g s 8:5), Josephus adds that the ground was drenched with libations a n d that so vast a quantity of incense was b u r n e d that its sweetness penetrated even to people w h o w e r e at a great distance (Ant. 8 . 1 0 1 - 2 ) . Josephus adds to the j o y at the dedication of the Temple by r e marking that the people not only sang, as w e find in the Bible (2 C h r o n . 5 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) ,
36. See Rappaport 1930, 57, no. 237. Moreover, according to the rabbinic tradition (Pesiqta Rabbati during the seven years that it took to build the Temple, no workmen fell sick, and their tools re mained in perfect condition until the building was completed. However, after the Temple had been built, the workmen died, lest they build similar structures for the heathen gods. 37. This collocation of evoefleia, and biKaioovvr] appears frequendy in Josephus: Ant. 6.160, 6.265, 8.124, 8.314, 9- 6, 10.50, 12.56, 14.283, 15.375, 18.117. See Fiedler 1970, 129-34. 6.25a),
I
6oo
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
but that they also danced, a n d remarks that the king, the people, a n d the Levites did not w e a r y o f doing so until they r e a c h e d the Temple (Ant. 8.102). Finally, at the conclusion of the elaborate ceremonies in connection with the dedication of the Temple, J o s e p h u s adds the extrabiblical detail that only w h e n the celebrants h a d h a d enough (evoePeia)
o f the dedication, a n d h a d omitted nothing required by piety
t o w a r d G - d , did the king dismiss t h e m (Ant 8.124).
To show G - d ' s favoring of S o l o m o n m o r e dramatically, J o s e p h u s reports that at the dedication of the Temple, a fire r a n through (StaSpopLov) a n d d a r t e d (a£av) d o w n from the air a n d snatched up (avfjpTTaaev) the sacrifice a n d consumed it in the sight o f all the people (Ant. 8.118). T h e Bible records m e r e l y that the fire c a m e d o w n from heaven a n d consumed the sacrifice (2 C h r o n . 7:1). T h e splendor a n d magnificence of Solomon's celebration of the dedication o f the Temple are stressed in Josephus's picture (Ant. 8.123), as against the m e r e state m e n t in the Bible that S o l o m o n held a feast then (1 K i n g s 8:65; 2 C h r o n . 7:8). In a n o t h e r addition to the Bible (1 K i n g s 8:66; 2 C h r o n . 7:10), Solomon's subjects thank him for his care (-rTpovoias) for t h e m a n d for the display that he has shown t h e m a n d p r a y that G - d m a y g r a n t t h e m S o l o m o n as king for a long time to c o m e (Ant. 8.124). Solomon's stature is further e n h a n c e d by Josephus's statement that so great w a s the j o y a n d m i r t h a n d singing inspired in his subjects by Solomon's achievement in building the Temple that they accomplished their h o m e w a r d j o u r ney from the c e r e m o n y dedicating the Temple without fatigue (Ant
8.124); the
Bible records simply that the people r e t u r n e d "joyful a n d glad o f heart" (1 K i n g s 8:66). Before completing his description of the dedication of the Temple, J o s e p h u s once again reminds the r e a d e r — i n a detail not found in the Bible (1 K i n g s 8:66 a n d 2 C h r o n . 7 : 1 0 ) — o f the size a n d beauty of the ark in the Temple a n d of the great sacrifices a n d feasts that accompanied the dedication of the Temple (Ant. 8.125). O n e of the serious problems that confronted J o s e p h u s w a s h o w to deal with Solomon's setting up of c h e r u b i m in the Temple in a p p a r e n t disregard of the p r o hibition in the Decalogue against the making of images. T h a t J o s e p h u s felt v e r y sensitive about such matters m a y b e seen in his reply to the statement of the archJ e w - b a i t e r A p i o n that Moses set up the statue o f a h u m a n figure o n a pillar in his native city o f Heliopolis in Egypt (Ag. Ap. 2.11). Josephus's a n g r y r e p l y is that w h e n Moses built the first t a b e r n a c l e for G - d , he neither placed in it a statue o f himself n o r instructed his successors to m a k e a n y graven image of this kind (Ag. Ap. 2.12). He
then, significandy
adds that w h e n
S o l o m o n later built the Temple
in
J e r u s a l e m , he too refrained from a n y curiosities of a r t (Trepiepylas, "overelaborations," "unnecessary activities," "improper acts") such as A p i o n h a d alleged. In this connection, w e m a y note that J o s e p h u s w a s even stricter t h a n the rabbis in his interpretation o f the l a w with respect to artistic representations, as w e see, for ex ample, in the case w h e r e he i n f o r m e d the J e w s of Galilee that he w o u l d lead them
SOLOMON
601
to destroy Herod the Tetrarch's palace because it h a d been decorated with images of animals (Life 65). Josephus likewise condemns S o l o m o n for breaking the S e c o n d C o m m a n d m e n t by mounting the "sea" that he set u p as an offering u p o n bronze bulls, a n d surrounding his own throne with the images of lions (Ant. 8.195), whereas the Bible has n o such rebuke (1 Kings 7:25, 10:20), a n d the rabbis, in con trast, declare that all sculptured faces are permissible except that of a h u m a n being (Avodah J?arah 4 3 b ) .
3 8
O n the other hand, w h e n it came to the cherubim in the
inner sanctuary of the Temple, Josephus, apparently a w a r e that these presented a problem, inasmuch as they featured h u m a n faces, explains, in an extrabiblical ad dition, that "no one can say o r imagine w h a t they looked like" (Ant. 8.73).
39
Per
haps the avoidance of the mention of the cherubim later by Josephus (Ant. 8.82, parallel to 1 K i n g s 7:29) is due to this reluctance to present S o l o m o n as a m a k e r of images. His description at this point m a y well be influenced by Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 1:10) (so R a p p a p o r t 1930, 57, no. 135). He likewise omits mention of the cherubim in his description of the laver (Ant. 8.84). A n o t h e r problem that confronted Josephus was h o w to justify the tremendous n u m b e r of animals that w e r e sacrificed during the consecration of the Temple, inasmuch as some of the animals might well have served to feed the p o o r a n d the h u n g r y For the Bible, this is n o problem, a n d w e read that S o l o m o n offered 22,000 oxen a n d 120,000 sheep (1 K i n g s 8:63; 2 C h r o n . 7:5). Josephus has reduced the n u m b e r o f cattle from 22,000 to 12,000 (Ant. 8.122-23); but the main point o f diff erence is that he offers an explanation for the huge n u m b e r of sacrifices, namely, that this was the first time that animals h a d been sacrificed in the Temple, a n d all
38. Avi-Yonah 1961, 23-27, attempts to explain the discrepancy by suggesting that Josephus is re flecting the views of the Pharisees and the masses, whereas the art that has come down to us is that of Sadducean aristocrats; but this is an unlikely hypothesis, since the Sadducees were so few in number (Ant. 18.17), were literalists in their interpretation of the Bible, and apparendy disappeared with the de struction of the Temple, whereas the "liberal" approach to images in art continued. A more likely ex planation for the rabbis' liberalism is that the masses of the people were liberal in matters of artistic rep resentation despite all rulings, and that the rabbis were realistic enough to recognize this, as they were in their attitude toward magic and charms, which are clearly forbidden in the Bible (Deut. 18:10-11) but are nevertheless tolerated (see, e.g., Sanhedrin 68a; Shabbat 62a). Josephus, on the other hand, had no "constituency" and could afford to maintain an unyielding posture. In addition, because he had so many enemies among his fellow Jews (Life 425), Josephus sought to emphasize his loyalty to his ances tral traditions. 39. Elsewhere, Josephus says that in form the cherubim were unlike any that man's eyes have seen (Ant. 3.137). If so, we may remark, they did not violate the Second Commandment, since that com mandment prohibits likenesses of anything in the heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the water under earth, thus presumably permitting representation of objects that are unlike any of these. We may note, however, that at a later point in his narrative, when he describes the lavers and their bases, whereas the Bible states that there were lions, oxen, and cherubim on the panels that were set in the frames (1 Kings 7:29), Josephus has substituted an eagle for the cherubim (Ant. 8.82 and again 8.84), perhaps, as Rappaport 1930, 57, no. 235, suggests, because he has been influenced by Ezekiel's vision (1:10) of the angelic beings with the faces of eagles, lions, and oxen.
602
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the Hebrews with their w o m e n a n d children feasted on them, so that the food was not wasted. F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s the Bible asserts that S o l o m o n held a feast of fourteen days at the time o f the dedication o f the Temple (i K i n g s 8:65), J o s e p h u s adds to the g r a n d e u r of the celebration by r e m a r k i n g that it was splendidly (Xaparpcos) a n d magnificendy (pLeyaXoirpeTrois) celebrated (Ant. 8.123). U p o n the conclusion o f the consecration ceremonies, w h e r e a s the Bible simply states that S o l o m o n sent the people a w a y (1 K i n g s 8:66; 2 C h r o n . 7:10), J o s e p h u s once m o r e calls attention to the glory o f the Temple a n d of the dedicatory ceremonies. In a n extrabiblical r e mark, he states that those w h o h a d brought the ark into the Temple a n d beheld its size a n d beauty a n d h a d p a r t a k e n o f the great sacrifices a n d the feasts finally r e t u r n e d to their respective cities (Ant. 8.125). Finally, a most effective device employed by J o s e p h u s to emphasize the piety of S o l o m o n in connection with the sacrificial service in the Temple is to have the praise for this c o m e from a non-Jew, the Q u e e n o f Sheba. W h e r e a s the Bible has h e r admire the ascent by which S o l o m o n w o u l d go up to the Temple (1 K i n g s 10:5), in J o s e p h u s , as m u c h as she admires Solomon's palace, she marvels n o less at the sacrifices offered daily a n d the care (impLeXes)—something
that w o u l d have
been especially appreciated by a p r o u d , knowledgeable priest such as J o s e p h u s — bestowed on t h e m by the priests a n d Levites (Ant. 8.169). A m a j o r indication o f Solomon's piety is seen in that he applied m o r e energy to the building of the Temple t h a n to the building of his o w n palace. B y deferring the account of the building o f the palace until after the completion o f his description of the dedication o f the T e m p l e ,
40
J o s e p h u s stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f the Temple
a n d diminishes that o f the palace. In the Bible, w e a r e simply informed that it took twenty years to build the two houses (1 K i n g s 9:10), seven years for the Temple (1 K i n g s 6:38) a n d thirteen years for the palace (1 K i n g s 7:1). J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e of the objection that S o l o m o n devoted almost twice as m u c h time to build ing his palace for his o w n glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G - d , emphasizes Solomon's piety by adding the significant c o m m e n t that the palace was not built with the same industry (iajrovSa^ero)
with which the Temple
was built (Ant. 8.30). J o s e p h u s adds the extrabiblical r e m a r k that the palace was much inferior in dignity (a£(as) to the Temple, since the materials with which it was built h a d not been p r e p a r e d so long in advance n o r with the same expense, a n d because it w a s intended as a dwelling place for a king a n d not for G - d (Ant. 8.131).
4 1
40. The Septuagint and Lucianic texts defer the description of the palace until 1 Kings 7:38, but Josephus postpones it even further, until after his account paralleling 1 Kings 8. 41. The rabbinic tradition, too, notes that Solomon was less zealous in building his palace than in constructing the Temple. See Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.5; Sanhedrin 104b; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 14.1; Pesiqta Rabbati 6;
and Midrash
Proverbs 22.29,
cited by Rappaport 1930,
132,
n.
242.
SOLOMON
603
DETHEOLOGIZING W h e r e a s in the Bible, G - d tells the prophet Nathan that He will be Solomon's fa ther a n d that S o l o m o n will be His son (2 S a m . 7:14), Josephus, realizing that this w o u l d seem reminiscent of pagan claims that kings such as Romulus a n d A l e x a n der w e r e the sons of gods, is careful to revise this statement ever so slighdy, so that G - d promises, not that he will be Solomon's father, but rather that he will watch over S o l o m o n a n d care for him "as a father for his son" (Ant. 7.93). A g a i n , w h e n D a v i d repeats G - d ' s promise, he is careful to say that He h a d promised to watch over S o l o m o n like a father (Ant. 7 . 3 3 7 ) .
42
J o s e p h u s is careful not to engage in extravagant remarks with regard to G - d ' s deeds. Thus, the statement in the Bible w h e r e S o l o m o n blesses G - d , " W h o spoke with his m o u t h unto David m y father and hath with His h a n d fulfilled it" (1 K i n g s 8:15), raises questions, inasmuch as, great as w e r e G - d ' s achievements for David, the latter's w o r k was left incomplete, since He did not allow David to build the Temple. Josephus, without denying the p o w e r of G - d , carefully limits it by stating that S o l o m o n m a d e clear to his people the p o w e r a n d providence of G - d , in that most of the future events that He h a d revealed to David h a d actually come to pass a n d that the rest w o u l d likewise be fulfilled (Ant. 8.109). A s to miracles, in connection with the dedication of the Temple, the Bible de picts a tremendous miracle, namely, that w h e n the priests emerged from the Tem ple, so great a cloud filled it that the priests could not stand to minister (1 K i n g s 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . Josephus gives a much m o r e precise a n d rationalized description of the cloud: it was, he says, neither threatening n o r like a swollen rain cloud in the win ter season, but rather a diffused a n d temperate cloud that streamed into the Tem ple (Ant. 8.106). This cloud, he continues, produced in the minds of all an impres sion ((fravraolav,
"fancy," "imagination") a n d belief (Sofav) that G - d
had
descended into the Temple, the implication being that this was merely a belief a n d 43
perhaps even a fancy, a n d as such need not be shared by o t h e r s . Nevertheless, de spite his tendency to deemphasize the supernatural in his narrative, J o s e p h u s ob viously felt that a statement that G - d h a d assisted in the w o r k of building the Tem ple w o u l d lend added stature to Solomon's achievement since it w o u l d indicate that he h a d divine approval, a n d so he makes such a statement (Ant. 8.130), al-
42. Likewise, whereas, according to the Bible, when Solomon was born, David sent a message by the hand of Nathan the prophet and called his name Jedidiah, that is, "beloved of the L-rd" (2 Sam. 12:27), Josephus omits this name of Solomon, with its divine associations (Ant. 7.158). 43. Although he seems to be aware of many traditions and particularly, we may add, concerning the Temple, of which he, as a priest and, indeed, of the highest order of the priests (Life 2), was espe cially knowledgeable, Josephus, who generally avoids the supernatural where possible, does not men tion the tradition (MoW Qatan 9a; Shabbat 30a; Sanhedrin 107b; see Ginzberg 1909-38, 4:156, and 6:296, n. 65) that at the dedication of the Temple, a heavenly voice was heard to proclaim that all those pre sent would have a share in the world to come.
604
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
though there is no parallel to this in the original (i Kings 6:38). Moreover, the reader might well ask h o w so great a structure could have been completed in so short a time. T h e answer is, as J o s e p h u s himself says, that divine assistance helped in the speedy completion of the work. Josephus must have h a d a p r o b l e m about w h a t to do with the scene at the con clusion of Solomon's p r a y e r at the dedication of the Temple. A c c o r d i n g to the Bible, fire came d o w n from heaven a n d consumed the b u r n t offering and the sac rifices—an obvious miracle (2 C h r o n . 7:1). O n the one hand, Josephus, with his taste for the spectacular, declares that fire darted out a n d leaped upon the altar; but, on the other hand, he makes the miracle m o r e credible by a slight but signifi cant change: he does not say that the fire came from heaven but rather asserts that it came from the air, and hence, presumably, happened naturally (Ant. 8.118). Josephus is aware that his rationalistic readers would have difficulty believing that G - d had appeared to His biblical heroes. Hence, the deemphasizing of the role of G - d , as we have observed. In connection with Solomon, whereas in the Bible, G - d appears direcdy to Solomon (1 Kings 9:2; 2 C h r o n . 7:12), in Josephus, there is no in dication that G - d appeared to Solomon; rather, w e are told that Solomon had a dream in which it was revealed to him that G - d had heard his prayer (Ant. 8.125; so also Ant. 8.196). T h e rationalistic reader in antiquity, w h o would have had difficulty believing that G - d had appeared direcdy to a person, could readily accept visions in dreams, since even the Epicureans found significance in them and insisted that dreams were real things, being just w h a t they appear to b e .
4 4
A n o t h e r instance of de theologizing m a y be seen in Josephus's version of the biblical statement that the Q u e e n of S h e b a h e a r d of Solomon's fame because of the n a m e of the L - r d , that is, she h e a r d that Solomon's wisdom was not innate but rather divinely inspired (1 K i n g s 10:1). In his p a r a p h r a s e of this passage, Josephus omits the role of G - d as explaining Solomon's wisdom. Instead, he says, she h e a r d of Solomon's excellence (aperrjv) a n d understanding (cfrpovrjoiv) (Ant. 8.165). W h e r e a s in the Bible, w e h e a r that everyone sought the presence of S o l o m o n to h e a r his wisdom, "which G - d h a d put in his heart" (1 K i n g s 10:24), Josephus to tally omits the divine role in Solomon's acquisition of wisdom a n d says, rather, that the kings desired to see him with their o w n eyes, inasmuch as they did not credit w h a t h a d been told them, because of its seeming hyperbole (Ant. 8.182). Finally, after w e are told that S o l o m o n was led by his foreign wives into sin, whereas in the biblical version, G - d appears to S o l o m o n and informs him that be cause of his sins, his kingdom, except for one tribe, would be t o r n a w a y from his
44. See DeWitt 1954, 257, and Asmis 1984, 147-48. According to the Epicurean Diogenes of Oenoanda (fr. 7, cols. 1-2 Chilton), appearances in dreams are not empty, as the Stoics held, because they consist of bodies, even though these are very fine. Furthermore, according to the Epicureans, as cited by Diogenes Laertius (10.32), "The appearances that occur to madmen and in dreams are true, for they move." In particular, for the Epicureans, dreams furnish a hint of the form of the gods (see Ci cero, De Natura Deorum 1.18.46).
SOLOMON
605
son (1 K i n g s 11:11), in Josephus, this information is conveyed to him not by G - d di recdy but rather through a prophet, thus again minimizing direct intervention by G-d
(Ant. 8 . 1 9 7 ) .
45
It is i m p o r t a n t to note, however, that Josephus does not deny the p o w e r of G-d,
since most of his readers, both non-Jewish a n d Jewish, w o u l d have acknowl
edged this. In fact, it is significant that whereas, after S o l o m o n is told w h a t is to h a p p e n to his kingdom, the Bible proceeds to mention that G - d raised up an ad v e r s a r y against him, namely, H a d a d the Edomite (1 K i n g s 11:14), Josephus, in an addition to the Bible, emphasizes the speed with which G - d works, noting that it did not take a long time after the prophet's announcement before G - d set up an e n e m y against Solomon; rather, He did so immediately (Ant. 8.199).
S O L O M O N A S BUILDER AND A D M I N I S T R A T O R O n e of Solomon's great achievements was the extension of the walls, begun by David, surrounding J e r u s a l e m . W h e r e a s the Bible states merely that S o l o m o n built a wall a r o u n d J e r u s a l e m (1 Kings 3:1), Josephus is much m o r e emphatic, de claring that he m a d e the walls (plural) of J e r u s a l e m much greater and stronger than they h a d been previously (Ant. 8.21). W h e r e a s the Bible declares merely that S o l o m o n built the wall of J e r u s a l e m (1 Kings 9:15), Josephus elaborates that S o l o m o n saw that the walls needed towers and other defenses for security a n d consequendy repaired them a n d raised them higher with great towers, since he thought that even the surrounding walls should be in keeping with the dignity of the city (Ant. 8.150). This achievement was so m e m o r a b l e that in his description of J e r u s a l e m on the verge of being captured by Titus, Josephus makes a point of mentioning that David, S o l o m o n , and their successors took pride in the w o r k of building the wall, which m a d e the city well-nigh impregnable (War 5.143). J o s e phus also praises S o l o m o n for his " G - d - g i v e n wisdom" in surrounding with great works (ipyaaiais,
i.e., walls) the hill on which the Temple was built (Ant. 15.398).
T h e Bible records that S o l o m o n built the walls of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, a n d G e z e r (j K i n g s 9:15). Josephus presents a much enhanced picture of Solomon's activity in building the defenses of his kingdom, since he relates that he built cities that w e r e counted
among
the most powerful—namely, Hazor,
Megiddo, a n d G e z e r (Ant. 8.151). W h e r e a s the biblical text states that S o l o m o n r e built G e z e r (1 K i n g s 9:17), Josephus, the military expert, explains w h y he did so, namely, because it was naturally strong a n d could be useful in time of w a r o r rev olution (Ant. 8.152). A p p a r e n d y in order that S o l o m o n a p p e a r concerned for his subjects' enjoyment of life, w e are told that, in addition to those mentioned in Scripture (1 Kings 9 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , S o l o m o n built still other cities, which w e r e conveniendy placed for enjoyment and pleasure a n d were naturally favored with a mild
45. So also in the rabbinic tradition (Seder Olam 20), which names Ahijah as the prophet.
6o6
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
temperature a n d seasonable fruits a n d irrigated with streams of w a t e r (Ant. 8.153). W h e r e a s the Bible v e r y simply asserts that S o l o m o n founded the city of T a d m o r (i.e., Palmyra) in the wilderness (1 K i n g s 9:18), J o s e p h u s gives a lengthy explana tion of w h y h e did so (Ant. 8 . 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) . W h y , the r e a d e r will ask, did S o l o m o n estab lish a city so far f r o m the inhabited parts of Syria? J o s e p h u s replies that only in this place w e r e there springs a n d wells to be found. This, then, is clearly a great credit to Solomon's wisdom a n d foresight, since in this region of the world, w a t e r w a s then, as it is to this v e r y day, a most precious c o m m o d i t y T h e R o m a n s w e r e especially sensitive about the fact that their nation h a d sel d o m b e e n at peace. Hence, Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, p r o u d l y states that S o l o m o n governed the state in perfect peace (im iroXXrjs elprjvrjg) (Ant. 8.21). In o r d e r to emphasize Solomon's achievement in bringing peace a n d its bless ings to his nation, J o s e p h u s expands considerably on the biblical picture, which states simply that the inhabitants of the l a n d w e r e as numerous as the sands by the sea, "eating a n d drinking a n d making m e r r y " (1 K i n g s 4:20). In Josephus's version, on the one h a n d , he avoids the gross exaggeration of c o m p a r i n g the size of the population with the sands by the sea, but, on the other h a n d , while referring to their increase in n u m b e r s as wonderful, he adds several concrete details to call at tention to the economic growth of the l a n d during Solomon's regime, namely, that the people t u r n e d to h u s b a n d r y a n d the cultivation of the soil, a n d that they de voted themselves to increasing their individual holdings a n d to making t h e m m o r e valuable (Ant. 8.38). A s noted, however, J o s e p h u s is careful to avoid u n d u e exaggeration. Thus, w e do not find in his account the statement that S o l o m o n was o n e of the few kings w h o ruled over the entire w o r l d , which occurs frequendy in rabbinic l i t e r a t u r e .
46
J o s e p h u s adds to the p o r t r a y a l of Solomon's economic power. W h e r e a s the Bible asserts that S o l o m o n m a d e a ship in Etzion G e b e r (1 K i n g s 9:26), J o s e p h u s has converted this into m a n y ships (Ant. 8.163). W h e r e a s the Bible says that Solomon's ships c a m e to Ophir, without indicating w h e r e O p h i r is located (1 K i n g s 9:28; 2 C h r o n . 8:18), J o s e p h u s identifies the place with the exotic l a n d of India (Ant. 8 . 1 6 4 ) .
47
T h e same exotic effect is produced by Josephus's addition
about the r a r e w o o d that S o l o m o n i m p o r t e d from the L a n d of G o l d , the biblical Ophir, a n d that was used in the construction of the Temple a n d of Solomon's palace (Ant. 8 . 1 7 6 - 7 7 ) . In his e x p a n d e d description, J o s e p h u s describes the w o o d , declaring that it far surpassed in size (jieyedei)
a n d beauty (KaXXet) a n y that h a d
ever been brought to S o l o m o n previously, a n d that it w a s similar to the w o o d of fig trees but w a s whiter a n d m o r e gleaming (oriXfiei
irXiov).
Since J o s e p h u s v i e w e d the chief goal o f a ruler as bringing peace a n d prosper ity to his nation, he constandy emphasizes these achievements of Solomon's. Thus,
46. See Midrash Song of Songs 1.1.10; Midrash Proverbs 20.88, 30.104; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 11; Midrash
cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:289, n. 40. 47. On Solomon as the Oriental king par excellence, see Griinbaum 1901, 22 ff.
Esther Rabbah, 1.1; and Megillah 11b,
SOLOMON
607
to the biblical description o f Solomon's palace (1 K i n g s 7 : 2 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s adds that it w a s w o r t h y o f note a n d w a s built in a m a n n e r suitable for the prosperity (evSaL/jLovLav)
o f the c o u n t r y a n d o f the king (Ant. 8.132). W h e r e a s the Bible simply
gives the dimensions o f the palace (1 K i n g s 7 : 2 - 5 ) , J o s e p h u s elaborates a n d d e scribes the "great a n d beautiful" (pueyas Kal KaXos) j u d g m e n t hall, supported b y m a n y pillars (Ant. 8.133). H e likewise describes the p o r c h of j u d g m e n t in the palace as magnificent (Starrpeirris) a n d makes the extrabiblical c o m m e n t that the palace contained c h a m b e r s for eating a n d for resting after the discharge o f public busi ness (Ant. 8.134). H e adds to the magnificence of the palace, too, b y remarking that S o l o m o n covered the walls with stones o f great value, o f the sort especially m i n e d for the a d o r n m e n t of temples a n d palaces in a region celebrated for the sites that p r o d u c e d t h e m (Ant. 8.135). W h e r e a s the biblical narrative m e r e l y mentions that there w e r e three rows o f h e w n stones a n d a r o w o f cedar beams in the court a r o u n d the palace (1 K i n g s 7:12), J o s e p h u s g r e a d y elaborates o n the beauty o f the stones and, in particular, o n the realism that w a s achieved b y the sculptors, adding that the fourth r o w "made one a d m i r e the skill o f the sculptors w h o h a d fashioned trees a n d plants o f all kinds, giving shade with their branches a n d the leaves hanging d o w n f r o m them, a n d so exceedingly delicate that o n e w o u l d have imagined that they actually m o v e d a n d w e r e covering the stone u n d e r them" (Ant. 8 . 1 3 6 ) .
48
This high r e g a r d
for realism in a r t w o u l d r e m i n d the literate r e a d e r o f the anecdote related b y Pliny the Elder (Natural History 35.36) o f the contest between Parrhasius a n d Z e u x i s .
49
This e x t r a o r d i n a r y realism, which is not mentioned in the biblical version (1 K i n g s 7:12), is, to be sure, paralleled in rabbinic aggadic literature, which speaks o f golden trees in the Temple that b o r e fruit during the period w h e n the Temple n
stood (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:154, a n d citations in 6:294, - 5®)- But Josephus, as w e see, has avoided the miraculous a n d substituted a rationalistic explanation. J o s e p h u s further develops the b e a u t y a n d extravagance of Solomon's palace, noting that the wall w a s enlivened with various colors (Ant. 8.137). H e adds that
48. Parallel to this realistic account of the sculpture, but with typically miraculous elements added, is the rabbinic tradition that next to the required furniture, Solomon planted golden trees, which bore fruit so long as the building stood. On the other hand, when an enemy entered the palace, the fruit dropped. See Toma 39b; Jerusalem Toma 4..4.1&, Midrash Numbers Rabbah 12.4; Tanhuma B 4.33; Tanhuma
and Midrash Song ofSons Rabbah 3.9, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38,4:154, and 6 : 2 9 4 , - 5^- The rab binic tradition likewise has a number of miraculous details with regard to Solomon's palace. Thus we are told (Targum Sheni 1:2, 5-7) that animals lifted Solomon from step to step when he ascended the throne. Moreover, at the approach of witnesses, the machinery of the throne rumbled. 49. Zeuxis painted some grapes so realistically that birdsflewto peck at them. When Parrhasius exhibited a curtain, Zeuxis demanded that it be drawn so that the painting might be seen. When it turned out that the curtain itself contained the painting, Zeuxis admitted that he had been surpassed, inasmuch as he himself had only managed to deceive the birds, whereas Parrhasius had deceived him, an artist. Similarly, Apelles, we are told, painted a horse so realistically that horses neighed at it. His portraits of people were so realistic that physiognomists were able to discern from their features the year of their death, whether past or future (Pliny, Natural History 35.36). Naso 9;
n
6o8
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
S o l o m o n built other chambers for pleasure, with v e r y long colonnades, a n d with a v e r y splendid gold-filled hall for feasts. T h e other vessels in the hall needed for the service of guests w e r e all m a d e of gold. C o m m e n t i n g further on the size a n d vari ety of Solomon's palace buildings, J o s e p h u s challenges the reader's imagination by saying that it is difficult to describe h o w m a n y larger o r smaller chambers there were a n d h o w m a n y w e r e underground a n d invisible, or h o w beautiful w e r e the groves that served as a refuge a n d shelter for the b o d y in the heat of s u m m e r a n d provided a most delightful view (Ant 8 . 1 3 8 ) .
50
Solomon's reputation as a builder is further enhanced by the compliment that the Q u e e n of S h e b a pays him. W h e r e a s in the Bible, w e are told that w h e n she h a d seen all his wisdom a n d the house that he h a d built, she was breathless (1 K i n g s 10:4-5), Josephus is much m o r e explicit in having h e r admire the palace for its beauty a n d size a n d for the a r r a n g e m e n t of the buildings (Ant 8.168). In the Bible, the queen sees the food of Solomon's table, the seating of his servants, the station of his attendants a n d their attire, a n d his cupbearers (1 K i n g s 10:5); in Josephus's version, this is considerably upgraded to include h e r a m a z e m e n t at the hall called the Forest of Libanos, the lavishness (7roAuTeAeia) of Solomon's tableware and the daily meals, a n d the d e c o r u m (evTrperres) a n d skill with which they w e r e served (Ant 8.169). It is particularly effective that it is a non-Jew, the Q u e e n of Sheba, w h o marvels at the a r r a n g e m e n t of Solomon's buildings. W h e r e a s in the Bible, she says that she h a d not been told half o f the magnificence of Solomon's achievements, a n d w e are not informed about h e r feelings (1 Kings 10:7), in Josephus's version, she goes still further in h e r amazement, since w e are told that she saw these things day
after day and, admiring them beyond measure, was unable to contain h e r
a m a z e m e n t at w h a t she saw, a n d that h e r words to S o l o m o n revealed h o w gready overcome she was by these marvelous sights (Ant 8.170). W h e r e a s in the biblical version, the queen tells S o l o m o n v e r y simply that he has wisdom a n d goodness in excess of that which she h a d h e a r d (1 K i n g s 10:7), Josephus's,queen is much m o r e effusive (Ant 8.171). In the first place, she praises both Solomon's wisdom (ao^tav, "intelligence," "learning") a n d his prudence (cfrpovrjoiv, "practical wisdom," "pru dence in government"); second, she distinguishes between the gifts that he pos sesses in his o w n person and those that he has acquired through being king. W h e r e a s in the Bible, she speaks of the report that she h a d h e a r d of Solomon's deeds a n d wisdom (1 K i n g s 10:6), in Josephus's version, she remarks that she found in Solomon's r e a l m a prosperity far exceeding w h a t she h a d expected (Ant 8.171). S h e adds that the reports she h a d received h a d attempted to persuade only h e r ears but did not make known the dignity (d^tco/xa, "reputation," "prestige," "renown") of his state (Ant 8.172). S h e further adds that she h a d originally not be lieved w h a t h a d been told h e r about S o l o m o n , because of the quantity (TTXTJOOS)
50. Julien Weill, in his annotated translation into French of this portion of the Antiquities, plausibly suggests that these added details, apparendy invented by Josephus, are based on the arrangements of the grandiose buildings erected by Herod.
SOLOMON
609
a n d magnitude (pueyedos) o f w h a t she h a d h e a r d , yet in actuality she h a d witnessed in Solomon's kingdom things far greater. Nevertheless, w h e r e a s the Bible, both in the H e b r e w text a n d in the Septuagint, records that the queen gave the king 120 talents of gold (1 K i n g s 10:10; 2 C h r o n . 9:9), J o s e p h u s (unless, o f course, all the manuscripts are c o r r u p t at this point), w h o might well have been expected to retain this a m o u n t , because it seems to r e d o u n d to Solomon's g l o r y reduces it to 20 talents (Ant. 8.174), p e r h a p s because 120 talents was so large a sum that it might well have been regarded as tribute r a t h e r t h a n a gift; a n d J o s e p h u s seeks to keep the queen a n d S o l o m o n on the same plane. A s noted, Solomon's most m e m o r a b l e achievement was, of course, the building of the Temple. H e r e J o s e p h u s emphasizes Solomon's organizational a n d adminis trative ability. T h u s , the Bible details the levy of 30,000 m e n that he raised a n d notes that each g r o u p of 10,000 spent a m o n t h in L e b a n o n a n d two m o n t h s at home
(1 K i n g s 5 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) ; J o s e p h u s adds an editorial c o m m e n t
commending
S o l o m o n for dividing the l a b o r wisely a n d thus making it less difficult (Ant. 8.58). J o s e p h u s adds to the splendor of the gifts that w e r e given to S o l o m o n . For ex ample, the Bible lists mules a n d horses a m o n g these gifts but provides n o further details (1 K i n g s 10:25). Josephus, on the other h a n d , adds that he received as m a n y mules as could be counted on to please the king's eye by reason of their strength a n d b e a u t y (Ant. 8.183). A s to horses, J o s e p h u s enhances their magnificence by r e marking that they w e r e "trained for beauty of f o r m [evfiopfaav]
a n d for speed
[rdxos] so that there w e r e n o n e m o r e h a n d s o m e o r swifter to c o m p a r e with them, but they w e r e most beautiful o f all in a p p e a r a n c e a n d w e r e also unrivaled in swift ness" (Ant. 8.184). W h e r e a s the Bible m e r e l y gives the n u m b e r of Solomon's horse m e n (1 K i n g s 10:26), J o s e p h u s adds numerous details to enhance their unique splendor (Ant. 8.185). In the first place, they are described as being in the first flower o f youth; secondly they are said to have been o f a conspicuous height, m u c h taller t h a n other men; thirdly, they let their hair hang d o w n to a v e r y great length; fourthly, they sprinkled their h a i r with gold dust "so that their heads sparkled as the gleam of the gold w a s reflected by the sun"; a n d fifthly, they w e r e dressed in tu nics of Tyrian purple. J o s e p h u s also adds to the picture of Solomon's magnificence by reporting that he was accustomed to m o u n t his chariot clothed in a white gar m e n t a n d that, m o u n t e d thus high o n his chariot, he w o u l d go to a place not far from J e r u s a l e m , abounding in parks a n d flowing streams (Ant. 8.186). From the Bible, however, one w o u l d k n o w nothing about this magnificent retreat that S o l o m o n h a d available for leisure a n d recreation (1 K i n g s 10:28). Solomon's projects, as w e see from Josephus's additions, w e r e at once aesthetic a n d practical. Thus, w e are told that S o l o m o n exercised a divine thoughtfulness a n d zeal (Oeiq . . . iirivoiq
re /cat GTrovofj) in all things a n d w a s an a r d e n t lover o f
b e a u t y (<j>i\6i
6io
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS Solomon's skill as an administrator m a y be seen in the w a y he divided his char
iot forces. In this connection, the Bible asserts merely that he assembled chariots (i Kings 10:26). Josephus adds the significant detail that he disposed them in such a way
that there w e r e a definite n u m b e r in each city, while he himself found it nec
essary to keep only a few a r o u n d him (Ant. 8.188). Lest the r e a d e r think that perhaps S o l o m o n merely inherited his military es tablishment from his distinguished father, David, Josephus takes pains to point out that S o l o m o n added to the military strength that he received u p o n his accession to the throne. Significandy the Bible m e r e l y states that he h a d 1,400 chariots a n d 12,000 horsemen (1 K i n g s 10:26). Josephus, however, v e r y carefully notes that S o l o m o n h a d previously h a d 1,000 chariots, presumably inherited from his father, a n d that he increased their n u m b e r by 400 (Ant. 8.183). Even m o r e important than his increasing to 20,000 the n u m b e r of horses that he h a d previously h a d is the fact that that he increased their n u m b e r by 2,000. Josephus is eager to paint a picture of S o l o m o n as a good administrator, one w h o is able to delegate authority, w h o chooses his subordinates well, a n d whose subordinates are able to instruct their underlings righdy. Thus, the Bible mentions 550
officers w h o w e r e appointed by S o l o m o n a n d w h o ruled over the people w h o
worked u n d e r them, with no indication of the instructions that they gave them (1 Kings 9:23). Josephus is much m o r e explicit, stating that S o l o m o n gave the over seers full charge so as to instruct their workers in those tasks a n d activities for which he needed them (Ant. 8.162). Additional evidence of Solomon's skill as an administrator m a y be seen in his choice of J e r o b o a m to supervise his building p r o g r a m . A c c o r d i n g to the Bible, S o l o m o n saw that J e r o b o a m was a diligent worker, a n d so he put him in charge of the forced l a b o r of the house of J o s e p h (1 Kings 11:28). In Josephus's version, S o l o m o n shows h o w good a j u d g e of talent he is by recognizing not only J e r oboam's industriousness but also his noble (yevvalov) and daring (ToXfjarjpov) spirit (Ant. 8.205). W h e r e a s the Bible states that S o l o m o n put him in charge of the work, it does not tell us h o w well he p e r f o r m e d his duties. Josephus, on the other hand, indicates that he supervised the w o r k so well that S o l o m o n r e w a r d e d him with c o m m a n d over the tribe of J o s e p h (Ant. 8.206).
C O N T E M P O R A R Y P O L I T I C A L OVERTONES It is significant that in the biblical text, David, in speaking to his son S o l o m o n , r e calls G - d ' s promise that a son would be b o r n to him w h o w o u l d be a m a n of peace, and that G - d would give him peace from all his enemies r o u n d about (1 C h r o n . 22:9). In Josephus's version, however, G - d ' s promise is not m e r e l y that He would bring peace, which, he adds, is the greatest of all blessings, but also, in terms familiar to the student of Thucydides (2.65, 4.7), X e n o p h o n (Memorabilia 4 . 4 . 1 1 , 4.6.14),
and
Lysias (25.26, 30.13), freedom
from civil dissension
(ardaewv
ipL^vXlcov) (Ant. 7.337). This v e r y phrase, €JJLV\OS ardoLs, "intestinal civil strife," is
SOLOMON
611
found in Solon (4.19), Herodotus (8.3), and Democritus (249). It was Solon's belief (3.28) that the punishment inflicted on a state for transgression of its citizens is p r e cisely this, that it is afflicted by p a r t y strife and civil war. It is precisely civil strife that Josephus decries so v e h e m e n d y in his account of the w a r against the R o m a n s . A s already noted, in his treatment of the attempt of his brother A d o n i j a h to gain the throne, S o l o m o n , on the one hand, shows moderation a n d compassion in letting him off without punishment but, on the other hand, sternly w a r n s him that if he attempts revolution (Kaivoiroiayv) he will p a y dearly for it (Ant. 7.362). This at titude, indeed, reminds one of Virgil's famous statement of the mission of the R o m a n Empire: Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos ("To spare the submissive a n d w a r d o w n the haughty") (Aeneid 6.853). W h e n A d o n i j a h appears before S o l o m o n , the latter, in another addition to the biblical text, magnanimously orders him to r e t u r n h o m e without a n y fear and requests only that he conduct himself well in the future, as this would be to his own advantage (Ant. 7.362). W h e n David calls an assembly of his officers and commends Solomon to them, he asks that just as his own brothers accepted without complaint G - d ' s choice of him to be king, so, in an extrabiblical statement, his other sons should cheerfully ac cept the choice of Solomon, since it is G - d ' s choice, and refrain from civil dissension (araaid^eiv)
(Ant. 7.372). In an additional statement that is, in effect, a kind of editor
ial, and that clearly reflects Josephus's own status as a R o m a n client in the aftermath of the debacle of the Jewish w a r for independence, David remarks that "it is not such a terrible thing to serve even a foreign master, if G - d so wills, and w h e n it is one's brother to w h o m this honor has fallen, one should rejoice at having a share in it" (Ant. 7.373). O n e is reminded of Josephus's address to his fellow J e w s during the siege of Jerusalem urging them to surrender to the Romans, inasmuch as " G - d , w h o went the round of the nations, bringing to each in turn the rod of empire, n o w rested over Italy" (H^r 5.367). Indeed, he insists, "The Deity has fled from the holy places and taken His stand on the side of those with w h o m you are n o w at w a r " (War 5.412). A n o t h e r instance of c o n t e m p o r a r y application m a y be found in Josephus's ex trabiblical r e m a r k that David exhorted the chiefs of the people to assist S o l o m o n in building the Temple a n d to devote themselves wholly to the worship of G - d , a n d that, as a r e w a r d for this, they would enjoy peace (elprjvrjv) and good o r d e r (evvofjiiav, "sound legal order"), with which G - d repays pious (euaejSef?) a n d just (SiKaiovs) m e n (Ant. 7.341). T h e key w o r d here is evvopuia, the opposite of which is ardais.
It is significant that w e find this juxtaposition ofelprjvrj,
evvopuia, a n d SLKTJ
in Hesiod (Theogony 9 0 1 - 0 3 ) , w h e r e w e are told that Zeus's consort Themis (i.e., Law) gave birth to the H o u r s — G o o d Order, Justice, a n d Peace (EvvopLirjv re A IKTJV r e Kal Elprjvrjv), representing the n e w w o r l d o r d e r that Zeus has introduced 51
(van der M e u l e n 1978, 3 2 ) . T h e i r m o t h e r stands for everything that is a n d has al ways been right, proper, a n d c o m m o n practice (Solmsen 1 9 4 9 , 3 4 - 3 5 ) . This reign
51. Solmsen 1949,115, notes that the same profound conviction of a close association between Dike and Eirene that led Hesiod to connect these two sister deities in the Theogony also inspired the section
612
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
of peace a n d h a r m o n y comes immediately after the hard-fought victory of the Olympians against the Titans. T h e opposite of Evvopiir), Avovopuir}, is to be found a m o n g the progeny of Night as the daughter of "Epis ("Strife") a n d close c o m p a n ion of ftrr] ("Disaster") (Theogony 2 2 6 - 3 0 ) . In his great third elegy the famous A t h e n i a n political r e f o r m e r Solon further develops the relationship between Dike and Eunomia. It is the opposite of Eunomia, 8vovop,ir), that he describes as the pathological condition that produced v e r y m a n y ills for the city of Athens, whereas good government (evvopuirj) shows forth all things orderly a n d perfect, stops works of dissension and discord, a n d keeps d o w n hybris a n d surfeit (3.31-39). T h e same juxtaposition of evvopbua, SLKT},
a n d elpr/vr), w h o are denominated the golden
daughters of Themis, "who excels in counsel," and w h o are t e r m e d the guardians of wealth for m e n , is to be found in Pindar (Olympian Odes 1.3.6).
52
Josephus constandy in extrabiblical additions, emphasizes the importance of Solomon's achievement in bringing about peace and avoidance of civil distur bances. T h u s he declares that during his reign, the people enjoyed peace a n d w e r e undisturbed by w a r s and disturbances (rapaxats,
"troubles," "tumults," "uproars,"
"disorders") (Ant. 8.38). In view of the importance that Josephus attached to the concept of liberty, it is extremely significant that, in an addition to the biblical text, he stresses that u n d e r S o l o m o n , the J e w s enjoyed to the fullest the most desirable freedom
(iXevdepias)
(Ant. 8.38) a n d that none o f them w e r e slaves (e&ovXevev, Ant. 8.161); n o r would it have been reasonable for them to be such, inasmuch as they h a d so m a n y subject nations from which to raise a force of serfs.
53
A m a j o r catalyst in promoting civil strife, according to Josephus, is envy. In fact, in his dying charge to S o l o m o n , David, not merely, as in the Bible, exhorts him to r e m e m b e r w h a t J o a b did to A b n e r a n d A m a s a (1 Kings 2:5), but also notes that he h a d acted out of envy (^TJXOTVITiav)
(Ant. 7.386).
Josephus is likewise commenting u p o n the c o n t e m p o r a r y scene in his condem nation of external attacks on the J e w s , which, he asserts, w e r e spread by h e a r s a y Thus, according to Josephus, A p i o n , the archcalumniator of the J e w s , said that he h a d h e a r d from "old people" that Moses was a native of Heliopolis in Egypt (Ag.
of Hesiod's Works and Days (225 ff.) that proclaims that the city that pays due honor to Justice will enjoy the blessings of Peace. The juxtaposition of evvofxta (described as aa6>pa)v, i.e., "prudent," "discreet") and elprjvr) is likewise found in Bacchylides (13 [12] 182-89, while the juxtaposition of 81/07 and evvofxia occurs in Bacchylides 15.54-55. 52. One will recall that e w o / u a is the tide of a famous poem (no. 2) by Tyrtaeus; cf. Aristode, Poli tics 5.7.1307A1. 53. Begg 1993a, 14, n. 43,findsa contradiction in a later passage (Ant. 8.213), in which the leaders of the people and Jeroboam urge Rehoboam to lighten their bondage (SouAeias) somewhat. But this latter scene, we may remark, takes place after the death of Solomon; and the alleged bondage may refl ect the condition of the Israelites in the last years of Solomon's reign. Or, alternatively, we may suggest that the delegation is exaggerating the plight of the people and taking advantage of the relative weak ness of the new ruler.
SOLOMON
613
Ap. 2.13). Josephus answers sarcastically that while A p i o n , literary critic though he was, could not positively have identified the birthplace of H o m e r o r of Pythagoras, on the strength of the report of old m e n
(OLKOTJ),
he nonetheless n a m e d Moses
5
birthplace, with an assurance that proclaimed him a liar. W e m a y suggest that Josephus is similarly attacking hearsay reports when, after mentioning that the Q u e e n of S h e b a wished to be convinced of Solomon's virtue a n d understanding by experience a n d not by hearsay
(OLKOTJS),
he then inserts an editorial-like digres
sion that hearsay is likely first to give assent to a false belief a n d then convince one of the opposite, since it depends wholly on those w h o bring reports (Ant. 8.166). A n u m b e r of additions in Josephus's portrayal of S o l o m o n are intended, vis-a vis the c o n t e m p o r a r y scene, to answer the charge of misanthropy and to demon strate the excellent relations between J e w s and non-Jews. W h e r e a s in the Bible, w e read only that K i n g H i r a m of Tyre sent his servants to S o l o m o n w h e n he h e a r d that he h a d been anointed king (1 K i n g s 5:15), Josephus adds that H i r a m was over j o y e d a n d sent him greetings a n d congratulations on his good fortune (Ant. 8.50). S o l o m o n , in turn, expresses his gratitude to H i r a m for his aid in presenting him with cedar w o o d for the Temple. W h e r e a s the Bible states simply that, in return, S o l o m o n gave H i r a m 20,000 measures of wheat for his household a n d twenty measures of beaten oil (1 K i n g s 5:25), Josephus's S o l o m o n goes much further in ex pressing his gratitude, in that he not only adds 20,000 measures of wine to the gifts specified in the Bible but also commends (iir^veGe) goodwill (evvoiav)
Hiram's zeal (irpoSvfxiav)
and
(Ant. 8.57). Finally, whereas the Bible states that H i r a m a n d
S o l o m o n m a d e a league together (1 Kings 5:26), Josephus elaborates that the friendship of H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n increased through these things, so that they swore that it should continue forever (Ant. 8.58). T h a t the friendship between S o l o m o n a n d H i r a m was important in refuting the charge of misanthropy m a y be seen from the fact that Josephus devotes a goodly portion of his apologetic treatise Against Apion ( 1 . 1 0 0 - 2 7 )
t o
reproducing ev
idence from the Phoenician archives a n d from the works of Dios a n d M e n a n d e r of Ephesus to illustrate the excellent relations between the two kings and to confirm the antiquity of the Temple (Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 0 6 - 8 ) .
54
T h e r e is good reason, says J o s e
phus, w h y the erection of the Temple should be mentioned in the Tyrians' records, since H i r a m , king of Tyre, was a friend of Solomon's and, indeed, h a d inherited this friendship from his (Hiram's) father (Ag Ap. 1.109-10). According to Josephus, it was the non-Jew, Hiram, w h o inherited the friendship from his father, whereas in the Bible, it is S o l o m o n w h o inherits from his father a friendship with H i r a m (2 S a m . 5:11; 1 K i n g s 5:1). Josephus, for apologetic reasons, exults in this friendship (Ag Ap. 1.110). Thus, whereas in the Bible, H i r a m simply sent cedar trees to D a v i d (2 S a m . 5:11), Josephus says that H i r a m cut down the finest timber from M o u n t
54. The correspondence between Solomon and Hiram and their friendship are cited and dis cussed at length by Eupolemus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.34.1-20).
614
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Libanus (Ag. Ap. I.IIO). T h a t this friendship carried with it a great deal of prestige m a y be deduced from the fact, p r o u d l y noted by Josephus, that the Phoenicians w e r e an ancient people, a n d that H i r a m lived m o r e than 150 years before the founding of C a r t h a g e (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 7 - 1 8 ) .
55
In a most unusual digression, Josephus
calls special attention to the fact that copies of the correspondence between H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n are to be found not only in the Bible but also in the Tyrian archives (Ant. 8.55). He adds that he has recorded these matters in detail because he wants his readers to know that he has related nothing m o r e than w h a t is true a n d that he has not, by inserting into his history various plausible (inOavols) (eirayoiyols)
a n d seductive
passages m e a n t to deceive (aVarr/v) a n d entertain (nzpi/jiv), attempted
to avoid critical inquiry (igeraoiv)
(Ant. 8.56). This passage is, of course, reminis
cent of Thucydides' implied attack (1.21.1) on Herodotus for composing a w o r k with a view rather to pleasing (TrpoGayoyyorepov) the ear than to telling the truth, and of his insistence that his own history is not intended as "a prize-essay to be h e a r d for the m o m e n t , but as a possession for all time" (1.22.4). Josephus then con cludes with an apologia for his craft as historian: "Nor should w e be indulgendy held blameless if w e depart from w h a t is p r o p e r to a historical narrative; on the c o n t r a r y w e ask that no hearing be given us unless w e are able to establish the truth with demonstrations [dTroSel^ecos] loxvpcov]"
a n d convincing evidence
[reKpLrjpltov
(Ant. 8.56).
T h e fact that, according to Josephus, m a n y of the riddles a n d problems that H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n sent each other w e r e still preserved in Tyre in Josephus's o w n d a y (Ag. Ap. I . I I I ) is important not only in building up Solomon's reputation for wisdom but also for stressing the friendship a n d high respect that a J e w i s h leader h a d for a non-Jew. W h i l e it is true that Josephus does say that S o l o m o n showed greater proficiency and was the cleverer (ao^wrepos)
of the two, it is still quite a
compliment for H i r a m that he could be c o m p a r e d to S o l o m o n , a n d that S o l o m o n found it interesting a n d challenging to exchange problems a n d riddles with him. A s further evidence of the historicity of the relations between S o l o m o n a n d Hiram, Josephus on two occasions cites the words of Menander, w h o translated the Tyrian records from the Phoenician language into G r e e k (Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 4 6 , Ag. A p. 1.116-25). T h e supreme example of Josephus's concern with answering the charge that the J e w s w e r e guilty of hating non-Jews is to be found in Josephus's version of Solomon's p r a y e r at the dedication o f the Temple. According to the biblical ver sion, S o l o m o n prayed that w h e n non-Jews came to the Temple, G - d should grant all of their requests, so that all the peoples of the earth might know His n a m e and fear Him (1 K i n g s 8: 4 1 - 4 3 ) . Josephus says nothing about the peoples fearing Him (Ant. 8.. 1 1 6 - 1 7 ) , perhaps because he thought that this might give the impression that the J e w s w e r e seeking proselytes o r G - d - f e a r e r s — a v e r y sensitive issue for the R o m a n s at this time, because they w e r e afraid that the increasing success of J e w s
55.
On the great value attached to antiquity in ancient times, see Feldman 1993a,
177-200.
SOLOMON
6/5
in winning such adherents would m e a n the end of the old R o m a n w a y o f life. In stead, Josephus adds a n e w dimension to the discussion
by explaining that
Solomon's aim in beseeching G - d thus w a s to demonstrate that J e w s w e r e neither "inhuman [a7rav0poj7roi] by nature n o r unfriendly [aXXorptcDs] to those w h o a r e not o f their o w n country, but wish that all m e n should receive aid from T h e e a n d enjoy T h y blessings" (Ant. 8 . 1 1 7 ) .
56
S o l o m o n might well have been accused by a non-Jewish audience o f an a n tiforeign attitude on the basis o f the biblical passage that h e removed his wife, Pharaoh's daughter, from J e r u s a l e m to a house in another city, "for, he said, m y wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel because the places are holy w h e r e u n t o the ark o f the L - r d hath come" (2 C h r o n . 8:11). Josephus defuses such a charge by omitting this passage completely (Ant. 8.162).
INTERMARRIAGE AND OTHER DEVIATIONS FROM J E W I S H LAW W i t h regard to Solomon, Josephus was confronted with a dilemma. O n the one hand, as w e have seen, he was especially eager to answer the charge that the J e w s hated foreigners. O n the other hand, he h a d to contend with the Bible's strict p r o hibition o f intermarriage. Josephus might have adopted the solution, as he does on m a n y other occasions, o f simply omitting the references to Solomon's numerous non-Jewish wives. But the Antiquities, although directed primarily for apologetic p u r poses to a non-Jewish audience, is also intended for Jewish readers. Hence, he a p p a r e n d y realized that he could not altogether omit reference to Solomon's indiscre tions in m a r r y i n g foreign w o m e n , especially since he seems to have felt that a lesson h a d to be taught to the J e w s of his o w n day, as witness his treatment of the sins of the Israelite youth with the Midianite w o m e n (Ant. 4 . 1 3 1 - 5 5 ) , of Samson with his foreign w o m e n (Ant. 5 . 2 8 6 - 3 1 7 ) , a n d o f Anilaeus with a Parthian w o m a n (Ant. 1 8 . 3 4 2 - 5 2 ) . W h a t Josephus does do, however, is to build u p the stature o f S o l o m o n m o r e than ever while postponing mention o f his marital alliances as long as possible. Thus, whereas the Bible mentions the house that S o l o m o n built for Pharaoh's daughter, w h o m he h a d m a r r i e d (1 K i n g s 7:8), Josephus, w h e n first describing the palace that S o l o m o n built for himself, merely states that he adjoined a hall for the queen without identifying that queen as Pharaoh's daughter (Ant. 8.134). W h i l e it is true that Josephus was v e r y eager to show that J e w s were not hostile toward non-Jews, nevertheless, one of the dangers of Solomon's close contact a n d cooperation with non-Jewish kings was that he, in his concern to show h o w openminded he was, would compromise some of the tenets of the Jewish religion, p a r ticularly in matters of idolatry In general, however, Josephus's plan in his portrayal of S o l o m o n is to show w h a t a great and wise king he was, while demonstrating h o w
56. We may also note that, in connection with the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel, Josephus stresses, in an extrabiblical detail, that the Temple is open to all men, including even the schis matic Samaritans, for worship of G-d (Ant. 11.87).
616
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
even such a great m a n could be misled by i n t e r m a r r i a g e a n d the idolatry con comitant with it. T h e r e is reason to think that J o s e p h u s w a s acquainted with the writings o f Theophilus, a first-century B.C.E. historian, w h o is a p p a r e n d y the same as the Theophilus w h o m he mentions as a historian (Ag. Ap. 1.216), p r e s u m a b l y a n o n Jew,
5 7
w h o h a d m a d e m o r e than passing allusions to the J e w s . Yet, he does not in
clude Theophilus's remark, quoted b y A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o , in t u r n , is quoted by Eusebius (Pr. En 9.34.19), to the effect that S o l o m o n sent to the king of the Tyrians (Hiram) the gold that w a s left from that which H i r a m h a d sent to S o l o m o n . Theophilus then goes on to say that the Tyrian king m a d e a lifelike, fulllength statue o f his daughter (presumably the one given in m a r r i a g e to Solomon) (see Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 37) a n d used a golden column sent by S o l o m o n to cover it. Significandy J o s e p h u s makes n o mention of this affair, since, as a knowl edgeable a n d observant J e w , he realized that contributing to the making of such a statue was a grievous sin, clearly prohibited by the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s (Exod. 20:4). Hence, while J o s e p h u s does mention a golden c o l u m n
58
in the temple o f
Zeus in Tyre (Ant. 8.145), he does not indicate that it was S o l o m o n , as claimed by Eupolemus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.34.18), w h o sent it. It was r a t h e r H i r a m himself who,
according to M e n a n d e r , as quoted b y Josephus, set u p a golden column in
the temple o f Zeus (Ant. 8.145). W h e n , finally, J o s e p h u s comments on Solomon's deviations from biblical law, particularly in matters of i n t e r m a r r i a g e a n d idolatry, unlike the Bible, which, with out a n y introduction o r editorial c o m m e n t , places in immediate juxtaposition Solomon's tremendous economic achievements a n d his marriages with numerous foreign w o m e n (1 K i n g s 11:1), J o s e p h u s begins with an elaborate preface describ ing the time w h e n S o l o m o n w a s the most illustrious o f all kings a n d most beloved of G - d a n d surpassed in understanding a n d wealth all those w h o h a d ruled over the Hebrews before him. He then contrasts this with the time w h e n S o l o m o n a b a n d o n e d his fathers' customs (iOiGpLwv) because he b e c a m e m a d l y e n a m o r e d 59
(eKjjLaveis) of w o m e n a n d indulged in excess (aKpaoiav) posite of the virtue o f m o d e r a t i o n a n d w i s d o m
60
o f passion—the v e r y op
— a n d , in particular, because he
57. At this point in his treatise, Josephus is trying to establish that the antiquity of the Jews is con firmed by various non-Jewish records—Egyptian, Babylonian, and Phoenician. He then proceeds to mention eight Greek historians, among them Theophilus, who likewise confirm the antiquity of the Jews. Inasmuch as the other seven writers are all non-Jews, there is every reason to believe that Theophilus was also, or, at any rate, that Josephus thought so. 58. Perhaps this is identical with the golden column in the temple of Heracles in Tyre mentioned by Herodotus (2.44). 59. Cf. Isocrates, Antidosis 221: "Perhaps, however, some might venture to reply that many men, be cause of their incontinence [aKpaalas], are not amenable to reason [Aoyia/zoiY], but neglect their true interests [ovfufrepovros] and rush on in the pursuit of pleasure [iJSovas]." 60. Cf. Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.5.6: "As for wisdom [aolav\, the greatest blessing, does not in continence [aKpaala] exclude it and drive men to the opposite? Or do you think that incontinence pre-
SOLOMON
6ij
transgressed the laws of Moses, w h o forbade m a r r i a g e with persons o f other na tions a n d the consequent worship of foreign gods, in o r d e r to gratify his wives a n d his passion for t h e m (Ant. 8.190). Thus, S o l o m o n , the wisest of all m e n , was, ironically, c a r r i e d a w a y by thought less (dXoyiarov)
pleasure.
61
W h e r e a s the Bible simply states that his wives t u r n e d
a w a y his h e a r t (1 K i n g s 11:3), J o s e p h u s develops this theme, in the first place r e marking that they did so v e r y soon, a n d in the second place adding, in language v e r y reminiscent o f that which the Midianite w o m e n used in seducing the Israelite m e n (Ant. 4.137), that they prevailed u p o n S o l o m o n to give up his ancestral w a y s and,
as a sign o f his favor a n d affection for them, to live in accordance with their
ancestral customs (Ant. 8.193). A c c o r d i n g to the Bible, it w a s w h e n S o l o m o n w a s old that his wives t u r n e d a w a y his h e a r t after other gods (1 K i n g s 11:4); J o s e p h u s explains that his reason (XoyiojAov) b e c a m e too feeble to counter their importuni ties with the m e m o r y of his country's practices, a n d so he adopted their w a y s (Ant. 8.194). O n e might think that such a r e m a r k w o u l d have reinforced the v i e w that J e w s w e r e antiforeign, but inasmuch as J o s e p h u s places his emphasis o n the fact that these foreign wives induced S o l o m o n to deviate from his ancestral customs, Josephus's R o m a n readers might well have sympathized with his criticism o f S o l o m o n in v i e w of Ennius's famous phrase stressing the importance of the old R o m a n customs as the foundation of their strength, "Moribus antiquis res stat R o m a n a viresque" ("The R o m a n state a n d its strength rest on their ancient cus toms"). Even so, realizing h o w destructive the biblical statement that S o l o m o n , u n d e r the influence o f his alien wives, built a high place for C h e m o s h , the god o f M o a b , a n d for M o l e c h , the god of A m m o n (1 K i n g s 11:7)
w
a
s
r
f ° Solomon's reputation,
J o s e p h u s judiciously omits this assertion (Ant. 8.195). Instead, he recalls that before this time, S o l o m o n h a d sinned by having the "sea" that he h a d h a d m a d e as a n
vents them from attending to useful things and understanding them by drawing them away to things pleasant, and often so distorts their perception of good and evil that they choose the worse instead of the better?" Again, in the following section, Xenophon (Memorabilia 4.5.7) contrasts moderation (aaj(/)poavvr}) and incontinence (aKpaala) as exact opposites. 61. In rabbinic tradition, there are differences of opinion as to Solomon's marriages. He is criti cized for marrying more than the eighteen wives permitted to a monarch (Deut. 17:16-17; Sanhedrin 21 a). In doing so, he thought, wrongly as it turned out, that given his wisdom, he would not be affected by his transgression. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:281-82, n. 16, and 294-95, - 59- ^ particular, the rab bis expand on the dire results of Solomon's marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh. They remark, for example (Sanhedrin 21b; Shabbat 56b), that when he married her, the archangel Gabriel descended from heaven and stuck a reed in the sea, around which accumulated a sandbank, on which the city of Rome (capital of the empire that was to destroy the Temple) was eventually built. Another tradition (Shabbat 56b) states that when Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, she brought him a thousand musical in struments, and he did not forbid her to play in honor of her various idols. Again, according to a rab binic tradition (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 12.5), when she spread over his bed a tapestry studded with di amonds and pearls, he slept until the fourth hour of the morning, thus preventing the morning sacrifice from being offered, inasmuch the keys to the Temple lay under his pillow. n
n
618
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
offering m o u n t e d upon the effigies of bronze bulls and by setting those of lions a r o u n d his o w n throne (Ant. 8.195)—acts that are not mentioned as offenses either 62
in the Bible o r in the rabbinic t r a d i t i o n . In order to underscore the gravity of his sins, J o s e p h u s adds the extrabiblical remark that S o l o m o n died ingloriously (aK\ecx)s) (Ant. 8.196). Still, J o s e p h u s endeavors to express a m o r e sympathetic atti tude t o w a r d S o l o m o n even after he h a d sinned in building altars to alien gods. W h e r e a s after G - d h a d revealed to S o l o m o n the punishment that w o u l d be in flicted upon h i m for his sins, namely, that his kingdom, except for one tribe, w o u l d be t o r n a w a y from his son, the biblical text tells us nothing about Solomon's reac tion a n d proceeds immediately to describe the uprising of H a d a d the Edomite against S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 11:14). Josephus, however, describes Solomon's feeling of grief (rjXyrj oe) a n d sore trouble (o<j>ohp<jos ovvexvOrj) at the thought that almost all the good things for which he was envied w e r e changing for the worse (Ant. 8.199).
HELLENIZATIONS In the S o l o m o n pericope, there are indications that J o s e p h u s was indebted to Homer, Thucydides, and the Stoics a m o n g others, in addition to Sophocles, as al ready noted. A s to Homer, w e m a y note that w h e n the entire multitude at the beginning of Solomon's reign p r a y that he m a y end his rule in a rich (Xnrapov) and happy old age (yfjpas) (Ant. 8.2), Josephus's audience, reared, as any literate G r a e c o - R o m a n audi ence of that day was, on Homer, would surely have thought of the phrase in the Odyssey (11.136) in which Teiresias, in the L o w e r World, prophesies to Odysseus that he will end his life in a rich old age (yrjpai . . . Xnrapco). T h e same words are found w h e n Odysseus repeats Tiresias's prediction to Penelope: "And death shall come to m e myself from the sea, a death so gentle that shall lay m e low, w h e n I a m overcome with rich old age [yr)p'. . . Ai7rapc£>]" (Odyssey 23.283). W e find the same phrase in the prayer of the multitude for Odysseus, which, according to Odysseus's old nurse, Eurycleia, is the same as that which h e r master addressed to Zeus: "For never yet did any mortal b u r n to Zeus . . . so m a n y fat thigh-pieces . . . with prayers that you might reach a rich old age" (yrjpas . . . Xnrapov) (Odyssey 1 9 . 3 6 5 - 6 8 ) . Likewise, the greatest gifts granted to Nestor by Zeus himself, according to Menelaus in his speech to Nestor's son Pisistratus, are that he should reach a rich old age (Xnrapcos yrjpdaKeiv) in his halls (Odyssey 4 . 2 0 9 - 1 0 ) . T h e phrase Xnrapo}. . . yrjpat is likewise
62. Cf. Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:280, n. 12, who remarks that the rabbis, far from blaming Solomon for erecting these images, gave them an important place in their tradition. Cf., however, War 1.650, where Josephus states that as Herod lay dying, two highly respected Jewish scholars hinted that this was the proper time to pull down the golden eagle that Herod had erected over the great gate of the Temple in defiance, as they claimed, of the ancestral law prohibiting representations of any living crea ture.
SOLOMON
6ig
found in Pindar (Nemean Odes 7.99). T h e w o r d Xnrapos significandy is found in con nection with old age only in these passages of Homer, Pindar, a n d J o s e p h u s .
63
W h e n J o s e p h u s summarizes Solomon's character, he singles out his good for tune (eu8cu/xovta, "prosperity," "full happiness"), wealth, a n d wisdom (povr)o€i) as those respects in which he surpassed all other kings (Ant. 8.211). In an extrabiblical addition, David, before the start of Solomon's reign, prays that the good fortune (evhaipioviav)
that G—d has declared He will send during Solomon's reign be dif
fused throughout the l a n d for all time (Ant. 7.373). W h e n S o l o m o n is anointed king, H i r a m of T y r e not only sends his greetings, as in the biblical narrative (1 K i n g s 5:15), but also congratulates h i m on his present good fortune (im ayadois)
TOLS
irapovoiv
(Ant. 8.50). This motif of good a n d b a d fortune is a m a j o r theme in
Sophocles' plays. Thus, w h e n Oedipus is one step a w a y from knowing the terrible truth about his identity, he reaches the highest point of hope a n d confidence a n d proclaims, most ironically from the point o f v i e w of the audience, "I hold myself the son o f Fortune [Tvxrjs],
which gives good" (Oedipus the King 1 0 8 0 - 8 1 ) . A g a i n ,
after Oedipus discovers his identity, the C h o r u s exclaims, " W h e r e , w h e r e is the m o r t a l w h o wins m o r e o f happiness [evSaipiovias]
than j u s t the seeming?" (Oedipus
the King 1 1 8 9 - 9 1 ) . A n d at the end of the Antigone (1347), the C h o r u s concludes that wisdom is the supreme p a r t of happiness (evoaipLovias). A n o t h e r favorite a u t h o r of Josephus's, as noted, was Thucydides. Adonijah's request that S o l o m o n swear that he will not slay him (1 K i n g s 1:51) is accordingly hellenized b y J o s e p h u s to r e a d that S o l o m o n is asked to pledge to b e a r him n o malice (/XT) pLvrjoiKaKrjocu) (Ant. 7..361). This phrase, meaning "not to r e m e m b e r past injuries"—that is, to pass an act o f amnesty—is used b y Thucydides in his de scription of the M e g a r i a n s , w h o recall their exiles, first binding them by the most solemn oaths to b e a r n o malice (pLrjSiv pLvrjGiKaKrjGeiv) (4.74). A s to Stoic motifs in Josephus's account of S o l o m o n , w e m a y note that the in cense that, according to Josephus's addition to the biblical narrative, was b u r n e d at the dedication of the Temple (Ant. 8 . 1 0 1 - 2 ) was a sign of G - d ' s presence in His 64
n e w l y consecrated h o m e (Ant. 8 . 1 0 2 ) . W h e r e a s in the Bible, S o l o m o n , at the con secration o f the Temple, declares that G - d has set the sun in the heavens but that He has said that He will dwell in thick darkness (1 K i n g s 8:12), Josephus's S o l o m o n declares that G - d has an eternal dwelling in those things that He c r e a t e d — i n the heaven a n d air a n d earth a n d sea, through all of which He moves, a n d yet b y
63. Another indication of possible Homeric influence may be seen in Solomon's description of the human voice as something that we have from the air, just as we know to ascend again through this el ement (Ant. 8.112). This statement is reminiscent of Ajax's batde cry: <j>a)vr) he 01 aldep' LKavev ( "And his voice reached the air") (Iliad 15.686). 64. This is in contrast to the view, noted by Schorr 1940, ad loc, 201, n. 7, of some of the Zealots, who cried out to Titus that the world was a better temple for G-d than the structure in Jerusalem (War 5.458). Cf. also Ant. 6.230, where, in an addition to the Bible, Josephus speaks of G-d as "everywhere extended," literally "poured out" (-rravraxov Kexvfjcevov).
620
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS 65
which H e is n o t contained (Ant. 8 . 1 0 7 ) . W e find a v e r y similar statement ascribed to the Stoic Chrysippus (ap. Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.15.39), namely, that w e per ceive divinity in all things that shift a n d suffer metamorphosis, in water, in earth, a n d in air. S t r a b o (16.2.35.761), in a passage that appears to go back to the Stoic Posidonius,
66
says that Moses believed that G - d is the only being that encom
passes us all, as well as land a n d sea—"the thing that w e call heaven o r universe o r the nature of all that exists." O n e is further reminded of the statement, ascribed b y Cicero (De Natura Deorum 1.14.37) to the Stoic Cleanthes, that the cosmos itself is G - d , as well as the dictum, ascribed b y Diogenes Laertes (7.139) to Chrysippus a n d Poseidonius, that the heaven is the ruling p o w e r o f the universe. T h e Bible declares v e r y simply that since heaven cannot contain G - d , h o w much less the Temple that S o l o m o n h a d built for H i m (1 K i n g s 8:27). Josephus, influenced b y the Stoics, goes beyond this in Solomon's assertion, at the dedication of the Temple, that h e has built the Temple so that w h e n the J e w s sacrifice, they might be persuaded that G - d w a s present a n d n o t far removed (puaKpdv OVK d(/>€OTrjKas), since He sees all things a n d hears all t h i n g s
67
a n d does not cease being
v e r y n e a r to all m e n , but is present with everyone w h o asks for guidance both b y night a n d d a y (Ant. 8 . 1 0 8 ) . inaKoveis,
68
T h e r e is a similar phrase, Ss
iravr*
iopds
Kal
iravr'
in A g a m e m n o n ' s p r a y e r to Zeus (Homer, Iliad 3.277), as quoted by the
first century C.E. Stoic philosopher Heraclitus in his Quaestiones Homericae (23) (so Norden 1923, 1 9 , n. 2 ) .
69
A n o t h e r example o f Stoic influence o n Josephus's formulation o f G - d ' s attrib utes is his statement, in Solomon's p r a y e r at the dedication o f the Temple, that it is not possible b y deeds for m e n to return thanks to G - d for the benefits they have received, inasmuch as G - d stands in need of nothing (airpooheris) a n d is above any
65. We see a similar motif in Rubel's (Reuben's) statement that wherever man is found, there too must G-d be regarded as present (Ant. 2.24). 66. See Reinhardt 1928, 1 0 - 1 1 . Stern 1974—84, 1:306, however, asserts that it is still subject to dis pute whether this was the philosophy of Poseidonius. 67. Cf. Josephus's similar statement, during the course of his long appeal urging.his fellow Jews to surrender, that G-d sees every secret thing and hears what is buried in silence (War 5.413). 68. Significandy, in obvious imitation of Solomon, Jeroboam uses similar Stoic terminology in dedicating his rival sanctuary at Bethel: "Fellowcountrymen, I think you know that every place has G-d in it and that there is no one spot set apart for His presence, but everywhere He hears and watches over His worshippers" (Ant. 8.227). 69. For G-d the all-seeing and all-hearing, see Josephus, War 5.413: os TOL re Kpvnra -navra i(/>opd Kal TO)V aiyajfievcov aKovei. Cf. also Against Apion 2.294, where everything in the universe is said to be under the eye and direction of G-d. We may note that Xenophanes' (Diels-Kranz B 24) remarks about G—d being all-seeing, all-perceiving, and all-hearing are likewise reminiscent of Homer: ovXos opa ovXos Se voet, ovXos 8i T' OLKOV€L. Cf. also Epicharmus's remark (Diels-Kranz B 12) that "mind sees and mind hears": vovs oprjt Kal vovs aKovet. Begg 1993a, 35, n. 180, however, notes that thefirstcentury C.E. Heraclitus's own Stoicism has been questioned by Buffiere 1962, xxxvii-xxxix). Moreover, Begg as serts that while Heraclitus does cite the Homeric passage in question, his comments deal not with the verse cited but rather with its context. For further discussion of the Stoic coloring in Josephus's narra tive, see Schlatter 1910.
SOLOMON
621
such recompense (apLoifir)s) (Ant. 8.111). Similarly, the Stoics, w h o w e r e so fond o f calling their wise m e n those in need o f naught (avpoaoer)) 70
(avTapKrj),
and
self-sufficient
predicated these qualities also for G - d (so N o r d e n 1 9 2 3 , 1 4 ) .
71
A n o t h e r indication o f Stoic influence m a y be seen in Solomon's statement that it is o n l y through the gift o f speech (>a>vrj), b y reason o f which m e n a r e superior to other creatures, that they are capable o f rendering thanks to G - d , for w e have o u r voices f r o m the air (i£ depos) a n d k n o w to ascend (dvoiovaav)
again through this
element (Ant. 8 . 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s is h e r e reflecting Stoic terminology m a y be deduced f r o m the Stoics Zeno's a n d Chrysippus's (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 1.21, 2.40) definition o f sound (a)vrj) as smitten air (dr)p 7re7r\r)ypL€vos,
12
irXr^yr) aepos).
Josephus, like the Bible, was confronted with the difficult question as to w h e t h e r G - d dwelt in the Temple that S o l o m o n h a d built. In the Bible, S o l o m o n , in his address at the consecration o f the Temple, asks how, inasmuch as the highest heaven c a n n o t contain G - d , this m e r e house can contain H i m (1 K i n g s 8:27). He then beseeches G - d in heaven to listen to the Israelites w h e n they a r e in distress. Perhaps bearing in m i n d that his p r i m a r i l y p a g a n audience, a n d especially Stoics in it, w o u l d indeed assume the presence o f G - d in a Temple, J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to a d o p t a compromise between affirming G - d ' s presence there a n d asserting that G - d could not be contained in a particular place. Specifically, in Josephus's v e r sion, S o l o m o n entreats G - d to send some small portion o f His spirit to dwell in the Temple that He m a y seem to be o n earth as well (Ant. 8.114). He beseeches G - d that should the Israelites suffer a n d entreat G - d to be saved, He listen to t h e m as though He w e r e within (Ant. 8.115). F u r t h e r m o r e , at the conclusion o f the consecration o f the Temple, w h e n fire comes d o w n from above a n d consumes the sacrifices, the Bible's conclusion is that the glory of the L - r d was u p o n the Temple (2 C h r o n . 7:3); in Josephus's version all the people suppose that this divine manifestation 73
(em>aveta?) is a sign that G - d will henceforth actually dwell in the Temple; a n d consequendy they fall to the g r o u n d with j o y a n d p r a y (Ant. 8.119). In addition, J o s e p h u s , in addressing his primarily p a g a n audience, sometimes resorts to p a g a n terms in describing J e w i s h religious practices. In contrast, the Septuagint, addressed, as it appears to be, to a primarily J e w i s h audience, gener ally avoids, in its treatment o f the J e w i s h religion, G r e e k terms that w e r e used in p a g a n worship (see B i c k e r m a n 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) . T h e Septuagint, for example, speaks
70. In his summary of Jewish theology in Against Apion 2.190, Josephus uses this Stoic term in de scribing G-d as self-sufficient (avrapKins). 71. Cf. Chrysippus, ap. Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 39.1052D; Plutarch, Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 4. Cf. Marcus 1931-32, 55, s.v. dnpooSerjs. 72. Cf. Homer, Iliad 15.686, where we read that the sound (<j>a)vrj) of Ajax's batde cry reached the air (aWep'). Cf. also Philo (De Decalogo 9.33, and De Agricultura 12.53), U Plotinus (6.4.12): atoncp (fxjovrjs ova-qs Kara, TOV depa TTOXXOLKLS Kal Xoyov iv rfj covfj ("just as often a sound in the air and a word in the sound"). 73. Cf. Schalit 1944-63, 3: ad loc, n. 175, who cites Schlatter 1932, 53 ff., for instances where Jose phus uses the phrase €Tn<j>dv€ta Oeov. a s w e
a s
622
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
o f fico/jLos ( altar), orjKos ( sacred enclosure), a n d dSvrov
(innermost sanctuary),
which are p a g a n terms, only with reference to heathen worship; o n the c o n t r a r y w h e n referring to the altar o f G - d , it uses the t e r m Ovoiaorripiov,
which has n o
precedent in p a g a n literature. T h e Septuagint never uses the terms ayaXpua a n d €IKOV w h e n referring to p a g a n images, employing rather the w o r d eiSoXov to con vey the idea that such images w e r e completely worthless. Likewise, inasmuch as the w o r d s puovos a n d irpwros a r e c o m m o n in G r e e k prayers, w h e r e they stress the superiority of the god w h o is being invoked over other deities, the Septuagint gen erally avoids these w o r d s a n d instead prefers the w o r d els ("one") in reference to the L - r d . T h e Septuagint changes the meaning o f certain G r e e k religious terms; thus dvddrjpLa, which for the pagans referred to a votive offering, is used by the Septuagint in the sense o f a vow, w h e r e a s it employs the w o r d Swpov for a votive offering. W h e r e a s evXoyLa for the G r e e k s means "praise," in the Septuagint it is the w o r d for "blessing." T h e Septuagint has a separate w o r d (although not coined by its authors), that is, puavris, for a heathen soothsayer, as against a true prophet, for w h o m it uses the w o r d irpo^-qri^s. Finally, in o r d e r to indicate the special nature of the Israelites as chosen, the translators generally use the w o r d Xaos for the J e w ish people, whereas they employ the w o r d edvos to refer to p a g a n peoples (see Bickerman 1 9 8 8 , 114). In contrast, Josephus, in his extended account of the consecration of the Tem ple, has S o l o m o n say that he has built the Temple so as to be able to send prayers into the air to G - d while sacrificing a n d seeking good omens (KaXXiepovvres)
(Ant.
8.108). T h e w o r d KaXXiepovvres h e r e has distincdy p a g a n connotations, being used in connection with the favorable omens that are sought while sacrificing, as w e see in a n u m b e r of passages in Herodotus (6.76, 7.134, 9 . 1 9 , 9.38), for example. It is sig nificant that elsewhere also J o s e p h u s uses this w o r d , as in connection with K i n g Hezekiah's celebration of the Passover sacrifice (Ant. 9.268, 271), w h e r e the Septu agint has the n o r m a l w o r d dvetv, without its p a g a n connotations, for "to sacrifice" (2 C h r o n . 29:22). J o s e p h u s likewise uses the w o r d KaXXiepovvres
in connection
with the sacrifices o r d e r e d by the good king J o s i a h (Ant. 10.64), w h e r e the Septu agint employs the v e r b Oveiv (2 C h r o n . 35:1). T h a t the w o r d KaXXiepea) has p a g a n connotations w o u l d seem to be indicated b y the fact that it is used by Antiochus III, w h o , as a pagan, w o u l d be expected to use p a g a n terminology, in his decree declaring that only those animals necessary for sacrificing with good omens should be p e r m i t t e d to be used in the Temple (Ant. 12.146). Finally, there is an obvious hellenization a n d anachronism in Josephus's state m e n t that Solomon's palace w a s roofed in C o r i n t h i a n style (KopivOiws) 8-I33)-
(Ant.
74
74. Cf. Ant. 3.137, where Josephus likewise employs comparisons with Greek architecture in de scribing the table of shewbread in the Tabernacle erected by Moses. He says that the table was like those at Delphi and had exquisitelyfinishedlegs like those the Dorians affix to their couches.
SOLOMON
623
" I M P R O V E M E N T S " IN THE STORY: C L A R I F I C A T I O N S , I N C R E A S E D SUSPENSE A N D D R A M A O n e basic reason for Josephus's writing his p a r a p h r a s e of the Scripture was to clear u p obscurities and contradictions in the text. Thus, according to the Bible, the Temple was completed in the eighth m o n t h (i.e., Marcheshvan) (1 K i n g s 6:38), a n d yet it was not dedicated until the following seventh m o n t h , eleven months later. W e m a y well w o n d e r at this delay of almost a year, but the Bible makes n o at tempt to explain it, simply noting the m o n t h of the dedication (1 K i n g s 8:2). In Josephus, however, the problem disappears. In the first place, he does not mention the m o n t h w h e n the Temple was completed; and secondly presumably to explain to those w h o might be acquainted with the biblical text, he says that although Solomon's summons to the dedication'was sent to everyone, it was with difficulty that they all c a m e together (Ant. 8.100). A n o t h e r difficulty, this time of connection, appears in the text concerning v a r ious revolts against S o l o m o n . T h e Bible mentions a certain Hadad, an Edomite, w h o was in exile in Egypt a n d w h o sought permission from his host, P h a r a o h , to r e d e e m his native land from its captivity to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 1 1 : 1 4 - 2 2 ) . In the He b r e w version, P h a r a o h asks him w h y he wants to leave, in view of the hospitality that he has received. H a d a d insists, and the H e b r e w version ends with this insis tence; in the Septuagint version, he actually does return a n d regains the rule of his country. T h e text then goes on, with no connecting link, to mention another ad versary of Solomon's, n a m e d Rezon (1 Kings 11:23). Josephus, for his part, effects a smooth transition by stating that H a d a d fell in with Rezon and j o i n e d forces with him a n d with a b a n d of robbers u n d e r him (Ant. 8.204). Still a n o t h e r p r o b l e m arises because, on the one hand, S o l o m o n describes him c
self as a small child (na ar qaton) (1 K i n g s 3:7) at the time of his accession, a point that J o s e p h u s confirms by asserting that he was not hindered by his youth (veorrjTos) from dealing out justice (Ant. 8.21). O n the other hand, w e h e a r of Solomon's old age w h e n his wives t u r n e d his heart a w a y after other gods (1 Kings 11:4). Moreover, according to the biblical text, R e h o b o a m was forty-one years old w h e n he succeeded his father S o l o m o n as king. Hence, there is a real p r o b l e m in the Bible's statement that S o l o m o n reigned for forty years (1 K i n g s 11:42), since, according to some manuscripts of the Septuagint (1 Kings 2:12), he was only twelve years old at the time of his accession. Josephus resolves the problem by asserting that S o l o m o n lived to a good old age, a n d likewise adds to Solomon's g r a n d e u r by remarking that he lived for ninety-four years and reigned for eighty years (Ant. 8.211). Josephus effects another "improvement" in the text by increasing the dramatic suspense in the scene in which Solomon's adversary, H a d a d the Edomite, w h o h a d earlier taken refuge with P h a r a o h in Egypt w h e n his country was subdued by J o a b , David's commander, asked P h a r a o h , w h o h a d given his o w n wife's sister in m a r r i a g e to him, for permission to return to his native country w h e n he h e a r d of
624
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
the death of David and J o a b (Ant. 8.202-3). ^
n D
O
t
n
t
n
e
biblical (1 K i n g s 11:22) and
J o s e p h a n versions, P h a r a o h asks H a d a d w h a t he lacks that he should w a n t to leave, but H a d a d nevertheless insists on leaving. W i t h that, the role of H a d a d in the Hebrew text seems to end, although the Septuagint adds that he r e t u r n e d to his country; a n d in the next verse in the Hebrew, w e r e a d of another adversary of S o l o m o n , n a m e d Rezon. Josephus, however, presents a m o r e elaborate and suspenseful account. In the first place, w e are told that H a d a d frequently pressed P h a r a o h a n d pleaded with him (Ant. 8.202). Josephus then adds that, although at first he did not obtain Pharaoh's permission, P h a r a o h finally did p e r m i t him to leave at the time w h e n things w e r e beginning to go badly for S o l o m o n , a n d w h e n G - d was a n g r y with him because of his unlawful acts. He adds that because H a d a d failed to get his h o m e l a n d of I d u m a e a to revolt against S o l o m o n , since it was occupied by m a n y garrisons, he w e n t to Syria. Josephus also tries to increase the dramatic a n d romantic interest of the biblical narrative. Thus, Josephus paints a m o r e vivid picture of the anointing of Solomon. He adds to the biblical description (1 K i n g s 1:40) by remarking on the feasting and merrymaking, with dancing, that marked the occasion (Ant. 7.358). W h e r e a s in the Bible, J o a b , David's c o m m a n d e r in chief, upon hearing the sound of the h o r n an nouncing the anointing of S o l o m o n , asks the reason for the u p r o a r (1 Kings 1:41), the effect is heightened by Josephus's description of the reaction of J o a b to this scene, for the latter says that he is not pleased (dpiaKeodai)
with the shouting a n d
trumpet blast (Ant. 7.359). A n d the effect on A d o n i j a h and all his guests is m o r e dramatically described in Josephus, for, whereas the Bible reports that they p r o ceeded to finish their meal after they h a d heard the news (1 K i n g s 1:41), Josephus says that they all became so preoccupied with their thoughts that they did not taste the dinner before them (Ant. 7.359). In the case of the two prostitutes, whereas in the Bible, the second child is b o r n three days after the first (1 K i n g s 3:18), there is greater dramatic interest in J o s e phus, w h o describes the two w o m e n as living not only in the same house but even in the same r o o m , a n d as giving birth not only on the same d a y but even at the same h o u r (Ant. 8.27).
75
Josephus stresses the fact that they w e r e alone, and that
consequendy the guilty w o m a n had no witness to fear w h o could convict her and hence stubbornly persisted in her denial (Ant. 8.29). He describes the actual p r o cedure by which S o l o m o n asked for a sword a n d ordered that the living child be cut in two. Josephus's account is much m o r e dramatic, a n d Solomon's decision much enhanced, inasmuch as w e r e a d that no one could see w h a t j u d g m e n t to give (Ant. 8.30), clearly implying that others h a d tried their h a n d at determining w h o the m o t h e r of the living child was, a n d that only S o l o m o n was able to determine
75. Rappaport 1930, 56, no. 231, suggests that Josephus derived his view that the children were born on the same day from the statement that one of the women was delivered "with her in the house," that is, simultaneously (1 Kings 3:17). But the very next verse explicidy states that the other woman's baby was delivered on the third day thereafter.
SOLOMON
625
a solution. It is likewise m o r e dramatic a n d m o r e symmetrical that S o l o m o n o r ders not m e r e l y the living child, as in the Bible (1 K i n g s 3:25), but also the dead child to be cut in two (Ant. 8 . 3 1 ) .
76
T h e r e is additional d r a m a in the detail that
w h e n S o l o m o n gives these orders, everyone secretly makes fun of
(ix^eva^ev,
"jest," "scoff at") the king as of a boy (/xetpa/aov, "lad," "stripling u n d e r twentyone") (Ant. 8.32). M o r e dramatic is the fact that the w o m a n w h o is the true m o t h e r says not merely, as in the biblical text (1 K i n g s 3:26), that the child should be given to the other w o m a n because h e r compassion was aroused for h e r son, but even that she w o u l d be content to have him alive merely to look at him. Even m o r e d r a matic is the detail that the guilty m o t h e r asks that she herself be put to torture in order to substantiate h e r case (Ant. 8.32).
77
J o s e p h u s has likewise added to the romantic interest of the meeting between the Q u e e n of S h e b a a n d S o l o m o n . T h e i r r o m a n c e is all the greater because, as w e have seen, she is presented as the queen, not of an unknown country called S h e b a , but of Egypt a n d Ethiopia (Ant. 8.165), two countries most r e n o w n e d in antiquity for their wisdom a n d piety. H e r interest in S o l o m o n is aroused, not m e r e l y by w h a t she has h e a r d about him (1 K i n g s 10:6), but especially by the fact that she has h e a r d such reports every d a y (Ant. 8.165). S h e comes to test him, not with riddles (1 K i n g s 10:1), but with m o r e serious a n d m o r e difficult questions (Ant. 8.166). Fur t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8 . 1 6 9 - 7 0 ) expands considerably on the admiration a n d a m a z e m e n t that she shows w h e n she sees Solomon's palace a n d thus builds up the romantic anticipation still more. W h e r e a s the Bible simply mentions the gift that she gives to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 10:10), Josephus (Ant. 8.174) is much m o r e romantic in stating, in extrabiblical additions, that she was unable to contain h e r amaze m e n t at Solomon's wisdom a n d at the splendor of his palace, that she was thor oughly overcome by h e r feelings (oidvoiav) w h e n she spoke to him (Ant. 8.170), a n d that she manifested h e r feelings (oidvoiav) w h e n she presented him with h e r most lavish gift (Ant. 8.174), opobalsam. Josephus himself enthusiastically observes that the c o u n t r y still has the root of the extremely valuable opobalsam in consequence (Ant. 8.174). Finally,
Josephus
stresses
the
excess
(dxpaoiav)
of
Solomon's
passion
(d<j>pooiGL(jov) in that he became m a d l y e n a m o r e d (e/c/xavei?) of w o m e n (Ant. 8.191); the Bible, on the other h a n d , states merely that S o l o m o n cleaved to his foreign wives a n d concubines in love (1 K i n g s 1 1 : 2 ) .
78
It is significant that the same w o r d ,
76. In having Solomon order that both the living and the dead child be divided in two, Josephus is following the Lucianic Greek text rather than the Hebrew or the Septuagint text. 77. Marcus 1934, 5:588, in his comment on this passage in the Loeb edition, states that the text may, however, mean that she wished her opponent to be tortured; but this would certainly diminish the drama of Josephus's version. 78. One is reminded ofJosephus's extrabiblical remark (Ant. 5.277) that Manoah, who was destined to become the father of Samson, was madly in love (ixavKoSrjs VTT' eptoros) with his wife and hence in ordinately (aKpartbs, "without command over oneself or one's passions," "incontinendy," "immoder ately," "intemperately") jealous (^Xorvnos).
626
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
€KfjLav€is, which Josephus uses to describe Solomon's m a d love for w o m e n occurs in only one other passage in Josephus, namely, in reference to Herod's passionate frenzy in putting to death his wife M a r i a m n e , w h o m he so deeply loved, because of his suspicion that she h a d allowed herself to be seduced (War 1.443).
SUMMARY K i n g S o l o m o n is a m a j o r figure in Josephus's attempt, in his rewriting of the Bible in his Jewish Antiquities, to answer the anti-Jewish charge that the J e w s h a d failed to produce m e n of eminence. W h e t h e r because he himself w a s descended from the Hasmoneans o r because, as a protege of the Romans, he opposed the concept of the restoration of a m o n a r c h y through a messianic descendant of David, w h o would overthrow the R o m a n rule, he focuses m o r e on S o l o m o n than on David himself O n e indication of the importance of S o l o m o n for Josephus m a y be seen from the fact that he cites m o r e external evidence to support his account of S o l o m o n than he does for a n y other biblical personality In terms of the sheer a m o u n t of space that he devotes to him, there are few m a j o r biblical personalities to w h o m Josephus gives m o r e attention. Josephus, as in his portrayal of other biblical personalities, stresses Solomon's precociousness a n d wealth a n d qualities of leadership, notably his concern for his people. S o l o m o n , like Josephus's other biblical heroes, emerges as possessing the four cardinal virtues—wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice, as well as the spiritual virtue of piety. A b o v e all, Josephus stresses Solomon's wisdom. Unlike his portrayal in rabbinic literature, w h e r e he emerges as the prototype of the talmudic sage, a n d w h e r e m a n y miraculous a n d supernatural elements are attributed to him, Josephus stresses Solomon's wisdom as a rational king a n d judge. T h e r e are several indications that in his portrait of S o l o m o n adjudicating the case of the two mothers, Josephus has in mind the portrayal of Oedipus, the solver of the riddle of the Sphinx, by Sophocles, of whose works there is considerable ev idence that he was fond. W e see this parallel notably in Josephus's additions to the biblical t e x t — t h a t others h a d attempted and failed to determine w h o the real m o t h e r was, that these others are spoken of as mentally blinded, that to solve the question required the use of intelligence, a n d that the case is c o m p a r e d to a riddle. S o l o m o n is likewise presented as a kind of Oedipus in the cleverness and speed that he shows in solving the riddles a n d problems, whose difficulty is stressed, that are presented to him by K i n g H i r a m of Tyre a n d by the Q u e e n of S h e b a . J o s e phus, like Sophocles, emphasizes that it was the force of the hero's h u m a n reason, rather than divine inspiration, that enabled him to solve these problems. S o l o m o n is presented by Josephus as one w h o studied the forms of nature philosophically. In addition, because of the popularity of magic in his day, J o s e phus develops a picture of S o l o m o n as possessing skill in the art of exorcising demons. In answer to the charge that the J e w s w e r e not masters o f an empire, J o s e -
SOLOMON phus stresses that S o l o m o n subdued m a n y nations. J o s e p h u s emphasizes
627 his
achievement in building u p the defenses of his kingdom a n d in administering his state most skillfully in perfect peace, free from civil dissension, which J o s e p h u s so decried in his o w n day. He also adds to the portrayal o f Solomon's
economic
power. Josephus's S o l o m o n shows exemplary moderation, albeit coupled with firm ness, in his treatment of his b r o t h e r Adonijah, w h o h a d attempted to seize the royal p o w e r during David's lifetime. Associated with this moderation is the quality of modesty which S o l o m o n exemplifies, in an extraordinary extrabiblical addi tion, in his admission that he h a d actually been outwitted by the young Tyrian A b demon, w h o always succeeded in solving the problems submitted to him by S o l o m o n a n d w h o , in turn, submitted others that S o l o m o n was unable to solve. T h e chief use of Solomon's palace, in Josephus's eyes, was for the administra tion of justice. Solomon's handling of the case of Shimei enhances his reputation for fairness. S o l o m o n likewise exhibits the qualities of magnanimity, gratefulness, a n d generosity, which are closely connected with this virtue. A n indication of the emphasis that Josephus places on Solomon's piety m a y be seen in the fact that 23 percent of the occurrences of the words for "piety" and "pious" in his Jewish Antiquities are found in his S o l o m o n pericope, which com prises only 7 percent of his rewriting of the Bible. In his account of S o l o m o n , J o s e phus links his justice and piety, just as Sophocles does so often in connection with Oedipus. S o l o m o n , in Josephus's portrait, shows exemplary piety toward his fa ther a n d his m o t h e r — a quality that would have been especially appreciated by Josephus's R o m a n audience, for w h o m one of Aeneas's m a j o r virtues was his pietas t o w a r d his parents. Moreover, Josephus adds a great n u m b e r of details in his de scription of the beauty and wealth of the Temple, which S o l o m o n built, in his greatest act of piety. In particular, he stresses that S o l o m o n applied much m o r e en ergy to the building of the Temple than to that of his own palace. Josephus is careful not to engage in extravagant statements with regard to G - d ' s deeds. He presents a rationalized version of the miracle that occurred at the dedication of the Temple. W h e r e a s G - d in the Bible appears direcdy to S o l o m o n , in Josephus, w e are told that S o l o m o n learned in a d r e a m that G - d h a d h e a r d his prayer. T h a t the friendship between S o l o m o n and H i r a m was important to Josephus in refuting the charge that J e w s hated non-Jews m a y be seen from the fact that Josephus devotes a goodly portion of his apologetic treatise Against Apion (1.100-27) to reproducing evidence from the Phoenician archives and from the works of Dios a n d M e n a n d e r of Ephesus to illustrate the excellent relations between S o l o m o n a n d Hiram. A b o v e all, in depicting S o l o m o n as praying that G - d grant all the r e quests of non-Jews w h e n they come to the Temple, Josephus shows that J e w s are not guilty of hating non-Jews. Realizing that opposition to intermarriage might be regarded as evidence that in principle J e w s hated non-Jews, Josephus is careful to base his opposition to
628
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Solomon's intermarriages on the wrongfulness of Solomon's yielding to passion— a point of v i e w that Stoics in his audience w o u l d surely have a p p r e c i a t e d — a n d on the g r o u n d that i n t e r m a r r i a g e violated the law of his c o u n t r y In the S o l o m o n pericope, there are indications that J o s e p h u s was indebted to Homer, Sophocles, a n d Thucydides a m o n g others. Reminiscences of such popu lar writers w o u l d surely have e n d e a r e d J o s e p h u s to his non-Jewish audience. Moreover, there are a n u m b e r of indications of Stoic influences in Josephus's pre sentation of G - d ' s attributes. Finally, J o s e p h u s has avoided difficulties a n d implausibilities in the text, while increasing its suspense a n d the dramatic a n d romantic interest, particularly in his version of the meeting of the Q u e e n of S h e b a and S o l o m o n .
CHAPTER
SEVENTEEN
Daniel
In his portraits of biblical personalities, Josephus has introduced details a n d lessons that reflect events in his o w n life (Daube 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 ) . This is seen partic ularly in his adaptations of the narratives of J o s e p h , Daniel, Esther, a n d M o r d e c a i . Reflecting Josephus's o w n experience, the chief c o m m o n denominators in these portraits of biblical personalities are their dealings with rulers; the sufferings they endure because of j e a l o u s y a n d false accusations; a n d their ultimate rise to posi tions of e n o r m o u s prominence, particularly, in the instances of J o s e p h a n d Daniel, through their interpretation of d r e a m s .
1
Actually, J o s e p h u s was faced with a dilemma in the Daniel pericope, wishing, on the one h a n d , to appeal to his R o m a n audience by stressing Daniel's (and, by implication, the J e w i s h people's) quality of loyalty to a sovereign a n d to be v e r y careful not to offend his R o m a n imperial hosts, while, on the other h a n d , also de 2
siring to m a k e use of Daniel's prophecies of the ultimate t r i u m p h of Israel. T h e
1. There has been no complete systematic analysis of Josephus's portrait of Daniel, although Ver mes 1991, 149-66, does have some fine insights. Bruce 1965, 148-62, is concerned primarily with demonstrating the relationship between Daniel's visions as reported by Josephus and their interpreta tion by the revolutionaries at the time of the war against the Romans in 66 rather than with his portrait of Daniel as such. Satran 1980, 33-48, in tracing various interpretations of thefigureof Daniel from the biblical text until the late reworking in Pseudo-Epiphanius's Vitae Prophetarum, has a brief discussion (pp. 36-39) of Josephus's treatment but actually focuses upon a single passage in Josephus's narrative, namely, the one in which Daniel insists upon a vegetarian diet (Ant. 10.190). Mason 1994,161—91, is con cerned primarily, not with Josephus's portrayal of Daniel in the Antiquities, but rather with the way in which the Book of Daniel influenced his account of the war of the Jews against the Romans. 2. Significandy, as Stern 1987, 71-80, has shown, despite the fact that Josephus seems to have been so prejudiced in favor of the Romans, there is only a single allusion in the Jewish War (7.100-11) to the Jews' benefiting from Roman rule. We may guess that Josephus there, as here in the Daniel pericope in the Antiquities, realized that such a statement of appreciation for the Romans would have alienated him 629
630
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
Daniel episode gave Josephus an excellent opportunity to address the chief histor ical question that faced Josephus in his o w n day, namely, h o w to conduct oneself as an authentic representative of a defeated Jewish nation (so A n d r e Paul 1 9 7 5 , 367-84). A s w e have seen, one measure of the a m o u n t of interest that a given personal ity has for Josephus m a y be seen in the sheer a m o u n t of space that he devotes to him. Inasmuch as J o s e p h is the biblical figure w h o , in terms of the motifs charac terizing his persona, is perhaps closest to Daniel, it is significant that whereas the ratio of Josephus to the H e b r e w text for J o s e p h is 1.63 (1.20 with respect to the Septuagint; 5.45 [3.75 with reference to the Septuagint] for the episode of J o s e p h a n d Potiphar's wife; 3.26 [2.38 with reference to the Septuagint] for the narrative dealing with Joseph's dreams a n d subsequent enslavement; 4.09 [2.97 with refer ence to the Septuagint] for the pericope comprising the final test of Joseph's broth ers), the ratio for Daniel (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 6 - 2 1 8 , 2 3 2 - 8 1 : 537 lines in the Loeb Classical L i b r a r y text; 407 lines in the H e b r e w - A r a m a i c text of Daniel, chapters 1 - 6 a n d 8; 3
790 lines in the Septuagint text of Rahlfs) is 1.32 with respect to the H e b r e w and .68 with respect to the G r e e k .
4
T h e relative importance of the Daniel episode for Josephus m a y be seen as well in the fact that, in a detail found in n o other source (so M o m i g l i a n o 1979, 4 4 2 - 4 8 ) , Josephus reports that the Book of Daniel, with its prediction that a G r e e k would destroy Persian Empire (Dan. 8:21; Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 3 ) ,
w a s
shown to A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t
(Ant. 11.337). T h e importance of the Daniel episode to Josephus likewise appears from the fact that he goes out of his w a y to remark on the desecration of the Tem-
even further from the Jewish masses, whom he was trying to reach in the latter work, and would have lent credibility to the accusation that he had been bought off by the Romans. 3. Thackeray 1929, 89, concludes that for Daniel, Josephus used a Greek text, one combining the peculiarities of the two known versions, i.e., the Septuagint and that later ascribed to Theodotion. Ver mes 1991, 151-52, notes that in thus mixing the text of the Septuagint with that attributed to Theodotion, Josephus has a counterpart in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 31, with its quotation of Dan. 7:9-14. Bruce 1965, 148-62, concludes that Josephus's version of Daniel is based almost entirely on the canonical Hebrew-Aramaic text, and that he did not know the Septuagint additions at all. Evi dence for his use of the Hebrew-Aramaic original may be seen in Ant. 10.271, where Josephus speaks of a smaller (fiiKporepov) horn, clearly reflecting the Hebrew, as opposed to the Septuagint (Dan. 8:9), which reads laxvpov ("strong"). J. A.Goldstein 1976, 5 5 8 - 6 8 , concludes that for his account of Daniel, Josephus had basically the same text as that found in our Hebrew Bible, but that he presented the ma terial in the form of a synthesized oracle in order better to impress his Greek and Roman audience. The reason for the relatively large number of lines in Rahlfs's Greek text is that many of these are printed as poetry. 4. After comparing the accounts of Daniel in Josephus, Josippon, and the Apocrypha, Neuman 1952-53, 1-26, concludes that both Josephus and the Septuagint drew upon an earlier, more extensive Daniel literature that is no longer extant. In particular, he notes that Josephus (Ant. 10.267) speaks of books (in the plural) that Daniel wrote; but this is perhaps a reference to the two stories of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.
DANIEL
631
pie by Antiochus Epiphanes that it h a d been defiled in accordance with the p r o p h e c y of Daniel 408 years earlier (Ant. 12.322). Since the J o s e p h a n d the Daniel episodes both emphasize the wisdom of the protagonist, particularly in his interpretation of dreams, as well as the authority of the state, a n d since both r o u n d l y c o n d e m n disobedience to the king's law, w e might have expected approximately equal attention to both. In actuality, however, Josephus's text on J o s e p h is 23 percent longer, as c o m p a r e d with the Hebrew, than is that on Daniel. In v i e w of the similarities between the tremendous vicissitudes in Daniel's life a n d those of J o s e p h and, in fact, of the J e w i s h people, one might also expect m o r e attention to be given to Daniel than he gets in Josephus. T h e expla nation of his decreased importance w o u l d seem to be that J o s e p h u s h a d to con tend with the fact that the biblical Daniel disobeyed the king's law, prophesied the o v e r t h r o w of the R o m a n Empire, a n d was rescued by miracles—motifs that w o u l d have caused considerable e m b a r r a s s m e n t to Josephus, the protege of the Flavians, the R o m a n imperial family, h a d he unduly emphasized them.
DANIEL'S Q U A L I T I E S O F C H A R A C T E R W h e n the biblical account first introduces Daniel, it mentions m e r e l y that he a n d his three colleagues, H a n a n i a h , Mishael, a n d A z a r i a h , w e r e o f the tribe o f J u d a h (Dan. 1:6). To be sure, the text has earlier declared that Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, h a d c o m m a n d e d his chief eunuch to educate some of the people of Is rael, both of the royal family a n d of the nobility a m o n g w h o m w e r e these four youths (Dan. 1:3). J o s e p h u s places even greater stress on their genealogy, however, noting that they w e r e not m e r e l y of the nobility but of the noblest birth (evyeveardrovs)
(Ant. 10.186). He spells out that they not only belonged to the royal
family but w e r e relatives of K i n g Sacchias (that is, Zedekiah) himself. He e m p h a sizes this royal relationship by repeating, shordy thereafter, that the four youths c a m e f r o m the family of Sacchias (Ant. 10.188). This w o u l d m e a n that they w e r e 5
also great-grandsons of the good king Hezekiah. T h e r e is further aggrandizement of Daniel a n d his colleagues, in that their names are changed not, as in the Bible (Dan. 1:7), by the chief eunuch but r a t h e r by Nebuchadnezzar himself (Ant. 10.188). In addition, the h e r o must be handsome. A s to Daniel a n d his companions, w h e r e a s the biblical text refers to them as youths without blemish a n d h a n d s o m e (Dan. 1:4), J o s e p h u s speaks of them as remarkable (irepi^XeTrroi, "looked f r o m all sides," "admired by all observers") for both the vigor (aKpuats, "strength," "prime of life") o f their bodies a n d the comeliness (evpLopfoaLs, "handsomeness," "beauty
5. In contrast, the third-century Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani cites the tradition (Sanhedrin 93b; cf. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 53; and Jerome on Isa. 39:7) that whereas Daniel was of the tribe of Judah, Hana niah, Mishael, and Azariah came from other tribes. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:414, n. 76.
632
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
of form") of their features (oi/jewv "appearance," "shape") (Ant. 10.186). In this con nection, J o s e p h u s w a s confronted with a delicate problem, namely, that whereas 6
the biblical text declares that the youths w e r e without blemish, o n e rabbinic tra 7
8
dition portrays them as eunuchs (Sanhedrin 9 3 b ) , presumably because, according to the biblical text, the king c o m m a n d e d his chief eunuch to educate these youths (Dan. 1:3). J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m v e r y typically b y omitting the trouble some phrase, "without blemish" a n d b y n o t stating explicidy that Daniel a n d his 9
companions w e r e a m o n g those w h o w e r e m a d e eunuchs (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 6 ) . T h e in struction of the youths is entrusted, according to Josephus, n o t to the chief eunuch, but to Greek-like pedagogues, a n d thus their status is elevated (Ant. 10.186). T h a t Daniel's key attribute for J o s e p h u s is his wisdom m a y b e seen in the fact that o f the thirteen occurrences of the w o r d oo<j)6s, "wise," in the first eleven books of the Antiquities, w h e r e J o s e p h u s paraphrases the Bible, five, that is, 38 percent, are found in this single passage ( 1 0 . 1 8 6 - 2 8 1 ) concerning Daniel, which comprises only 3 percent o f the 3,777 p a r a g r a p h s constituting Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e o f the Bible. O f the thirty-five occurrences o f the w o r d oo
6. Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Dan. 1:3, opposes the view that the four youths were eunuchs on the grounds that there is no blemish worse than castration. However, there is no necessary contradiction between the statements that they were without blemish and that they were eunuchs, since they could have become such after they were taken by the king and forced into the service of the king's eunuch. 7. To be sure, another rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 93a) states that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah eventually went to the Land of Israel, married, and begat sons and daughters. 8. The rabbinic tradition is based on the prophecy of Isa. 39:7 (=2 Kings 20:18). So also Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer 52; Origen's homily on Ezek. 14:14 (PG 13.703-4); Jerome's commentary on Dan. 1:3; and Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.25. Megillah 15a, Baba Batra 4a, the Targum on Esther 4:5, and the Midrash
Megillah 176 (Gaster) identify the eunuch Hathach of the Book of Esther with Daniel. Daniel is also identified with Memuchan (Targum Sheni on Esther 1:16) and Sheshbazzar (Pesiqta Rabbati 6.23). Rab binic tradition defended this otherwise forbidden act by asserting that the four youths mutilated them selves in order to prove their chastity in the face of the false charge brought against them by their ene mies. 9. Rappaport 1930, 66, is mistaken in asserting that Josephus speaks of the four youths as eunuchs. The fact, however, that Josephus asserts that some of those youths taken by the king were made eu nuchs may indicate that he was aware of the midrashic tradition. So, correcdy, Braverman 1978, 56.
DANIEL
633
studies, J o s e p h u s (Ant. 10.186) only later indicates that they b e c a m e proficient in the wisdom that they h a d been ordered to study (Ant. 10.187) and adds that they 3
progressed not only because of their surpassing natural gifts (Si
vTT€pfio\r)v
€vvlas) but also because of their zeal in learning letters (oTrovSrjs rrjs nepl TraiSevoiv
TCJV
ypapLpudTajv) (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 9 ) .
rr)v
10
G r e a t as Daniel's wisdom is, according to Belshazzar in the biblical version (Dan. 5:14), it is even m o r e outstanding according to Josephus's version, w h e r e Belshazzar says that Daniel is able to discover things that are not within the understanding of others (Ant. 10.239). His wisdom is all the greater because it is contrasted with that of the Babylonian wise men, w h o h a d failed to interpret the writing on the wall. Daniel's wisdom is manifested particularly in his interpretation of dreams. W h e r e a s the biblical text declares that K i n g Nebuchadnezzar found Daniel a n d his colleagues ten times better than all the magicians a n d enchanters in his king d o m in matters of wisdom a n d understanding generally (Dan. 1:20), Josephus's version has it that after Daniel h a d acquired sufficient skill in wisdom, he devoted himself to the interpretation of dreams (Ant. 10.194). Daniel shows particular wisdom in interpreting the handwriting on the wall in the vision of K i n g Belshazzar. In the biblical version, the king calls upon the en chanters, the Chaldaeans, and the astrologers to explain the writing, but they fail to do so (Dan. 5:7-8). In Josephus, Daniel's achievement is m a d e to appear all the greater because the M a g i fail not once but twice, once w h e n called upon initially a n d again, with still greater numbers and still greater efforts, after the monarch offers one third of his realm to the person w h o can interpret the writing (Ant. 10.235-36). Significandy whereas the biblical Daniel admits that he does not understand the vision of the r a m a n d the he-goat and, indeed, is appalled at his failure to do so (8:27), Josephus, realizing that such a scene w o u l d serve to diminish the reputa tion for wisdom that Daniel had, simply omits it (Ant. 10.275). A s to the virtue of courage, whereas the Bible simply states that Daniel knelt three times daily in p r a y e r despite the royal decree prohibiting such p r a y e r (Dan. 6:10), J o s e p h u s elaborates, remarking that although all the rest of the people w e r e careful not to transgress the royal edict, Daniel courageously took n o thought of his rivals w h a t e v e r and, in fact, continued to p r a y in full view of everyone (Ant. 10.255). J o s e p h u s highlights Daniel's courage even further by stressing, in a n addi tion to the biblical text (Dan. 6:11), that Daniel was the only one to transgress the king's o r d e r (Ant. 10.256). T h e third of the cardinal virtues, temperance, for the ancients, was shown pri m a r i l y in one's eating habits. W e recall that w h e n Aristode, according to his disci ple Clearchus of Soli, m e t a J e w in Asia M i n o r in the fourth century B.C.E., he was impressed especially with the J e w ' s temperance (aw^poavvrjv)
in his w a y of life
10. Likewise, in the rabbinic tradition, according to the third-century Rabbi Isaac (Toma 77a), if all
the wise men of other nations were placed in one scale of the balance and Daniel in the other, he would outweigh them all.
634
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
(hiairrj) (ap. Josephus, Against Apion 1.182). T h e G r e e k w o r d St'cura, which is here used for "way of life" o r "regimen," refers particularly, as does its English deriva tive, to the diet. T h e same w o r d St'cura, is used four times (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 ) in describing the diet of Daniel a n d his colleagues. Quite clearly the hiaira
of
Daniel a n d his colleagues is contrasted with the hiaira of Nebuchadnezzar w h e n the latter's m o d e of life is changed to that of the beasts (Ant. 10.242). Moreover, J o s e p h u s identifies temperance with modesty (Ant. 6.63). To be sure, in the biblical text itself, Daniel is portrayed as being modest, inasmuch as he tells Nebuchadnezzar that the mystery of the d r e a m was revealed to him, not because he possessed greater wisdom than any other person, but merely in order that the interpretation might be m a d e k n o w n to the king (Dan. 2:30). J o s e p h u s has a simi lar statement, but he adds to the modesty of Daniel in that Daniel begins by begging (7rapr]T€iTo)
Nebuchadnezzar that he not be thought wiser than the others (Ant.
10.203). W h e r e a s the biblical text generalizes that wise m e n lacked the knowledge to interpret the king's d r e a m (Dan. 2:27-28), in Josephus, Daniel specifically says that it was not he w h o was able to understand the d r e a m but rather G - d w h o taught him the correct interpretation (Ant. 10.203). T h a t Daniel possessed the virtue of justice to a notable degree is m a d e clear in Josephus's portrait by the fact that even the evil and blaspheming king Belshazzar refers to Daniel as good a n d j u s t (dyaOov Kal hiKaiov) (Ant. 10.246). C o u p l e d with justice, which includes the virtue of humanity, is the quality of un selfishness, which is particularly exemplified by Daniel as portrayed by Josephus. Thus, w h e n Belshazzar offers Daniel all the trappings of p o w e r — t o be clothed in purple, to have a chain of gold about his neck, a n d to be the third ruler in the king d o m — D a n i e l , in the biblical version, magnanimously tells the king to keep these gifts for himself a n d to give his rewards to others (Dan. 5:16). Josephus's Daniel, however, does m o r e than decline the gifts; he explains to the king the philosophy of magnanimity, namely, that that which is wise and divine cannot be bought with gifts but freely benefits those in need of help (Ant. 10.241). This w o u l d a p p e a r to be Josephus's eloquent reply to those Jew-baiters, such as J u v e n a l (14.103-4),
w
n
o
claimed that the J e w s , in their self-centeredness, forbade pointing out the w a y to non-Jews a n d conducted none but fellow-Jews to the sought-for fountain. Just as he does in the case of m a n y other biblical heroes, so also in the instance of Daniel, J o s e p h u s stresses his virtue of piety even m o r e than does the biblical ac count. Thus, whereas the Bible says that Daniel, in defiance of the royal edict p r o hibiting prayer, w e n t on his knees three times a day (Dan. 6:10), Josephus is much m o r e emphatic in stating that unlike all the rest of the people, w h o took care not to transgress the royal edict, Daniel took n o thought of his rivals whatever, contin uing his customary f o r m of prayer, and, w h a t is m o r e , did so in the sight of all (Ant. 10.255).
11
Hence, it is not surprising that after his emergence unscathed from the
11. The Talmud adds that Daniel refused to partake of the wine or oil of Gentiles, just as he was pre pared to sacrifice his very life rather than omit recitation of the three daily prayers ( Awdah £arah 36a). Acc
DANIEL
633
den of lions, he became r e n o w n e d a n d distinguished because of his reputation as a m a n d e a r to G - d (OeofaXrjs) (Ant. 10.263). DANIEL A S LEADER AND PROPHET It was important for Josephus not only to ascribe to Daniel the cardinal virtues but also, in extrabiblical additions, to stress his qualities of l e a d e r s h i p .
12
Indeed, in his
s u m m a r y at the end of his Daniel pericope, w h e r e he wishes to stress, in his tirade against Epicureans, that the w o r l d does not r u n by its o w n movement, Josephus says that if this w e r e so, it would end in destruction, like ships w h e n they lose their helmsmen (KvfiepvrjTcov)
(Ant. 10.279),
u
s
m
g the t e r m a n d making the same point
as does Plato in his famous parable of the ship (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 7 - 8 9 A 2 ) .
1 3
After the key to Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m is revealed to Daniel, the Bible says only that Daniel blessed G - d (Dan. 2 : 1 9 - 2 3 ) , whereas in Josephus, it is not m e r e l y Daniel's personal achievement to have acquired such insight, but, as a true leader, he selflessly a n d joyfully shares this with his colleagues, w h o are here t e r m e d his "brothers" even though they are, in fact, only m o r e distant relatives (Ant. 10.201). T h e n , in a passage clearly reminiscent of the scene in Virgil in which A e n e a s en courages his m e n not to despair but to revive their spirits (Aeneid 1.198-207), Daniel arouses his companions to cheerfulness (evOvpilav) and to hope of life, even though they are already in despair of their lives and, indeed, have their thoughts fixed on death (Ant. 10.202). W h e r e a s Daniel, in his prayer in the Bible, blesses the n a m e of G - d for revealing to him the mystery of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but says noth ing about the fact that his companions have thereby been saved from death (Dan. 2:20-23), in Josephus, it is not just Daniel but his companions with him w h o give thanks to G - d ; a n d they specify in an extrabiblical detail, that they are grateful to Him for taking pity on their youth (Ant. 10.202). O n e tangible manifestation o f a great leader, as w e can see, for example, in the pride that the e m p e r o r Augustus took in the structures that he built (Monumentum Ancyranum 1 9 - 2 1 ) , was the erection of temples and monuments. S o also, in an ex trabiblical remark, which has no parallel in the Bible (Dan. 6:28), Josephus relates
cording to the Midrash, even when Nebuchadnezzar tried to induce Daniel to worship an idol into whose mouth he had placed the ziz of the high priest bearing G-d's ineffable name, Daniel did not yield (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 7.9).
12. The third-century Rav goes so far, in his admiration of Daniel's qualities of leadership, as to de clare that if the messiah were to be from among the dead, he would have been Daniel (Sanhedrin 98b). Josephus, however, could hardly have made such a comment, since the role of messiah, ipso facto, im plied a political leader who would establish an independent state; and this would have been possible, in Josephus's day, only through a revolt against the Roman Empire, such as the one of the years 6 6 - 7 4 , which Josephus opposed so vehemendy. 13. Significandy, both Philo (De Confusione Linguarum 23.114-15) and Josephus (Ant. 10.279), refut ing the Epicurean denial of providential control of human affairs, use the same analogies of ships and chariots, which operate properly over a period of time only when there are helmsmen and charioteers to control them. m
636
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
that Daniel built a fortress, at Ecbatana, in M e d i a , "which was a v e r y beautiful w o r k a n d wonderfully m a d e , a n d remains a n d is preserved to this day; it appears to those w h o v i e w it to have been r e c e n d y constructed and to have been com pleted on the v e r y day on which the visitor sees it, so fresh a n d radiant is its beauty" (Ant. 1 0 . 2 6 4 )
14
O n e of the qualities of the great statesman, as w e see in Thucydides' portrait of Pericles (2.60.6), is his refusal to accept bribes. In the case of Daniel, w e are told in the Bible that the satraps, despite their j e a l o u s y of the h o n o r in which Daniel was held by K i n g Darius, could nonetheless find n o ground for complaint against h i m (Dan.
6:5). J o s e p h u s adds the explanation that although Daniel's
opponents
sought some pretext to slander a n d accuse him, he never gave them a single cause for complaint, because he was superior to considerations of money, scorned any kind of gain, and thought it most disgraceful to accept anything, even if given for a p r o p e r cause (Ant. 10.251). Finally, the fact that J o s e p h u s on three occasions (Ant. 10.246, 2 4 9 , 269) refers to Daniel as a p r o p h e t ,
15
whereas the Bible in its parallel passages does not (Dan.
5:29 [twice], 8 : 1 - 2 7 ) , is especially significant in view of the importance of p r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s .
16
T h e rabbis, in their interpretation of Daniel 10:7, note that G - d revealed to Daniel the destiny of Israel and the date of the Last J u d g m e n t (Megillah 3a; San hedrin 94a), matters that w e r e not m a d e k n o w n even to the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and M a l a c h i , although, to be sure, Daniel forgot the end revealed to him (Genesis Rabbah 9 8 . 2 ) .
17
Josephus, similarly, mentions him as one of the greatest
14. Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:437, n. 20, remarks that Benjamin of Tudela (74-76), as well as Rabbi Petahiah 7b and Chronicon Paschak 92.396, mention a magnificent mausoleum of Daniel, who is said to have been buried among the kings of Babylon. He suggests that this tradition had its origin in this state ment of Josephus about the fortress that Daniel built. 15. It is clear from his essay Against Apion 1.40 that Josephus counted Daniel among the thirteen prophetic books in the Bible. See Thackeray 1926-34, 1:179, n. b. 16. See Feldman 1990, 387-94. As I note there (p. 391), it is significant that in a total of 169 in stances, Josephus has deliberately introduced the word "prophet" or the verb "prophesy" where it is not to be found in the original text. 17. There is a division of opinion within the rabbinic tradition as to whether Daniel was a prophet. On the one hand, a number of Palestinian sources, tannaitic as well as amoraic, count him among the prophets. Among these, as cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:413, n. 76, are Mekilta ib, Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 4.36b, Pesiqta Rabbati 14.61, and Seder Olam Rabbah 20, as well as the Gospel of Matthew 24:15. On the other hand (Megillah 3a; Sanhedrin 93b~94a), according to the fourth-century Rabbi Jeremiah, or, ac cording to others, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, Daniel was inferior to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, in that they were prophets whereas he was not, although he was superior to them in that he alone was found worthy to behold the vision of the man clothed in linen (Dan. 10:7). Likewise, the Dead Sea Scroll text 4 Q 1 7 4 speaks of "the book of Daniel the prophet." Moreover, as Ginzberg remarks, the fact that in Sanhedrin 93a, Daniel's three companions are designated as prophets would seem to imply that Daniel himself, who was certainly at least as great as they, was also a prophet. Hartmann 1975, 6-7, 11-14, suggests a connection between Josephus's statement that Daniel fixed the time when certain prophecies would come to pass (Ant. 10.267) and the prediction that someone from Judaea would be-
DANIEL
637
prophets, primarily because he was thought to have referred to R o m e as the fourth world empire and because he h a d predicted the destruction of J e r u s a l e m a n d of the Temple (Ant. 10.266) (Betz 1974, 3 1 - 3 2 ) . It is clear that Josephus regards him as being superior even to the other prophets, inasmuch as he not only prophesied fu ture events as they did but also fixed the time w h e n these would come to pass (Ant. 10.267). Hence, it is not surprising that Josephus dedicates m o r e space to Daniel than to any other of the prophets (Blenkinsopp 1974, 2 4 4 - 4 5 ) .
18
^
n
a
further r e
spect as well, Josephus holds Daniel to be superior to the other prophets, namely, that while they foretold disasters, and consequendy w e r e viewed with disfavor by kings a n d the populace, Daniel was a prophet of good tidings to his hearers, and, as a rule, attracted the goodwill of all (Ant. 1 0 . 2 6 8 )
19
O n e m a j o r reason w h y J o s e
phus ascribes so much importance to prophecy m a y be seen from his s u m m a r y statement about Daniel, w h e r e he refutes the Epicurean position that G - d is not providential (Ant. 10.280). His refutation of this view is that if this w e r e true, "we should not have seen all these things happen in accordance with his prophecy." This association of prophecy with divine providence is crucial in Josephus's w o r k a n d supplies another link between the Pharisees, with w h o m Josephus allied him self, a n d the Stoics, the greatest opponents of the Epicureans, and the philosophic school whose views most closely resembled those of the Pharisees (Life 12).
JOSEPHUS'S THEOLOGY W e can see a relative deemphasizing of G - d and greater importance attached to the h u m a n role in history in Josephus's version of the Daniel pericope. Thus, in an addition to the Bible, which states merely that the secret of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m was revealed to Daniel (Dan. 2:19), in Josephus, it is because of G - d ' s ad miration for Daniel's wisdom that He makes known to him both the d r e a m of Neb uchadnezzar and its interpretation (Ant. 10.200). Significandy enough, in contrast, in the biblical passage that follows immediately, Daniel, in thanking a n d blessing G - d for revealing the d r e a m and its interpretation to him, stresses three times that it is G - d to w h o m wisdom belongs (Dan. 2:20-23). Again, w h e n Daniel emerges unscathed from the lions' den, in the biblical text, K i n g Darius calls out to him, "O Daniel, servant of the living G - d , has y o u r G - d , w h o m you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?" (Dan. 6:20). Josephus, realizing that his audience, w h e t h e r Jewish or non-Jewish, would find it
come ruler of the world (War 6.312-13). However, Josephus remarks that this ambiguous prophecy in reality referred to Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while he was in Judaea (War 6.313). 18. A major reason why Josephus devotes so much space to Daniel is, however, that Daniel had close contacts with and was admired by three major non-Jewish rulers—Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius—and hence brought so much glory to the Jewish people. 19. Here Josephus seems to have conveniendy forgotten Daniel's prophecy of evil tidings for Bel shazzar (Dan. 5:26-31; Ant. 10.243-44).
638
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
most unlikely that a p a g a n king would have referred to the J e w i s h G - d as "the liv ing G - d , " has Darius ask w h e t h e r Daniel is safe a n d makes no mention at all of G - d (Ant. 1 0 . 2 5 9 ) .
20
In Josephus's account of the miracle by which Daniel's three companions emerged unscathed after having been cast into a fiery furnace (Ant. 10.214), w e m a y readily see changes that Josephus has introduced in view of his audience. Thus, whereas the Bible states that Nebuchadnezzar ordered that the furnace be heated seven times m o r e than usual (Dan. 3:19), Josephus, realizing that this kind of exaggeration w o u l d p r o b a b l y be viewed as incredible, simply omits it. Likewise, although he generally shows awareness of apocryphal books, Josephus totally omits the "Prayer of the T h r e e Youths," which puts the spodight so brighdy u p o n the miracle. In explanation of their rescue, Josephus says that they w e r e saved by divine providence (Trpovoia)
(Ant. 10.214), employing a t e r m that was a favorite of
the Stoics, w h o undoubtedly constituted a large portion of his p a g a n audience. Fi nally, Josephus rationalizes the miracle, explaining that G - d , presumably through the vegetarian diet that they h a d followed, h a d m a d e their bodies too strong to be consumed by the fire (Ant. 10.215). In contrast, w e m a y note, Josephus's apparent c o n t e m p o r a r y Pseudo-Philo, in his Biblical Antiquities (6.17), in describing a similar scene w h e r e A b r a h a m was cast into a furnace, actually exaggerates the miracle by describing a great earthquake a n d fire that gushed forth from the furnace, con suming all all those w h o stood r o u n d about, so that no fewer than 83,500 w e r e burnt to death on that day. In Josephus's statement associating Daniel with K i n g Darius because he was believed to have the divine spirit in him (Ant. 10.250), whereas the Bible mentions not a divine but an excellent spirit as being present in Daniel (Dan. 6:3), it might seem that w e have an exception to Josephus's downgrading of the divine element in his Daniel narrative. However, the key in Josephus's version is that he was be lieved (7T€TrioT€vpL€vos)
to have a divine spirit. Josephus thereby avoids making any
kind of dogmatic statement that a divine spirit actually did rest on him. Indeed, at the end of his p a r a p h r a s e of the Daniel narrative, Josephus, employing a formula that w e have noted previously, courteously allows his readers to adopt a different opinion about G - d ' s role in these events, specifically stating that he will not object, if anyone should j u d g e otherwise of them, to his holding a different opinion (Ant. 10.281). As to angels, Josephus a p p a r e n d y realized that they would present a problem both to his non-Jewish audience, w h o would ask w h a t the difference was between
20. One might be tempted to ascribe significance to Josephus's use of the term TO detov "the di vine," on eight occasions in the Daniel pericope (Ant. 10.194, 239, 241, 242, 250, 258, 260, 262) rather than deos "G-d," but the fact that he uses Oeos on thirty-six other occasions in the same pericope would seem to indicate that he is not addressing himself to his non-Jewish audience alone here. See Shutt 1981, 171-89, who concludes that although Josephus uses Greek forms of expression as a didac tic tool, the meaning of the underlying ideas is definitely influenced by a biblical and Jewish oudook.
DANIEL
6jg
such angels a n d the demigods of the pagan pantheon, a n d to his J e w i s h audience, w h o w o u l d be troubled by the concept of intermediaries between G - d a n d hu mans. Thus, in the Bible, Daniel explains to Darius that his rescue from the lions' den was effected by an angel sent by G - d , w h o shut the lions' mouths (Dan. 6:23). Josephus, however, avoids mention of the angel a n d says merely that Daniel told the king that he h a d not been h a r m e d , without explaining h o w he m a n a g e d to es 21
cape injury (Ant. 10.259). W h e r e a s in the Bible Daniel hears the voice o f a m a n saying, "Gabriel, make this m a n to understand the vision" (Dan. 8:16), in J o s e phus, there is n o reference to the angel Gabriel; rather w e are told that G - d Him self interpreted the vision to Daniel (Ant. 10.272). Similarly, Josephus omits all ref erence to the angel Gabriel, w h o in the biblical account comes to interpret to Daniel the vision of the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:21-27). In an extrabiblical passage associated with the Bible's story of Daniel in the lion's den, Josephus, well a w a r e that his readers would raise their eyebrows at the whole episode, in fact anticipates such criticism by relating that Daniel's enemies, on seeing that he h a d suffered no h a r m , chose—as most of Josephus's non-Jewish readers undoubtedly d i d — t o believe that it was not through G - d that Daniel h a d been saved, but rather that the lions h a d been sated with food a n d hence h a d no appetite to eat Daniel (Ant. 1 0 . 2 6 0 - 6 1 ) . Josephus then tells, with obvious relish, that Darius, detesting their wickedness, ordered the lions to be sated with m e a t a n d then c o m m a n d e d Daniel's enemies to be cast into the d e n .
22
A n d yet, Josephus is well a w a r e that the reader might ask w h y the lions spared Daniel but consumed his enemies. Hence Josephus feels the need to speculate on this question a n d concludes that it was not the beasts' hunger that aroused them, inasmuch as they w e r e already sated, but rather that the animals perceived the wickedness of the men, since even irrational animals can sense this, a n d that, in a n y case, it was the intention of G - d that they did as they did (Ant. 10.262). If J o s e p h u s does speak of G - d in his Daniel pericope it is in terms of the Stoic conception of providence (rrpovoia) a n d in o r d e r to attack the E p i c u r e a n s .
23
That
21. As Marcus 1934-37, 6:301, n. c, remarks, whereas Theodotion does have the reference to the angel in his translation, the Septuagint states rather that "G-d has saved me from the lions." The rab binic tradition (Berakot 7b; Tanhuma B I . I I I ) asserts that Daniel was rescued from the lions' den not be cause of his own merits but rather because of those of Abraham. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6.414, n. 77, and Hartman and di Leila 1978, 24, for the rabbinic parallels to the motif of the lions that did not touch Daniel. Grant 1952, 183-84, states that Josephus (Ant. 10.260) actually plays up the story of the lions' den in Daniel. However, while Josephus heightens the story dramatically, he tries, to the extent that he can, to explain it rationally. Vermes 1 9 9 1 , 1 6 4 , says that Darius does not express the hope that G-d will save Daniel but rather exhorts him to be brave in the face of destiny. Actually, however, Josephus (Ant. 10.258) here does have Darius express the hope that G-d will save Daniel. 22. A similar episode is found in the rabbinic Midrash on Ps. 64:1, where Daniel's enemies claim that the lions did not eat Daniel because they were not hungry, whereupon the king invites them to re main one night with the lions. 23. See Attridge 1976a, 103-4, and literature cited on page 103, n. 1. Van Unnik 1973, 3 4 1 - 5 5 , notes original elements in Josephus's views here of providence and concludes that this originality refutes the
640
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
J o s e p h u s chose to c o n c l u d e his a c c o u n t o f D a n i e l a n d , indeed, o f b o o k 10 as a w h o l e — a s well as the first h a l f o f the entire w o r k — w i t h n o f e w e r t h a n five p a r a g r a p h s (Ant
1 0 . 2 7 7 - 8 1 ) d e m o n s t r a t i n g h o w mistaken the Epicureans w e r e 24
in asserting t h a t the w o r l d r a n by its o w n m o v e m e n t (avTOfjudrajs), guide (TJVLOXOV,
"charioteer") o r another's c a r e (d
(Ant
without a
10.278), is an
indication o f h o w m u c h i m p o r t a n c e h e a t t a c h e d to this lesson o n the p o w e r o f p r o v i d e n c e in h u m a n a f f a i r s .
25
T h e v e h e m e n c e w i t h w h i c h h e attacks the Epi
c u r e a n s h e r e reflects his v i e w that o n e must k n o w w h a t to a n s w e r to an "api26
qoros.
Josephus's story o f D a n i e l is, w e m a y say, c e n t e r e d o n these v e r y d o c
trines. Specifically, in the case o f the m i r a c l e of the S e a o f R e e d s , J o s e p h u s is r e a d y to c o n c e d e the possibility t h a t it o c c u r r e d TavTopLOLTov) (Ant
accident
(Kara
2.347), w h e r e a s h e r e , using the same expression, h e
through
vehe
m e n t l y denies the possibility o f such a u t o m a t i s m (avTopbaTLapLw) (Ant
10.280).
27
J o s e p h u s also, it has b e e n suggested, adapts his a c c o u n t in o r d e r to avoid r e f e r ences that w e r e used by C h r i s t i a n s to bolster their theological claims (see Paul 1 9 8 5 , 4 7 3 - 8 0 , a n d F o r n a r o 1 9 7 9 , 4 3 1 - 4 6 ) . In the case o f D a n i e l , the Bible r e p o r t s t h a t w h e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r sees the t h r e e youths u n h u r t by the fire into w h i c h they h a d b e e n cast, he also sees a fourth w h o is like "a son o f G - d " (Dan. 3:25). T h e rabbis a r e s h a r p l y critical o f h i m for this statement a n d r e t o r t , " C o r rect thyself! Has
G-d
a n y sons?" T h e r e u p o n ,
when Nebuchadnezzar next
speaks, he refers to the angel o f G - d r a t h e r t h a n to His son (Dan. 3 : 2 8 ) .
28
Jose
phus, however, avoids the p h r a s e "son of G - d " a n d instead says that the youths w e r e "dear to G - d " (OeocfriXeis).
view of those who assert that Josephus was merely copying handbooks. However, in this case at least the argument is inconclusive, since almost all of the primary sources for Epicureanism are lost. 24. Lieberman 1963, 123-41, notes that the word abtbmtbs occurs in only one passage in rabbinic literature, namely, Midrash Psalms 1.5 (ed. Buber, 1.22), where the reference is to the heretics—probably the Epicureans—who say that the universe is an automaton. Lieberman remarks that Epicurus was cho sen by the rabbis as the archsymbol of heresy not only because of his immense popularity but also be cause of the particular danger inherent in his philosophy. 25. The attack on the Epicureans in Against Apion 2.180 is similarly centered on their denial of G-d's providential care (-npovoiav) for mankind. So also in Philo, De Confusione Linguarum 23.114. 26. So also rabbinic tradition (Avot 2.14). The rabbis (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1) go so far as to men tion specifically the apiqorism among those who forfeit their share in the world to come. We may further understand the appropriateness and the vehemence of Josephus's attack on the Epicureans if we bear in mind the rabbinic view, as later codified by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah, 3.8), defining the 'apiqoras as one who either denies prophecy, and therefore the possibility of communion between G-d and man, or divine revelation, or divine knowledge of the deeds of man. 27. Delling 1974, 118, suggests that it is perhaps not accidental that the first half of the Antiquities ends with the prophet who speaks of the rescue of the Jewish people from their seemingly hopeless sit uation at the time when Josephus completed his work. If so, this would reinforce the view expressed above that Josephus, despite his obvious feeling of indebtedness to his imperial hosts, adopts a tone of ambiguity here in deference to the Jewish readers whom he was also attempting to reach. 28. See Jerusalem Shabbat 6 (end); Midrash Exodus Rabbah 20.20; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 7.9; Midrash Samuel 5.60; and Aggadat Bereshit 27.55, cittd by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:418-19, n. 90.
DANIEL
641
APOLOGETICS In his portrait of Daniel, Josephus is clearly concerned to answer the charge that the J e w s h a d contributed nothing to w o r l d civilization. In reply to the charge that the J e w s lack natural talent, he specifically remarks, in a n addition to the biblical description (Dan. 1:4), a n d using the same root, for/, that h a d been employed by the anti-Jewish Apollonius M o l o n himself, that Daniel a n d his companions h a d surpassing natural gifts (ev^vias)
(Ant. 10.189). W h e r e a s the Bible states that Neb
uchadnezzar gave Daniel high honors a n d m a n y great gifts (Dan. 2:48), Josephus adds, clearly responding to the charge that the J e w s lacked natural ability, that Nebuchadnezzar w a s amazed at Daniel's natural gifts (<j)voiv) (Ant. 10.211). This recognition of Daniel's natural gifts by K i n g Nebuchadnezzar would have sug gested a c o n t e m p o r a r y parallel to Josephus's readers: that the R o m a n imperial family should acknowledge with gratitude the natural gifts of another J e w i s h bene factor, namely, Josephus himself (so Mastin 1973, 8 8 - 8 9 ) . I
n
a
n
obvious answer to
the charge that the J e w s h a d failed to make any noteworthy contributions to civi lization, Josephus asserts that Nebuchadnezzar was so impressed with Daniel's wisdom that he even gave him the n a m e of his own god (that is, Belteshazzar) (Ant. 10.212).
29
T h a t J e w s w e r e both gifted a n d loyal is clear also from the h o n o r accorded to Daniel by Darius, the king of Persia. Thus, the Bible declares that Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents a n d satraps because an excellent spirit was in h i m (Dan. 6:3); Josephus speaks not only of the great h o n o r but also of the dazzling favor (Xapbirpfj o7Tov8f}) in which Daniel was held a n d adds that he was the one associated with Darius in all matters (Ant. 10.250). T h u s w e see that Josephus emphasizes the h o n o r accorded Daniel, a n d by implication J e w s generally, by three different monarchs—Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, a n d Darius. Moreover, if w e m a y j u d g e from Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.1.1-2), w h o w r o t e in the highly charged A l e x a n d r i a n anti-Jewish milieu, the opponents of the J e w s h a d tried to denigrate them by refusing to accord h o n o r to the great figures of their his t o r y notably, Moses, being motivated, at least in part, by envy. Hence Josephus is particularly eager to represent the great king Nebuchadnezzar as holding Daniel a n d his colleagues in esteem (riper/) a n d continuing to cherish them because of their progress in their studies (Ant. 10.189). Moreover, in an encomium with n o parallel in the Bible, Josephus says that during his lifetime, Daniel received h o n o r a n d esteem from both kings a n d people, a n d that his m e m o r y lives on eternally (Ant. 10.266). J o s e p h u s found himself in a v e r y delicate position in paraphrasing Daniel's a b stention from the king's food a n d wine (Dan. 1:8). T h e J e w s ' observance of their dietary laws h a d led to downright ridicule, as w e can see in the r e m a r k ascribed by
n
n a s
Apparently, as Marcus 1934-37, 6:275, - > remarked, Josephus forgets here that he has al ready written that Nebuchadnezzar changed Daniel's name to Belteshazzar (Ant. 10.189). 29.
e
642
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
so tolerant a pagan as Plutarch (Quaestiones Convivales 4.4.4) to his b r o t h e r Lamprias, that his grandfather used to say on every occasion, in derision of the J e w s , that w h a t they abstained from was precisely the most legitimate meat. It is therefore, significant that whereas the biblical statement is that Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself (yitega'al, "contaminate himself") with the king's rich food or with the wine that he drank (Dan. 1:8), Josephus, a p p a r e n d y sensitive to the im plication that n o n - K o s h e r food contaminates one and that one should abstain from the wine drunk by Gentiles simply because it is drunk by them (Ant. 10.190), omits the reference both to contamination and to wine a n d instead explains Daniel's behavior in totally different terms, namely, as due to his concern for a healthy diet, given that he h a d resolved to live austerely (oKXrjpaytoyeiv,
"to un
dergo h a r d y training"). T h e fact that the same w o r d , in the nominal f o r m (oKXrjpaycoyia), is used by Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.17.102; De Vita Contemplativa 9.69) (cited by Satran 1980, 45, n. 12) with reference to the rigorous austerity p r a c ticed by the Spartans w o u l d doubdess have aroused great admiration for Daniel a m o n g pagan readers in view of the high regard in which the Spartans w e r e held (see Feldman 1 9 8 7 - 8 8 , 2 0 7 - 1 0 ) . Josephus, in an addition to the biblical text (Dan. 1:12), portrays Daniel as seeking not to offend the king by refusing his food; a n d so whereas the Bible states that Daniel asked for pulse to eat, Josephus says that Daniel requested the king's steward for "pulse and dates for nourishment a n d a)V
whatever other kind of nonanimal [ca/jv'x \ food he chose" (Ant. 10.190). T h e ad dition of dates in Josephus's version w o u l d seem to reflect their importance in the diet
of the
Pythagoreans.
30
One
is
reminded
that the
very
same
verb,
oKXrjpaycoyeLv, which Josephus uses here with reference to the h a r d y training p r o g r a m that Daniel h a d assumed for himself is the v e r b that he employs of the regi m e n that he himself underwent w h e n he decided to experience firsthand the three sects of the J e w s (Life 11). Josephus's Daniel also, in his sensitivity to the king's feel ings, suggests a plan to the chief officer that would not cause embarrassment to the king, namely, that rather than having the food rejected outright, the officer con sume the food himself. R a t h e r than cite the Bible's reason as to w h y he refused the food—namely, that it was unlawful, being forbidden by the J e w s ' a p p a r e n d y arbi t r a r y dietary laws—Josephus's Daniel gives another reason, not found in the Bible, saying that he a n d his colleagues w e r e attracted (KeKLvfjodai, "set in motion," "stimulate") to a vegetarian diet a n d felt distaste (irepi^poveLv, "look d o w n upon," "think litde of") for any other (Ant. 10.190).
30. So Satran 1980, 38 and 46, n. 15. Satran, 38-39, is puzzled that in Josephus, Daniel and his companions include pulse (which presumably included fava beans, lentils, chickpeas, and various field peas) in their requested diet (Ant. 10.190), whereas the Pythagoreans abstained from beans (presumably fava beans), which fall under the general category of pulse. The answer would seem to be that Josephus could not avoid the fact that the Septuagint text does speak of the pulse (oW/na) requested by the youths (Dan. 1:12, 14). The average reader in antiquity might not, however, have indentified pulse with beans, the word for which is different (Kvafios), On the motives for and advantages of a vegetarian diet, see Beckwith 1988, 407-10.
DANIEL
643
T h e basis, then, for Daniel's refusal to partake of the king's food is his desire for the physical advantages o f a vegetarian diet (Ant. 10.190-94), although one wonders whether in classical antiquity, vegetarianism would not have h a d distinct physical disadvantages: without N e w W o r l d food plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, sweet peppers, kidney beans, and the like, let alone tofu, the ancient vegetarian would have h a d rather limited fare a n d might have risked malnutrition. Josephus, in a passage that has n o biblical basis, expands considerably on the dividends of such a diet, r e marking that thereby the souls of Daniel a n d his companions were kept pure (Kadapcjv,
"clean," "healthy") a n d fresh (aKpaivtov, "pure," "unimpaired," "well-
rested") for learning, while their bodies were kept m o r e vigorous (evrovcDrepcw, "well strung," "stronger," "more powerful") for arduous labor (>iAo77oviav, "love of labor," "endurance under hardships") (Ant. 10.194). Josephus then proceeds to expand still further on the advantages of such a diet by noting that thereby the youths did not op press (€(/)€LXKOVTO,
"draw down") a n d weigh down (fiapelas
ov
€?x )
s
o
l
u
s
with a
variety of food n o r soften their bodies thus. W h e r e a s in the Bible, it is G - d w h o gives the youths their knowledge and wisdom (Dan. 1:17), in Josephus, these achievements are the result of their regimen, a n d especially their diet (Ant. 10.194). We
m a y also suggest that Josephus a n d his readers w o u l d have been a w a r e o f
Plato's remarks on the connection between a healthy, temperate diet a n d the abil ity to grasp the truth in dreams (Republic 9 . 5 7 1 D - 7 2 B ) .
3 1
Readers might also be
a w a r e of the passage in Plato (Laws 6 . 7 8 2 C - D ) in which a n anonymous A t h e n i a n speaks o f those w h o abstain from eating flesh, as though it w e r e u n h o l y to eat it, a n d abstain (direxopievot) from animal food a n d restrict themselves to inanimate food (di/jvxojv), the v e r y w o r d s that are used here by Josephus (Ant. 1 0 . 1 9 0 ) .
32
That
Plato there identifies such a view with that held by the much-admired O r p h i c s w o u l d certainly have added credibility to Daniel's course of action. Such a ratio nal
explanation o f Daniel's procedure would undoubtedly have been convincing
to m a n y readers, especially since the much-revered philosopher Pythagoras h a d advocated a similar abstention from animal flesh (ap. Diodorus 10.7; Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae 7; Iamblichus, Protrepticus 21), urging instead a diet of r a w vegetables, honey, a n d h o n e y c o m b on bread, while avoiding wine (in the daytime at any rate), cooked o r r a w lettuce, beans, a n d seafood. Indeed, Josephus's praise of the effect of abstinence on the youths is a classic description of the balance between physical a n d mental training that became synonymous with philosophic existence in the Hellenistic period (Satran 1980, 3 7 ) .
33
W e m a y add, furthermore, that J o s e p h u s
31. So also Quintus, Marcus Cicero's brother, in Cicero, De Divinatione 1.53.121, asserts that a healthy, pure, undefiled soul is a necessary prerequisite for the ability to have clear and trustworthy dreams and to understand them. 32. Cited by Satran 1980, 36-37. On the dietary aspects of the Orphic and Pythagorean modes of life, see the literature cited on his p. 45, n. 11. 33. Cf. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.21 and 2.26, as cited by Satran 1980, 33-48. As Satran remarks, fasting here takes on a distincdy Graeco-Romanflavorparalleled as it is in the Orphic
life described by Plato (Laws 6.782C-D) and Philostratus's Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Satran 1980, 45, n.
644
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL
PORTRAITS
w a s w r i t i n g his v e r s i o n o f D a n i e l ' s f o o d p r e f e r e n c e s at p r e c i s e l y the p e r i o d w h e n there w a s a c o n s i d e r a b l e r e v i v a l o f N e o - P y t h a g o r e a n i s m . S e t h S c h w a r t z p l a u s i b l y suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s has D a n i e l m a k e the s a m e sort o f e x c u s e that J e w s in D a n i e l ' s p o s i t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day, s u c h as p e r h a p s J o s e p h u s himself, a c t u a l l y d i d m a k e (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 182, n. 3 5 ) .
34
T h e rabbis, m o s t significantly, in c o n
trast, b a s e D a n i e l ' s d e c i s i o n n o t o n g r o u n d s o f h e a l t h b u t solely o n g r o u n d s o f p i e t y (Avodak
%arah 36a). T h e t e r m St'cura, as u s e d h e r e o f D a n i e l a n d his c o l
l e a g u e s (Ant. 10.190), a l t h o u g h restricted, in this p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t , to their f o o d habits, n o r m a l l y e m b r a c e s a w h o l e attitude t o w a r d life, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in the p a s s a g e in w h i c h A r i s t o t l e expresses a d m i r a t i o n for the e n d u r a n c e a n d sobri ety in m a n n e r o f life (Stalrr})
o f the J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r (ap. Ag. Ap.
1.182). T h e n a t u r a l t e m p t a t i o n o n the p a r t o f apologists for the J e w s , in v i e w o f the re p e a t e d assertions o f their o p p o n e n t s , w a s to try to seek the r e a s o n s for s u c h J e w h a t r e d . In a n a l y z i n g the attacks u p o n J e w s in S y r i a o n 6 6 , o n the e v e o f the w a r a g a i n s t R o m e , J o s e p h u s lists three m o t i v e s for it: h a t r e d (jxiaos), fear (Seos), g r e e d (irXeove^la) for p l u n d e r — a p p a r e n t l y
and
a combination of economic jealousy
a n d fear o f J e w i s h p o w e r a n d e x p a n s i o n i s m (War 2.464, 478). T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c u t e l y a w a r e o f the p o w e r o f j e a l o u s y as a h u m a n drive m a y b e s e e n from a n u m b e r o f his a d d i t i o n s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . It is thus e n v y ((f)66vos) a n d j e a l o u s y (fiaGKavia) at their b e i n g n a m e d g o v e r n o r s o f the k i n g d o m t h a t are c i t e d b y J o s e p h u s as the m o t i v e s t h a t l e d to the b e t r a y a l o f D a n i e l ' s c o m p a n i o n s to K i n g N e b u c h a d n e z z a r (Ant. 10.212). It is e n v y o f the g r e a t h o n o r in w h i c h D a n i e l is h e l d b y the k i n g t h a t m o t i v a t e s the M e d i a n n o b l e s to p l o t a g a i n s t h i m ; a n d this gives J o s e p h u s the o c c a s i o n to p r e s e n t the truism, n o t f o u n d in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( D a n . 6:4), that " m e n are j e a l o u s w h e n t h e y see o t h e r s h e l d b y kings in g r e a t e r h o n o r t h a n t h e m s e l v e s " (Ant. 10.250). Similarly, it is e n v y (>06vov) t h a t m o t i v a t e s the satraps to a c c u s e D a n i e l o f t r a n s g r e s s i n g the o r d e r s o f K i n g D a r i u s (Ant. 10.256). I n a n effort to s h o w that J e w s d o n o t belittle others, J o s e p h u s (Ant. 10.194) o m i t s the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t that N e b u c h a d n e z z a r f o u n d D a n i e l a n d his c o m p a n i o n s to b e ten times b e t t e r t h a n all the m a g i c i a n s a n d e n c h a n t e r s in his entire k i n g d o m ( D a n . 1:20). S u c h b o a s t i n g at the e x p e n s e o f the h i g h l y r e g a r d e d M a g i w o u l d h a v e i n d i c a t e d l a c k o f r e s p e c t for non-Jews a n d for their religious l e a d e r s . I n g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s ' s D a n i e l , g i v e n his a d d i t i o n s to the b i b l i c a l narrative, c o m e s across as h a v i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n c e r n for non-Jews. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , D a n i e l a p p r o a c h e d his three c o m p a n i o n s a s k i n g t h e m to p r a y to G - d c o n -
13, also cites Josephus's remark c o m p a r i n g the m o d e o f life (Statra) o f the Essenes, w h o m he so much admired, with that of the Pythagoreans (Ant. 15.371). 34. T h a t Josephus m a y be thinking o f the problems encountered by those w h o were trying to ob serve the dietary laws in his o w n day m a y be inferred from his mention o f the fact that certain priests, w h o had been held in b o n d a g e in R o m e , supported themselves during their captivity on figs and nuts (Life 14).
DANIEL
645
c e r n i n g the m y s t e r y so that h e a n d they m i g h t n o t p e r i s h w i t h the rest o f the w i s e m e n ( D a n . 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . In J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is D a n i e l h i m s e l f w h o b e s e e c h e s G - d (Ant. 10.199); f u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s a d d s that h e d i d so t h r o u g h o u t the n i g h t , a n d in p l a c e o f the v a g u e t e r m " m y s t e r y " a n d a c o n c e r n p r i m a r i l y w i t h s a v i n g their o w n lives, t o g e t h e r w i t h those o f the non-Jewish wise m e n , w e are told specifically that h e s o u g h t e n l i g h t e n m e n t so as to save the M a g i a n d the C h a l d a e a n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h w h o m t h e y w e r e d e s t i n e d to p e r i s h . It is thus significantly the fate o f the M a g i a n d the C h a l d a e a n s t h a t is D a n i e l ' s first t h o u g h t .
DANIEL A N D T H E STATE T h e g r e a t Persian E m p i r e , like those o f A l e x a n d e r a n d his successors a n d the R o m a n E m p i r e o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day, w a s a r e a l m o f m a n y p e o p l e s r u l e d o v e r b y a n a t i o n that c o n s t i t u t e d a relatively small m i n o r i t y w i t h i n it, w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g l y , w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g l a w a n d o r d e r a n d r e p r e s s i n g seces sionist t e n d e n c i e s . T h e J e w s , b y v i r t u e o f their m a s s i v e effort in the y e a r s 6 6 - 7 4 to w i n i n d e p e n d e n c e from the R o m a n E m p i r e , constituted, from the R o m a n p o i n t o f view, a c e n t r i f u g a l a t t e m p t to b r e a k u p the e m p i r e ; a n d h e n c e J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s so d e p e n d e n t u p o n his R o m a n p a t r o n s , w a s forever v a l i a n t l y trying, o n the o n e h a n d , to p e r s u a d e the J e w s n o t to revolt a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , to c o n v i n c e the R o m a n s t h a t the J e w s w e r e l o y a l citizens o f their E m p i r e . T h e r e t u r n o f the J e w s from the B a b y l o n i a n c a p t i v i t y p r e s e n t e d J o s e p h u s w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l y d e l i c a t e p r o b l e m , i n a s m u c h as the J e w s , as w e see from the b o o k s o f E z r a a n d N e h e m i a h , w e r e a c c u s e d o f disloyalty to the Persian E m p i r e in their e a g e r n e s s to r e b u i l d the w a l l s o f J e r u s a l e m a n d the T e m p l e itself, w h i c h , to all a p p e a r a n c e s , w a s a v e r i t a b l e fortress. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s , in the first p l a c e , in a n effort to s h o w b r o a d m i n d e d n e s s t o w a r d non-Jews, seeks to s h e d m o r e f a v o r a b l e light u p o n the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.
3 5
T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t ,
not
f o u n d in D a n . 1:3, h e r e m a r k s t h a t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r s e l e c t e d n o t o n l y J e w s for t r a i n i n g in C h a l d a e a n w i s d o m b u t also m e m b e r s o f the o t h e r nations t h a t h e h a d s u b d u e d (Ant. 10.187). W h e r e a s the B i b l e says that the y o u t h s w e r e t a u g h t the l e a r n i n g a n d l a n g u a g e o f the C h a l d a e a n s (i.e., o f the B a b y l o n i a n s ) ( D a n . 1:4), J o s e p h u s presents N e b u c h a d n e z z a r as less c h a u v i n i s t i c , in that h e h a s the y o u t h s t a u g h t the l e a r n i n g n o t o n l y o f the C h a l d a e a n s (i.e., the class o f wise m e n ) b u t also o f B a b y l o n i a n natives g e n e r a l l y (Ant. 10.187). F r o m the b i b l i c a l narrative, it w o u l d s e e m t h a t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r w a s utterly a r b i t r a r y in insisting t h a t his w i s e m e n n o t o n l y i n t e r p r e t his d r e a m b u t also r e v e a l the details o f the d r e a m itself to h i m ( D a n . 2:5). J o s e p h u s saves N e b u c h a d n e z z a r from the c h a r g e o f c a p r i c i o u s n e s s b y e x p l a i n i n g that h e h a d s i m p l y f o r g o t t e n the d r e a m a n d therefore s o u g h t to h a v e his
35. T h e rabbinic tradition (Baba Batra 4a) says that Daniel was punished because he gave advice to Nebuchadnezzar.
646
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
wise m e n recall it to him (Ant. 10.195). Josephus emphasizes this point by not only stating that Nebuchadnezzar h a d forgotten the d r e a m but by then adding in the next sentence that he told the C h a l d a e a n s a n d M a g i a n d soothsayers, a p p a r e n d y apologetically, that he h a d happened (au^jSe/fy/cos) to forget it. Josephus gives further evidence of his concern for non-Jews in his version of Daniel's speech to Nebuchadnezzar interpreting the latter's d r e a m (Ant. 10.204). After all, Nebuchadnezzar h a d just arbitrarily condemned to death all the wise m e n of his realm simply because they h a d not been able to tell him the contents a n d interpretation of his d r e a m . T h e Bible says nothing about the king's capriciousness (Dan. 2:27-45), but Josephus shows concern for protecting Nebuchad nezzar's reputation, inasmuch as he remarks that Daniel's regard for the king's good n a m e was n o less than his sorrow for the wise men, inasmuch as Nebuchad nezzar h a d unjusdy ordered these m e n to be put to death (Ant. 10.204). Although these wise m e n were, with the exception of himself a n d his companions, all nonJ e w s , Daniel then proceeds to describe them all as fine a n d excellent men—KOLXOVS KayaOovs,
"perfect g e n d e m e n " — a n d upholds their reputation for wisdom by as
serting that the task that the king h a d imposed upon them was by n o means within the scope of h u m a n wisdom since it d e m a n d e d of them something that only G - d could do (Ant. 10.204). Finally, Josephus also rehabilitates Nebuchadnezzar by remarking, in an addi tion to the biblical text (Dan. 2:46), that after Daniel h a d interpreted his d r e a m c o r r e c d y Nebuchadnezzar hailed him in a m a n n e r in which m e n worship G - d (Ant. 1 0 . 2 1 1 ) . We
36
see Josephus's attempt to save Nebuchadnezzar's reputation in his total
omission of the passage in which, after Daniel's colleagues have been saved from the furnace, Nebuchadnezzar issues w h a t would seem to be an incredibly cruel de cree that those w h o speak anything against the G - d of S h a d r a c h , Meshach, and A b e d n e g o are to be t o r n limb from limb a n d their houses laid in ruin (Dan. 3:29). Such a sudden t u r n a b o u t in attitude w o u l d certainly not r e d o u n d to the credit of a great king. Hence, it is not surprising that Josephus completely omits this passage (Ant. 10.215). Josephus must have felt embarrassed about reproducing the gruesome a n d un seemly details of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m (Dan. 4 : 4 - 1 8 ) in which he imagines a beast's m i n d replacing his o w n (Dan. 4:16). T h e biblical narrative then describes the lurid scene, immortalized by W i l l i a m Blake's painting, in which, in fulfillment of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar was driven from a m o n g men, his hair grew like eagle feathers a n d his nails like a bird's claws, and he ate grass like an ox (Dan. 4:30). In fact, the Bible on three occasions reiterates the grotesque detail that he ate grass like an ox (Dan. 4:25, 32, 33). S o pitiful a figure w o u l d h a r d l y have r e -
36. Cf. Hartman and di Leila 1978, who comment on the parallel between Nebuchadnezzar be coming the servant of G-d and Alexander greeting the high priest reverendy (Ant. 11.329-39).
DANIEL
647
dounded to the standing of a m o n a r c h , so Josephus gready condenses the scrip tural account of the d r e a m (Ant. 10.216). In particular, he omits the biblical state ment, presumably as unbefitting a great monarch, that the d r e a m h a d m a d e him afraid (Dan. 4:5). He says merely that the king d r e a m t that he would make his h o m e a m o n g the beasts, rather than that he himself w o u l d take the f o r m of a beast. He then, without indicating Nebuchadnezzar's physical state during this time, adds that he spent seven years in the wilderness (Ant. 10.217). Josephus, the loyal citizen, further remarks that during this period, no one ventured to seize the government, the implication being that the king was not totally incapacitated o r that, in any case, he h a d left the government so well organized and in such good hands that he was able to resume the royal p o w e r as soon as he emerged from his seven-year exile. W h e r e a s in the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar praises G - d after his kingdom is restored to him (Dan. 4 : 3 1 - 3 4 ) , in Josephus's version, he appears in a still better light, because, while still in a state of indisposition, he prays to G - d that he m a y recover his kingdom (Ant. 10.217). Finally, Josephus realizes that, despite all his retouching, the Babylonian m o n a r c h still does not a p p e a r in the best light; and so, deeply apologetic for in cluding even this w a t e r e d - d o w n version, he reminds his readers at this point that they should not reproach him for carrying out his p r o g r a m (Ant. 10.218), p r o claimed in his preface, of merely translating the original text (Ant. 1.5) a n d neither adding to n o r subtracting from that narrative (Ant. 1.17). However, to add credence to his work, Josephus quotes from extrabiblical non-Jewish sources, notably, Berossus, a n d cites (Ant. 10.227) three other authors with regard to Nebuchadnez zar—Megasthenes, Diocles, a n d Philostratus—as corroborating the biblical n a r rative (Ant. 10. 2 1 9 - 2 8 ) . A n d w h e n , like the Bible, Josephus recalls the above episode, whereas the Bible once again paints a grotesque picture of an insane Neb uchadnezzar with the m i n d of a beast, dwelling a m o n g wild asses a n d being fed grass like an ox (Dan. 5:21), Josephus says, much m o r e delicately, that his w a y of living (8/atrav, "nourishment," "diet") h a d been changed to that of beasts, with no indication of actual insanity (Ant. 10.242). If, indeed, Belshazzar is punished severely by G - d (Ant. 1 0 . 2 4 7 ) ,
l tl s
because, in
an addition that Josephus (Ant. 10.233) makes to the biblical text (Dan. 5:4), Bel shazzar not only drank from the vessels that Nebuchadnezzar h a d taken from the Temple but also blasphemed G - d (Ant. 10.233. This is a charge that Daniel, w h e n he interprets the writing seen by Belshazzar, reiterates even m o r e strongly, r e marking that the king h a d grievously (7roAAa, "many times") blasphemed the Deity (Ant. 10.242). Both Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.5; De Specialibus Legibus e
1.9.53; D
Vita Mosis 2.37.203-38.208) and Josephus (Ant. 4.207; Ag. Ap. 2.237) inter
pret the biblical injunction of Exod. 22:27 (28) to m e a n that one is not permitted to revile the gods of others; hence Belshazzar was guilty of the v e r y intolerance that is prohibited for J e w s (see D a u b e 1990, 2 5 4 - 5 5 ) . A n d yet, even the wicked king Belshazzar, w h o was guilty of the grossest blas p h e m y in allowing himself a n d his concubines to be served from the sacred vessels
648
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
of the Temple, emerges in a m o r e favorable light in Josephus's account
(Ant.
10.242). W h e r e a s the biblical narrative, once Daniel has given him the dire p r e diction based on his interpretation of the writing on the wall, states v e r y simply that Belshazzar c o m m a n d e d that Daniel be given the various honors that he h a d promised him (Dan. 5:29), Josephus goes out of his w a y to explain that Belshazzar did not withhold the gifts that he h a d promised despite the fact that Daniel h a d been a prophet of evil to him (Ant. 10.246). Josephus then explains Belshazzar's r a tionale in so doing, namely, that Daniel was in no w a y responsible for the fate that he h a d forecast for the king a n d that, in any case, he, Belshazzar, h a d m a d e his promise to a m a n w h o was good a n d just. Josephus likewise makes special efforts to improve the reputation of the third monarch, Darius, with w h o m Daniel comes into close contact. T h e r e a d e r might well ask w h y a king possessed of any intelligence o r sense of justice w o u l d — a s the biblical Darius is said to d o — h a v e signed his n a m e to an edict forbidding petitions to any god o r m a n except to the king for thirty days (Dan. 6:7). T h e Bible says sim ply that the king signed the interdict without explaining w h y he should have done so (Dan. 6:9). Josephus explains that the king approved of the decree because he did not see through the wicked scheme of his advisers a n d because he did not sus pect that Daniel's rivals h a d framed the measure specifically against Daniel (Ant. 10.254). Josephus likewise seeks to protect Darius's reputation by having him not merely express the hope, as in the Bible (Dan. 6:16), that Daniel's G - d w o u l d save him but also bidding him to b e a r his fate with good courage. F u r t h e r m o r e , even if the punishment subsequently meted out to Daniel's enemies seems just, it appears utterly cruel and unjust for Darius to have cast into the lions' den the wives a n d children also of these enemies (Dan. 6:24), a n d it is therefore significant that J o s e phus omits this detail (Ant. 10.262). In the Hellenistic period, J e w s came to exercise the v e r y highest administrative posts, as w e see, for example, in the fact that four J e w s — O n i a s , Dositheus, Helkias, a n d A n a n i a s (Ag. Ap. 2.49; Ant. 1 3 . 3 4 9 ) — h a d reached the position of c o m m a n d e r in chief of the a r m y of the Ptolemies. Moreover, the J e w i s h king A g r i p p a I played the key role in the accession of Claudius to the R o m a n throne (Ant. 1 9 . 2 3 6 - 2 4 5 ) ; a n d a Jew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, rose to be governor of the most important province of the empire, Egypt (War 2.309). Josephus was thus understandably con cerned, especially in v i e w of the charge that J e w s w e r e unduly influential in high places (see Cicero, Pro Flacco 28.66, a n d the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs), to p r e sent such key biblical personalities as J o s e p h a n d Daniel as particularly loyal to the rulers of their lands. Likewise, Josephus takes pains to stress Daniel's concern not to a p p e a r brazen. Hence, whereas in the biblical text, Daniel goes direcdy to Nebuchadnezzar to ask him to give him time to solve the riddle of his d r e a m (Dan. 2:16), Josephus's Daniel observes protocol in requesting the c o m m a n d e r of the king's bodyguard, Arioches, to approach the king with the petition that he put off the execution of the royal wise m e n for a day (Ant. 10.198).
DANIEL
649
It is not surprising that J o s e p h u s should be so careful not to offend his R o m a n hosts, in light of the bloody revolt of the J e w s against the R o m a n s ( 6 6 - 7 4 ) , which h a d caused the R o m a n s so much difficulty, and in which J o s e p h u s himself h a d played a n ignominious role; a n d in view, too, of the fact that J o s e p h u s himself h a d received so m a n y rewards from the R o m a n s , including a tract of land outside J e r u s a l e m , some sacred books, the liberation of various friends, R o m a n citizen ship, a pension, a n d a h o m e in Vespasian's palace. A n d yet, as w e have noted, J o s e phus felt that he h a d to cater not only to a non-Jewish but also to a J e w i s h r e a d e r ship, a n d so he is often deliberately ambiguous. W e already see this ambiguity in his account of Balaam's prophecies, w h e r e Josephus speaks in the vaguest t e r m s of the calamities that will befall cities of the highest celebrity, some of which h a d not yet been founded (Ant. 4.125). T h e r e w a s n o reason w h y J o s e p h u s h a d to mention this p r o p h e c y at all, since, as he himself says, the historian is expected to write only of the past a n d not to predict the future (Ant. 10.210). A n d yet, the fact that he does cite such a p r o p h e c y is a n indication that he wished s o m e h o w to satisfy his J e w i s h readers, w h o might well have recognized an allusion to R o m e h e r e .
37
Non-Jewish
readers w o u l d not have been offended, of course, since J o s e p h u s does not mention R o m e specifically by name. A s F. F. Bruce has remarked, Josephus, writing two decades
after the fall of M a s a d a , m a y even have c o m e to entertain second
thoughts about w h e t h e r the J e w i s h revolutionaries in the w a r against R o m e h a d b e e n altogether wrong, although w e m a y well doubt Bruce's further suggestion that Josephus's patriotism t r i u m p h e d in the end and he foresaw his people's vindi cation (Bruce 1 9 6 5 , 1 6 0 ) .
38
T h e most striking indication of Josephus's ambiguity with regard to the R o m a n s m a y be seen in his evasiveness concerning the m e a n i n g of the stone (Ant. 10.210) that, in Nebuchadnezzar's 2144-45).
39
d r e a m , destroys the kingdom of iron (Dan.
His excuse on this point, as w e have noted, is that, as a historian, he is
37. Such is the rabbinic tradition, with which, as noted, Josephus was likely acquainted. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 3:380, and the rabbinic passages that he cites (ibid., 6:133, n. 782). 38. In a similar effort not to offend the Romans, Daniel, in describing Nebuchadnezzar's dream, says that the legs and feet of the image in the dream were of iron (Ant. 10.206), whereas, according to the biblical text, the legs are of iron, but the feet are partly of iron and partly of clay (Dan. 2:33). Per haps iron would in itself have been regarded as a reference to Rome (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 35.5), whereas Josephus felt that a mixture of iron and clay would be a sign of Rome's fragility. Likewise, Jose phus (Ant. 10.209) i t s the portion of Nebuchnezzar's dream referring to the division of the fourth kingdom (Dan. 2:42), perhaps because, like the rabbis (cf. Midrash Exodus Rabbah 35.5), he may have identified this with Rome and so would have been careful not to offend his Roman readers by men tioning it. 39. The perceptive reader might well have connected this remark with the passage in which Jose phus states explicidy that Daniel wrote about the empire of the Romans (Ant. 10.276), although admit tedly there is no necessary connection between the two passages. Stemberger 1983, 33-37, concludes that Josephus is more critical toward Rome in the Antiquities than in the War and aligns himself with the apocalyptic tradition in the former. Perhaps we should say not that he is more critical but rather that he is more ambiguous. om
6>
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
expected to discuss the past a n d not to predict the future, although Josephus cer tainly saw a kinship between the p r o p h e t a n d the historian, particularly since he must have been a w a r e of the dictum of Thucydides (1.22.4), one of his favorite au thors, that "whoever wishes to have a clear view of the events that have happened a n d of those that will some day, in all h u m a n probability, h a p p e n again in the same or a similar w a y " w o u l d find his history useful (Feldman 1990, 3 9 7 - 4 0 0 ) .
40
This is
the only place in his writings w h e r e J o s e p h u s makes such a statement; and, in fact, n o other extant ancient historian makes any such r e m a r k either. T h e v e r y fact that Josephus refers to the historian Cleodemus-Malchus as "the prophet" is a further indication of the kinship that he saw between historian a n d p r o p h e t (Ant. 1.240). W e m a y add that one basic reason for Josephus's great interest in the p r o p h e t s — a n d he regarded Daniel as a p r o p h e t (Ant. 10.246, 2 4 9 , 268)—was that he viewed them as his predecessors as historians of the past. Moreover, Josephus remarks that the reason w h y the historical works from the time of Artaxerxes in the mid fifth century B.C.E. to his o w n time are less reliable is because they did not have the prophets as their authors (Against Apion. 1.41). O f course, inasmuch as Josephus, especially in his references to the prophets, is highly selective, he m a y simply have omitted to p a r a p h r a s e the above passage, as he did the p r o p h e c y of a messianic kingdom that would destroy all previous king doms a n d that itself would last forever (Dan. 2:44), as well as the passage in Daniel (7:18), in which it is m a d e clear that the fifth, worldwide, a n d everlasting empire would be ruled by the people of "saints of the Most High," that is, the J e w s — a passage that would, to the obvious embarrassment of Josephus as spokesman for the R o m a n s , imply the overthrow of R o m e .
41
T h e fact that he nevertheless does
not omit the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m is an indication of the de liberate ambiguity of his attempt to reach both of his audiences, the non-Jews a n d the J e w s , for the latter of w h o m the reference would a p p a r e n d y be taken as an nouncing a messianic kingdom that w o u l d make an end of the R o m a n Empire. Perhaps he felt that to omit it altogether w o u l d have been regarded by his J e w i s h readers as a clear indication that he h a d sold out to the R o m a n s . In fact, J o s e p h K l a u s n e r goes so far as to argue that Josephus's trip to R o m e in 64, despite his statements in the War that Rome's ascendancy was p a r t of a divine plan, m a y have actually increased his enthusiasm for the cause of the revolutionaries, inasmuch as he must have been struck by Rome's decadence a n d hence have seen that it was only a matter of time before R o m e w o u l d fall (Klausner 1 9 4 9 , 5 : 1 6 7 - 6 8 ) ; in this
40. Conversely, a prophet is concerned with recording the past, as may be seen from the fact that Moses, at the close of his life, "prophesies" to each of the tribes the things that are past (Ant. 4.320). 41. Flusser 1972, 148-75, concludes that Josephus (Ant. 10.276-77) could not speak of the common interpretation of the four empires in Daniel because of its anti-Roman character, but that in Ant. 15.385-87, where no such danger would arise, he gives the common Jewish interpretation of the se quence of the four empires—Babylonia, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. However, that there is no in dication in the latter passage that the Roman Empire is destined to be overthrown.
DANIEL
65/
view, the passage in Antiquities 10.210 would be a clue to his real feelings t o w a r d the Romans. W h e n Josephus goes on to direct anyone w h o is eager for exact information about these hidden things of the future to read the Book of Daniel for himself, he surely realized that non-Jews were unlikely to follow through on this suggestion, whereas this w o u l d seem to be a hidden hint to J e w s to read the Book of Daniel it self and to perceive the reference to the future downfall of R o m e . T h a t Josephus's evasiveness here is deliberate seems apparent from the fact that elsewhere J o s e phus p r o u d l y contrasts the great G r e e k philosophers Pythagoras, A n a x a g o r a s , Plato, a n d the Stoics, w h o did not venture to disclose their true beliefs to the masses, with the openness of Moses (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 6 8 - 6 9 ) . If Josephus really took seriously his statement that it is not the function of the historian to deal, through prediction, with future events, he h a d no need to m e n tion the above prophecy at all, since it does not concern historic events that h a d al r e a d y occurred. If he does so, nevertheless, it is, it would seem, for the benefit of J e w i s h readers, w h o would certainly find great comfort in that p r o p h e c y .
42
In this
respect, it w o u l d seem likely that Josephus shared one of the m a j o r and distinctive tenets of the Pharisees, namely, their apocalyptic hopes. W h i l e it is true that there is no mention in the works of Josephus of a messiah (other than the references in Ant. 18.63 and 20.200, the f o r m e r of which is probably interpolated), inasmuch as the belief in a messiah was a cardinal tenet of the Pharisees,
43
with w h o m Josephus
allied himself (Life 12), it seems most likely that Josephus did share this v i e w .
44
Moreover, although Josephus makes a point of contrasting Daniel with other prophets as a b e a r e r of good tidings, whereas they foretold disasters (Ant. 10.268),
42. Cf. Braverman 1978, in, who perceptively remarks that Josephus must have been confident that his Roman readers would not check his source by snooping in the Book of Daniel itself, and hence that this reference is evidence that he was addressing two different audiences, telling each one what it wanted to hear. 43. That the rabbis understood the stone to refer to the messiah (Dan. 2:44-45) is clear from Tanhuma B 2.91-92 and Tanhuma Terumah 7. De Jonge 1974, 2 1 1 - 1 2 , argues that Josephus's speech in which he states that G-d, having made the round of the nations, had now caused the rod of empire to rest over Italy (War 5.367), is making the point that it is only for "now" (vvv) that Rome is supreme and that this is actually an indication that its supremacy is not to last forever. Hence, according to de Jonge, Josephus here, as in Ant. 4.114-17, 10.210, and 10.267, evidences a clear eschatological messianic faith. It may be doubted, however, that the passage in War 5.367 expresses a messianic anticipation, since it seems very unlikely that Josephus, having been commissioned by the Romans to urge the Jews to sur render, would have ventured to suggest such an anticipation in clear defiance of his Roman hosts. 44. See Davies 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 - 2 8 , and Nikiprowetzky 1989, 216-36. If Josephus thus suppresses the mes sianic ideals of those who led the revolution against Rome in 6 6 - 7 4 , apparendy did so to avoid the wrath of the Romans, who would have seen the messiah as a political rebel against Rome. The fact is that in the last book of the Antiquities, Josephus lists at least ten leaders who were probably regarded as messiahs by their adherents, although Josephus himself avoids calling them such. The meaning of the term "messiah" was apparendy flexible enough to accommodate the careers of all these figures. n e
6ji?
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
those good tidings are not recorded in Josephus's subsequent presentation (At tridge 1 9 7 6 , 105). He is perhaps here too, however, cryptically addressing his J e w ish readers, w h o , in accordance with Josephus's recommendation (Ant. 10.210), would r e a d the Book of Daniel (notably 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , which Josephus
significandy
omits), with its prophecies of future J e w i s h greatness, which Josephus, given his delicate position as a protege of the Flavians, did not feel free to cite. T h a t Josephus was really walking a tightrope in his handling of Daniel's (pur ported) predictions about the R o m a n s m a y be seen in his c o m m e n t that Daniel wrote about the empire of the R o m a n s a n d that J e r u s a l e m would be taken by them a n d the Temple laid waste (Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 6 ) .
45
A s his formulation here shows,
Josephus was a p p a r e n d y reluctant to tell the r e a d e r w h a t it w a s that Daniel wrote about the R o m a n s (at least as interpreted by tradition), namely, that the R o m a n Empire would itself be overthrown a n d that the J e w s would ultimately t r i u m p h .
46
Indeed, although he devotes m o r e attention to Daniel than to any other prophet, he omits a n y reference to the celebrated seventy-weeks p r o p h e c y of D a n . 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , which foretells the coming o f a messianic redeemer, presumably from R o m a n rule. T h a t Josephus was highly sensitive to the charge of dual loyalty m a y be seen in his p a r a p h r a s e of the biblical passage in which certain C h a l d a e a n s accuse the J e w ish youths S h a d r a c h , Mesach, a n d A b e d n e g o , w h o m Nebuchadnezzar h a d ap pointed to high administrative posts, of paying no heed to the king, as witnessed by the fact that they did not serve his gods o r worship his image (Dan. 3 : 8 - 1 2 ) — o b -
45. The text is in doubt here; and Eisler 1931, 631, suspects an interpolation. The restoration is based upon an excerpt in John Chrysostom. See Marcus 1934-37, 6:310-11, n. c, who concludes that there is no reason why a mere reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans would have been avoided by Josephus as likely to offend his Roman readers. Such a reference would indeed not have offended his Roman readers but, on the contrary, would have given them cause for pride in over coming such a mighty revolt; rather, it was the reference to what Daniel wrote about the Roman Em pire, namely, the prediction of its ultimate overthrow (Dan. 9:26), that would surely not have set well with them. For a discussion of the ambiguity in the Josephan passage (Ant. 10.276), see Braverman 1978, 109-10. 46. Nikiprowetzky 1 9 7 1 , 4 6 1 - 9 0 , argues that there are esoteric references in the War to messianism, suggestive of Josephus's belief that the Roman power was destined to be overthrown by a messianic kingdom; but the passage (War 6.310-15) that he cites in support of his thesis refers to a prediction that someone from Judaea would become the ruler of the world. There is no indication that this "someone" would necessarily be a Jew, and indeed, at least according to Josephus (War 6.313), the reference was, rather, to Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while he was leading his army in Judaea. In fact, it would have been foolhardy and outright dangerous for Josephus to have implied that the reference was to a Jewish messiah; consequendy, Josephus suppresses the messianic ideals of the revolutionaries in the war against Rome, so much did he apparendy fear Roman wrath. Bilde 1988, 188, on the basis of the cryptic passage in which Josephus mentions the stone without revealing its meaning (Ant. 10.210), concludes that Josephus did have an eschatology, but that it was different from that of the militant na tionalists, being, in fact, similar to that which wefindin the contemporary apocalyptic circles repre sented by the Book of Daniel, the Essenes, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. We may, however, com ment that if so, Josephus certainly was careful to conceal his eschatological beliefs or to wrap them in ambiguity.
DANIEL
633
viously important symbols in maintaining the unity a n d allegiance of the m a n y ethnic groups in his kingdom. Josephus, in his paraphrase, is careful to shift the emphasis from the failure of the J e w s to serve Nebuchadnezzar's gods a n d to w o r ship his i m a g e — a political d e m a n d — t o the religious motive of the youths, namely, their unwillingness to transgress their fathers' laws (Ant. 10.214). T h e R o m a n s , w h o placed such a great emphasis upon law a n d upon respect for ancestral tradition, as w e can see from the attention given these factors in their great national p o e m , V i r gil's Aeneid, w o u l d surely have appreciated such a stance. Elsewhere, Josephus goes even further in shifting the focus from the conflict be tween J e w i s h religious l a w a n d the law of the state. Thus, in the Bible, Daniel's en vious rivals state, in their exasperation, that they are unable to find any complaint against Daniel unless they discover it to be "in the matter of the law of his G - d " (Dan. 6:5). Realizing that the w o r d "law" in and of itself was such an important concept to the R o m a n s a n d that the biblical allusion to a possible conflict between the law o f the state a n d the law of the J e w s implied an irreconcilable conflict be tween two systems, Josephus in his p a r a p h r a s e of this passage omits the w o r d "law" altogether and instead couches the issue solely in religious terms, with his r e m a r k that w h e n his rivals saw Daniel praying to G - d three times a day, they real ized that they h a d found a pretext for destroying him (Ant. 10.252). W h e n J o s e p h u s does subsequendy mention the laws of the J e w s , he makes clear by the immediate following mention of the Temple a n d its sacrifices that his reference is to their r e ligious laws (Ant. 10.275). Daniel's envious rivals, on the other hand, according to Josephus's addition to the biblical text (Dan. 6:13), sought to p o r t r a y Daniel as at tempting, by his disregard of the king's edict, to u n d e r m i n e the state, which they claimed other inhabitants w e r e seeking to preserve (Ant. 1 0 . 2 5 6 ) .
47
Moreover, Josephus was well a w a r e of the charge that the J e w s exercised u n d u e influence in the highest echelons of government, as evidenced in the visit to A l e x a n d r i a in 38 C.E. of K i n g A g r i p p a I, with its ostentatious display of his body guard of spearmen decked in a r m o r overlaid with gold a n d silver, which led to a p o p u l a r riot against the J e w s (Philo, In Flaccum 5.30). Hence, w h e n Belshazzar offers a gift to Daniel (Dan. 5:16), Josephus is careful to stress that the initiative was Belshazzar's own, rather than in response to any claim on Daniel's p a r t (Ant. 10.240), j u s t as he adds that the reason w h y Belshazzar took this step was so that Daniel might b e c o m e illustrious in the eyes of all w h o saw him a n d w h o would ask w h y he h a d obtained these symbols of power. W e m a y see from Josephus's treatment of the role played by Daniel in Darius's kingdom that he is careful to avoid any suggestion that J e w s exercise undue power. Thus, whereas the Bible says that the king planned to set Daniel over the whole kingdom (Dan. 6:3), Josephus says nothing about such a plan (Ant. 10.250), which
47. There is a lacuna here in the text, but the import appears to be that those who observed the edict not to pray did so not because of impiety but because they realized how important it was to main tain respect for law and order.
654
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
would have implied control by a J e w over the largest empire known up to that date. Instead, w e are told v e r y simply that Daniel was held in great honor. T h a t Daniel was regarded by Darius as particularly trustworthy m a y be de duced from the fact that in an addition by Josephus to D a n . 6:28, Darius shows him extraordinarily high h o n o r by designating him as the first of his Friends (Ant. 10.263). T h e office of royal bodyguard was held only by "friends of the king" (see L a m m e r t 1927, 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) .
4 8
Similarly, we m a y note Josephus's reference to Z e r u b -
babel, w h o h a d an "old friendship" with the king, and w h o was on that account "judged w o r t h y of a place in the king's bodyguard" (Ant. 11.32). It is particularly important that w h e n Ezra is first introduced to his readers by Josephus, he is termed, in an extrabiblical addition, not to be found in 1 Esdras 8:4, "a friend" (<j>i\os) to K i n g X e r x e s (Ant.
11.121).
C L A R I F I C A T I O N S O F THE BIBLE A m o n g the most c o m m o n charges against the J e w i s h Scriptures was the con tention that they contained contradictions and discrepancies in chronology. In the case of the Book of Daniel, Josephus was confronted with an obvious problem of chronology, inasmuch as w e h e a r of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m in the second y e a r of his reign (Dan. 2:1), whereas the second y e a r o f Nebuchadnezzar's reign long preceded the events described in the Book of Daniel (Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and A z a r i a h did not enter Nebuchadnezzar's presence until after three years, as w e see in D a n . 1:5 a n d 1:18). Josephus resolves the problem by stating that the d r e a m occurred two years after Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Egypt (Ant. 1 0 . 1 9 5 ) .
49
To increase the credibility of his account, Josephus gives precise information w h e r e the Bible lacks such; for example, he gives the precise date of the capture of Babylon by C y r u s . T h e Bible does not give a date for this event (Dan. 5:30); but Josephus, eager to present himself as a reliable historian, and drawing upon sources that are no longer extant, reports that it was in the seventeenth y e a r of the
48. Cf. Ant. 13.45, where Alexander Balas, the king of Syria, writes to Jonathan the Hasmonean that he is designating him high priest of the Jews with the tide of "friend" (<j>i\os). Cf. also Ant. 14.250, where Josephus quotes a decree of the Roman Senate exempting King Ptolemy of Egypt from taxation as "our ally and friend." 49. The rabbis date the dream two years after the destruction of the Temple (Seder Olam Rabbah 28.124). Jerome, in his commentary on Dan. 2:1, cites "the Hebrews" as dating it in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over all the barbarian nations. Inasmuch as Jerome cites Josephus as specifi cally corroborating "the Hebrews," which is his usual way of referring to rabbinic tradition, we may conclude that the midrashim available to Jerome, but which are now lost, cited a view similar to that expressed by Josephus. The eleventh-century Karaite commentator Jepheth ibn Ali, in his commen tary on Dan. 2:1, explains the passage as referring to the second year after Nebuchadnezzar had be come king of the whole world. See Braverman 1978, 7 2 - 7 6 .
DANIEL
655
50
reign of Belshazzar (Ant. 1 0 . 2 4 7 ) . Likewise, because he wishes to be recognized as a careful historian, whereas the Bible is silent about the identity of Darius the M e d e (Dan. 6:1), Josephus explains that he was a son of Astyages but was called by another n a m e a m o n g the Greeks (Ant. 10.248).
D R A M A T I C M O T I F S AND L A N G U A G E T h e r e is added d r a m a in Josephus's version of Daniel's request that the execution of the wise m e n be delayed. In the Bible, Daniel asks the king to give him "time" (Dan. 2:16). In Josephus's version, the d r a m a is increased in that he asks m e r e l y for one night a n d also in that Nebuchadnezzar, w e are told, actually orders the exe cution to be postponed until he learns w h a t Daniel has promised to disclose (Ant. 10.198). O n e is reminded of Medea's request to C r e o n to allow h e r to remain in C o r i n t h for just one d a y so that she m a y consider w h e r e to live out h e r exile a n d w h e r e to seek support for h e r children (Euripides, Medea 3 4 0 - 4 1 ) . A n o t h e r case w h e r e Josephus builds up suspense is the scene w h e r e Belshazzar seeks to find an interpretation of the handwriting on the wall. In the biblical ver sion, the king calls upon his wise m e n , but they fail to understand the writing (Dan. 4:7, 9). In Josephus, as noted, there are two stages to the process, the first w h e n the M a g i are called in a n d the second w h e n the king offers a third of his realm to the successful interpreter (Ant. 10.236). In the second stage, as Josephus reports it, the M a g i come in ever greater numbers a n d make ever greater efforts, all without suc cess. T h e suspense is all the greater in that all this takes place, according to J o s e phus's unscriptural addition, while Belshazzar is being besieged by C y r u s , king of Persia, a n d Darius, king of M e d i a (Ant. 10.232; cf. D a n . 5 : 1 - 9 ) . T h e r e is further suspense w h e n Belshazzar's queen (she is Belshazzar's grand mother, according to Josephus [Ant. 10.237]) begs him to send for Daniel a n d so c o n d e m n the ignorance of those w h o could not read the writing on the wall. J o s e phus helps build u p the suspense of dire foreboding with an unscriptural detail, namely, that the queen asked her husband to call for Daniel even though a dark (oKvdpamov,
"somber," "distressing," "depressing," "calamitous," "catastrophic")
oudook might be indicated by G - d (Ant. 10.238). Josephus also adds to the d r a m a of the climactic incident in which Daniel is cast into the lions' den. According to the biblical narrative, w h e n K i n g Darius hears from the satraps that Daniel has violated his edict, he is v e r y upset, sets his h e a r t on delivering Daniel, a n d tries until sundown to w o r k out a plan to save him (Dan. 6:14). J o s e p h u s adds to the sense of apprehension in the scene, since he depicts the plotters as anticipating that Darius might treat Daniel with greater favor than they
n
50. As Marcus (1934-37, 6:294-95, - ) remarks, Josephus's dadng is supported by Babylonian records, whereas it contradicts extant rabbinic tradition, which declares that Belshazzar reigned for only two years. c
6j6
JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS
h a d expected a n d that he might be r e a d y to p a r d o n him despite his contempt for the royal decree (Ant. 10.257). J o s e p h u s even adds at this point that they are envi ous of Daniel because of the regard in which he is held by Darius a n d hence refuse to adopt a milder course. Moreover, there is heightened irony in Josephus's version. Thus, w h e n Daniel emerges unscathed from the lions' den, the biblical narrative states that Darius o r dered that Daniel's accusers be cast into the lions' den, together with their wives a n d children, w h e r e u p o n the lions broke all their bones to pieces (Dan. 6:24). T h e r e is much greater d r a m a in Josephus's version. In the first place, as has been noted, J o s e p h u s adds that Daniel's enemies tell the king their t h e o r y that the rea son w h y Daniel was not h a r m e d was that the lions w e r e sated, w h e r e u p o n the king takes t h e m at their w o r d and feeds the lions a large quantity of meat before throw ing the plotters into the lions' den, where, fittingly enough, they are devoured (Ant. 10.260). This is the same kind of irony that w e find in Josephus's c o m m e n t on the appropriateness of the fact that H a m a n should have been hanged on the gallows that he h a d p r e p a r e d for his e n e m y M o r d e c a i a n d on G - d ' s wisdom and justice in bringing this about (Ant. 11.268).
SUMMARY To understand Josephus's interpretation of the character of Daniel, w e must real ize that he was addressing an audience of both J e w s a n d non-Jews. For the latter, going beyond his biblical source, he emphasizes Daniel's genealogy, handsome ap pearance, a n d possession of the cardinal virtues of wisdom (seen especially in his interpretation of dreams), courage, temperance (which he identifies with modesty), a n d justice (which is coupled with h u m a n i t y a n d unselfishness), plus the fifth virtue of piety. In addition, his Daniel shows the qualities of leadership prized by T h u c y dides and Plato, w h o m J o s e p h u s a n d his audience so admired. Daniel is also r e ferred to, as he is not in the Bible, as a prophet, a role that J o s e p h u s also ascribed to himself. Because J e w s h a d reached positions of the highest importance during the Hel lenistic a n d R o m a n periods and thereby aroused jealousy as well as charges of double loyalty, Josephus uses this pericope to show the broadmindedness of J e w s t o w a r d non-Jews. In particular, he seeks to cast the kings—Nebuchadnezzar, Bels hazzar, a n d D a r i u s — w i t h w h o m Daniel was closely associated in a m o r e favorable light. A n d yet, Josephus felt that he h a d to cater to a J e w i s h readership also. A l though he might easily have omitted, as strictiy speaking not relevant to his history, the reference in Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m to the stone that destroyed the kingdom of iron, he nevertheless mentions it, albeit with the evasive r e m a r k that anyone w h o wishes to obtain m o r e information about the matter should r e a d the Book of Daniel. S u r e l y Josephus realized that only J e w s w e r e likely to follow this sugges-
DANIEL
657
tion, just as it was they w h o would probably be aware of the interpretation of this passage as referring to the messiah's triumph over the R o m a n Empire. By emphasizing the honors accorded Daniel, Josephus also uses this pericope to answer the charge that the J e w s w e r e the most untalented of all barbarians. Moreover, in explaining that Daniel abstained from the king's food and wine for reasons of health, Josephus answers the charge that the J e w s h a d a w a y of life that was hostile to foreigners. T h e r e is a relative deemphasizing of G - d and greater importance attached to the h u m a n role in history in Josephus's Daniel pericope. In dealing with the mir acles of the Book of Daniel, Josephus either rationalizes o r says that Daniel was saved by divine providence, employing a t e r m that was a favorite of the Stoics. R e alizing the problem presented by angels both for J e w s and non-Jews, he avoids mentioning them as effecting the miraculous rescue of Daniel from the lions' den. T h e fact that he closes his account of Daniel, and, indeed, the first half of the An tiquities, with an excursus on h o w mistaken the Epicureans are in asserting that the world runs by its own movement is once again an appeal to the numerous Stoics in his audience. In addition, in his paraphrase, Josephus clarifies several apparent contradic tions o r difficulties in the biblical text, especially in its chronology. Likewise he gives precise information w h e r e the Bible is lacking such. J o s e p h u s also adds d r a m a to the narrative and, in particular, builds u p sus pense. Moreover, he heightens the irony, particularly in the scene in which Daniel's enemies, w h o h a d argued that the reason w h y Daniel was not h a r m e d by the lions was because they w e r e sated, are themselves fed to lions that are indeed sated but eat them nevertheless.
CONCLUSION
To appreciate Josephus's rewriting of the Bible, it m a y be useful to c o m p a r e his work with other efforts in antiquity to rewrite sacred material. W h e t h e r it is G r e e k playwrights rewriting plots from H o m e r and other sources of G r e e k mythology or Dionysius of Halicarnassus's retelling of R o m a n legends o r midrashic o r quasimidrashic works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical An tiquities, o r rabbinic targumim o r midrashic reworking of the Jewish Scriptures, w e note that their authors feel no hesitation in taking liberties—and often v e r y con siderable liberties—with their sacred texts. Hence, w h e n Josephus assures his readers that he has not added to o r subtracted from the sacred text, his readers w o u l d presumably have understood this to m e a n that he h a d followed in the foot steps of his m a n y predecessors and contemporaries. W i t h i n each of the works listed above that represents rewriting the Bible, one notes tremendous variation in highlighting certain episodes, sharply abbreviating or omitting others, and adding totally n e w episodes. Thus, for example, PseudoPhilo, on the basis of the Bible's m e r e mention of the n a m e of K e n a z , as the father o f the j u d g e Othniel (Judg. 3:9, 11), inserts a lengthy pericope (Bib. Ant. 2 5 - 2 8 ) about his achievements; Josephus, on the other hand, has a much briefer account (Ant. 5 . 1 8 2 - 8 4 ) , and the extant rabbinic literature has nothing at all about this figure. Josephus, on the basis of passing biblical mention of the fact that Moses m a r r i e d an Ethiopian w o m a n , presents a lengthy episode of Moses' achievements as a general in a campaign against the Ethiopians and his m a r r i a g e with the Ethiopian princess. T h e historian A r t a p a n u s , w h o apparently lived in the second century B.C.E. and w h o m most regard as a Jew, has a briefer account, which omits the romantic episode; Philo, despite the length of his life of Moses, has nothing to say about this matter, and it is not until the Middle Ages that w e find references to it in rabbinic literature.
659
66o
CONCLUSION Certain episodes are vastly expanded by Josephus, notably portions of the
J o s e p h story (his dreams and subsequent enslavement, the episode of Potiphar's wife, and the final test of Joseph's brothers), the rebellion of K o r a h , the episode of the Israelite m e n and the Midianite w o m e n , and the reign of Zedekiah. Certain personalities, notably J e t h r o , Balaam, Ehud, Saul, David, J o a b , S o l o m o n , and J e r o b o a m , are given much m o r e attention than others. Extraordinarily little at tention is given to others, notably A a r o n , D e b o r a h , J o n a h , a n d Nehemiah.
The
case of Zedekiah is striking, in that in the Bible, he is said to have done w h a t was evil in the sight of the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:19), whereas Josephus, while admitting that Zedekiah was contemptuous of justice, places the blame for this upon his im pious advisers a n d upon the masses (Ant. 10.103). Similarly, Josephus presents a m o r e balanced portrait of A h a b , shifting m o r e of the blame for his misdeeds to his role model J e r o b o a m and to his wife Jezebel. Most remarkable of all is Josephus's treatment of the kings J e h o a s h a n d J e hoiachin: in the f o r m e r case, the Bible uses its familiar formula that "he did w h a t was evil in the sight of the L - r d " (2 K i n g s 13:11), whereas Josephus says that he was a good m a n (Ant. 9.178). In the latter case, whereas the Bible states that Jehoiachin did evil in the sight of the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:9; 2 C h r o n . 36:9), Josephus describes him as kind a n d just, two epithets that he elsewhere applies to such worthies as Samuel, Hezekiah, J e h o i a d a , Zedekiah, a n d Ezra. It is striking that some of these radical departures from the biblical text are paralleled in rabbinic literature. Likewise, v e r y notable is the extraordinary variation in the length of the eulo gies that Josephus appends to his pericopes on the various biblical figures: most extraordinary in this connection is his encomium for Saul, which is, amazingly enough, three times the length of the one for Moses, m o r e than three times the length of David's, a n d seventeen times the length of Solomon's. These are impor tant clues to Josephus's priorities in his rewriting of the Bible. T h e main factor explaining Josephus's modifications of the Bible is apologet ics—that is, answering anti-Jewish charges. In this respect, the Antiquities is, in effect, a preliminary version of his Against Apion. In particular, Josephus takes great pains to defend the J e w s against the c a n a r d that they hate non-Jews by, for exam ple, diminishing, mostly through omissions, the conflict between J a c o b a n d Esau, the supposed respective ancestors of the J e w s and the Romans, a n d by maximiz ing the scene in which J a c o b a n d Esau are reconciled, as also by highlighting Joseph's h u m a n i t y in opening the Egyptian granaries to everyone (a particularly effective response, since Egypt was the hotbed of anti-Jewish p r o p a g a n d a during Josephus's time) a n d Solomon's in asking that G - d accept everyone's prayers a n d not merely those of J e w s . He underscores Solomon's friendship with K i n g H i r a m of Tyre, going so far as to cite evidence from the Phoenician archives a n d from non-Jewish writers to illustrate their excellent relations. Particularly significant is the fact that Josephus in a n u m b e r of instances avoids mentioning incidents in which Israelites, such as Gideon, Asa, J e h o s h a p h a t , and Josiah, desecrate altars, statues, and temples pertaining to non-Jewish cults. Especially noteworthy in this
CONCLUSION
661
connection is Josephus's omission of the biblical statement that K i n g Jehu's m e n broke d o w n the pillars of Ba'al and m a d e it a latrine "to this day" (2 K i n g s 10:27). A g a i n , instead of mentioning the introduction of pagan idolatry by Manasseh, as does the Bible, he focuses upon the sins of the J e w s themselves. A n effective method employed by Josephus to defend J e w s against the accusa tion of misanthropy is to have non-Jews, such as J e t h r o a n d Balaam, praise J e w s . Josephus's elevation of B a l a a m and especially of J e t h r o is in direct contrast to the treatment of Philo, w h o h a d denigrated these figures. A n o t h e r m e t h o d of response employed by J o s e p h u s is to present non-Jewish personalities, such as Balaam, Bels hazzar, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Ahasuerus, a n d even the p h a r a o h s of A b r a ham's, Joseph's, and Moses' day, in a m o r e h u m a n and m o r e sympathetic light. In the case of Balaam, the contrast between Josephus's relatively unbiased portrait, stressing historical, military, and political concerns, a n d the negative portrayals by Philo, the New Testament, a n d the rabbis is particularly striking, a n d w o u l d rein force the view that Josephus f o r m e d his own judgments of biblical personalities. In his portrayal of Balaam, as elsewhere, Josephus emphasizes that the Israelites do not interfere in the affairs of other countries. T h e fact that he does not blame Eglon for subjugating the Israelites but rather castigates the Israelites themselves for their anarchy shows h o w eager Josephus was to avoid unnecessarily attacking non-Jewish leaders. O n the other hand, the biblical statement that Noah, a non-Jew, was perfect, which w o u l d seem to imply that he was superior even to A b r a h a m a n d Moses, must have troubled Josephus, a n d so he discreetly omits it. O n e of the most serious charges against the J e w s was that of dual loyalty. J o s e phus therefore systematically avoids divine statements promising A b r a h a m a n d his descendants that they will inherit a great nation, since this would clearly imply the overthrow of R o m a n rule. Instead, the emphasis is shifted from the covenanted land of Israel, with the implication of an independent state, to the biblical person alities themselves. Thus, v e r y significantly, the purpose of circumcision, in J o s e phus's view, is not to seal G - d ' s promise of the land to A b r a h a m but rather, nonpolitically to prevent assimilation. Again, inasmuch as Josephus had received such favorable treatment from Vespasian a n d Titus, it is not surprising that Esau, the p u r p o r t e d progenitor of the Romans, is p o r t r a y e d m o r e positively by him. Indeed, J o s e p h u s makes every effort to dwell on the fidelity of J e w s to their rulers, as seen particularly in the case of J o s e p h . J o s e p h u s is especially w a r y of messiah-like figures or ancestors of the messiah. Hence, he avoids mentioning David as ancestor of the messiah (and this m a y help to explain w h y he focuses m o r e on S o l o m o n than on David, despite the latter's greater popularity with the masses). Even though Elijah was apparently m o r e p o p ular a m o n g the people than Elisha, Josephus favors Elisha, since Elijah was r e garded as a zealot a n d as the forerunner of the messiah. Similarly, the reference in Daniel to the overthrow of the R o m a n Empire becomes ambiguous in Josephus. Josephus is careful to praise those w h o are properly submissive to the ruling
662
CONCLUSION
powers; hence, his v e r y positive portrayal of Jehoiachin, Gedaliah, Daniel, a n d Ezra. O v e r a n d over again, he reiterates that not to accept the authoritative gov e r n a n c e of the ruler of the state is to t h w a r t the divine plan itself. Nationhood is not, he stresses, a sine qua n o n for Judaism; rather, subservience to the superpower w o u l d bring peace a n d prosperity O n e of the most troublesome problems confronting J o s e p h u s was h o w to deal with the issue of intermarriage a n d assimilation in the Bible. He realized that if he opposed these practices too strongly, he might be accused of being illiberal. O n the other hand, if he did not oppose them at all, he w o u l d be charged by J e w s a m o n g his r e a d e r s — a n d there is evidence, especially in his sharp denunciation of the Is raelites w h o h a d sinned with the Midianite w o m e n a n d of S a m s o n a n d S o l o m o n for their liaisons with non-Jewish w o m e n , that Josephus was also trying to reach a J e w i s h audience, especially in the D i a s p o r a — w i t h being a traitor to J e w i s h values. In the specific case of Aaron's a n d Miriam's criticism of Moses for m a r r y i n g an Ethiopian w o m a n , which w o u l d surely have subjected them to the charge of prej udice, especially since the Ethiopians w e r e so highly respected in antiquity, J o s e phus resolves the p r o b l e m by omitting the criticism altogether. Josephus's solution, notably in his version of Ezra's initiative against mixed marriages, is to c o n d e m n these not so m u c h in themselves but rather because of the yielding to passion in volved, a point of v i e w that w o u l d surely have impressed Stoics in his reading au dience. Josephus's opposition to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is based on the need for a state to maintain its homogeneous c h a r a c t e r — a g a i n a point of v i e w that those acquainted with the attitude of the A t h e n i a n s u n d e r Pericles w o u l d have appreciated. A n o t h e r solution to the dilemma of h o w to deal with the issue of intermarriage m a y be seen in Josephus's treatment of Nehemiah's severe handling of the issue, n a m e l y that he simply disregards Nehemiah's effort at verifying genealogies. A n o t h e r v e r y delicate issue was that of proselytism by J e w s , which was a v e r y successful m o v e m e n t before, during, a n d after the time of Josephus. T h e R o m a n s looked upon this m o v e m e n t as u n d e r m i n i n g their state, since proselytes gave m o n e y a n d owed their loyalty to a J e w i s h state. Hence, J o s e p h u s is careful to omit the passage in which J e t h r o acknowledges G - d a n d thus w o u l d seem to be con verting to J u d a i s m . A l t h o u g h the rabbinic tradition makes much of R u t h as the ideal proselyte, J o s e p h u s avoids all mention of this theme in his R u t h pericope. W h e r e a s in the biblical book of J o n a h , w e find the non-Jewish sailors shifting from the worship of their o w n p a g a n gods to worship of the H e b r e w G - d , in Josephus, there is n o indication as to w h e t h e r the sailors w e r e or w e r e not J e w s or which the divinities to w h o m they p r a y e d were. A n o t h e r serious charge that J o s e p h u s addresses was that the J e w s h a d failed to produce outstanding men. In response, J o s e p h u s presents h e r o after hero as pos sessing the attributes of outstanding genealogy, precociousness, physical attractive ness, wealth, the gift of leadership, and, in particular, the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, a n d justice, together with the fifth virtue of piety. Like Plato's philosopher-king, his biblical leaders—notably, Moses, J o s i a h , Ezra,
CONCLUSION
663
a n d N e h e m i a h — a r e depicted as able to teach and persuade. He lays special stress on the wisdom of m a n y of the biblical
figures—notably
Abraham, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, and S o l o m o n , making them, in effect, syntheses of Pericles as depicted by Thucydides, the philosopher-king described by Plato, and the Stoic sage. Inasmuch as the ancients stood in awe of mathematicians and astronomers, his A b r a h a m be comes a great mathematician and astronomer. Since the greatest compliment that could be extended to someone in antiquity was to call him a philosopher, A b r a h a m likewise appears as a philosopher, particularly adept in argument, w h o presents a unique p r o o f for the existence of G - d from the irregularities of celestial p h e n o m ena. Because the J e w s w e r e accused of being illiberal in refusing to consider other points of view, Josephus stresses A b r a h a m ' s willingness to adopt the point of view of the Egyptian priests if he finds their doctrines superior to his own. Inasmuch as the ability to interpret dreams was so highly regarded in antiquity, Josephus stresses this ability even beyond the biblical text in his portrayal of J o s e p h a n d Daniel. Since the ability to be persuasive in speech was so highly regarded, even Moses, w h o in the Bible is p o r t r a y e d as having a speech defect, turns out to an effective speaker. W h e r e a s music was so prized by the ancients, Moses is m a d e the inventor of a musical instrument, the trumpet, and the composer of a song in Homeric-like hexameter verse. Likewise, Moses and S o l o m o n are said to ave stud ied the forms of nature philosophically. Since the ancients w e r e so impressed with magic, Moses a n d S o l o m o n are depicted as excelling in that art. Josephus ag grandizes S o l o m o n , w h o was regarded as the wisest of all J e w s , and, significantly, cites m o r e external evidence to support his account of this king than he does for any other biblical personality. Inasmuch as the J e w s h a d been accused of cowardice, Josephus stresses the courage of m a n y biblical figures, notably A b r a h a m , Moses, J o s h u a , Saul, a n d David. He points with obvious pride, quoting Cleodemus Malchus, to the fact that A b r a h a m ' s sons by K e t u r a h j o i n e d the most famous G r e e k hero of them all, Her acles, in his campaign in Africa, a n d even mentions, again with pride a n d despite the fact that this involved intermarriage, that Heracles m a r r i e d the daughter of one of them. A s for temperance, so important for the Greeks, as w e see from the motto fjurjSiv dyav inscribed in Delphi, Josephus stresses the possession of this quality by m a n y of his biblical heroes, notably, Moses, David, a n d Solomon. He highlights the moderation in diet of S a m s o n and of Daniel. Inasmuch as modesty was regarded as closely allied with temperance, Josephus stresses this virtue in Moses, as seen from his willingness to l e a r n from his father-in-law J e t h r o , in Gideon, in J o a b , a n d in S o l o m o n , the last of w h o m graciously admits that he h a d been outwitted by a young Tyrian, A b d e m o n , w h o posed riddles that he h a d been unable to solve. A s to justice, the centerpiece of Plato's Republic, this is the quality p a r excellence in a ruler and is consequendy stressed in Josephus's portrayal of A b r a h a m , Moses, David, S o l o m o n , a n d others. He highlights the quality of incorruptibility, so gready stressed by Thucydides in his portrayal of Pericles, as a key virtue in Moses
664
CONCLUSION
a n d Samuel. He underscores the devotion to t r u t h — w h i c h is so closely connected with justice—exemplified by such figures as Isaac, Moses, a n d David, a n d goes to great lengths to explain a w a y the a p p a r e n t prevarication of A b r a h a m . He accen tuates the gratefulness, generosity, humanity, kindness, and compassion of A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , Moses, J o s h u a , Samuel, Saul, David, A h a b , J e h o s h a p h a t , J e h o r a m , Elisha, Manasseh, Gedaliah, a n d M o r d e c a i , a n d lays great stress on the hospital ity displayed by A b r a h a m , Moses, a n d David. A s to piety, so d e a r to the R o m a n s , as w e see in Virgil's ascription of this qual ity to Aeneas, this is stressed in m a n y additions in Josephus's depictions of A b r a h a m , Isaac, J a c o b , Moses, J o s h u a , Saul, David, S o l o m o n , a n d Hezekiah. He un derscores the importance of filial piety in his portrayal of Esau a n d condemns its opposite in his delineation of A b s a l o m . Josephus was confronted with a real dilemma as to h o w to deal with the fact that A a r o n h a d participated in the cre ation a n d worship of the G o l d e n Calf. This surely raised questions for Josephus, himself a priest, as to Aaron's piety a n d worthiness to be high priest. Josephus's so lution, here as so often, was simply to omit the incident altogether. In dealing with Moses, the one J e w i s h figure w h o was, if w e m a y j u d g e from the passage in Pseudo-Longinus's On the Sublime (9.9), well k n o w n to non-Jews, J o s e phus was confronted with several v e r y serious problems, namely, his m u r d e r o f an Egyptian overseer; his m a r r i a g e to a non-Jewish w o m a n , Zipporah; his lowly oc cupation as a shepherd; his timidity w h e n selected by G - d to lead the Israelites; the leprousness of his hand; his failure to circumcise his sons; his speech defect; his permission to the Israelites to "borrow" j e w e l r y from the Egyptians; his need to t u r n to his father-in-law J e t h r o for advice; his uncontrolled anger in smashing the first set of tablets of the law; his a b a n d o n m e n t of his wife Zipporah; his skepticism w h e n G - d promised that He would supply the Israelites with meat; his disobedi ence t o w a r d G - d in striking the rock rather than speaking to it; a n d his initial in ability to answer the complaint of Zelophehad's daughters. Despite the length of Josephus's account of Moses, he resolves these problems in almost all cases by sim ply omitting the above episodes. A n d yet, Josephus is careful to avoid the undue aggrandizement a n d n e a r deification of Moses found in the S a m a r i t a n and, to a lesser degree, rabbinic traditions. W h i l e it is true that Josephus emphasizes, in the preface to the Antiquities (1.14), that the main lesson to be l e a r n e d from his w o r k is that G - d rewards those w h o obey him a n d punishes those w h o do not, in point of fact, J o s e p h u s thereafter gen erally downgrades the role of G - d in o r d e r to emphasize the virtues a n d achieve ments of his biblical heroes. T h e most striking examples of this are to be seen in Josephus's accounts of S a m s o n a n d J o n a h . In the case of the Ruth pericope, whereas there are twenty-two mentions of G - d in the biblical account, there is only one such reference in Josephus's version, at the v e r y end. T h e case of Moses is, in this regard, exceptional, in that it was expected in antiquity that the leader of a nation should be divinely directed. T h e case of D e b o r a h is likewise exceptional, because Josephus sought, in his misogyny, to d o w n g r a d e Deborah's role, which he
CONCLUSION
665
did by exalting G - d ' s . David's case, too, is exceptional, perhaps because Josephus, as a Hasmonean, was eager not to praise excessively the achievements of the great rivals of the Hasmonean monarchs and hence preferred to credit these to divine assistance. Hezekiah also is a special case, since Josephus desired, perhaps because of Hezekiah's failure to be subservient to the superpower of his day, not to build h i m up as a person a n d hence preferred to highlight his dependence on G - d . A g a i n , whereas the n a m e of G - d is not mentioned at all in the H e b r e w Book of Esther, Josephus, following the additions to the Book of Esther in the Septuagint, includes a limited n u m b e r of references to G - d for dramatic reasons, n a m e l y in noting G - d ' s ironic laughter at Haman's prosperity a n d w h e n moralizing about his downfall. J o s e p h u s shows his true colors in his treatment o f miracles. A l t h o u g h these w e r e less of a p r o b l e m because the Stoics, the p r e d o m i n a n t philosophical m o v e m e n t in Josephus's time, did allow for divine intervention in the w o r l d , J o s e p h u s on a n u m b e r of occasions suggests that it is u p to the r e a d e r to decide w h a t to m a k e o f the biblical miracles that he relates. In any case, he frequendy rational izes miracles, such as those p e r f o r m e d by o r in connection with Moses, S a m s o n , Elijah, Elisha, J o n a h , a n d Daniel. Alternatively, as in the crossing of the S e a of Reeds, he points to a historical parallel, namely, Alexander's similar crossing of the Pamphylian Sea, or, as in the case o f Daniel, asserts that he was saved by di vine providence, employing a favorite Stoic t e r m . T h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y circum stances of the deaths of Moses a n d Elijah are rationalized in a m a n n e r highly reminiscent o f the disappearance of Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. If J o s e p h u s does include the miracle of Balaam's speaking ass, it is p e r h a p s because readers w o u l d have recalled the parallel of Achilles' speaking horse; a n d in any case he takes various steps to m a k e it m o r e plausible a n d finally ends by saying that the r e a d e r is free to think as he pleases about it. Likewise, because angels presented a p r o b l e m , since they seemed h a r d l y different from the p a g a n demi gods, h e either avoids mentioning them, rationalizes their a p p e a r a n c e (in con nection with J a c o b , G i d e o n , S a m s o n , Elijah, a n d Daniel), or has G - d take their place. A n o t h e r charge leveled at the J e w s , as w e see from Against Apion, was that their Scriptures lacked historical reliability. To answer this claim, Josephus cites an a r r a y of non-Jewish writers, notably, Berossus, Hieronymus the Egyptian, Mnaseas of Patera, M e n a n d e r of Ephesus, a n d Nicholaus of Damascus, to support the his toricity of the Flood a n d of episodes in the lives of A b r a h a m , S o l o m o n , a n d Elijah. It is particularly effective that Josephus avoids the Septuagint's w o r d for Noah's ark but rather uses the same w o r d found in Apollodorus, Lucian, a n d Plutarch with r e g a r d to the ark of Deucalion, thus equating the Flood with the flood asso ciated with that pagan figure. A s to difficult a n d embarrassing biblical issues, such as the longevity of the p a triarchs a n d David's sin with Bathsheba, Josephus either rationalizes them o r tries to explain them otherwise. O n the other hand, of the six passages later cited by Ibn
666
CONCLUSION
Ezra in his c o m m e n t a r y o n Deut. 1:1, which raise serious questions about the au thorship a n d date o f composition of various books of the Bible, J o s e p h u s v e r y sig nificandy omits all o f them. Nevertheless, a p p a r e n d y a w a r e that some o f his read ers w o u l d be J e w s , w h o might well be acquainted with his biblical source, he does not totally omit but rather leaves ambiguous such passages as Balaam's a n d Daniel's a p p a r e n t predictions o f the o v e r t h r o w of the R o m a n Empire. He resolves chronological difficulties a n d generally omits anthropomorphisms. In his version of the S a m s o n episode, he avoids u n d u e exaggeration a n d the grotesque, such as frequendy occur in the rabbinic tradition. He seeks to provide better motivation for events in o r d e r to increase their plausibility, as in his account o f the Esther n a r rative. In order to appeal to his G r e e k readers, J o s e p h u s draws o n Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristode, a n d other G r e e k authors, for both content a n d style. T h e influence o f Homer, notably in Josephus's implicit equating of A b r a h a m a n d Priam, is particularly obvious in his account o f the binding o f Isaac, while that o f Hesiod m a y be seen in Josephus's version o f the original bliss o f mankind. His acquaintance with Sophocles is m a n ifest in his paralleling o f the passing o f Moses a n d o f Oedipus a n d in his implicit association o f Oedipus a n d S o l o m o n in the latter's j u d g m e n t in the case o f the two mothers. T h e r e are striking parallels between the binding of Isaac a n d Euripides' account o f the sacrifice o f Iphigenia. Josephus's development o f the concept of vfipis a n d o f its consequences is clearly influenced by the G r e e k tragedians. Like the tragedians, J o s e p h u s , particularly in his accounts of S a m s o n , A h a b , a n d J o s i a h , dwells on the degree to which the reversal o f one's fortunes is due to fate rather t h a n to one's o w n failings. T h e increase in suspense, as in his accounts o f J o s e p h , Samuel's choice o f S a u l as king, a n d Esther, a n d the heightening
of
c
irony—notably, in his versions o f the A q e d a h , Absalom's death, A h a b a n d the Naboth episode, Daniel, a n d E s t h e r — a r e likewise influenced by his reading o f the tragedians. T h e influence of the Stoic philosophers shows itself in Josephus's de piction o f dirdOeia (freedom from concerns) in his characterization of the original bliss of m a n k i n d a n d in the constant stress on providence (Trpovoia), & concept so central in Stoic thought. In the tradition o f the G r e e k novels, J o s e p h u s introduces or stresses erotic elements, notably in the episodes of P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h with S a r a h , the meeting o f J a c o b a n d R a c h e l , Potiphar's wife a n d J o s e p h , S a m s o n a n d his wives, a n d A h a s u e r u s a n d Esther. O n e might say that although J o s e p h u s is ostensibly m e r e l y p a r a p h r a s i n g the Bible, he is actually like Thucydides, the historian w h o m he a d m i r e d a n d imitated so much, stressing the degree to which the present repeats the past a n d the degree to which, therefore, one can a n d should l e a r n from past history. O n e might say, too, that although he is ostensibly writing a b o u t events that o c c u r r e d hundreds o f years earlier, he is, in fact, writing a second edition of his w o r k a b o u t the J e w i s h W a r against the R o m a n s . In particular, in his biblical portraits, one sees parallels between the J e w s ' struggles against the Assyrians and Babylonians, leading to the
CONCLUSION
667
destruction o f the First Temple, a n d their resistance to the R o m a n s , ending in the destruction o f the S e c o n d Temple. Thus, v e r y significandy in the Jewish
War,
w h e r e J o s e p h u s refers to the p e r i o d preceding the destruction of the First Temple, h e cites the example o f J e h o i a c h i n as a laudable precedent in putting c o u n t r y a n d Temple a h e a d o f oneself. M u c h o f Josephus's rewriting is a thinly veiled denunciation o f the civil strife that h a d cost the J e w s so dearly in the recent w a r against the R o m a n s . This will explain his highlighting o f the rebellions o f K o r a h a n d A b s a l o m a n d his v e h e m e n t attack on J e r o b o a m , w h o , because he broke the unity o f the J e w i s h people, is p o r trayed as an even greater rogue t h a n A h a b a n d Manasseh. Particularly striking is the similarity in language used b y J o s e p h u s for J e r o b o a m ' s sedition a n d that o f Josephus's great rival, J o h n of Gischala. O n the other h a n d , J o s e p h u s accentuates Joshua's a n d Gideon's ability to avoid civil w a r a n d a n a r c h y T h e r e are c o n t e m p o r a r y overtones in his fierce attack on the ignorant a n d fickle m o b in the Moses pericope a n d on demagogues in the A b s a l o m a n d J e r o b o a m episodes. S u c h fea tures w o u l d surely have struck a responsive chord in the R o m a n s , w h o h a d suf fered through a c e n t u r y o f civil strife from the time of the G r a c c h i (133 B.C.E.) to the final t r i u m p h of O c t a v i a n (31 B.C.E.), a n d w h o w e r e so p r o u d of their respect for the legal tradition. To a considerable degree, the history is also a supplement to Josephus's auto b i o g r a p h y Thus, his e x t r a o r d i n a r y interest in J o s e p h w a s undoubtedly motivated by w h a t he saw as striking parallels with his o w n life, since both w e r e child prodi gies, both w e r e envied, both showed e x t r a o r d i n a r y skill in interpreting dreams, b o t h w e r e cast out by fellow J e w s , a n d both w e r e exded to a foreign land. J o s e phus's v e r y positive attitude t o w a r d J o s e p h is in direct contrast to Philo's a m b i v a lent attitude to him. His c o n c e r n with Daniel was likewise intensified by the parallels with his o w n life: both h a d prophetic powers, both w e r e skilled in inter preting dreams, both achieved v e r y high positions in the state, a n d both w e r e the targets o f great jealousy. Josephus's tremendous c o n c e r n with K o r a h was doubdess influenced by the fact that K o r a h w a s a Levite w h o h a d attempted to usurp the privileges o f the priests, a n issue that was v e r y m u c h alive in Josephus's o w n d a y a n d was, of course, o f special c o n c e r n to J o s e p h u s the priest. His m a r k e d interest in a n d v e r y positive p o r t r a y a l o f Saul, in contrast to the treatment by Pseudo-Philo, w h o depicts h i m as a c o w a r d , a n d the rabbis, w h o stress the supernatural aspect o f his military achievements, m a y well be owing largely to Josephus's identification with Israel's first king, particularly his courage a n d piety. Josephus's accentuation of military affairs is not m e r e l y a rebuttal o f the charge that J e w s a r e cowards but also reflects his o w n experience as a general in the w a r against the R o m a n s . Hence, although the r e a d e r of the Bible w o u l d scarcely think o f A b r a h a m a n d Moses as generals, J o s e p h u s stresses precisely that aspect o f their careers. If he dwells on prophets such as S a m u e l a n d Daniel a n d underlines the kinship o f the p r o p h e t a n d the historian, it is because he looked u p o n himself as
668
CONCLUSION
exercising both of these functions. Josephus's emphasis on the theme of the c o r r o sive effect of envy, as seen in his stress on the envy displayed by K i n g Abimelech, Joseph's brothers, the p h a r a o h at the time of Moses, K o r a h , a n d Daniel's rivals, is couched in terms v e r y similar to his description of the envy that his great rival, J o h n of Gischala, h a r b o r e d t o w a r d him. In particular, in his portrait of Joab's a m bition a n d envy, Josephus clearly h a d J o h n of Gischala in mind. IfJosephus is careful not to praise David excessively this m a y be in p a r t because Josephus, as a descendant of the Hasmoneans, m a y have looked u p o n the Davidic m o n a r c h y as a rival institution. Likewise, Josephus's tremendous pride in his be longing to the first of the twenty-four courses of priests (Life 2) helps explain his omission of Aaron's role in the building of the G o l d e n Calf, as well as his fierce at tack on J e r o b o a m for setting up an alternative to the J e r u s a l e m Temple a n d for naming his o w n priests instead of recognizing those w h o w e r e priests by birth. W e m a y surmise as well that a m a j o r reason w h y Josephus gives so little attention to N e h e m i a h is that he wishes rather to build u p Ezra, w h o was a priest, whereas Ne hemiah was a m e r e layman. W e have found that Josephus h a d access to the Bible in three versions—He brew, Greek, a n d an A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e — , a n d that his use of these versions v a r ied from book to book of the Antiquities. W h a t complicates matters here is that w e cannot be sure h o w his Hebrew, Greek, a n d A r a m a i c texts relate to those that have come d o w n to us. If w e m a y j u d g e from the fragments of the Bible found a m o n g the D e a d S e a caves, the texts before him likely did differ from ours, although ad mittedly only to a limited extent. W e m a y ask h o w consistent Josephus is as a historian. Even without examining the context of his Antiquities in detail, w e might have guessed that he would be care ful and consistent in his approach. In the first place, he h a d no other duties during the approximately twelve years ( 7 9 / 8 1 - 9 3 / 9 4 ) w h e n he was engaged in writing his Antiquities, as far as w e can tell, and he w r o t e only ten lines o r so of G r e e k a day. Moreover, he w r o t e the Antiquities after his masterful Jewish War (written with the help of assistants, to be sure, so far as the G r e e k was concerned) (Ag. Ap. 1.50), a n d he h a d access to the great library of his l e a r n e d patron Epaphroditus, which con tained some 30,000 books. F u r t h e r m o r e , as w e h e a r from Josephus himself (Ant. 1.1—3), writing history was a competitive business in R o m e in those days, a n d J o s e phus, w h o is so critical of his fellow historians, h a d to be particularly careful lest he be attacked for falling short in precisely those areas w h e r e he h a d faulted his rivals. Since the m a i n audience he envisaged for his w o r k was the whole Greek-speaking world (Ant. 1.5), he was inviting comparison with his great predecessors, Herodotus a n d Thucydides, as well as his earlier c o n t e m p o r a r y and theoretician of historiog raphy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Because Josephus himself was u n d e r a cloud on account of his a p p a r e n d y ignominious surrender to the Romans, m a n y of his fel low J e w s would have sought every opportunity to discredit him. A b o v e all, he was inviting comparison with the Septuagint, the G r e e k style of which is clearly infe-
CONCLUSION
66g
rior to his own. Indeed, this inferiority of the former's style m a y have been a m a j o r factor in motivating him to produce his own rewritten Bible. O f course, w e m a y postulate that his consistency and the high level of his w o r k are owing to his indebtedness to a single Hellenistic midrash, as Gustav Holscher (1916) posited; but then w e would have expected A r t a p a n u s o r Eupolemus or Pseudo-Eupolemus or, above all, Philo also, to have utilized that midrash; a n d there is no evidence that they did. Moreover, aside from the fact that not a single line of such a midrash has come d o w n to us, I have noted the marked degree to which the changes introduced by Josephus seem to reflect his own experiences a n d attitude in the w a r against the Romans. O u r examination has led us to stress Josephus's own creative contribution (so also Bilde 1988, 1 4 1 - 5 0 ) . He has carefully chosen from his m a n y sources, moti vated largely by apologetic a n d literary concerns. Consistent patterns emerge that explain his additions, deletions, a n d modifications. T h e r e is likewise consistency in language a n d style. In this respect, the present study confirms the findings of A n d r e Pelletier, T. W. F r a n x m a n , a n d C . T. Begg. T h e w o r k of Pelletier comparing Josephus a n d the Letter of Aristeas is of particular interest in this connection, inas much as whereas for the biblical portion of Josephus's narrative, w e are never sure which text, w h e t h e r Hebrew, Greek, or A r a m a i c targum, he was using, a n d w h e t h e r or not he h a d access to other sources, namely, previous Graeco-Jewish historians, Philo, and non-Jewish historians such as Polybius and Nicolaus of Damascus, w e can be certain that for his account of the translation of the Penta teuch into Greek, Josephus's sole source was the Letter of Aristeas. A n d yet, as Pel letier has shown, Josephus goes out of his w a y to v a r y the Letter's contents a n d the language to such a degree that there are only a few phrases that he reproduces ver batim. Josephus thus emerges as a historian in the grand manner, deserving of the trib =
ute paid to him by J e r o m e (Epistula ad Eustochium 22.35 [ PL
22.421]), w h o calls
him a second Livy, combining the best of the two great schools of historiography the Isocratean, with its stress on moralizing, psychologizing, and dramatizing, a n d the Aristotelian, with its emphasis on scientific, empirical investigation.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6 vols. ABR Australian Biblical Review Josephus, Against Apion Ag.Ap. American Journal of Philobgy AJP AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages Association for Jewish Studies Review AJSR Abr-Nahrain AN Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt ANRW Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Ant Ant Rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ASTI AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research Bib. Ant Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BJRL BK Bibel und Kirche Biblische Notizen BN BR Biblical Research Beth Talmud BT Biblische Zeitschrift BZ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Classical Journal Q Conservative Judaism CoJ Classical Philology CP Classical Quarterly ca Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. The Jewish People in the First CRINT Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, ed. S. Safrai and M . Stern (Assen, Netherlands: V a n G o r c u m , 1976), sec. 2 671
6>
ABBREVIATIONS
DSD
Dead Sea Discoveries
EB
Estudios
E-I
Eretz-Israel
EJ ETL
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971), 16 vols.
FGH
Die Fragmente dergriechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-;
Biblicos
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Leiden: Brill, 1954-), 3 vols, in 16 parts
FH
Fides et Historia
FV
Foiet Vie
GRBS
Greek, Roman and Byzantine
HJ HT
Heythrop
Studies
HTR
Harvard Theological Review
HUCA
Hebrew Union College
HZ IEJ IOS
Historische
JAOS
Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBH
Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne
JBL
Journal of Biblical
JCP
JahrbucherJur
JE JHI
Journal of the History of Ideas
JJC
Josephus, Judaism,
Journal
History and Theory Annual
Zeitschrifi
Israel Exploration
Journal
Israel Oriental Series
State University Press, 1989) Literature
classische Philologie
Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-9), 12 vols. and Christianity, d. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1987) JJS
Journal of Jewish
JQR JRS
Jewish Quarterly Review
Studies
J-s
Josephus-Studien:
Journal of Roman
Studies Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen
Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker, and M. Hengel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). JSJ JSNT
Journalfor
the Study of Judaism
JSOT
Journalfor
the Study of the Old Testament
JSP
Journalfor
the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSQ JSS
Jewish Studies Quarterly
JTS
Journal of Theological
LCL
Loeb Classical
LQR
Law Quarterly Review
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Journal of Semitic Studies Studies
Library
LS
Louvain
LSJ
A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, new edition by
Studies
H. S. Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) LXX
Septuagint
MGWJ
Monatsschriftfur
NT
Novum
NTS
New Testament
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
Testamentum Studies
ABBREVIATIONS OLZ OTE
Orientalistische
PAAJR
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish
PAPS
Proceedings of the American Philosophical
PG
Patrologia Graeca
PL
Patrologia
Pr.Eu
Eusebius, Praeparatio
PW
PhilologJLSche Wochenschrift
673
Literatur-Zdtung
Old Testament
Essays Research
Society
Latina Evangelica
QJS
Quarterly Journal of Speech
RB
Revue
RE
Realencyclopddie der klassischen Altertumswissenschqft,
Biblique ed. A . Pauly, G. Wissowa, W.
Kroll, and K . Mittelhaus (Stuttgart: Metzler, Druckenmuller, 1893-1978), 1st ser., 47 vols.; 2d ser., 18 vols.; 15 suppl. vols. REJ
Revue des Etudes juives
REx
Review and
RiB
Rivista
RM
Rheinisches
Rd RSC
Revue de Qumran
RSLR
Revista di Storia et Letteratura
RSR
Recherches de science religieuse
SBLSCS
Society of Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBLSP
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
Expositor
Biblica Museum
Rivista di Studi
Classici Religiosa
SC
Syllecta
SCI
Scripta Classica
Classica
SH
Scripta
SJOT
Scandinavian Journal of the Old
SJT
Scottish Journal of Theology
SMSR
Studi e Materiali
di Storia delle Religioni
SPA
Studia Philonica
Annual
SPCK
Society for the Promotion of Christian
SR
Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses
TAPA
Transactions of the American Philological
TDNT
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans.
Israelica
Hierosolymitana Testament
Knowledge Association
G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, M i c h . : Eerdmans, 1964-76), 10 vols. THB
Tyndale House
TV
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Bulletin
TWNT
Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933-73), 9 vols.
VC
Vigiliae
VT
Vetus Testamentum
War
Christianae
Josephus, Jewish
War
WJA
Wurzburger Jahrbiicherfur
res
Tale Classical
ZAW
Zeitschriftfur
ZKG ZRG
Zeitschriftfur
die
Altertumswissenschqft.
Studies die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Kanstgeschichte
Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
Literatur
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, E. L., 1968. "Were the Jews Banished from Rome in 19 A . D . ? " REJ 127:383-86. Aberbach, M . , and Grossfeld, B . , eds. and trans., 1982. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. Denver: Center for Judaic Studies. Adler, W , 1989. Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus. Washington, D C : Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Albrektson, B., 1968. "Josefus, Rabbi Akiba och Qumran. Tre argument i discussionen om tidpunkten for den gemmaltestamendiga konsonanttextens standardisering." (=Josephus, Rabbi Akiva, and Qumran: Three Arguments in the Discussion of the Standardization of the Consonantal Text of the O l d Testament). Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Helsinki) 73:201-15. Alexander, P. S. 1992. "Targum, Targumim." In ABD, 6:320-31. Altshuler, D., 1976. "Descriptions in Josephus' Antiquities of the Mosaic Constitution." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. , 1982-83. " O n the Classification of Judaic Laws in the Antiquities of Josephus and the Temple Scroll of Q u m r a n . " AJSR 7-8:1-14. A m a r u , B . H., 1980-81. "Land T h e o l o g y in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities." JQR 71:201-29. , 1988. "Portraits of Biblical W o m e n in Josephus' Antiquities." JJS 39:14.3-70. Aminoff, I., 1981. " T h e Figures of Esau and the K i n g d o m of E d o m in Palestinian Midrashic-Talmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods." Ph.D. diss., M e l bourne University. Amir, Y , 1971. "Sibyl and Sibylline Oracles." EJ 14:1489-91. , 1985-88. "QeoKparia as a C o n c e p t of Political Philosophy: Josephus' Presentation of Moses' Politekr S C / 8 - 9 : 8 3 - 1 0 5 . , 1994. 'Josephus on the Mosaic 'Constitution'." In Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, ed. H . G. Reventiow, 13-27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Amstutz, J., 1968. AirXoriqs, Eine begriffsgeschichdiche Studie zum judisch-christiichen Griechisch. Bonn: Hanstein. Aptowitzer, V , 1927a. Parteipolitik der Hasmonaerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum. Vienna: Alexander K o h u t Memorial Foundation. 675
6y6
BIBLIOGRAPHY , 1927b. "Spuren des Matriarchats im jiidischen Schrifttum." HUCA
4:207-40.
Ararat, N., 1971. "Ezra and His Deeds in the Sources." Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, N e w York. A r n i m , H . F. A . von, ed., 1903-5. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Vol. 4, ed. M . Adler, 1924. Asmis, E., 1984. Epicurus Scientific Method. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. Attridge, H . W., 1976a . " T h e Interpretation o f Biblical History in the Antiquitates Ju3
daicae' of Flavius Josephus." HTR, Harvard Dissertations in Religion, vol. 7. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1976b. First-Century
Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
Press. , 1978. " T h e Philosophical Critique o f Religion under the Early Empire." 2.16.1:45-78. , 1984a. "Historiography." In Jewish
AJVRW
Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E.
Stone, 157-84. CRINT 2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. , 1984b. 'Josephus and His Works." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E. Stone, 185-232. CRINT2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Auerbach, E., 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated from the G e r m a n by W. R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aune, D. E., 1982. " T h e Use o f Trpo^rjriqs in Josephus." JBL 101:419-21. Austin, M . M . , 1981. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avenarius, G., 1956. Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. M e i s e n h e i m / G l a n : Hain. Avi-Yonah, M . , 1961. Oriental Art in Roman Palestine. R o m e : Centro di studi semitici, Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, Universita di R o m a . Bacher, W , 1903. DieAggada der Tannaiten. Vol. 1. 2d ed. Strassburg: Triibner. Bailey, J. L., 1987. 'Josephus' Portrayal of the Matriarchs." In JJC, 154-79. Balch, D. L., 1974. " ' L e t Wives Be Submissive. . .': T h e Origin, Form, and Apologetic Function of the Household D u t y C o d e (Haustqfel) in 1 Peter." Ph.D. diss., Yale University. , 1975. 'Josephus, Against Apion II. 145-296: A Preliminary Report." In SBLSP1975, ed. G. M a c R a e , 187-92. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1982. " T w o Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on R o m e and Josephus on the Jews." JSJ 13:102-22. Baron, S. W , 1952. A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed. Vol. 1. N e w York: C o l u m bia University and Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Barthelemy, D , 1963. "Les Devanciers d'Aquila: Premiere publication integrate du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton trouves dans le desert de Juda, precedee d'une etude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible realisees au premier siecle de notre ere sous l'influence du rabbinat Palestinien." FT^suppl. 10. Leiden: Brill. Baskin, J. R., 1983. Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic tion. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Basser, H . W , 1987. "Josephus as Exegete." JAOS
Tradi
107:21-30.
Bassler, J. M . , 1985. "Philo on Joseph: the Basic Coherence of De Josepho and De Somniis II." J S J 16:240-55. Baumgarten, A . I., 1991. "Rivkin and Neusner on the Pharisees." In Law in Religious Com munities in the Roman Period, ed. P Richardson, 109-26. Studies in Christianity and Ju daism, 4. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6ft
Baumgarten, J. M . , 1972. " T h e Unwritten L a w in the Pre-Rabbinic Period." JSJ 3:7-29. , 1980. " T h e Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Q u m r a n Texts."JJS i:i 7-7o. , 1991. "Recent Q u m r a n Discoveries and Halakhah in the Hellenistic-Roman Pe riod." In Jewish Civilisation in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, 147-58. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a demic Press. Beckwith, R. T , 1988. " T h e Vegetarianism o f the Therapeutae and the Motives for Vege tarianism in Early Jewish and Christian Circles." RQ13 (Memorial Jean Carmignac): 407-10. Beer, B . , 1859. Leben Abraham's nachAuffassungderjiidischen Sage. Leipzig: Leiner. Beers, E. E., 1914. Euripides and Later Greek Thought. Menasha, Wis.: Banta. Begg, C . T , 1988a. " T h e 'Classical Prophets' in Josephus' Antiquities." LS 13:341-57. , 1988b. " T h e Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible." ETL 64:157-63. , 1989a. " T h e Death o f K i n g A h a b according to Josephus." Antonianum 64:225-45. , 1989b. "Josephus' Zedekiah." ETL 65:96-104. , 1990. "Josephus's Portrayal o f the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses: Some Observations." JBL 109:691-93. , 1993a . Josephus Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8, 212-420): Rewriting the Bible. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press / Peeters. , 1993b. "Filling in the Blanks: Josephus' Version of the C a m p a i g n o f the T h r e e Kings, 2 Kings 3." HUCA 64:89-109. , 1993c. "Josephus's Version o f Jehu's Putsch (2 K g s 8, 25-10, 36)." Antonianum 68:450-84. , 1993-94. "Joram of Judah according to Josephus (Ant. 9.45,95-104)." J S C l 3 3 3 9 , 1994a. " T h e Gedaliah Episode and Its Sequels in Josephus." J S P 12:21-46. , 1994b. "Josephus' Version of David's Census." Henoch 16:199-226. , 1994c. "Joash and Elisha in Josephus, ANT. 9.177-185." AN32:28-46. , 1995a. "Ahaziah's Fall (2 Kings 1): T h e Version of Josephus." 55:25-40. , 1995b. "Amaziah of Judah according to Josephus (ANT. 9.186-204)." Antonianum 70:3-30. , 1995c. "Hezekiah's Illness and Visit according to Josephus." EB 53:365-85. , i995d. 'Jehoahaz, K i n g of Israel, according to Josephus," Sefarad 55:227-37. , 1995c "Jehoshaphat at Mid-Career according to AJ 9, 1-17." RB 102:379-402. 3
5
3
i :
, , binic , , , ,
2
-
i995f. "Josephus and N a h u m Revisited." RE J 154:5-22. i995g. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoshaphat: C o m p a r e d with the Biblical and R a b Portrayals." ^ 7 8 : 3 9 - 4 8 . 1995b. " U z z i a h (Azariah) of Judah according to Josephus." £ # 5 3 : 5 - 2 4 . 1996a. " T h e Abigail Story (1 Samuel 25) according to Josephus." £ # 5 4 : 5 - 3 4 . 1996b. "Abimelech, K i n g of Shechem according to Josephus." ETL 72:146-64. 1996c. "Jotham and Anion: T w o Minor Kings of Judah according to Josephus."
BBR 6:1-13. Belkin, S., 1940. Philo and the Oral Lam Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ben-Sasson, H . H., 1971. "Messianic Movements." EJ 11:1420-21. Bentwich, N., 1914. Josephus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Ben Zeev, M . P., 1993. " T h e Reliability of Josephus Flavius: T h e Case of Hecataeus' and Manetho's Accounts o f Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years o f Contemporary Research (1974-1990)." JSJ 24:215-34.
678
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ben Z v i , E., 1988. " T h e Authority of 1-2 Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period." Jtf>3i: 9-88. 5
Berchman, R . M . , 1988. "Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divination in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria." SBLSP1988,
ed. D.J. Lull. Adanta, G a . : Scholars Press. 385-423.
Bernays, J., 1869. Die heraklitischen Briefe. Berlin: Hertz. Bernstein, M . J., 1994a . "4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary." JJS 45-J-27, 1994b. "4Q252.L2: Lo yadon ruhi va'adam 1/okim: Biblical Text or Biblical Interpre tation." PCI16.3 (63):42i-27Best, E., 1959. " T h e Use and N o n - U s e of Pneuma by Josephus." j V T 3 : 2 i 8 - 2 5 Betz, O., 1974. "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich z u m Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium." J-S: 23-44. Bhattacharji, A . , 1977. "Euripides and the Disintegration of the Tragic Form: A Study of the Iphigenia in Aulis"
In Four Essays on Tragedy, 45-70. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.
Bickerman, E. J., 1951. "Notes on the Greek Book of Esther." PAAJR 20:101-33. , 1952. "Origines Gentium."
CP47:65-81.
, 1975. " T h e Jewish Historian Demetrios." In Christianity, Judaism
and Other Greco-
Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. J a c o b Neusner, vol. 3: Judaism
before yo,
72-84. Leiden: Brill. , 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bieler, L., 1935. Oeios
oLvr/p, das Bild des "gotdichen M e n s c h e n " in Spatantike und
Fruhchristentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Hofels. Bilde, P , 1988. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Impor tance. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press. ara
Blaufuss, H., 1910. Gotter, Bilder und Symbole nach den Traktaten iiberjremden Dienst (Aboda Z ) Mishna,
n
i>
Tosefta, Jerusalemer und babylonischen Talmud. Nuremberg: Stich.
Blenkinsopp, J., 1963. "Structure and Style in Judges 1 3 - 1 6 . " JBL 82:65-76. , 1974. "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus." JJS
25:239-62.
Blidstein, G. J., 1971. "Messiah in Rabbinic T h o u g h t . " EJ 11:1410-12. , 1975. Honor Thy Father and Mother: Filial Responsibility
in Jewish Law and Ethics. N e w
York: Ktav. Bloch, H., 1879. Die Quellen des Josephus in seiner Archaologie. Leipzig: Teubner. Bloch, R., 1955. "Note methodologique pour l'etude de la litterature rabbinique."
RSR
43:194-227. , 1957. "Midrash." In Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. 5, 1263-81. English trans, in Ap proaches to Ancient Judaism:
Theory and Practice, ed. W. S. Green, 1: 29-50. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1978. Bogaert, P.-M., 1976. " L a Datation." In Pseudo-Philon,
Les Antiquites bibliques, ed. C . Perrot
and P.-M. Bogaert, 2: 66-74. Sources chretiennes, nos. 229-30. Paris: Cerf. Bomstad, R . G., 1979. "Governing Ideas of the Jewish
War of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss.,
Yale University, N e w Haven. Bonner, C , 1950. Studies in Magical Amulets. A n n Arbor: University o f Michigan. Bowley, J. E., 1994. "Josephus's Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History." In Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben J?ion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. J. C . Reeves and J. K a m p e n , 202-15. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press. Braun, M . , 1934. Griechischer Roman und helkmistische Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike, 6. Frankfurt a / M : Klostermann.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6yg
, 1938. History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature. Oxford: Blackwell. Braverman, J., 1978. Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. T h e Catholic Biblical Quarterly M o n o g r a p h Series, 7. Washington, D . C . : Catholic Biblical Association of America. Bregman, M . , 1982. " T h e Depiction o f the R a m in the Aqedah Mosaic at Bet A l p h a " [In Hebrew]. Tarbiz3i:jo6-g. Brelich, A . , 1966. " T h e Place of Dreams in the Religious World C o n c e p t of the Greeks." In The Dream and Human Societies, ed. G. E. von G r u n e b a u m and R. Caillois, 293-301. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Brock, S. P., 1966. " T h e Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel." Ph.D. diss., Oxford University. , 1981. "Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition." In Melanges Dominique Barthelemy: etudes bibliques qffertes a Voccasion de son 6o anniversaire, ed. P. Casetti, O . Keel, and A . Schrenker, 1-30. Fribourg, Switzerland: editions universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. e
, 1982. " S o m e Syrian Legends concerning Moses." J ^ S 33:237-55. Brooke, G. J., 1994. " T h e Genre of 4Q252: From Poetry to Pesher." DSD 1:160-79. Brown, C . A . , 1992. No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women: Studies in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities' and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities.' Louisville, K y : West minster / J o h n K n o x Press. Bruce, F. E , 1965. 'Josephus and Daniel." ASTI4:148-62. Briine, B . , 1913. Flavius Josephus und seine Schrifien in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentume, zurgriechischrbmischen Welt und zum Christentume mit griechischer Wortkonkordanz zumNeuen Testamente und I. Ckmensbriefe nebst Sach- undNamen- Verzeichnis. Anhang: Inhalt nebst Sachegister zu "Josephus der Geschichtsschreiber." Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. Buffiere, E, ed., 1962. Heraclite, Allegories d'Homere. Paris: Societe d'edition 'Les Belle Lettres.' Burkert, W , 1966. "Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual." GRBS 27:86-121. Burnet, J., 1945. Early Greek Philosophy. 4th ed. London: Black. Burnett, A . P., 1971. Catastrophe Survived: Euripides' Plays of Mixed Reversal. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Butterweck, A . , 1981. Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok: Gen 32, 4ff in derjudischen Tradition bis zum Fruhmittelalter. Frankfurt a / M : Lang. Butts, J. R., 1986. " T h e Progymnasmata of T h e o n : A N e w Text with Translation and C o m mentary." Ph.D. diss., Claremont M c K e n n a College. C a h n , W , 1966. "An Illustrated Josephus from the Meuse Region in Merton College, O x ford." Z^G 29:295-310. Carras, G. P., 1993. "Dependence or C o m m o n Tradition in Philo Hypothetka and Josephus Contra Apionem 2.190-219." SPA 5:24-47.
V I I I 6.10-7.20
C a m s , P., 1907. The Story of Samson and Its Place in the Religious Development of Mankind. C h i c a g o : O p e n Court. Case, S. J., 1925. 'Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution." JBL 44:10-20. Charles, R . H., 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charlesworth, J. H., ed., 1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. , 1992. "Baruch, Book o f 2 (Syriac)." In ABD, 1:620-21. Charlesworth, M . P., 1936. "Providentia and Aeternitas." HTR 29: 107-32.
68o
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chilton, B . D., 1983. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum . Sheffield: J S O T Press. Christ, W. von, 1905. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur bis auf die £eit Justinians,
4th ed. M u
nich: Beck. Churgin, P., 1949. Studies in the Times of the Second Temple [In H e b r e w ] . N e w York: Horeb Foundation. Clark, D. L., 1957. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press. Coggins, R. J., 1987. " T h e Samaritans in Josephus." In JJC, 257-73. C o h e n , G. D., 1967. "Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval T h o u g h t . " In Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. A . Altmann, 19-48. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. C o h e n , J., 1993. The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story. Leiden: Brill. C o h e n , N . G., 1963-64. "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment o f the Scriptural Narrative Similar throughout the Antiquities I - X I ? " JQR 54:311-32. , 1969. "Jewish Names and T h e i r Significance in the Hellenistic and R o m a n Peri ods in Asia M i n o r " [In H e b r e w ] . Ph.D. diss., H e b r e w University, Jerusalem. C o h e n , S.J. D., 1979. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian.
Lei
den: Brill. , 1982. 'Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius." HT
21:^66^-81.
, 1983. 'Jacob Neusner, Mishnah, and Counter-Rabbinics: A Review Essay." CoJ 37.1:48-63. C o h n , L., 1898. "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo o f Alexandria." JQR,
o.s.,
10:277-332. Collins, A . Y , 1992. "Revelation, B o o k of." In ABD, 5:694-708. Collins, J. J., 1987. "Messianism in the M a c c a b e a n Period." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner et a l , 97-109. Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e U n i versity Press. Colson, F. H., and Whitaker, G. H., eds. and trans., 1929-62. Philo. 10 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann. Connor, W. R., 1967. "History without Heroes: T h e o p o m p u s ' Treatment o f Philip o f M a c e d o n . " GRBS 8:133-54. , 1985. "Historical Writing in the Fourth Century B . C and in the Hellenistic Period." In The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. 1: Greek Literature, ed. P. E. Easterling and B. M . W K n o x , 458-71. Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press. Conybeare, F. C , 1898-99. " T h e Testament o f Solomon." JQR, o.s., 11:1-45. Cross, F. M . , 1964. " T h e History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert." HTR 57:281-99. , 1966. " T h e Contribution o f the Q u m r a n Discoveries to the Study o f the Biblical Text." IEJ 16:81-95. , 1972. " T h e Evolution of a T h e o r y o f Local Texts." In igj2 Proceedings of the Interna tional Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Pseudepigrapha.,
ed. R. A . Kraft, 108-26.
Missoula, Mont.: Society o f Biblical Literature. Crouch, J. E., 1972. The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustqfel. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Daly, R. J., 1977. " T h e Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac." 05(^39:45-75. Daniel, J. T , 1981. "Apologetics in Josephus."
Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, N e w
Brunswick, N.J. Danielou, J , 1947. " L a Typologie d'Isaac dans le christianisme primitif." Biblica 28:363-93.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
681
Daube, D , 1977. "Three Legal Notes on Josephus after His Surrender." LQR 93:191-94. , 1980. "Typology in Josephus." J7^3 8~36. , 1990. "Heine's Beltsatzar." J7^4 54 55Dautzenberg, G., 1971. " Z u m religionsgeschichdichen Hintergrund der Sta/c/otat? I:I
I:2
TTvevparayv
_
(1 K o r 12, 10)." 5 £ 15:93-104.
Davies, G. I., 1978. "Apocalyptic and Historiography." JSOT5:15-28. Davies, P. R., 1977. / QM the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. R o m e : Biblical Institute. Davies, P. R., and Chilton, B. D., 1978. " T h e'Aqedah:A Revised Tradition History." CBQ 40:514-46. Dawson, D., 1992. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Delling, G., 1957-58. "Josephus und die Wunderbare." JVT 2:291-309. , 1974. "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus." In J-S: 109-21. Destinon, J. von., 1882. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer. DeWitt, N . W., 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press. Diamond, J. A . , 1984. " T h e Deception of Jacob: A N e w Perspective on an Ancient Solu tion to the Problem." 1 ^ 3 4 : 2 1 1 - 1 3 . Dibelius, M . , 1956. " T h e Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography." In Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Translated from the G e r m a n by M . Land. N e w York: Scribner. 138-91. Dietrich, E. L., 1931. "Review oiAgada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus" by Salomo Rappaport.iW51:465-70. Dietzfelbinger, C , 1964. "Pseudo-Philo." Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Theol. diss., Gottingen. Diez M a c h o , A . , 1959. " T h e Recendy Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums." F7^suppl., 7:222-45. Dimant, D., 1992. "Pesharim, Q u m r a n . " In ABD, 5:244-51. , 1994. "An A p o c y p h o n of Jeremiah from C a v e 4 (4Q385 =4Q385 16)." In New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organizationfor Qum ran Studies, Paris igg2, ed. G.J. Brooke, n - 3 0 . Leiden: Brill. Dimant, D., and Strugnell, J., 1990. " T h e Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)." RQ 14:331-48. Dodds, E. R., 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of C a l ifornia Press. Donner, H . , 1961. " D e r Freund des Konigs." ^ 4 ^ 7 3 : 2 6 9 - 7 7 . Doran, R., 1979. "2 Maccabees and Tragic History." HUCA 50:107-14. Downing, E G., 1980. "Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels." JSNT8:46-65; 9:29-48. , 1981. "Ethical Pagan Theism and the Speeches in Acts." NTS 27:544-63. , 1982. " C o m m o n Ground with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus." NTS 28:546-59. Drazin, N , 1940. History of Jewish Educationfrom5/5 . . . to 220 ... (during the Periods of the Sec ond Commonwealth and the Tannaim). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Drexler, W., 1886. "Isis." In Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der Griechischer und Rbmischer Mythologie, ed. W. H . Roscher, 2.1:433. Leipzig: Teubner. Driver, S. R., 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2d ed. O x ford: Clarendon Press. }
B
682
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Droge, A . J., 1989. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Tubin gen: Mohr. Druner, H., 1896. "Untersuchungen iiber Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Duckworth, G. E., 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Prince ton: Princeton University Press. Duling, D . C , 1975. "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David." HTR 68:235-52. , 1985. " T h e Eleazar Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49." HTR 78:1-25. , trans, and ed., 1987. " T h e Testament o f Solomon." In Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H . Charlesworth, 1:935-87. Garden City, N . Y : Doubleday. , 1988. " T h e Testament o f Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect." JSP 2:87-112. Edersheim, A . , 1882. "Josephus." In A Dictionary of Christian Biography, ed. W. Smith and H . Wace, 3:441-60. London: Murray. Eisler, R., 1929-30. IHZOYZ BA2IAEYZ OY BAZIAEYEAE, 2 wis. Heidelberg: Winter. , 1931. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Redis covered Capture of Jerusalem' and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by A . Krappe. N e w York: M a c V e a g h , Dial. Ek, S., 1945-46. "Herodotismen in der judischen Archaologie des Josephos und ihre textkritische Bedeutung." Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 2:27-62, 213. Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund. Lund: Gleerup. EUiott, J. H., 1992. "Peter, First Episde of." In ABD, 5:268-78. Elman, Y , 1982. " T h e Judaism of the Mishna: W h a t Evidence?" Judaica Book News 12:17-25. Epstein, A . , 1885. " T h e Beasts of the Four K i n g d o m s " [In Hebrew]. BT 4.1173-77. , 1892. "Les Chamites de la table ethnographique selon le Pseudo-Jonathan com pare avec Josephe et le livre des Jubiles." REJ 24:82-98. Ernesti, J. A . , 1776. "ExerciMionum Flavianarum, prima de Fontibiis Archaeologiae, sect. 19." In his Opuscula Philologica Critica, 2d ed., 363-419. Leiden: Luchtmans. Faerber, R., 1901. Konig Salomon in der Tradition. Vienna: Schlessinger. Farnell, L. R., 1921. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Feldman, L. H., 1950. "Jewish 'Sympathizers' in Classical Literature and Inscriptions." TAPA 81:200-8. , 1951. "Cicero's Conception of Historiography." Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. , 1952-53. " T h e Character of Ascanius in Virgil's Aeneid^ 6748:303-13. , 1958-59. "Philo-Semitism among Ancient Intellectuals." Tradition 1:27-39. , 1962. " T h e Sources of Josephus' Antiquities, Book 19." Latomus 21:320-33. , ed. and trans., 1965. Josephus. Vol. 9. L C L . London: Heinemann. (
, 1968. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Account of Man's Decline." In Religions in An tiquity: Essays in Memory
of Erwin
Ramsdell
Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill.
336-53, 1970a. "Review of Josephus: The Man and the Historian, by H . St. J. Thackeray" (1967 reprint). JAOS 90:545-46. , 1970b. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther." TAPA 101:143-70. , 1971. "Prolegomenon." In reprint o f M . R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, vii-clxix. London, S P C K , 1917. N e w York: Ktav. , 1974. "Epilegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)." JJS 24:305-12.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
683
, 1976. "Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait o f Solomon." In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schiissler Fiorenza, 69-98, Notre D a m e , Ind.: University of Notre D a m e . , 1982. " T h e Testimonium Flavianum: T h e State of the Question." In Christological Per spectives, ed. R . F. Berkey and S. A . Edwards, 179-99, 288-93. N e w York: Pilgrim. , 1984a. "Flavius Josephus Revisted: T h e M a n , His Writings, and His Significance." ^JVRI4^2.2i.2:763-862. , 1984b. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (igjy-ig8o). Berlin: D e Gruyter. , 1986a. " T h e Omnipresence o f the G-d-Fearers." BAR 12.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1986): 58-69, 1986b. "Josephus' Portrait of Deborah." In Hellenica etjudaica: Hommages a Valentin Mkiprowetzky, ed. A . Caquot, M . Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud, 115-28. Leuven and Paris: Peeters. , 1987-88. "ProJewish Intimations in AntiJewish Remarks Cited in Josephus' Against Apion." J QR 78:187-251. , 1988a. "Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World." In History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. D. Berger, 15-42. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. , 1988b. " T h e Portrait of N o a h in Josephus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim." PAAJR 55:31-57. , 1989a. "Proselytes and 'Sympathizers' in the Light o f the N e w Inscriptions from Aphrodisias." RE J 148:265-305. , 1989b. 'Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities " InJBH, 59-8o. , 1990. "Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus." JTS 41:386-422. , 1991a. Pro-Jewish Intimations in Tacitus' Account o f Jewish Origins." RE J , 1991b. 'Josephus' Portrait of Manasseh." J£!P 9:3-20. , 1991c. "Reflections on John R . Levison's Josephus's Version o f R u t h . ' " JSP 8:45-52. , 1992a. "Josephus' Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence." In Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties, ed. M . Mor, 23-45. O m a h a : Creighton University. , 1992b. "Josephus' Portrait of A h a b . " ETL 68:368-84. , 1992c. 'Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah." J ^ S 43:187-202. , i992d. 'Josephus' Interpretation of Jonah." 7 -29, 1992c 'Josephus' Portrait of Hezekiah." JBL 111:597-610. , 1993a. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactionsfrom Alexander to Jus tinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press. , 1993b. "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra." FT43:190-214. , 1993c. 'Josephus' Portrait of Gedaliah." Shofar 1211-10. , 1993d. 'Josephus' Portrait of Joab." £ # 5 1 : 3 2 3 - 5 1 . , 1993c "II ritratto di Assalonne in Giuseppe Flavio." 41:3-30. , i993f. 'Josephus' Portrait of Jeroboam." AUSS 31:29-51. , i993g. "Josephus' Portrait of Balaam." SPA 5:48-83. , 1993I1. 'Josephus' Portraits of the Pharaohs." 4:49-63. , 1993L "Josephus' Portrait of K o r a h . " OTE" 6:399-426. I
: l
684
BIBLIOGRAPHY , , , , , ,
1993J. "Josephus' Portrait o f Gideon." REJ 152:5-28. 1993k. "Josephus' Portrait of Josiah." LS 18:110-30. 1993I. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoshaphat." SCI 12:159-75. 1994a. "Josephus' Portrait of Elijah." S J O T 8 : 6 i - 8 6 . 1994b. "Josephus' Portrait o f Elisha." j V T 3 6 : i - 2 8 . 1994c. "Josephus' Portrait of Ahasuerus." ABR 42:17-39. , I 9 9 4 d . "Josephus's Portrait of Ehud." In Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor ofBen %ion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. J. G. Reeves and J. K a m p e n , 177-201. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. , 1994c "Josephus' Portrait of Asa." 2S#/2 4:41-60. , i994f. "Josephus's Portrait of Jehoram, K i n g of Israel." BJRL 76:3-20. , 1995. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoiachin." PAPS 139.1:11-31. , 1996. "Josephus' Portrait of Jephthah." In The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem, ed. I. M . Gafni, A . Oppenheimer, D . R. Schwartz, 67*-84*. Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center for Jewish History. Ferguson, J., 1958. Moral Values in the Ancient World. London: Methuen. , 1968. "Iphigeneia at Aulis." TAPA 99:157-63. Ferrari d'Occhieppo, K . , 1977. Der Stern der Weisen: Geschichte oder Legende? 2d ed. Vienna: Herold. Fiedler, M . J., 1970. "AiKaioovvq in der diaspora-judischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur." JSJ 1:129-34. Field, E , 1875. Origenis Hexaplorum quae super sunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Finley, M . I., 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. N e w York: Viking. Flesher, P. V M . , 1995. " T h e Targumim." In Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 1: The Literary andAr chaeological Sources, ed. J. Neusner, 40-63. Leiden: Brill. Flusser, D., 1963. " T h e Pharisees and the Pious M e n of the Stoa according to Josephus" [In Hebrew]. lyyun 14:318-29. , 1971a . "Palaea Historica: A n U n k n o w n Source of Biblical Legends." SH 22:48-79. , 1971b. "Messiah, Second Temple Period." EJ 11:1408-10. , 1972. " T h e Four Empires in the Fourth Sybil and in the Book o f Daniel." IOS 2:148-75. , 1977. "Josephus on the Sadducees and Menander." Immanuel 7:61-67. Foakes Jackson, F. J., 1930. Josephus and the Jews: The Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus. N e w York: Smith. Fornaro, P., 1979. "II cristianesimo oggetto di polemica indiretta in Flavio Giuseppe (Ant. Jud. I V 326)." A S C 27:431-46. Fox, M . , 1993. "History and Rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus." ^ 6 8 3 : 3 1 - 4 7 . Frankel, Z . , 1851. Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leipzig: Barth. Franxman, T. W., 1979. Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. R o m e : Biblical In stitute. Fraser, P. M . , 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frazer, J. G., 1918. Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend and Law Vol. 2. London: Macmillan. Freud, S., 1939. Moses and Monotheism. London: Hogarth Press. Freudenthal, J., 1874-75. Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Vols. 1-2. Breslau: Grass, Barth. 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
685
Frimer, D . I., 1971. "Masada—in the Light of Halakah." Tradition 12:27-43. Fritz, K . von., 1958a. Aristotle's Contribution to the Practice and Theory of Historiography. University of California Publications in Philosophy, 28.3. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. , 1958b. "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fur die Geschichtsschreibung." Histoire ethistoriens dans Vantiquite (Entretiens Hardt) 4:85-145. , 1963. "Pythagoras." RE 47:180-86. Funk, H . , 1964. "Aristoteles z u m Euripides' Iphigeneia in Aulis." Hermes 92:284-99. Gafni, I., 1980. " O n the Use of I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius" [In Hebrew]. £ion 45:81-95. Gager, J. G., 1972. Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon. Gan, M . , 1961-62. " T h e Book of Esther in the Light of the Story of Joseph in E g y p t " [In Hebrew]. Tarbiz 31:144-49. Gaster, M . , 1927. TheAsatir: The Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. Oriental Translation Fund, n.s., 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927. Gaster, T , 1969. Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's Folklore in the O l d Testament. N e w York: Harper & Row. Geiger, A . , 1857. Urschrift und ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer. Gerber, C , 1994. " D i e Heiligen Schriften des Judentums nach Flavius Josephus." In Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, ed. M . Hengel and H . Lohr, 91-113. Tubingen: Mohr. Gibbs, J. G., and Feldman, L. H., 1985-86. "Josephus' Vocabulary for Slavery." JQR 76:281-310. Ginzberg, L., 1899. Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern. Erster Theil: Die Haggada in den pseudohieronymianischen Quaestiones. Amsterdam: Levisson. , 1902. "Baruch, Apocalypse of." JE 2:555-New York: Funk & Wagnalls. , 1909-38. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Gnuse, R., 1989. " D r e a m Reports in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." RB 96:358-90. Goethals, T R., 1959. " T h e Aethiopica of Heliodorus: A Critical Study." Ph.D. diss., C o l u m bia University, N e w York. Goldberg, A . N , 1966. "Joseph in der Sicht des Judentums der Antike." 2 ^ 2 1 : 1 1 - 1 5 . Goldenberg, D., 1978. " T h e Halakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A C o m parative Study." Ph.D. diss., Dropsie University, Philadelphia. Goldstein, J. A . , ed., 1 9 7 6 . 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Vol. 41 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Goldstein, S., 1989. Suicide in Rabbinic Literature. Hoboken: Ktav. Goodenough, E. R., 1928. " T h e Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship." TCS 1:55-104. , 1933. "Philo's Exposition of the L a w and his De Vita Mosis." HTR 26:109-25. , 1935. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. N e w Haven: Yale U n i versity Press. , 1938. The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory N e w Haven: Yale University Press. , 1953-68. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. Princeton: Princeton Uni versity Press. Goold, G. P., 1961. "A Greek Professorial Circle at R o m e . " TAPA 92:168-92. Goren, S., 1964. " T h e Valor of Masada in the Light of Halakhah" [In Hebrew]. Mahanayim 87:7-12.
686
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Goshen-Gottstein, M . H., 1975. " T h e 'Third T a r g u m ' on Esther and M S Neofiti 1." Biblica 56:301-29. Graetz, H., 1884. Die jiidischen Proselyten in Rbmerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian. Breslau: Schotdander. Graf, M . R., 1976. " T h e Hellenization of Moses." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. Grant, M . , 1973. The Jews in the Roman World. N e w York: Scribner. Grant, R . M . , 1952. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought. A m s terdam: North-Holland Publishing. Greene, W. C , 1944. Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Greeven, H., 1959. "77/00OKVV4OD." T W V T 6 7 6 3 . Gressmann, H., 1913. Mose und seine £eit: ein Kbmmentar zu den Mose-sagen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Groibart, Y L., 1935 . " E d o m and R o m e " [In Hebrew]. In Giheath Shaul: Essays Contributed in Honor of Rabbi Saul Silber, ed. C . D. Regensburg, 75-81. Chicago: Salz-Gellman. Grufydd, W. J., 1928. "Moses in the Light o f Comparative Folklore." ^ 4 ^ 4 6 : 2 6 0 - 7 0 . Griinbaum, M . , 1901. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sprache- und Sagenkunde. Berlin: Calvary. Guillaumont, A . , 1971. " A propos du celibat des Esseniens." In Hommages a Andre DupontSommer, ed. A . C a q u o t and M . Philonenko, 395-404. Paris: Andrien-Maisonneuve. Gutbrod, W , 1942. "vonoderiqs" TDNT4:1089. Gutman, Y , 1958-63. The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature" [In Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. Gutmann, Joseph., 1983. " T h e Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A N e w Dimension for the Study of Judaism." PAAJR 50:91-104. Gutmann, Joshua., 1971. "Antoninus Pius." £ 7 3 : 1 6 5 - 6 6 . Guttmann, H., 1928. Die Darstellung derjiidischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus. Breslau: Marcus. Haacker, K . , and Schafer, P., 1974. "Nachbiblische Traditionen v o m T o d des Mose." In J-S: 147-74. Hadas, M . , 1948. "Aeneas and the Tradition of the National Hero." 47^69:408-14. , 1958. "Plato in Hellenistic Fusion." JHI 19:3-13. , 1959. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. N e w York: Columbia University Press. Hadas-Lebel, M . , 1995. "Flavius Josephe apologete a propos des recites de la Genese et de l'Exode dans \es Antiquites, livres I a III." In KATA TOYU O : 'Selon les septante': H o m mage a Marguerite Harl, ed. G. Dorival and O . Munnich, 409-22. Paris: Cerf. 3
Halevi, E. E., 1972. TheAggadah in the Light of Greek Sources [In Hebrew]. Tel-Aviv: Dvir. Halevy, M . A . , 1927. Moise dans I'histoire et dans la legende. Paris: Rieder. D.J. Harrington, 1971, ' T h e Biblical Text o f Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum/ CZ?Q, :i-i7. 33
, 1973. "Interpreting Israel's History: T h e Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31-34." In Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers for the Society of Biblical Lit erature Pseudepigrapha Group (Septuagint and Cognate Studies), ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 59-70. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , ed., 1976. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquites bibliquesNoX. 1. Paris: Cerf. , 1986. "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies." In Early Ju daism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A . Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 239-58. A t lanta, G a . : Scholars Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
687
Harris, J. R., 1886. Fragments ofPhilo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartman, L. F., and di Leila, A . A . , eds., 1978. " T h e Book of Daniel." Vol. 23 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N . Y : Doubleday. Hartmann, L. , 1975. " T h e Function of Some So-Called Apocalyptic Timetables." NTS 22:1-14. Hata, G., 1987. " T h e Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism." In JJC 180-97. Hayward, R., 1981. " T h e Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sac rifice of Isaac." JJ-S" 32:127-50. , 1993-94. "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Genesis 27:31." JQR 84:177-88. Heinemann, I., 1935. "Moses." RE 31:359-75. , 1939-40. "Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities" [In He brew]. %ion 5:180-203. Heller, B., 1928. "Review of Moise dans Vhistoire et dans la legende, by M . A . Halevy." MGWJ 72:631-2. , 1936. "Grundziige der A g g a d a des Flavius Josephus." M G W J 80:237-46, 363. Henderson, I., 1957. "Ancient Greek Music." In The New Oxford History of Music, ed. J. A . Westrup et al., 1:336-403. London: Oxford University Press. Hengel, M . , 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Translated from the G e r m a n by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Herr, M . D , 1970. " T h e R o m a n Rule in the Literature of the Tannaim" [In Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. , 1977. " T h e Employment of History among the Rabbis" [In Hebrew]. In Proceed ings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 3:129-42. Jerusalem: World Union of Jew ish Studies. Hilgert, E., 1985. " T h e Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature." BR 30:5-21. , 1986. "A Survey of Previous Scholarship on Philo's De Josepho." SBLSP 25: 262-70. Hoenig, S. B . , 1972. "Historic Masada and the Halakhah." Tradition 13.2 (Fall): 100-15. Hoffmann, K . , 1920. "Die Ethik des jiidischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Erlangen. Holladay, C . R., 1977. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1983. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: Historians. Chico, C a l i f : Schol ars Press. , 1989. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 2: Poets. Adanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Hollander, H . W , 1981. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Lei den: Brill. Hollander, H . W , and Jonge, M . de., 1985. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commen tary. Leiden: Brill. Holscher, G., 1904. "Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiidischen Kriege ." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Leipzig: Teubner. , 1916. "Josephus." RE 18:1934-2000. Homeyer, H., 1962. " Z u den Anfangen der griechischen B i o g r a p h i c " Philologus 106:75-85.
688
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Horsley, R. A . , 1992. "Messianic Movements in Judaism." In ABD, 4:791-97. Horst, J., 1932. "Proskynein. Z u r Anbetung im Urchristentum nach ihrer religionsgeschichdichen Eigenart." Diss., Miinster, 1920. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann. Howard, G. E., 1973. " K a i g e Readings in Josephus." Textus 8:45-54. Hiibner, H., 1992. " N e w Testament, O T Quotations in the." In ABD, 4:1096-1104. Hug, A . , 1956. "77afSes." RE, suppl. vol. 8:374-400. Humphreys, W. L., 1980. " T h e Rise and Fall of K i n g Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narra tive Stratum in I Samuel." JSOT 18:74-90. Ilan, T , 1986. "A Pattern of Historical Errors in the Writings of Josephus" [In Hebrew]. ^51:357-60. Ilan, T , and Price, J. J., 1993-94. "Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum." JQR 84:189-208. Jacobson, H., 1983. The Exagoge ojEzekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1993. "Josephus on the Death of Moses." In Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, ed. H . D. Jocelyn and H . Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers, no. 3. Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly. , 1996.^4 Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Jaeger, W , 1938. Diokles von Karystos: Die Griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles. Berlin: De Gruyter. , 1947. Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jellicoe, S., 1965-66. " T h e Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-examina tion." NTS 12:144-50. , 1968. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jeremias, A . , 1906. DasAlte Testament in Lkhte derAlten Orients. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Jobling, D., 1978. The Sense of Biblwal Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 13-31, Numbers 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 Kings 17-18). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Johnson, G. L., 1983. "Josephus: Heir Apparent to the Prophetic Tradition?" SBLSP, ed. K. H . Richards. 22:337-46. de Jonge, M . , 1966. " T h e Use of the Word Anointed' in the T i m e of Jesus." NT 8: 132-48. , 1974. "Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes." In J-S: 205-19. Kahle, P. E., 1947. The Cairo Geniza. London: Oxford University Press. Kamesar, A . , 1994. " T h e Narrative A g g a d a as Seen from the Graeco-Latin Perspective." J J S 45-52-70. Kardimon, S., 1958. "Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs." JSS 3:123-26. K a t z , P., 1950. Philo's Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, H . A . A . , 1895. Sources of New Testament Greek; or, the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vo cabulary of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Kindler, A . , 1971. "Coins and Currency." EJ 5:695-721. Kingdon, H . P., 1972-73. " T h e Origins of the Zealots." NTS 19:74-81. Klausner, J., 1951. History of the Second Temple [In Hebrew]. Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Ahiasaf. K n o x , B . M . W , 1950. " T h e Serpent and the Flame: T h e Imagery of the Second Book of the Aeneid." AJP 71:379-400. , 1957. Oedipus at Thebes. N e w Haven: Yale University Press. , 1966. "Second Thoughts on Greek Tragedy." GRBS 7:213-32. Kolitz, Z . , 1971. "Masada: Suicide or Murder?" Tradition 12.1: 5-26.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
689
Kopidakis, M . Z . , 1986. "'Iaxjrjnos 6fir)pi£o)v" Helkmica 37:3-25. Kottek, S. S., 1994. Medicine and Hygiene in the Works of Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill. Krauss, S., 1898-99. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols. Berlin: Calvary. Ladouceur, D. J., 1977. "Studies in the Language and Historiography of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Brown University. , 1983. " T h e Language of Josephus." J S J 14:18-38. , 1987. "Josephus and Masada." In JJC, 95-113. Lamberton, R., 1986. Homer the Theologian: Moplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Lammert, E , 1927. "Ucofxaro^vXaKes" RE, 2d ser., 5:991-92. Laqueur, R., 1920. Der jildische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auj neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Larson, E., 1994. "4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation o f K i n g Zedekiah." 1:210-26.
DSD
Lassner, J , 1993. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Ju daism and Medieval Islam. C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press. Le Deaut, R., 1963. La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pdquejuive apartir du Targum dExode XII42. Analecta Biblica, no. 22. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical. , 1964a . "<j>i\avdpa)TTia dans la litterature grecque jusqu'au Nouveau Testament (Tite III, 4)." In Melanges Eugene Tisserant, 1:233-94. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. , 1964b. " M i r y a m , soeur de Moise, et Marie, mere du Messie." Biblica 45:198-219. Leisegang, H . , ed., 1926. Philo. Vol. 7. Berlin: D e Gruyter. Leon, H.J., i960. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Levi, I., 1912. " L e Sacrifice d'Isaac e la M o r t de Jesus." RE J 64:161-84. Levison, J. R., 1994. " T h e Debut o f the Divine Spirit in Josephus's Antiquities." HTR 87:123-38. Levy, I., 1907. "Moise en Ethiopie." REJ 53:201-11. , 1927. La Legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine. Bibliotheque de l'ecole des hautes etudes, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 250. Paris: C h a m p i o n . , 1965. Recherches esseniennes etpythagoriciennes. Paris: Minard. Lewinsky, A . , 1887. Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der religJLonsphiksophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Jose phus. Breslau: Preuss & Junger. Liddell, H . G., and Scott, R., 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. N e w ed. by H . S. Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cited as LSJ. Lieberman, S., 1942. Greek in Jewish Palestine. N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary. , 1950. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary. , 1963. " H o w M u c h Greek in Jewish Palestine?" In Studies and Texts (Philip W. L o w n Institute of A d v a n c e d Jewish Studies, Brandeis University), vol. 1: Biblical and Other Stud ies, ed. A . Altmann, 123-41. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Loewenstamm, S. E., i960. " T h e Exodus from Egypt: A Literary Study Based on C o m parison between the Report o f the Book o f Exodus and the Parallel Reports of the Extra-Pentateuchal Sources" [In Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. , 1965. The Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development [In Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes. Lord, J. R., 1968. "Abraham: A Study in Ancient Jewish and Christian Interpretation." Ph.D. diss., Duke University, D u r h a m , N . C .
6go
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lowy, S., 1977. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Leiden: Brill. M a c D o n a l d , J., i960. " T h e Samaritan Doctrine of Moses." SJT13:149-62. , 1964. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: S C M . M a c M u l l e n , R., 1966. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. M a c R a e , G. W., 1965. "Miracle in T h e Antiquities of Josephus." In Miracles: Cambridge Stud ies in Their Philosophy and History, ed. C . F. D . Moule, 127-47. London: Mowbray. Macurdy, G. H., 1937. Vassal-Queens and Some Contemporary Women in the Roman Empire. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, 22. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Maier, J., 1994. "Amalek in the Writings of Josephus." In Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers, 109-26. Lei den: Brill. Malbim, M . L., ed., N.d. Sefer Torat Elokim and Miqeraei Qodesh [In Hebrew]. N e w York: Friedman. Malina, B.J., 1968. The Palestinian Manna Tradition: The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and Its Relationship to the New Testament Writings. Leiden: Brill. Mantel, H . D., 1977. " T h e Sadducees and Pharisees." In Society and Religion in the Second Tem ple Period. T h e World History of the Jewish People, 1.8, ed. M . Avi-Yonah and Z . Baras, 99-123, 346-51, 395-97- Jerusalem: Massada. Marcus, R., 1931-32. "Divine Names and Attributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature." £447^3:43-120. , ed. and trans., 1934-37. Josephus. Vols. 5 (joindy with H . St. J. Thackeray) and 6 LCL. London: Heinemann. Margalith, O., 1986. " T h e Political Role of Ezra as Persian Governor." £AW Q8:I 10-12. Marmorstein, A . , 1920. The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature. London: Oxford Uni versity Press. Marrou, H . I., 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated from the French by G. L a m b . N e w York: Sheed & Ward. Martin, L. H., 1981. 'Josephus' Use of heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 1 7 1 - 3 . " Numen 28:127-37. Martin-Achard, M . , 1982. " L a figure d'Isaac dans PAncient Testament et dans la tradition juive ancienne." Bulletin des Facultes Catholiques de Lyon 106 (66):5-io. Mason , S., 1988. "Josephus on the Pharisees Reconsidered: A Critique of Smith/Neusner." S
R
:
6
!7 455- 9-
, 1991. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Leiden: Brill. , 1994. "Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House." In Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers, 161-91. Leiden: Brill. Mastin, B . A . , 1973. "Daniel 2:46 and the Hellenistic World." ^ 4 ^ 8 5 : 8 0 - 9 3 . Matenko, P., and Sloan, S., 1968. Two Studies in Yiddish Culture, 1: The Aqedath Jishaq: A Six teenth-Century Yiddish Epic, with Introduction and Notes by Percy Matenko and Samuel Sloan; II. Job and Faust: A Study and Translation of Ch. JThitlowsky's Essay by Percy Matenko. Leiden: Brill. Meeks, W , 1967. The Prophet-Tang: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill. Melamed, E. Z., 1951. 'Josephus and Maccabees I: A Comparison" [In Hebrew]. E-I1:122-30. Mendels, D., 1992. "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the 'Fourth Philosophy' and the Polit ical Messianism of the First Century C.E.." In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. H . Charlesworth, 261-75. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6gi
Meulen, H . E. E van der, 1978. "Das Salomo-Bild im HeUenistisch-Judischen Schrifttum." Ph.D. diss., K a m p e n . Meyer, R., 1938. "Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer Zeit." OLZ 41:721-28. M e z , A . , 1895. Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht jilr Buch V-VII der Archaologie. Basel: Jaeger & Kober. Migliario, E., 1981. "Per l'interpretation dell'autobiografia di Flavio Giuseppe." Atheneum 59:92-137. Mikalson, J. O., 1991. Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Chapel Hill: Univer sity of North Carolina Press. Millar, E , 1987. "Empire, Community and Culture in the R o m a n Near East: Greeks, Syri ans, Jews and Arabs." JJS 38:143-64. Milokenski, E., 1964. Der Mid in der griechischen Philosophie. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Mirsky A . , 1948. "Biblical Explanations in the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus" [In Hebrew]. Sinai22:282-87'. Moehring, H . R., 1957. "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., University o f Chicago. Microfilm. , 1973. "Rationalization o f Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." 777 112:376-83. Momigliano, A . D , 1966. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian." In id., Studies in Historiog raphy, 1-39. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 1971a. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1971b. Second Thoughts on Greek Biography. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. , 1978. "Greek Historiography." HT17:1-28. , 1979. "Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem." Athenaeum 57:442-48. M o m m s e n , T., 1870. "Cornelius Tacitus and Cluvius Rufus." Hermes 4:320-22. , 1885. Rb'mische Geschichte. Vol. 5. Berlin: Weidmann. Montgomery, J. A . , ed., 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry Snyder G e h m a n . N e w York: Scribner; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Moore, G. E , 1898. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. 2d ed. N e w York: Scribner. , 1912-13. " T h e Antiochian Recension of the Septuagint." AJSL 29:37-62. , 1927-30 . Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1929. "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus." HTR 22:371-89. Moscovitz, L., 1979. "Josephus's Treatment of the Biblical Balaam Espisode." Yeshiva Uni versity, N e w York. M o t z o , B . R., 1928. "II testo di Ester in Giuseppe." SMSR 4:84-105. Muraoka, T , 1981. " T h e Greek Text of 2 Samuel 11 in the Lucianic Manuscripts." AN 2o:37-59Murphy, F. J., 1993. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. N e w York: Oxford University Press. Murray, O., 1972. "Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture." 0(^22:200-13. Nadel, B . , 1966. "Jozef Flawiusz a terminologia rzymskiej inwektywy politycznej." (=Josephus Flavius and the Terminology o f R o m a n Political Invective). Eos 56:256-72. Neitzel, H., 1980. "Iphigeniens Opfertod: Betrachtungen zur 'Iphigenie in Aulis' von Eu ripides." WJA 6a:61-70. Nesde, E., 1910. "Miscellen: Die Bibel des Josephus." ^ ^ 3 0 : 1 5 2 .
6g2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
N e u m a n , A . A . , 1952-53. "Josippon and the A p o c r y p h a . " JQR 43:1-26. Reprinted in id., landmarks and Goals: Historical Studies and Addresses, 35-37. Philadelphia: Jewish Publica tion Society, 1953. Neusner, J., 1971. The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. , 1972a. "Josephus' Pharisees." In Ex orbe religionum: Studia Geo Widengren, XXIVmense apr. MCMLXXIIquo die lustra tredecimfeliciter explevit oblata ab collegis, discipulis, amicis, collegae magistro amico congratulantibus, 224-44. Leiden: Brill. , 1972b. " T h e Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D.: T h e Problem of O r a l Tradition." Kairos 14:57-70. , 1973. "Josephus' Pharisees: T h e Real Administrators of the State." In From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, 45-66. Englewood Clifls, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. , 1978. The Glory of G-d Is Intelligence: Pour Lectures on the Role of Intellect in Judaism. Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University. , 1984. Messiah in Context: Israel's History and Destiny in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. , 1987a. Scriptures of the Oral Torah: Sanctification and Salvation in the Sacred Books of Judaism . San Francisco: Harper & Row. , 1987b. "Mishnah and Messiah." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Chris tian Era, ed. J. Neusner et al., 265-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs., 1987. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neyrey, J. H . , 1994. "Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native M o d e l of Personality." J S J 25:177-206. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1980. " G o o d and B a d Leaders." In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J.J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 49-65. Society of Bibli cal Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. , 1984. " T h e Bible Rewritten and Expanded." In Jewish Writings in the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E. Stone, 89-156. CRINT2.2. Assen: V a n Gorcum. Niehoff, M . , 1992. The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Leiden: Brill. Niese, B . , ed., 1885-95. Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann. , 1896. " D e r judische Historiker Josephus." HZ40:193-237. Nikiprowetsky, V , 1971. " L a M o r t d'Eleazar fils de Jaire et les courants apologetiques dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josephe." In Hommages a Andre Dupont-Sommer, ed. A . C a q u o t and M . Philonenko, 461-90. Paris: Maisonneuve. , 1989. "Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties." InJBH, 216-36. Nock, A . D., 1933. Conversion: The Old and the New in ReligionfromAlexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 1972. "Conversion and Adolescence." In Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z . Stewart, 1:469-80. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nodet, E, ed., 1990. Flavius Josephe: Les Antiquites Juives. Limes Id III, vol. 1: Introduction et texte; vol. 2: Traduction et notes. Paris: Cerf. , 1993. "Flavius Josephe: Creation et Histoire." RB 100:5-40. Norden, E., 1913. "Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetic" Neue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche literatur 16:637-66. Reprinted in Z Josephus-Forschung ed. A . Schalit. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ur
BIBLIOGRAPHY
693
, 1923. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religidser Rede. Leipzig: Teubner. , 1924. Die Geburt des Kindes: Geschichte einer religidsen Idee. Leipzig: Teubner. North, H . E , 1956. "Rhetoric and Historiography." QJS 42:234-42. , 1966. Sophrosyne, Self-Knowledge and Sejf-Restraint in Greek literature. Ithaca, N Y : C o r nell University. Obbink, H . W , 1966. " O n the Legends of Moses in the H a g g a d a h . " In Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro. Christiano Vriezen . . . dedicata, ed. W. C . van Unnik and A . S. van der Woude, 252-64. Wageningen: Veenman. Oepke, A . , 1954. ""Ovap." 7 ^ ^ 5 : 2 3 2 - 3 3 . Olmstead, A . T., 1913. "Source Study and the Biblical Text." AJSL 30:1-35. Ostwald, M . , 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Palmer, A . S., 1913. The Samson-saga and Its Place in Comparative Religion. London: Putnam. Paul, A . , 1975. "Le C o n c e p t de prophetie biblique: Flavius Josephe et Paul." RSR 63:367-84. , 1981. " L e Recit de la Chute par Flavius Josephe." FV80 (Dec.):4i~47. , 1985. "Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews': A n Anti-Christian Manifesto." NTS 31:473-80. Pearce, S.J. K . , 1995. "Flavius Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: T h e Council o f Seven and the Levitical Servants in Jewish Antiquities 4.214." HJ 36:477-92. Pearson, A . O , 1914. " H u m a n Sacrifice (Greek)." In Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 6:847-49. N e w York: Scribner. Pease, A . S., 1941. "Caeli Enarrant." HTR 34:163-200. , ed., 1958. " M . " Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum Libri Tres. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pelletier, A . , 1962a. Flavius Josephe, Adaptateur de la Lettre dAristee: Une Reaction atticisante contre la koine. Paris: Klincksieck. , 1962b. Lettre dAristee a Phihcrate. Paris: Cerf. Perrot, C , 1967. "Les Recits d'enfance dans la H a g g a d a anterieure au II siecle de notre ere." #£#55:481-518. Perrot, C , and Bogaert, P.-M. eds., 1976. Pseudo-Phibn: Les Antiquite Bibliques. Vol. 2. Paris: Cerf. Perry, B . E., 1967. The Ancient Romances. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Peter, H., 1897. Die geschichtliche Literatur uber die rbmische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner. Petersen, H., 1958. "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus." 4 7 ^ 7 9 5 9 - 7 4 Petit, M . , 1976. "A propos d'une traversee exemplaire du desert du Sinai selon Philon (Hypothetica VI.2.3.8): Texte biblique et apologetique concernant Moise chez quelques ecrivains juifs." Semitica 26:137-42. Pfeifer, G., 1967. "Ursprung und Wesen des Hypostasenvorstellung im Judentum." Ph.D. diss., Jena. Stuttgart: Calwer. Pfister, E , 1909-12. Der Requienkult imAltertum. 2 vols. Giessen: TopeJmann. Philip, J. A . , 1966. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pines, S., 1977. "A Platonistic M o d e l for T w o of Josephus' Accounts o f the Doctrine of the Pharisees concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action." Immanuel 7:38—43. Trans, from Hebrew, lyyun 24 (i973):227~32 e
:2
694
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pisano, S., 1984. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Got tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pohlmann, K . - E , 1968-69. "Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem urspriinglichen Schluss des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Reprinted in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alien und Neuen Testaments, 104, ch. 3, Das £eugnis des Josephus, 74-126. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Porton, G. G., 1979. "Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the GrecoR o m a n Period." ANRW2.19.2:103-38. Poznanski, A . , 1887. " U b e r die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Jose phus." Ph.D. diss., Halle. Priebatsch, H . , 1937. Die Josephsgeschichte in der Weltliteratur: Fine legendengeschichtliche Studie. Breslau: Marcus. Prijs, L., 1948. Judische Tradition in der Septuaginta. Leiden: Brill. Qimron, E., and Strugnell, J., 1994. Qumran Cave 4: V. MiqsatMa ase Ha-Torah Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rabinowitz, L. I., 1971. " T h e Masada Martyrs according to the Halakhah." Tradition 12: c
31-37. Radin, M . , 1915. The Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So ciety. Raglan, Lord Fitz R. R . S., 1934. " T h e Hero of Tradition." iM/ore 45:212-31. Rahlfs, A . , 1911. Septuaginta-Studien, 3: Lucians Rezension der Konigsbiicher. Gottingen: Vanden hoeck & Ruprecht. , 1935. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt. Rahmer, M . , 1861. Die hebraischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus: Quaestiones in Genesin. Breslau: Schletterschen Buchhandlung. Rajak, T , 1974. "Flavius Josephus: Jewish History and the Greek World." Ph.D. diss., O x ford University. , 1978. "Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature." JJS2g: 111-22. , 1982. "Josephus and the Archaeology' of the Jews." 33:465-77. , 1984. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Rank, O., 1909. Der My thus von der Geburt des Helden: Versuch einer psychologischen Mythendeutung. Leipzig: Deuticke. Translated by F. Robbins and S. E. Jeliffe as The Myth of the Birth of the Hero: A Psychological Interpretation of Mythology. N e w York: Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing, 1914. Ranke, L. von, 1883. Weltgeschichte. 3:2, 12-33. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Rappaport, Salomo., 1930. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. Vienna: Alexander K o h u t Memorial Foundation. , 1932. "Review of Josephus: The Man and the Historian, by H . St. J. Thackeray." REJ 92:107-12. Rattenberg, R. M . , 1933. "Romance: Traces o f Lost Greek Novels." In New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, 3d ser., ed. J. U. Powell, 211-57. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reinach, T , ed., 1895. Textes d'auteursgrecs et romains relatifs aujudaisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reinhardt, K . , 1928. Poseidonios uber Ursprung und Entartung: Interpretation zweier kulturgeschichtlicher Fragmente. Heidelberg: Winter. Rengstorf, K . H . , ed., 1973-83. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
693
Renzer, J. S., 1902. "Die Hauptpersonen des Richterbuchen in Talmud und Midrasch." Ph.D. diss., Bern. Berlin: Itzkowski. Ricciotti, G., 1938. "II testo della Bibbia in Flavio Giuseppe." In Catalogo della mostra di manoscritti e documenti orientali tenuta dalla Biblioteca apostolica vaticana e dalVArchivio segreto nelV occasione del XIX Congresso intemazionale degli orientalisti, Roma, 23-29 settembre 1933, 464-70. Vat ican City. Richards, G. C , 1939. " T h e Composition of Josephus' Antiquities.'" 00,33:36-40. Rivkin, E., 1971. The Shaping ofJewish History: A RadicalNew Interpretation. N e w York: Scribner. , 1978. A Hidden Revolution. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon. Robbins, V K . , 1981. "Laudation Stories in the Gospel of Luke and Plutarch's Alexander." In SBLSP, ed. K . H . Richards, 293-308. C h i c o , Calif.: Scholars Press. Robertson, S. D., 1992. " T h e Account of the Ancient Israelite Tabernacle and First Priest hood in the Jewish Antiquities o f Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Annenberg Research Institute, Philadelphia. Rofe, A . , 1994. " T h e Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosh ." In New Qum ran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992, ed. G.J. Brooke, 73-90. Leiden: Brill. a
Rokeah, D., 1968. "A N e w Onomasticon Fragment from Oxyrhynchus and Philo's Ety mologies." JTS 19:70-82. Rose, H . J., 1914. "Divination (Greek)." In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 4:796-99. N e w York: Scribner. Rosenthal, L. A . , 1895. "Die Josephsgeschichte, mit den Buchern Ester und Daniel verglichen." %AW 15:278-90. , 1897. "Nochmals der Vergleich Ester, Joseph-Daniel." 17:125-28. D e i Rossi, A . 1573-75. Me or Einayim. Mantua: n.p. Rudolph, W., 1952-58. Esra undNehemia: samt3. Esra, vol. 10 cAHandbuch zumAlten Testament, 2d ed. Tubingen: Mohr. Runnalls, D , 1983. "Moses' Ethiopian C a m p a i g n . " JSJ 14:135-56. Sachs, M . J., 1854. Beitrdge zur Sprach- und Altertumsforschungausjiidischen Quellen. 2 vols. Berlin: Veit. Sacks, K . S., 1981. Polybius on the Writing of History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Sanders, E. P., 1990. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: S C M . Sandmel, S., 1956. Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. Sansone, D., 1978. "A Problem in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris." RM 121:35-36. Sarna, N . M . , 1971. "Psalms, Book of, Ascription to David." EJ 13:1313-14. Sarowy, W , 1900. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Kb'nig Salomos. Konigsberg: Leopold. Satran, D., 1980. "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy M a n . " In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J.J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 33-48. SBLSCS 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Schalit, A . , trans, and ed., 1944-63. Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae [In Hebrew]. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik. , 1968. Namenwdrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Jose phus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf, suppl. 1. Leiden: Brill.
6g6
BIBLIOGRAPHY J
ur
5 973- Z Josephus-Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Schaiiblin, C , 1982. "Josephus und die Griechen." Hermes 110:316-41. Scherb, H., 1930. Das Motif vom starken Knaben in der Marchen der Weltliteratur: Seine religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung und Entwicklung Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schian, R., 1973. "Untersuchungen iiber das argumentum e consensu omnium." Ph.D. diss., Tubingen, 1971. Spudasmata: Studien zur klassischen Philologie und ihren Grenzgebieten, 28. Hildesheim: Olms. Schinrnan, Lawrence H . , 1987. " T h e C o n c e p t of the Messiah in Second Temple and R a b binic Literature." REx 84:235-46. Schlatter, A . von, 1910. Wie Sprach Josephs von G-tt? Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. Reprinted in his Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf, 65-142. Darmstadt: Wis senschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. , 1932. Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. , 1955. The Church in the New Testament Period. Translated by P. P. Levertoff. London: SPCK. Schmeling, G. L., 1980. Xenophon ofEphesus. Boston: Twayne. Schmidt, G., 1894. " D e Flavii Josephi Elocutione Observationes Criticae." JCP, suppl. 20, 341-550. Leipzig: Teubner. Schmitt, J., 1921. Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides: Ein Beitrag zu seiner dramatischen Technik. Giessen: Topelmann. Schoeps, H.-J., 1940. " T h e Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul's Theology." JBL 65:385—92. Scholem, G., 1971. "Samael." EJ 14.719-22. Schorr, A . , trans., 1940. Antiquitates Judaicae [In Hebrew]. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Mass. Schreiber, H . M . , 1963. "Iphigenies Opfertod: Ein Beitrag z u m Verstandnis des Tragikers Euripides." Ph.D. diss., Frankfurt a / M : Giessen. Schiirer, E., 1901. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi. Vol. 1. 4th ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs. , 1973-86. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Clark. Schwartz, D. R., 1981-82. "Kara TOVTOV TOV Kaipov. Josephus' Source on Agrippa II." JQR 72:241-68. , 1983-84. "Josephus on Jewish Constitutions and Community." SCI7:30-52. , 1990. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tubingen: Mohr. Schwartz, S., 1990. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill. Scott, R. B. Y , 1955. "Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel." VT, suppl. 3: 262-379. Sedgwick, W. B., 1948. "Sappho in 'Longinus' ( X , 2, line 13)." 4 7 ^ 6 8 : 1 9 8 - 9 9 . Seidensticker, B . , 1979. "Sacrificial Ritual in the Bacchae." In Arktouros, ed. G. W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M . C . J . Putnam, 181-90. Berlin: D e Gruyter. Seyberlich, R . - M . , 1964. "Esther in der Septuaginta und bei Flavius Josephus." In Neue Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Alten Welt, vol. 1: Alter Orient und Griechenland, ed. C . Weiskopf, 363-66. 2d Internationale T a g u n g der Fachgruppe Alte Geschichte der Deutschen Historiker-Gesellschaft, Stralsund, 4.-8. Sept. 1962. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Shinan, A . , 1978. "Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in T h e Chronicles of Moses." 6*7/27:66-78. , 1978-79. " T h e Sins of N a d a b and A b i h u in Rabbinic Literature" [In Hebrew], Tarbiz 48:201-14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
697
Shochat, A . , 1953. " T h e Views of Josephus on the Future o f Israel and Its L a n d " [In H e brew]. In Terusalayim. ed. M . Ish-Shalom et al., 43-50. Jerusalem: M o s a d H a - R a v K u k . Shutt, R. J. H., 1961. Studies in Josephus. London: S P C K . , 1971. "Biblical Names and T h e i r Meanings in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books I and II. 1-200." J £ J 2:167-82. , 1981. " T h e C o n c e p t of G - d in the Works of Flavius Josephus." JJS 31:171-89. Siegel, H., 1978. "Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis—Analysis and Critique." Ph.D. diss., N e w York University. , 1980. "Self-Delusion and the Volte-Face of Iphigenia in Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis." Hermes 108:300-21. Sifakis, G. M . , 1967. Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama. London: Athlone Press. Silver, D. J., 1973-74. "Moses and the Hungry Birds." JQR 64:123-53. , 1982. Images of Moses. N e w York: Basic Books. Skinner, J., ed., 1930. Genesis. N e w York: Scribner. Slotki, J. J., ed., 1950. Joshua and Judges. Hebrew text and English translation with an intro duction and commentary, edited by A . C o h e n . London: Soncino Press. Smallwood, E. M . , 1956. "Domitian's Attitude toward Jews and Judaism." C P 51:1-13. , 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Domitian. Leiden: Brill. Smith, E. W , Jr., 1975. 'Joseph Material in Joseph and Asenath and Josephus Relating to the Testament of Joseph." In Studies on the Testament of Joseph, ed. G. W. Nickelsburg, 133-37. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 3. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Smith, M . . , 1956. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century." In Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M . Davis, 67-81. N e w York: Harper. Reprinted in Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature, ed. H . A . Fischel, 183-97. N e w York: Ktav, 1977. , 1971. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press. , 1987. " T h e Occult in Josephus." In JJC, 236-56 Smolar, L., and Aberbach, M . , 1968. " T h e Golden C a l f Episode in Postbiblical Literature." HUCA 39:91-116. Snowden, F. M . , 1970. Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press. Solmsen, E , 1949. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. Sowers, S. G., 1967. " O n the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism." In Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie: Oscar Cullmann zum 63. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. F. Christ, 18-25. Hamburg: Reich. Speiser, E. A . , ed., 1964. Genesis. Vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. Spengel, L., 1854-94. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Spero, S., 1970. "In Defense of the Defenders of Masada." Tradition 11.1: 31-43. Speyer, W , 1971. Die literarische Fdlschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung. Munich: Beck. Spicq, C , 1958. " L a Philanthropic hellenistique, virtu divine et royale." ST 12:169-91. , 1978. Notes de lexicographic neo-testamentaire. 2 vols. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spiegel, S., 1967. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. Translated by J. Goldin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Spiro, A . , 1953. "Pseudo-Philo's Saul and the Rabbis' Messiah ben Ephraim." 22:119-37.
PAAJR
6g8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Spottorno, V , 1987. "Some Remarks on Josephus' Biblical Text for 1-2 K g s . " In VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, ig86, ed. C . E. C o x , 277-85. Adanta, G a . : Scholars Press. Sprodowsky, H., 1937. " D i e Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Joseph in Agypten bei Flav ius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Greifswald. (=Greifswalder Beitrdge zur Literatur- und Stilforschung .8). Stagg, E., and Stagg, E , 1978. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Stahn, H., 1908. Die Simsonsage: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung uber Richter 13-16. G o t tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stein, E., 1937. " D e Woordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Leiden. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. Steinberg, E., 1971. "Weights and Measures." EJ 16:376-88. Steinthal, H., 1877. " T h e Legend of Samson." In Mythology among the Hebrews and Its Histori cal Development, ed. I. Goldziher, 392-440. Translated by R. Martineau. London: L o n g mans, Green. Stemberger, G., 1983. Die Rbmische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Sterling, G. E., 1992. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke—Acts and Apologetic Histori ography. Leiden: Brill. Stern, M . , 1974-84. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences and Humanities. , 1987. "Josephus and the R o m a n Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War." In JJC, 71-80. Stone, M . E., 1992. "Esdras, Second Book of." In ABD, 2:611-14. Strugnell, J., and Dimant, D. 1988. " 4 Q , S e c o n d Ezekeil." # £ 1 3 : 4 5 - 5 8 . Stuart, D. R., 1928. Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer sity of California Press. Tabor, J. D., 1989. " 'Returning to the Divinity': Josephus' Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses." JBL 108:225-38. Tachauer, G., 1871. "Das Verhaltniss von Flavius Josephus zur Bibel und Tradition." Ph.D. diss., Erlangen. Talbert, C . H . , 1975. " T h e C o n c e p t of the Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity." JBL 94:419-36. , 1980. "Prophecies o f Future Greatness: T h e Contribution of G r e c o - R o m a n Bi ographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on G-d's Control of Human Events Presented to Lou H Silberman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sand mel, 129-41. N e w York: Ktav. Tarn, W. W , and Griffith, G. T , 1952. Hellenistic Civilisation. 3d ed. London: Arnold. Tcherikover, V A., 1957. "Prolegomena." In id., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V A . Tcherikover, A . Fuks, and M . Stern, 1:1-111. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Terian, A . , 1985. " S o m e Stock Arguments for the Magnanimity of the L a w in Hellenistic Jewish Apologetics." In Jewish Law Association Studies, 1: The Touro Conference Volume, ed. B. S. Jackson, 141-49. Proceedings of the second International Congress of the Jewish L a w Association, organized by the Touro College School of L a w and held in N e w York in D e c . 1982. Chico, C a l i f : Scholars Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6gg
Thackeray, H . St. J., 1904. 'Josephus." In A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, edited by J. Hastings with the assis tance of J. A . Selbie, A . B . Davidson, S. R . Driver, and H . B . Swete, extra vol., 461-73. N e w York: Scribner; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. , ed. and trans., 1926-34.. Josephus. vols. 1-4; 5 (joindy with R . Marcus). LCL. L o n don: Heinemann. , 1927. "Note on the Evidence of Josephus." In The Old Testament in Greek, ed. A . E. Brooke, N. M c L e a n , and H . St. J. Thackeray, ix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1929. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. N e w York: Jewish Institute o f Religion Press. Reprint, with preface by G. F. M o o r e and introduction by S. Sandmel, N e w York: Ktav, 1967. Thackeray, H . St. J., and R . Marcus., 1930-55. A Lexicon to Josephus. 4 fasc. Paris: Geuthner. Theiler, W., 1965. Z Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles. 2d ed. Berlin: D e Gruyter. ur
T h o m p s o n , S., 1957. Motif Index of Folk-Literature. 6 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Thornton, T , 1996. "Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus' Retelling o f Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges." JTS 47:125-30. Tiede, D . L., 1972. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Tobin, T. H . , 1986. "Tradition and Interpretation in Philo's Portrait o f the Patriarch Joseph." StfZSP 25:271-77. Torrey, C . C , 1944. " T h e Older Book of Esther." HTR 37:1-40. Tov, E., 1979. " T h e Textual Affiliations of 4 Q S a m . " J S O T 14:37-53. , 1984. " T h e Rabbinic Traditions concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the L X X . " JSJ 15:65-89. a
Trimble, P. L., 1977. "Masada, Suicide, and Halakhah." £0731:45-55. Trisoglio, E , 1984. "L'intervento divino nelle vicende umane della storiografia classica greca a Flavio Giuseppe e ad Eusebio di Cesarea." ANRW2.21.2:977-1104. Tuland, C . G., 1966. "Josephus, Antiquities, Book X I : Correction or Confirmation o f Bibli cal Post-Exilic Records?" AUSS 4:176-92. Ullendorff, E., 1962-63. " T h e Q u e e n o f Sheba." #7#L 45:486-504. Ullman, B . L., 1942. "History and Tragedy." TAPA 73:25-53. Ulrich, E. C , 1978. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1989. "Josephus' Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel." In JBH, 81-96. , 1994. "4QJoshua and Joshua's First Altar in the Promised Land." In New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organizationfor Qumran Stud ies, Paris, igg2, ed. G.J. Brooke, 89-104. Leiden: Brill. a
Unnik, W. C . van., 1949. " D e la regie Mr/re canon." ^ 3 : 1 - 3 6 .
irpoadelvaL
(jLrjre
afeXetv
dans l'histoire du
, 1963. "A Formula Describing Prophecy." JV7S 9:86-94. , 1973. "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus." In Romanitas et Christianitas, Studia Iano Henrico Waszink .. VI Kal. Nov. a. MCML XXIIIXIIILustra Complenti Oblata, ed. W. den Boer et al., 341-55. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. , 1974. "Josephus' A c c o u n t o f the Story o f Israel's Sin with Alien W o m e n in the Country o f Midian (Num. 25.1 ff.)." In Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Pre sented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of His 63th Birthday, ed. M . S. H . G. H e e r m a von
700
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Voss, Ph. H.J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A . van Uchelen, 241-61. Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 16. Assen: Van G o r c u m . , 1978. Flavins Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Schneider. Usener, H . K . , 1912. Kleine Schriften. Leipzig: Teubner. V a n d e r K a m , J. C , 1992. "Jubilees, Book of." ABD 3:1030-32. Vassiliev, A . , 1893. Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina. Moscow: Universitas Caesarea. Vawter, B., 1977. On Genesis: A New Reading. London: C h a p m a n . Vermes, G., 1955. " L a Figure de Moise au tournant des deux testaments." In Moise: U Homme de I'alliance, 86-92. Paris: Tournai. , 1973. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill. , 1975. Post-Biblical Studies. Leiden: Brill. , 1982. "A Summary of the L a w by Flavius Josephus." NT24:289-303. , 1991. 'Josephus' Treatment of the Book of Daniel." JJS 42:140,-66. Villalba i Varneda, Pere, 1986. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill. Vogelstein, H . , 1889. Der Kampf zwischen Priestern und Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Stettin [Szczecin, Poland]: Nagel. Wacholder, B . Z . , 1962. Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali fornia Press. , 1963. "Pseudo-Eupolemus' T w o Greek Fragments on the Life of A b r a h a m . " HUCA 34:83-113, 1974. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C o l lege. Walbank, F. W , i960. "History and Tragedy." Historia 9:216-234. , 1972. Polybius. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Walzer, R. R., 1949. Galen on Jews and Christians. London: Oxford University Press. Wardman, A . E., i960. " M y t h in Greek Historiography." Historia 9:403-13. Weber, W , 1921. Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem Jiidischen Krieg des Flavius Jose phus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. W e g n e r J . R., 1982. " T h e Image o f W o m a n in Philo." SBLSP,ed. K . H . Richards, 21:551-63. Weinfeld, M . , 1982. " T h e K i n g as Servant of the People: T h e Source of the Idea." JJS 33^89-94. Welles, C . B., 1955. " T h e Hellenistic Orient." In The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. C . Dentan, 133-67. N e w Haven: Yale University Press. White, R. T. 1992. Genesis A p o c r y p h o n . " In ABD, 2:932-33. Wiedemann, A . , 1900. " Z u den Felsgraffiti in der G e g e n d des ersten Katarakts." 0L£ Wieneke, J., 1931. "Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Q u a e Inscribitur Exagoge Fragmenta." Ph.D. diss., Munster. Williams, D. S., 1993-94. "Morton Smith on the Pharisees in Josephus." JQR 84:29-42. Williams, M . H., 1989. " T h e Expulsion o f the Jews from R o m e in A.D. 19." Latomus 48:765-84. Williams, S. K . , 1975. Jesus' Death as Saving Event. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Williamson, G. A . , 1964. The World of Josephus. Boston: Litde, Brown. Willrich, H., 1895. Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaischen Erhebung. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. , 1900. Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jiidischen Geschichte und Literatur. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
70/
Winter, P., 1953. "Movoyevrjs rrapa IJarpos" %RG 5:335-65. Wirszubski, O , 1950. Libertas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiseman, D. J., 1964. " R a h a b of Jericho." THE 14 (June):8-n. Wojcik, J., 1980. "Discriminations against David's Tragedy in Ancient Jewish and Christ ian Literature." In The David Myth in Western Literature, ed. R.-J. Frontain and J. Wojcik, 22-25. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press. Wolff, O , 1976. Jeremia im Fruhjudentum und Urchristentum. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wolfson, H . A . , 1941. "Halevi and Maimonides on Design, Chance, and Necessity." PAAJR 11:119-30. , 1947. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1966. "Patristic Arguments against the Eternity o f the World." HTR 59:351-67. Wood, J. E., 1967-68. "Isaac Typology in the N e w Testament." NTS 14:583-89. Yadin, Y , 1977-83. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yamauchi, E. M . , 1980. "Josephus and the Scriptures." FH13 (Fall): 42-63. Zeron, A . 1980. "Erwagungen zu Pseudo-Philos Quellen und Zeit." JSJ 11:38-52. Z u n z , L., 1845. £ur Geschichte und Literatur. Berlin: Veit. , 1865. Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie des Mittelalters. Berlin: Gerschel.
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T W R I T E R S
JEWISH 1 Chronicles 4:3 13-3
SCRIPTURES
463114 557
16:7
4om57,562
i7:u
571,575
17:12
i52,53
8
7:10
600 (bis), 602
7:12
604
8:7
588
. 8:11
615
8:18
606
9:1-12
75
560
9:9
19:29
59i
9:30
18:12
6
o
9
576
21:1
559
10-18
21:13
5541117
11:2
22:1
561
11:5
22:2-23:1
575
15:6
157
22:9
563, 571, 610
15:8
119
22:12
552
15:9
160
22:14
571
17:6
119
22:14-19
570
17:7-8
62
25:1
562
17:10
120
28:1
576
18:2
142
28:1-29:30
575
19:11
62
28:4
563
20:5-12
154
28:11
576
21:7
152
29:3-4
57i
21:14
208
29:19
552,579
29:22
622
2 Chronicles
23, 34, 216 49in3 ff.
34^33
32:17
120
32:21
213 38
2:8
596
32:25
2:10
593 {bis)
33:10
57n72
3:3-4:22
596
34:3-7
120
3:14
57 nio
35:1
622
4:11
598
36:9
39, 71, 660
5:2
599
36:13
472n27
: i
5 2-i3 7:1 7:3 7:5 7:8
5
599 600,604
Daniel
621 6
0
1
1
630
1:3
72, 631, 632, 632n6, 632n8, 645
600 703
704
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Daniel (continued)
1 6
5: 5:21
6
34> 653 647
1:4
71, 631, 632 (bis), 641,
1:5 1:6
6
645 54 631
5:29
1:7
631
6
1:8
641,642
6:1
655
1:12
642,642n3o
6:3
201, 638, 641, 653 201,644
5:26-31 5:30
637 6
3 6 (bis), 648
6
54
630
1:14
642n30
6:4
1:17
643
6:5
636,653
1:18
654
6:7
136,648 136,648
1:20
632, 633, 644
6:9
2:1
654, 654n49 (bis)
6:10
633,634
2:1-49
102
2:5 2:16
645 156, 648, 655
633 653 183,655 648
2:17-18
645
6:11 6:13 6:14 6:16
2:19
637
6:20
637
2:19-23
635
6:23
213,639
2:20-23
635,637
6:24
184, 648, 656
2:27-28
634
6:28
635,654
2:27-45
646
7:9-14
63on3
2:28
36on54
7: 8
2:30
634
8
630
2:33
649n38
8:1-27
636
2:34-35 2:42
538 649n38
8:9
63on3
8:16
639
2:44
650
8:21
630
2:44-45
3 9 , 1 5 3 , i54n2i, 649
8:27
633
2:45 2:46
538 646
9:21-27
639
9:24-27
154, 652 (bis)
2:48
641
9:26
6521145
157,652
10:7
636ni7
3:8-12 : I
j
6
153, 5°
3 9
213,638
3:25
640
3:28
640
3:29
i3 > 4 6
1:11
390
4:4-18
646
1:12
392
6
Deuteronomy 1:1 6
4:5
647
1:42
47
655
169, i69n9, 328, 457
410
4:9
655
3:4-5 3:11
4:16
646
4:2
42,43
4:25
646
6:20-21
455 5
4:30
646
7:3
i37, 300, 446
4:31-34
647
7:5
4:32
646
10:1-5
4:33
646
10:3
426
5^-9
655
12:2-3
416
5:4
647
12:32
42
57-8
633
16.20
114
633
17.9
60
: i
5 4
4 H 92,169^,411 n i
"8 426
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 17:14-20
434
3 3
17:16-17
617
4:5
18:10-11
6011138
4:14
209
19:14
141,3901135,436
6:6
184 184
:I
l 6
6
9
32n8
20:5-8
4101165
6:11
20:10
415
7:9
i7°>
20:10-14
411
97-9
164
1 8 2
20:13-14
416
20:19
439
21:6
68
1:8-10
21:18-21
413
1:9-10
in
22:1
31
1:11
386
22:9
4871^63
22:22
413
1:22 2:1
378,43 87,3791115
Exodus 135
8
23-28
34
23:4
138
2:2 2:5
379,384 440
23:20
418
2:6
3811121,384
25:3 25:17-19 25:19 27
4i9 121 4 5,4 72
2:7
381
2:10
383,3841128
2:11-12
414
2:11-15
436
27:17 32
390*35 420
32:43 33:1
15 422
2:17
419
2:18
221110
33:5
434
2:20
123,419
33:22
4691118
2:21
376,418
34:1-6
174
34:1-12
169119
3:1 3:2
376,394 210,427
34:5
396,453
3:5
456
34:6
396
3:8
436
34:7-12
401
3:10
406
34:8
439
3:i3
393
34:io
375,572
3^7
436
3:21-22
420
J
l 6
Ecclesiastes 7:28 10:14
573 27511121
2:12
37,376
2:15
200,405
4:3
406
4:6
385
4:10
177, 376, 3821125,
4:16
396
400
Esther 1:10
164
4:19
406
1:11
331
1:14
164
4:20 4:24
393,4 291112, 376, 424
l 8
1:16
632118
4:27
386
2:2
187
2:6
39, 168
4:30 4:30-31
387 428
2:7
168
2:17
330
5 5:1 5:20-23
423 400 406
2:19
38
2:22
170
3:12
169
5:40 6:1
15 291112
70^
yo6
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Exodus (continued)
17:14
416
436
17:14-15
415
6:8
437
17:14-16
121
6:12
104,177, 400
17^5
438
6:20
21
18:2
376
7 7:1 7:10 7:12
423 396 387 428
18:8-12
159
7^9 7:22
387 429
19:25
3 5
8:2 8:13
387 387
20:4
616
22:17
5201113
8:17
67
22:27
115
8:21-23
416 (bis)
22:27 (28)
53
10:29
4°6
6:4
11
291112
11-12
437
11:2-3
4
12:13
2 0
2581175
12:35-36
254
12:36
1181147, 4171178
12:44
445
13:17
408,425
18:12
122
18:13
414
18:13-27
376
18:25
409 8
(LXX), 119, 647
l 6
n
24:4 25:2
9 9 426
25:5 28:1 28:15 28:17-20 28.19 28:30 31:3
3i 387 (to) 433 (LXX) 31 25 433 426 37
13:18
365,407
13:19
342ni4
32
13:21
432
32:1
388
14:7
407
32:1-20
72
14:13
422
32:15-20
412
14:13-14
429
32:19
412
14:15
3861131,407
32:19-20
376
14:16
407
32:21-25
72,557
14:21
4071162
34:28
395
15:1-21
400
34:29
426
15:3 15:21
548 4001156,438
35:5
426
15:25
43
1
37:1-9
426
40:34-35
433
15:27
408
16:1-13
426
Ezekiel
16:4
426
1:10
601
16:6
400,409
16:1
72
16:13
426, 431 (bis)
40:17
596
16:15
388
17:4
39i
17:5
39i
2:2-61
164
17:6
440
7:i-5
177 17:8-13
43i 432
10:18-44
87 164
Ezra
Genesis
17:8-16
133
17:9
391, 409 (bis), 448
1
72
17:11
409
1:1
3oni8, 165
17:13
409
1:2
28, 169
243,
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 1:3
40
14:17
286
1:5
166
14:19
240
1:6
165
14:20
167,239
1:9-10
40
15:1
224
1:26
165
15:2
2:7
169
i5 5
2:17
166
:
253 232
:
i5 7
253 247
2:24
479 42
15:8
3:16
3801117
i5 9
4:7
170
i5 3
243
4:13
28
15:13-14
4201182 299
n
:
: i
253
6:5
166,180
15:13-16
6:6
166,169
15:14
250,254
6:9
166 (bis)
15:17
250
6:11-13
180
15:
69, 133
16:4
6:14
(LXX)
1 8
154. 205, 253 180,244
8:11
311121
16:6
8:21
169
16:9
244
180,244051
9:9
1541122 (LXX)
16:11
462
9:13
166
16:12
243
9:20-25
163
17:1-16
253
9:25
68
17:1-21
9:27
167
17:5 :
299 2471155,287
i7 8
253,445115
17:10
257
294,305
17:10-11
205
11:29
28,2870154
17:17
248
12-15
15
17:19-21
154,205 246
11:2
28
11:9
140
11:26-25:11
(LXX)
12:1
229,247
17:22
12:1-4
285
18:1
288
12:4
247
18:1-3
286
12:5
261
18:1-22:24
33 27
12:6
169119
18:2
240
12:7
154,205
18:3
249
12:8
247
18:4
288
12:10
103,230
18:7-8
28611150
12:10-20
215,287
18:8
249059,286,
12:11
2591181
12:14
258
18:10
210, 250, 251
12:15 12:16
135,258 242
18:12
238, 239, 248
18:13
239
12:17
259
18:15
238,288
12:18
259
18:16
225
12:19
186
18:16-33
249
13:3-4
250
18:17
249
13^4-17
154. 205, 253
18:18
249
13:18
227,250
18:20
249
n
2860150
14:10
286
18:21
249
14:11
225
18:23-32
249
14:14
182, 235, 236, 242
19:2
240044
14:14-15
564
19:5
287
14:15
182,235
19:8
240, 286, 46304
707
yo8
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS 22:1-3
Genesis (continued)
277
19:10
212
22:1-19
75,294
19:14
287,2870152
22:2
257, 267 (to), 272, 301
19:15-22
250
19:16
225
22:4
274
19:17
250
22:5
239, 256, 276, 298
19:18
250
22:6
274
19.24
265
22:8
252063
19:26
248,251
22:9
182, 277, 301
19:27-28
248
22:10
2720109
19:29
240
22:11
118, 212, 241
19:30 19:31
255 254,255
22:12
248, 252, 2760124
*9W-&
72
22:13
210 (to), 252 (to)
(LXX)
!9 32-33
225
22:14
16909,252063
20:1-13
287
22:18
299
20:2
251,261
22:19
256
20:2-3
238
23:6
235
20:3
250,251
24:1-67
294
20:4
225,261
24:7
251
20:4-5
251
24:10
228,261
20:4-7
245
24:22
241
20:5
287
24:33
21
20:7
246,251
20:9
116, 238, 298
24:34 25:1-6
227 265
20:11
243 (to)
20:12
287,2870154
25:5-6 25:6
i 9 3 9 > 239 265
20:14-15
246
25:8
224
20:16
225, 245 (to)
20:17
261
21:1
29102
25^9-34 25:21 25:22
305 295, 295012, 4 7 7 3 299,316 316
:
m
n
21:5
244051
25:23
21:6
248
25:25
3i7
21:8
244051
25:26
295012, 30604, 311
21:9
243,244051
25:27
314
21:10
244 (to)
25:28
1291156, 297, 319
21:11
244
25:29
3
21:12-13
250
25:29-34
3"
21:14
245
25:30
318, 318027
21:15
245
l 8
(LXX),
322 25:31
318, 318028, 319
25:33
319 (LXX)
251
25:34
136, 3
243
26:1
240 294
21:16
242,245
21:17
245
21:18
254
21:19 21:20
(LXX) l 8
21:22-34
261
26:1-33
21:23
486060
26:2
292,295
22:1
267,267099,
26:3-5 26:6 26:6-15 26:7
154,325 298 300 295,298
2680102 (to), 2760122, 2760123, 295
(to)
8
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 26:18
291, 295, 301
26:20
296
26:20-21
297
26:21
296 (bis), 301
26:22
301
29:17 29:18 29:19 29:20 29:24
33i (to), 345 331 (to) 313 (to) 331 221110
26:27
297
29:27
33
26:30-31
298
29:28
331
26:34-35 26:35
32i 137, 300, 320
29:31
312 (LXX)
29:32
32
27 27:1-28:5
37 294
30:1-2
206
30:2
309
27:1-37:3 27:3-4
305 297
27:4 27:5
1
J
30:8
308
30:16
332
3i9 129056, 3111113, 319
30:25
325
30:27
328
27:8
311
30:32-43
32
27:9
2971-116,311
30:37-38
37
27:12
311,312
31:1-2
313
27:15
312,316
31:20
313
27:16
311
27:17
312
3 25-3° 31:26
27:19
311
27:20
311,3121114
27:21
311
27:22
i :
i :
J
329 313 J
3151120,324
3 3i 3 3 -32 3i:5i-53 32:2
27:23
301
32:4
309
27:24
301
32:4-5
32i
27:27
297
32:7
321
27:27-29
325
32:8-9
309
27:28
485
32:10-13
327
27:29
300,320
32:25
328
27:33
320
32:28
325
27:38 27:40
32 320
J
32:29
327> 328
32:30
3°9
27:41
21, 316, 321
32:31
328 (to)
27:43
3
33:1-16
321
28:2
296
334
322
28:3
325
33:8-11
322
28:4
325
34:6
138,320
28:9
321
34:13-29
3201132 313
o 6 n
4 > 321
i :
J
3 3> 332 325 332 328
28:12
212,327
3430
28:13
224
35:2
327
28:14
325
35:5
327
28:15
308
35:6
221110
28:17
306114,308
35:9-^
327
28:22
308116
35:16
221110
29:1-14
328
35:20
328
29:2
330
35:22
72,557
29:11
330
35:23
221110,206
29:11-12
330
35:28
3021123
29:12
3°7>33°(to)
35:3i
328
709
yw
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
Genesis (continued)
39^7
342,37i
300
39:17-18
372
36:8
322
39: 9
336n3 , 372
36:31
167
37
336
39:21 40:3 40:6 40:11
359, 360, 3 7 371 (LXX) 364 350
40:15 40:17 40:18
353 350 357
41:1 41:1-7 41:8 41:11 41:12 41:14
359 364 336n3 336n3 342 363
36:2
37:i : i
J
307
37 -36
75, 3 ° 5 , 336
37:2
339, 34i (bis), 364
37:2-n
355
:
J
37 3
3 3 (to), 345, 347
374
353
377
149,343
37:8
354
37:9
336n3, 359, 3^6
37:io
3 3 , 338, 354*45,
37:11
181,366
4^5
33 n3,342
37:12
368
41:16
360
37:12-13
366
41:21
366
37:12-17
368
41:22
366 (to)
J
359
1
6
37 3 37:14
3°9 8,329 366
41:24
351
41:25
360
37:i5 37:26-27
367 368
41:28
360
41:32
101
37:27 37:28 37:30 37:32-35 37:35 37:36
364 337 34i 305 328 336n3 (LXX)
4i:33
35
4i:34
343,365
41:38
337, 343, 361
4^39
i35, 3 5 ° , 361
: i
n
(LXX)
1
41:40
150,343
37,72
4i:43 41:44
150, 343, 3 5 , 353 337
39-48
336
41:45
336n3 (to), 3421115
39:1
311119
3
8
(LXX), 336n3 (LXX), 346
39:1-48:22
305
39:3
3 o
394
337
39:6
345,352
39:6-7
348
6
1
(LXX), 345, 346 J
4!:5 -52
361
41:54
366
41:56 42:1-2
365 305
42:2 42:6
354 353
397
352,369
397-20
75, 336, 369
427 42:8
358 365
39:8
352
42:9
353,367
39:8-9
348,352
42:17
358
39:9
206, 360, 363
42:19 42:21
358 351
39:io j
370 6
1
39: 2
3 3 , 370, 3 7
42:24
358, 367 (to)
39:i3
336*3
42:30
358
39:i4
37i
42:38
330
39:i4-i5
37i
43:26
150, 344, 353
336n3
43:29
359
336n3
43:30
367
39:i5 39
: i 6
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 43:32 44^-34 44:2 44:4-5 44:5 44:6
355 75,337 365 360 368 367 (bis)
447 44:11-12 44:13 44:i5 44^7 44:18
367 182,367 368 35 358 150,344
44:^-34 44:3! 45:1
356 329 368
397 63:16
45:3-i3 45^3 45^5 45:22 45:25-28 45:26
35 354 357,368 356 3°5 150, 310, 344
6
Jeremiah
45:27 46:1-4 46:1-26 46:2
365 327 305 336113
46:5 46:20 46:27 46:28 46:33-34 46:34 477-12 47:i3 47:21
365 338 336113 336113 361 1 3 5 , 1 5 , 361 305 365 336113
47:23 47:28-31
357 305
47:28-50:26
75,337
I-I-9
48:1
357
1:8 1:10 1:10-11 1:12-13 1:17 2:1 2:3 2:4-6 2:23 2:24
453 448 448 458 453 453 444,4811145 458 458 453 454
3:i-i7 3:2-3
455 444
3:5
455
37
454
327 327 (bis) 336 305 363 353 3 4 59 6
n
Hosea
8
48:1-2
305 353
48:12-20
338
48:14-19
312
48:15
327
48.16
213,328
49:1-50:14
305
49:16
463114,468
49:17
463,467,469^), 4701120, 485, 4881164 327 357
3:5
538n5
Isaiah
15:1 : n
33 40:7
6
m
3 5,632118 292114
492,492116 J
25 156
Job 5:11
27511121
37:10-42:11
17
Jonah
1
48:12
49^9 49:22-26
49:24 49:25 50 50:1-26 50:2 50:18 50:26
1:4
208
1:6
208
1:16
160
1:17
212
2:10
212
3:5
l 6
3:10
208
4:1
38
4:6-11
208
o
Joshua
711
712
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Joshua (continued) 3^3
455
1 6
3: 4:6 4:15-16 4:19
455 4 5 5 5 (to) 454 444
4:21 5:
n i
5:2 5:9 l
444
18:1
444
18:3
450
18:4
451 453
455,455 5
18:11-20
452
454
20:1
455
445
20:1-2
452
22:3
452
454
l
444
14:11
18:10
n l
1
14:6-9
22:3-4
450
445
22:8
452
108,454
22:13
45
451 457
5' 3~ 5
45
5:20 6:2
6
1
456
22:13-14
6:21
448,459
22:21-29
7:5-6
449
22:24
458
449
22:32-33
458
454
23
453
23:1
6:6-16
77-9 :
79 7:
1 6
7:26
454
457 ff.
444
23:1-16
445,455
23:5 23:12-13 23:12-23 24:1 24:14 24:26
454 138 446 38 452 38
8:1-2
1081135,454
8:4 8:17 8:27 8:28
448 459 445,452 169,457
9^5 9:17 9:18 9:26
453 449 447 453
9:27
4 5 i , 457
1:5 2:1
449 213
10:1
459
3:9
6
10:7
450
3 9-! 1
Judges
:
1 1
59
75,290 6
10:11
456
3:
10:12-14
456
3:16
10:13
456
3:17
136
10:14
456
3:19
167
10:27
457
3:19-20
167
10:28-36
445
3:24
136, 167
10:30
1081135,454
3:25
168
10:32
1081135,454
4:3
181
11:1
450
4:6
207
11:4
457
5
38,4001156
11:7-8
449
5:1-31
493 °
11:8
4491110
5:31
4661112
11:10-15
445
6:11
213,4751129
11:11
445
6:13
210
11:20
454
6:17-18
210
12
38
6:25-32
37, 119
13-17
38
6:34
207
13:1
450
6:36-40
210
457
7:4
207
: i
i3 3
59
167
n l
JEWISH SCRIPTURES
713
8:i8-2i 11:34
119 26711101
15:15-16
472
15:16
465
13:2 13:2-16:31 13:3 13:5
467,475 461 213,4751132 4711123 (Aquila), 4781140
15:18
469,469018,469018
15:18-20
484
(LXX) 15:19
484
15:21
473 27 187, 481, 481046
n
475,476
16:1
13:8
170, 476, 477
16:3
464, 467, 470, 472
13:10
477
16:4
481,481046
13:11
462
16:6-15
479 4
13:11-12
477
16:7
486
13:13-14 13:16
477 462
16:8
470
16:8-30
485
13:17
478
16:9
170011,210,470,
13:22
462
13:24 13:25
483 (to) 207,483
16:10
473
16:12
211,486
14:1 14:1
478,487 478
16:13
473
16:15 16:15-16
473,481 473
16:17 16:18
469 474,481
13:6
ff.
14:1-16:31
49
14:3
138, 4731127,478, 487063 (to), 488
n
I
486
138,487063, 488
16:19
482
14:5 14:6
479 207, 468, 484
16:20
208, 464, 484
16:20-21
482
14:9
468,479
16:21
109, 482, 487063
14:10
488
16:25
474 (to)
14:11
466,4671113
16:28
208,485 (to)
14:12
4 6 4 , 4 6 4 (LXX)
16:30
470,471
14:12-17 14:14
587 4791141
16:31
472
14:15
479,480
17-18 17:2
37 482048
14:16
479
19-20
72
14:17
464,480
20:27-28
60079,453
14:19
207, 4 8 0 , 4 8 4
14:4
1 Kings
14:20
480
14:22
99
1:11-11:43
15:1
468
1:40
624
15:2
480
1:41
624 (to)
15:3 15:4
472 485060
i:45-47 1:51
57 619
15:5 15:6 15:10 15:11 15:12
473 473 465 467 467 (to), 472027, 488064
575
1
1:51-52
589
2:2-3
591
2:3
552
2:5
595 (to)
2:7
544
2:8
591
15:13 15:14
467 208,465,471,484
2:10
594
2:12
577,623
15:15
468, 471, 486060
2:15
589
714
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
7:1
i Kings (continued)
602
2:20
594
7:2-5
592,607
2:22
590
7:2-12
607
2:23-24
590
77
592 (bis)
2:26
590
7:8
615
2:28
595
7:12
607
2:29
595
7:25
601
2:32
595
7:29
2:43 2:44
59i 591 (bis)
7:36 7:38
605
740
598
575
7:47
596
3:1 1
3: «
601,6oin39 597 6o2n40
33
577. 5 9 , 595
749
596
34
595
3:5
595
7:50 7:51 8
5 7 596 (bis), 598 6o2n40
8:1 8:2
599 623
:
1
3^-9
580,588
8
3:6
579
3:6-7
57i
37
5 9 ° , 623
3:9
579, 580, 591
8:5 8:10-11
599 603
3^4
578
8:12
619
3^5
595
8:12-61
576
3:16-28
174,580
8:15
5 > 599, 0 3
3:17
624075
3:18
624
8:15-21 8:23-26
3:22
581
8:27
3:23-27 3:25 3:26 3:28
174, 581 (bis) 6
25 625 581
47-19 4:20
33 606
5:1
589,613
6 l
6
1
57 ,599 577 620,621
8:27-30
592
8:41-43
614
8:54 8:58 8:63
599 599 601
8:65
600,602
8:66
578, 579, 600 (ter), 602 597
5:2
589
8:68
5:2-3
578
9:2
604
5:6
578
9:6
576
5:10
23oni4, 584, 585
9:10
602
5:12
584
9:"
592
: i
584
: i
6 l
9:!2-i3 9:15
592 605 (bis)
5 3 5 5 5 5:25 5:26
3 , 619 592 613 613
9:18
606
5:27-28
609
9:20
588
5:31 6:2-36 6:5 67 6:9 6:21 6:38
596 596 596 597 597 597 602, 604, 623
9:23
610
: i 8
9:17 9:17-19
588,605 605
9:26
606
9:28
606
10:1
587, 604, 625
10:1-10
75
10:3 10:4-5
175,587 608
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:10 10:11-12 10:13 10:14 10:20 10:21 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:26 10:28 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:6 11:7 11:11 11:14 11:14-22 11:22 11:23 11:28 11:42 12-22 12:28 16:34 17:2-4 18:26 18:38 18:40 18:41 18:43 19:8
002, bob 608,625 608 (bis) 609,625 598 593 571 601 598 577 604 609 609, 610 (bis) 609 138,616 625 617 571,576,617,623 571 617 605 605,618 623 575mo (LXX), 624 623 610 57M23 23, 34, 216 127 69 211 69 211 505 211 211 211
19:9 i9 4 20:13 21:13 22:38
37 37 68 (LXX) 68 58
:i
3:9 4:1-23 4:1-37 4:11 5:1
142 33n27 33n27 72 5i2n4
5:27 8:15 10:26 10:27
38 109 512114 38,120, 661
*3 13:10-25 13:11 15:20 18:18 19:4 19:28 ^35 20:18 21:9 22:14 23:7-19 23:24 23:29 24:9 24:19 257
35 35,164 71,660 512114 109 6on79 120 213 632n8 57n72 87 120 120 5 39, 71, 660 71,660 473*12
Leviticus 8:1 10:1 10:9 13:46 14:3 16:12-15 16:18-21 18:3 18:22 19:14 19:27 21:5 21:7 26 27:5
1
387 167 i67n5 386 386 17 17 487*163 567 417 363 6
33 413 72 337
2 Kings 1 1:11-12 1:2-17 1:15 2:8 2:19-23 2:23-24
35 211-12 164 208 211 212 37
Malachi 1:2-3
314
Nehemiah 2:17 2:19-20 4:9
224 38 209
715
716
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Nehemiah (continued)
21:24
388,411
4:20
209
21:25
407
5:6-7 5:12
38 38
22-25:9
167
22:17
478
6:5 8:14 8:17 13:4-11
38 38 38 38
22:20
167
22:22
4281194
24:4
251115
24:16
251115
24:17-18
Numbers 1:47
1
4101165
6:24-27
72,557
7:67
4871163
771 8:24 10:1-2 11:2 11:11-23 11:21-22 11:24 11:30-31 12 12:1
47i 27511122 401 390 37 424 5°6 438 37 376,402
12:3 13:2
353, 3 7 5 3 , 4*3 410
n
J
39
25: 25:1-5
56 1871129
25^-9 25:3 25:4
49, *37 56 427
25:5 25:6-13 25:16-18 27:1-11
392 1871129 412 376,393
27:5 27:18
393 95,394,402,447
28:1-30:1
447
31:14-17
416
31:27-30
62
32:6
439
Ovadiah
13:17
423
13:17-20
410
13:22
227
14:6
444
Proverbs
14:10
388
30:19
14:12
426
1:18
324
4871163
14:19
388
Psalms
14:25
411
3:8
468
14:40-45
410
8:7
484056
16:3 16:10
389 62
8:8
484056
64:1
639022
77:16-20
438
16:15
393,394,439
16:22
415
84:12
466,466012
16:29
426-27
99:6
492
16:30
412
106:1
125
16:31-34
439
147:6
2750121
17:6
392
17:16-20
427
17:17-18
387
2:1
20:2-12
424090
4:18-22
462
20:10-12
37
4:22
541
20:11
376
20:14-21
415
21:4-9 21:8-9 21:23-24
37 433 411
Ruth 51204
1 Samuel 1:1-28 1:1-4:1 1:7
i n
49 3 490 506
JEWISH SCRIPTURES
i:i4 1:17 1:24-28 2 2:1-10 2:12 2:17 2:20 2:21 2:26
493 493 490 38 493mo 502 502 495 4 491113 491113
9:15-16 9:16
507 183,511
9^9 9:20
493 506,524
10:7
1291157,533
2:34 3:10 3:16-18
495 501 500
10:8
498,5°5>5
10:14
491113
n I
9:21
524
9:22
49
9:25 10:1 10:1-8
49 3>5 49 3> 5 4 497
I n 2
in
n
ln
J
10:16
525
49 3 491
10:18
501
10:19
148,504
4:12
514
10:21
525 (to)
7:3 7:3-10:27
49 3> 496,504 49°
74 7:7
497 497 {bis), 506
10:25
496
7:8
497 (bis)
10:26
515
7-9 7:10 7:11
497 5 >5°7 498
10:27
5 5
n:i 11:2
55 5 5(to)
l n
In
o 6
10:21-22
494
10:22 10:24-25
4 9 3 > 525 491113
J
l
J
7:12
498
11:3
515
498
7^5 7:16
49 3 496
n:4 n:6 11:7
515 559 491113,516
8:3
i43> 4 9 3 > 498, 503
11:8
516
8:5
49 3> 5°2, 5°4
11:11
516 (to)
8:6
145,502
11:12
s
11:12-12:25
490
11:14
491113
12:1
491113
in
In
I n
0 0
^
8:7
49 3
8:7-9 8:12
495 49in2
8:13 8:19 8:21
503 503 494
12:3-4
500
12:3-5
492
12:4
500
509 512,512114
12:7-8
501
12:11
504
509
12:12
504
9:2
92, 513 (bis)
12:17
506
9-3 9:4
5 3 526
12:18-19
491113
9:5 9:6 97 9:7-8
5241119 4 9 3 > 495 4 9 3 , 526 500
13:
9-3 9:1
1
9:1-2 Sam. 1:27
: I I
J
12:19
In
I n
I
J
9 ~ 3 9:12
5 3 506,510
9^4 9:15
5°7 5 183,506,511
1 1
n
m
7^3
I n
J
> 4 9 3 > 5 4> 524
m
3 9 3:20
: i
1
13:5
1 6
^^
504 517 5i8
13:5-7
J
13:5-15
509
48,5°4
13:6
518
13:8
491113 (to)
13:8-14
128,528
13:8-15
490
5
717
( H , 527
yi8
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 16:15-16
i Samuel (continued)
i3:n 13:12
495 528
13^5 13:15-18 13:17-18
5*8 518 518
13:19 13:22
5i9 519
14:1-15 147 14.15-16 14:18 14:20 14:21 14:24 14:31 14:36 14:36-44 14:37
523 523 524 601179 5 9> 524 519 527,5271123 5 9 519 509 526
14:39 14:43 14:44 14:46
542,544
16:19
544
17:3 17:4
J
J
534
16:18
519,5191111 4681116,4821150
J
77 17:8-18
545 545
17:25 17:26
545 183,563
17:32
545
^35
549
17:36
556
17:37
549
17:39
550
17:46
556
17:48
549,560
17:52
5i9
^53
520
17:54
556
526,527 526 527 518
18:1
566 (to)
14:52 15:1
92,513 502
18:10-11
509,534
18:13
534 (to), 549
i5:!-3 15:2
490 121
18:17-19
534,564
18:20
345,564
15:6 157 15:10-11
533 49^3,528 49in3(ta)
18:20-29
509
18:25
5 i 9 , 545, 564
15:10-16:13
490
18:3
566
18:4
566
18:7
564
18:27
3321145, 534, 565 565
15:11
496,500,51103
194-5
566
15:13 15:16
529, 530 [bis] 511113
!9:«
535 (to), 565
15:20
529
15:22 15:22-23
49 3, 5 530
19:18-21
490
15:24-25
491113
19:19
49«*3
!5:25 15:26
530 491113
19:20-22
535
19:23
495
19:24
528
l
0
l
i n
19:11-24 J
0 1
, 530
9:i7 19:18
509 565 491113 (to), 560
b-3 ~3 15:31
501 491113 {bis)
20:4
566
^33
505
20:6
37
15:35
49"i3
20:12
560
16:2
500
20:17
566
16:7
54i
20:20-34
509
16:8-10
559
20:24
527
16:10
491113
20:34
566
16:12
317, 494,542
20:41
566
16:13
495,561
214-7
37,557
16:14-15
533
21:13-14
567
JEWISH SCRIPTURES 2 Samuel
22:2
562
22:7
491112
1:1
564
22:7-8
535
1:4
522 (bis), 564
22:9-23
601179
1:9-10
532
22:10
601179
1:26
566
22:16-23
601179
3:6
546
22:17 22:18
535 531
3^3
546
3^6
553
23:5 23:17 23:18 23:25
545 546 566 560
3*7 3:20
49"i3 555
3:27
550
3:28
555
24:5 24:6
552 552
24:14 24:16
552 531
3:36-39 5:2 5:3
544 49^3 123,555
24:21
560
5:6
546 546 613 (to)
25:1
490,491113
57 5:11
25^-7
553
5:19
601179
5:20 5:23
547 601179
5:25 6:8 6:14-23
543 33 551 33 560
25:3
J
9 7 , 550
(bis)
25:5-8
553
257
552
25^0
553
25:15 25:21-22
544 553
25:25
550
6:19 7:1
25:27
550
74-17
557
25:38
559
7:12
571
26:8
553
7:13
152
26:12
549
7'H
579,603
26:15-16
546
7:31
538
26:19
37,557
8:1
547
26:21
531, 532 (bis), 553
8:14
27:9
554
28:1-2
555
9: 10:2
554 551
10:5 10:9 10:16
547 556 547 72,55 341133, 534, 540 341132
28:5
520
28:6
601179
28:7
32
28:7-25
6
1
560
8
28:11-19
490
11:2-17 11:2-27
28:12
168,505
11:8
28:16-20
510
11:13
34
28:18-19
491113
n:i7
73n93,558
28:20
520
11:20
547
28:24
520
12:1
558
29:2
522
12:9
73
29:6
555
12:10
558
30:7
601179
12:13
73, 558 (to), 560
30:16-17
563
12:15-23
558
31:1-3
522
12:23
543
3i:4
5i3,522,532
12:27
6031142
719
720
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
2 Samuel (continued) 12:31 13:
1
20:6 540 72,558
20:16 20:28
557 189032 557
13:2-22
72
21:7
548
14:12-17
553
21:9
540
1433
183
22:1
15:14
548
22:1-23:7
562
401057
17:8
548
18:1
491112
559 164 556 178
18:3
548
18:4
551
24:1 24:1-25 24:10 24:10-17
18:5 19:28
555 556
24:13 24:14
34,554 554
19:29 19:38 19:44 20:1
55 554 560 141 (LXX), 563024
29:24
554, 555, 5 ^
1
Zechariah ^ 5
72
APOCRYPHA, AND
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA,
D E A D SEA
SCROLLS
Apocrypha
3:2
6m82
2 Baruch
3:28
6in82
6-8
611182
3:31
6m82
11:1
6m82
10:8
323
67:7
6m82
Esther, Additions to Ben Sira. See Ecclesiasticus
5-36
Addition A Addition C Addition D Addition D 8 Addition D13 Addition E Addition F
Ecclesiasticus 31:1-7
100
44:22-45:1
384028
46:15
492
47^5
584
1 (3) Esdras 2:16
35 169
3:1-4:32 5:4-38
35 164
5:7-8
229m 2
8:26
268ni02
6
155, 54
8:36
156
8:68
156
8:68-70
138
8:70
139, 5
r
8:72
138
8:92-95
138
8:96
139
9:8-9
*39
9:16-17
139
9:18-35
164
9:20
139
6
J
1 Maccabees
6
12:10
237n36
12:20
237n36
14:20
237n36
2 Maccabees 2:1-6
69
2:3!
45
5:9
237n36
4 Maccabees 97n23, 283, 348n30
39
2 (4) Esdras (4 Ezra) 3:1
51,120-21
36, 51 209 209, 213 51 121
Judith
8:4
9:3
121
6m82
721
2:2-3
352n39
7:14
271
13:12
268
722
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
4 Maccabees (continued) 16:20
226115
Prayer of the Three Youths 213, 638
Wisdom of Solomon 7^7 10:7 19.13-14
584 25in62 242,246
Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 7
19:13-14
314
19:14
314
19:15
306
19:31
306
24
298ni9
3o:3
313
35:9-12
314
37-38
322
38:14
322
42:25
358 i n 6
47:5
5
48:18
42on82
o
49:1
258n75
229ml Letter of Aristeas
2 Apocalypse of Baruch
164 69
Assumption of Moses 1.15
396n45
9-11
21
3°
25,42
213-16
100
306
41
308-11
14
/ Enoch 89:12
323
106:11
9oni5
5
3i6n20
Joseph and Asenath 1.5-6
397n47 4021159 Parakipomena Ieremiou
3 Enoch 14:2
Palaea Historica
69 Sibylline Oracles
34inio
5:143
6in82
336n3
5:158-61
6in82
1.12
336n3
2:48
352*139
2:50
3521139
2:69
3521139
4:9
3521139
Testament of Abraham 4
224n2
Testament of Solomon n
585 27 Jubilees
8
5
n
5 5 28
241 Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs
11-12
901115
12:17
229ml
13:9
247
Asher
1.1
422^3
13:12
5in6o
Benjamin
12.2
422n83
13:25-27
167,239
Gad
7:4
322
15:26
246
Joseph
15:26-32
245n53
34imo,
16:8
255,255n67
347*129,
17:15
275
35 3 >
17:15-16
258n75
18:3
258n75
2:3
37 72
18:6
280
2:7
35IH37
585*127
337n5,340,
0 n
6
37on68 m
APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS
3:1-2
0n
l
37 7
4:1-2
352n39
6:7
3521139
7:2
3701170
7:5
3481131
8:2
3711172
9:2
35 39
2 n
m
10:1-2
35 37
10:2-3
352n39
10:6
35 37
14:3
3441120
l n
m
17:1-2
35 37
17-5
357H50
18:3
35IH37
18:4
345 2i
n
Genesis Apocryphon 2391140, 253n65 col. 19, lines 14-21
238n37
col. 19, line 24
23in20
col. 19, lines 26-27 col. 20
231-32 186, 231
col. 20, lines 2 - 8
258n77
col. 20, lines 8 - 9
259n78
col. 21
250, 25on6o
col. 22
235n30
col. 22 Dead
Sea
Scrolls
line 5
Damascus Covenant 9:17
68
9:22
68
10:6
27511122,27611122
Zaddokite
line 17
iQM
167, 239
Miqse Mdase Ha- Torah 68
Fragments, lines 17
242
col. 22,
ff.
428n94
Second Ezekiel 66
7.1-3 275m 22 Targum of Job
4QJ0SH"
37:10-42:11
17
32 Targum of Leviticus 4QSAMA
34
4QI74
636ni7
4Q252
66,68
16:12-15
17
16:18-21
17
Temple Scroll 207
4Q385B
69
4Q470
71
63:5
68
Zadohte Document. See Damascus Covenant
723
N E W
T E S T A M E N T 9:2-13
568026
395H43
10:47-52
568n26
10:2
160
13:35-51
10:22
160
Acts i
10:35
1
6
Matthew
0
13:16
160
13:26
160
13:43
160
13:50
160
16:14
160
17:4
160
17:17
160
18:2
1581128
18:7
160
567
8 n
1:2-16 1:5 16:13-20 22:41-45 24:15
1
5 3 5 > 54 * 5^8 85 444n3 568n26 567 636ni7
1 Peter 2:3
125
5:13
6 m 8 2 , 323n35, 324
Hebrews 12:15-17
2 Peter
315
2:7
255n67
John 7:41-42
Revelation
568
14:8 16:19
Luke
17:2
1:52-53
2750121
2:40 2.52 3:23-38
9° 5> 4 9 4 90115,494 2 85, 53805, 541, 568
6:35 20:41-44
125 567
24
n i
n i 2
n i
6in82,324 6m82,324 324
17:5
6m82,324
18:2
6in82,324
18:10
6in82,324
18:21
6in82,324
Romans
395n43
1:3
568
Mark 6:15 8:23-26
2 Timothy
211
3:8
568n26
725
428n94
JOSEPHUS Against Apion
i-73
1 8 , 1 9 (to)
84
1.100-27
613
1.2
84
1.105
20
1.2-3
84
1.106-8
613
1.3
20, 84, 215
1.106-27
575
1.4
84
1.109-10
613
1.6-56
18
1.no
613, 614
1.7
178
1.in
586, 614
1.7-8
83
i-ii3-i5
575
1.12
171 (bis), 268, 521
1.114-15
590
1.14
84
1.116-20
134
I-I5-I7
133
1.116-25
614
1.15-18
19
1.117-20
575
1.16
1 8 , 1 9 , 172, 580
1.128
19
1.18
18,177
1.129-53
19
1-23-27
59
I-I34-44
i7mi3
1-25 1.28
44 18 (bis)
1.144
19
1.162-65
84, 98
1.31-32
86
1.164-70
246
1.37
111117,20,57,430,
1.166-67
84
432 (bis)
1.166-68
84 45
1-37-43 1.38
57 70
1.167 1.168-71
84
1.40
57,6361115
1.172-74
84
1.41
57,650
1.176-82
84, 231
1.42
25, 37, 42 (bis), 6 m 8 i
i-43 1.50
42 26, 4 6 , 1 7 3 , 1781123, 2121161, 668
1 179 1.182 1.183-205 1.205-12
398 472 19, 84 84
151 1.53
435 nni7(to)
1-213 1.214
19, 9 9 19
1.54
111117,45, 65, 67n88
1.216
21, 84, 616
1.58
18
1.218
20 (to), 51, 52
1.60
114
1.222
199
1.69-160
84
1.224
200,404
1.72
199
1.229
20
727
J
J28
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 2.165
145117, 3431116, 424, 434
195,377117
2.167
438
1.238
401
2.168
115,398
1239
342
2.168-69
179,651
1.247 1.254-87
!95 20
2.169
389
2.170
96,424
1.256
377117
2.171
95
1.257 1.258 1.261
377n7 377117 (bis) 401
2.I7I-74
394
2.173
J
2.174
435
1.266
195
2.175
25,531163, 95, 394
1.267
377117
2.178
25, 95, 394
1.279 1.281
375,385 386
2.179
421
2.180
192,1921140, 263091,
1.284
386
1.285
386
2.181
127,421
1.287
20
2.186
204
1299
342
2.188-92
263091
1-305
93
2.190
621070
1.306
377117
2.192
166,179
1.316
378
2.197
263091
2.11
600
2.199
53
2.12
600
2.200
22708
2.13
612-13
2.202
531163
Against Apion (continued) 1.236
4 8 435 5
640025
2.14
171
2.207
53 63
2.17-18
614
2.209
121,200
2-43 2.46
*9 21
2.209-10
418
2.210
49,111037
2.49
1 0 6 , 1 4 9 , 341, 648
2.211
417 121
n
2.80-88
393
2.211-12
2.101 2.123 2.132
398-99 49,1111137,199 589
2.211-13
118,417
2.213
53063 (bis)
2.223
179
2.135 2.141-42
xv, 574 246
2.224
I
2.225
179
2.145 2.145-295 2.146
" I . 374, 399 7,82 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 , 4 1 7 , 421
2.237
53,119,243,647
2.147
199,399
2.148
XV
2.152
83
2.154
85,399
2.154-89
115
2.155
I7i, 172
2.156
2.I57-5
8
4^> 179
2.244
i"
2.255
170
2.256
171,179
2.257
98,115,158,179,398
2.258
121
2.259
119,4 7
J
2.261
158
2.262-68
417
401
2.272
204
406
2.279
85, 95, 394
2.282
49,111037
0 1
2-157-63
4
2.158
204, 389,401, 407, 428
2.284
111037,438
2.159
390, 399, 401
2.285
199 (bis)
2.160
423 (bis)
2.290
374
2.163
424
2.291
127, 417, 421
JOSEPHUS
2.292
204
2.293
114,127,421
2.294
194,6201169
Antiquities 1.1-3
668
1.1-4
215
L53-59 1.54 1.58
129 170 28
i-59 1.60-62 1.70 1.73 1.74 1.75
197 193 193 166,169,180 166 (to), 197 166
1-77 1.88
i33 50
1.1-21
53
1.1-26
173
1.2
9
1-4
9
1.5
8 , 1 0 , 25, 37, 40, 42, 44, 4 7 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 , 647, 668
1.89
134
1.92
3IH2I, 169
15-6 1.6
9 7, 9 5 , 1 0 6 , 1 2 8 , 394,
1.93
!9,
1.6-7
!32
1.8
20, 4 7 , 1 7 2
1-93-94 1-94-95 1.95 1.96 1.96-103
133 2341128 134 (to) 170 197
1.99
166
421
2
729
m
1.8-9
*3
1.9
47 (bis)
1.10 1.10-12 1.12
4 >4 >47 xiv, 14, 26 47
1.100
180
1.103
167
1.105-7
233
1-13
43,401
1.106
103,168,1731118
1.14
1.107
19,168
1.108
7 n i o , 19, 168 (to), 172,
1.15
4 9 , 1 7 3 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 205, 247, 520, 5 4 9 , 5 5 9 39,44,421
1.17
9,11,14,37,39,40,42,
I
6
209, 2341128, 430098, 580 1.110
28, 180 (to)
1.18
39
1.in
180
119 1.20
95,394 207
1.113
70,180
1.114
147
1.21
128, 421
1.115
265
1.24
170,209
1.117
140
125
98, 205, 257, 278, 398
1.118
134
1.27
28, 301118,165,169
1.120
265
1.27-2.200
216
1.121
18
1.28
166
1.129
48
1.29
46
1.130-39
164
1.30
165
1.140-42
164
1.32
179
1.142
167
1.33
28
1.148
86, 227
i-34
39n43,169
1.148-256
294, 305
i-35
*92
1.151
28,287
1.36
43
1.154
97 (quater), 174, 228
611181,163, 647
i-37
39
(to), 229 (to), 232,
1.40
166
247, 261, 285
1.41
200
I I
1.46
1 7 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 , 271
1.155
*74,230
1.49
190
1.156
1.52
45,54,166
9 7 , 1 9 4 , 229, 264092, 437,583
54~55
228
730
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
Antiquities (continued) 1.157
1.200
92, 125, 225, 238 (to),
1.201
225,238
154, 205, 2291112, 247, 263, 285 2
1-158
19, " 5 , i34> 3 2 232022
5
240, 241, 246 (to) 1.202
212,287
1.203
248, 251, 265
1.158-60
223
1.204
225, 240, 248, 250, 254
I-I59
!9> ^ 4 , 234, 2341128
1.205
254
1.159-60
134, 2341128
1.207
116,237,238,261,287
1.160
134,234
1.161
103, 230 (to), 237
1.208
186, 240, 245, 250, 251,
1.161-65
215
1.162
116, 186, 237 (to), 238,
1.209
116, 225, 261, 298
1.210
246 (to)
1.162-68
49
1.211
242,243,246
1-163
258
1.212
225, 245 (to), 261
1.164
140,180 (to), 256, 259
1.213
248 (to)
1.165
135, 186 (to), 231, 237,
1.214
210, 248, 251
1.215
226,243
1.166
231, 242
1.217
250
1.167
103, 104, 228, 232, 233
1.218
175, 242, 245 (ter), 270,
1-219
251,254
259
242, 259, 261
(to), 298 261
283
1.168
103, 232
1.170
5 m 6 o , 154, 205, 226,
1.220
243
1.171
264
1.221
226, 254
1.172
107,235
1.222
172, 183, 267, 26711101,
1.175
225, 235, 240
268, 269, 272, 296
1.176
121,197, 242
(to), 298, 301
250
1.176-77
164
1.222-36
75, 128, 184, 255, 266,
1-177
5 4 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 2 , 235, 516118, 524, 564
1.223
1761121, 184, 193, 267,
280, 294, 302
1.181
167, 236
1-183
224, 247, 253
1.184
205
1.223-24
252
1-185
243, 250 (to), 253, 254,
1.224
257 (to), 273, 28011138,
1.225
!94, 249, 255, 2561170, 273, 274 257, 274, 557
270 (to), 271, 28011138, 302
302
299 1.186
227
1.187
225
1.189
180, 238
1-226
1-190
54, 238, 243, 245
1.227
1.19
1
I-I9J-93
1-192
8 2 , 274 (to), 275, 298, 301
253
205 (to), 245, 257
J
27711126, 2961114,
225, 253, 256, 299 1.228
182, 28011138, 301, 302
5 4 , 205, 246, 248 93, 246, 249, 264
1.228-31
205, 278
1-229
278, 295, 437
1.194-95
249
1.230
272,301
i-i95
249, 265 (to)
1.230-31
278
1.196
227116, 240 (to), 286
1.231
280 (to), 302
1.232
176, 226, 275, 277, 278,
i-i93 1.194
J
(to), 288, 310 1.197
210, 249, 251, 28611150
281, 28111139, 282,
1.198
239, 248, 286
295, 296 (to), 297,
1.199
241, 246, 249
298,526
JOSEPHUS •233
97,
I I 8
, 176,212,252,
1.271
301, 311 (to)
275, 282, 283, 284
1.272
297, 325, 327
.233-36
118,241
1.272-73
320
.234
226, 28011138, 283, 299,
1.273
30°, 3 °
302 (bis) •235
248, 254, 299 (bis)
•235-36
254,299
.236
28011138, 302 (bis)
•237
225
.238
97,
I Q
237, 265, 266
.240
58, 134, 650
.240-41
107,237
.241
227117 (bis), 583
.242
251
.242-55
173,294
•243
93, 228, 401
.244
186,261
.245
186
.246
186
.247
86, 125, 186, 226, 240, 266
.248
241
8
1.274
297,320
1.275
72, 298, 312, 320, 324
1.276
271, 321 (to)
1-277
1 2 9 1 5 6 , 1 9 7 , 3*9,
1.278
296,325
1.279
212,327
321 (to)
8 , 122, 229, 265
•239
1.280
326
1.281
229, 286
1.282
308,325 8
1.284
3°
1.285
33°
1.285-302
173
1.286
328 (to), 330
1.287
3 3 ° (to)
1.288
186, 1 8 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 1 , 3 4 5
1.288-90
86,307
1.291
245
1.291-92
330,331
1.294-96
307
•249
241
.250
228, 241 (bis)
.251
241
1.295
3!2
227,241
1.297
l 6
.252 •253
227,251
•255
228
•256
224, 249, 305
1.298 1-299 1.300 1-301
•257
295
J
5,3 3
186,331 3i3 331 3 i 3 , 33i, 332, 3321144
•257-58
305
1.302
331 (to)
.258
297, 311, 317 (bis)
1.303
312
.259
240, 295 (bis), 298
1.303-4
327
.259-60 •259-64 .260
200,300 294 295,296
1.304
312
.261
97, 296 (bis)
.262
1.305
197,206,308,309
1.308
206,332
301
1.309 1.314-15
3!2, 325, 328 329 (to)
.263
297
i.3i7
325
.264
125,298
i-3
•265
319
i-3*9
l 8
3!3,332 332
.265-66
300,320
1.323
332
•266
137, 297, 300
1.325
213, 309, 328
•267
297
1.325-36
321
•267-75 .267-346
294 305
1.326 1-327
321 (to) !97, 321, 327
.268
319
1.328
309
.269
1291156, 165, 2971116,
1.329
3
311 (bis), 319 [.270
311 (to), 312
731
1 0
, 327
1
32i
1-331-34
325
I-33
732
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Antiquities (continued) 1.332
309 (^afer), 325, 327, 328
1-333 1-334 1-335 -335-36 1
1.337
325 328 308,322 322 l 8 6
2.37
97,348
2.38 2-39
328 3 9 , 336, 337, 346, 360
2.39-59 240 2-4 2.41-42 241-59 242
173 347, 352, 363 92, 348, 369 54,369 7 5 , 1 8 6 , 336, 369 352 (to), 359, 363, 3691166
1
, 370169, 479
1.338
138,186, 313, 320
1.338-40
3201132
1.340
165, 313, 445
I m
i-34i
3i3,327
2 43
348, 3 5 , 352
1.342
327
2-44
37o
1-343
328
2-45
37o, 479
1-345
299
245-49
370
1.346
82, 302, 3021123, 305,
2.46
347,352
509
2-47
348
2-4 2.1-3 2.1-8
376 311,322 305
248
347129
2-49
33613
2.2 2.3 2.6
3!7 25, 3 3 7 25, 3 167,328
2.7
93, 9 7 , 1 0 7 , 265, 307,
J
n
l 8
n
l 8
( H 542 (to), 542
1
2.50
363,37
2.50-54
197
2.51
363
2.51-52
206, 348, 360, 371
2.52
363
2-53 2-54 2-55
9 , !37, 3 4 , 353, 37* ! 9 , 33613 37i (to), 372
(to), 335, 344, 345
2.55-57
372
(bis), 347 (bis)
2.56
342, 353, 359
2.58
372
308, 309 2.8
327 (ter)
2.9
86, 9 2 , 1 6 5 , 203, 313
2.9-38
75,336
2.9-167
305, 335, 336
2.10
203, 341, 353, 362
8
8
J
2.59
347129,368
2.60
351,359 346, 360, 3711172
2.11
i49,34i,343,353,364
2.61
2.12
181, 354, 355, 366 (to)
2.62-63
364
2.13
203, 353, 359, 366
2.63
350
2.14
336113, 338, 354,
2.63-65
102
2.63-73
98
354145 2.15
1
8
9 ,
1 0 1
J
, 3°7, 3 3 , 353,
359
2.63-90
203,335
2.64
350
2.16
350
2.65
350
2.17
3o ,355
2.66
350,3521142
2.18
197,368
2.68-69
150, 353, 362
2.19
3 ° 9 , 329, 366
2.69 2.71 272
347129 350 46, 348, 350, 357
8
2.20
366
2.22
143
2.23
98,348
2.24
6201165
2.27
209
2-33
337,368
2.34
364
2.36-37
329
2-74
359
2-75
3 3 6 1 3 , 3 5 , 364
2.77
336113
2.78
344
2-79 2.80
363 9 8 , 1 0 2 , 336113, 342, 35
1
JOSEPHUS
6
2.82
366
2.83
35 , 3
2.84
360
2.147
356
2.84-86
360
2.149
1161143, 5, 3
2.84-87
348
2.150
329
2.85
343 (bis)
2.151
97, 348, 356
2.86
101, 349, 361
2.152
123,129
2.87
102, 347, 350, 351
2.88
343,365
1
6 6
2.89
135,150, 337, 343, 361
2.90
150 (bis), 343, 344,
2.91
98, 336113 (bis), 3421115,
2.92
361
351,
353, 362 345, 347 2.93
366
2-94
" 8 3 3 7 , 3 5 5 , 362
2.95
365
2.96 2-97 2.98 2.100
337,353 353, 354, 358, 365 92,307 367
2.101
1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 355
5
2.105
358
2.106
358
2.107
351
2.109
3 5 4 2 , 354, 3 7 (bis)
2.110
2 n
6
358
2.145
356,3 °
2.146
356 12
2.153
356
2.156
356
2.157
125,356
2.159
368
2.160
352, 354, 368
2.161
356 (to), 360
2.162
356,360
2.163
113,356
2.165
354
2.166
357,368
2.167
356
2.168
150,344
2.168-88
305
2.169
310,365
2.170-71
197, 327
2.171
97,98,5011117
2.172
336113
2.173
311
2.174
150, 344, 365
2.175 2.176 2.180
326 336n3 338
2.184
336113,354
2.185
135
2.118-19
329
2.119
197
2.120
353
2.121
150,358
2.122 2.123 2.124-59
359 352, 354, 355, 367 75,337
2.125
358,365
2.189
366
2.126-28
367
2.189-93
305, 335, 336
2.128
368
2.190
128,336113
2.129
360 (to), 367 (to)
2.191
144,146
2.130
367
2.133
182 (to), 197, 367
2.191-93
*5i, 357, 362
2.134
368
2.135
369
2.136 2.138 2.140
358 35 125,150, 344
2.140-41
356
2.141
471
2.142
356
8
733
2.185-86
151,361
2.186
3611155
2.188
3421115
1 0
2.192
349
2.194
9 , 308, 326 (ter), 357
2.194-97 2.194-98
305 75,337
2.195
8
125,213,310,312,326, 327, 328, 338, 354, 357
2.196
82,310,364,509
2.143
348
2.197
353,357
2.144
356
2.198
82, 98, 305, 343, 348, 509 305, 335, 336
2.198-200
734
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Antiquities (continued) 2.201
i n , 135, 144, 200, 300, 326
2.256
43611107
2.257
377,377
n 6
2.258
418
386
2.260-61
419
2.204
386
2.262
2.205
87, 135,137, 377, 377116, 2.263
2.206
377"7> 379 197
123 (bis), 133, 377116, 419 133, 394, 418
2.265
210
2.206-3.207
31
2.266-68
386
2.207
380m 6
2.267
406
2.208
438
2.268
377, 401 (bis), 406
2.209
425
2.269
436
2.210
8 6 , 1 9 7 , 378
2.270-71
423
2.210-16
378-79
2.272
108, 206, 406
2.212
422
2.273
385
2.212-16
102, 379
2.274
4°6
2.213
265
2.275
393
2.214
93, 236, 307
2.277
393
2.216
379,3871132
2.277-78
3871133
2.218
380
2.279
386,424
2.219
197, 379 (bis), 425
2.280
206, 387, 428 387 (ter), 400, 435
2.203
2.222
381
2.281
2.222-23
206,4251191
2.281-82
404
2.224
7 ° , 92, 3011122, 384,
2.282
401,406
2.225
440
434, 440
2.283
1731118
2.284
387 428
2.225-26
381
2.284-87
2.226
3811120
2.286
428,429
2.227
438
2.287
387,429
2.229
194, 378, 389
2.290
148, 406 (bis), 435
2.230
90, 92, 381, 382,
2.292
437
3831126, 483
2.293
1731118, 206, 422, 429
2.231
91, 92, 384
2.294
387 429
2.232
92, 382, 384, 385, 438
2.295
2.232-36
382
2.296
no, 387
2.233
9 1 , 282,434
2.299
no, 197
2.234
434
2.300
1731118, 174, 387
2.236
346, 383, 384
2.301-2
in
2.238
377116
2.302
110,429
2.238-51
107
2.303
172
2.238-53
28, 37, 402
2.304
416
2.241
377117,401
2.243
377 6> 40!> 5 3 4 , 5 4 9
2.305 2.307
in no, 113
2.309
429
2.244 2.247
n
405 J
76
2.249
4031160
2.252
398, 435, 440
2.252-53
186
2.254
in, i73ni8,174, 43611107
2.255
*97, 200, 401, 404
2.310
406
2.312
437
2.313
28
2.314
254,421
2.315
418
2.315-49
173
2.319
3871132
JOSEPHUS
2.320
429
3.22
400
2.321
52, 407 (to)
3.22-23
1731118
2.322
197,408,425
3.22-32
206
2.322-23
1731118,408
2.323
432
3.23 3.23-24
9 4 , 1 4 6 , 1 7 7 , 386 426
2.324
407
3.25
2501161,431
3.26
388,431
3.28
401
3-29
43i
331
43i
2.324-25
407
2.326
52,407
2.327
3 9 i , 422, 497
2.328
407
2.329 2.330-33
207,407 423
2.331 2.331-33
207 423
2.332
206,5601119
3.33-38
206,431
3-34
39i
3.36
440
3.39-40
415
340
133
2.334
52,407
342
309117
735
2.334-36
429
343
4i6
2.335
207
3-44
435
2-337
1731118, 2501161, 407,
3.44-46
391
345
I73ni8
347
107, 309117, 3 9 , 4 0 1 ,
3.47-48
497 409
427 2.338
52, 407, 4071162
1
2.339
408
2.340
5 2 , 4 0 8 , 429
2.342
429-30
2.343 2-344
430,438 52
2.346
105, 400, 401, 407, 430, 437
2.347
4 2 7 , 4 3 0 (to), 432, 640
3-51
409
2.347-48
210,430
3-53
J82, 4 3 2 , 4 3 8
2.348
408
3-54
409
2.349
7mo> 4301197
3.1
408
3.2
401,408
3.4
406,408
3-5
1 4 6 , 1 9 1 , 39i
3.5-9
206,431
3-6
39i
3-7 3-8 3.9-11
43i 43i 408
3.11
401
3.11-12
408
3.12 3.13
104,400 107
3.13-32
431
99, i ° 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 2 8 , 390, 398048, 4 4 3 , 4 4 6 ,
3-5° 3.50-51
309 7,409 448 (to)
452 n
3-55
409
3-56 3.56-57
409 409
3-58
390,409
3.59
1181147,409,417078,
3.60
409, 416 (to), 438
420,44808,449 3.61-62
409
3.63
1 2 2 , 1 5 9 , 4 1 8 , 419
3-64
122, 419, 435
3.65
107, 37706, 3 7 8 , 4 0 1 ,
3.66
115
406, 409
377116,398,401
3-13-21
349
3.66-67
414
3.67
115,204,37706,401, 409,418
3.14-15
400
3.15
i73 8,174
3.i9
148, 435, 437
3.21
409
n l
3-69
377n6
3.70-71
410
3.73-74
420
3.74
112,37706,413
736'
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Antiquities (continued)
3.217
433
3.78
107, 401, 410
3.218
6on8o
3.80
1731118
3.223
98, 144, 398 (bis)
3.81
71110, 209, 4301198, 432
3.252
28
3.83
107-108, 385 (bis),
3.261
386
3.264
i 7 3 8 , 174
46506
n l
3.84
436
3-265
385
3.86
498
3.268
200, 209, 386
3.88
410
3.269
8nio
3-90
38
3.274-75
138
3-94
205
3.287
4101165
3-95-96
396
3.289
4101164
3-95-98
412
3-291
105
3.96-97
1731118,378
3-297
390
3-97
377^6
3.298 3-299 3.300 3.300-301 3.302 3.307 3.308 3.310 3.314
424 438 148,435 410,497 410,423 388 446 388 in
3.98
302,388
3-99
i 7 3 n i 8 1 7 4 , 395 (bis), 3
412 3.102
31,401,412,426
3.102-257
337
3.105
401
3.134-38
426
3.136
62
3.137
6011139,6221174
3-i4i
i73ni8,174
3.143
48,205
3-J47 3.165 3.168 3-I78 3-!79 3- 79-87 3-180 3-i8i 3.181-83 3.181-87 3.182
54 1731118,174 25,31 54 396 398,425 396,437 53 171 194,438 53 (bis)
3-^3 3.184
r
99, 377n6, 395, 396 388
3-3 9 3-320
r
i73 8 395, 396, 399
3.322
8 n i o , 209, 377116, 378
3-3 7 3.317-18
n l
4.1
389
4.2
148,435
4-3 4.4 4.7-8 4.9 4.9-10 4.11 4.11-12
389,433 389 410 107,309117 411 401 417
53 531164
4.11-66
1 4 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 , 390
4.12
141,391
3.184-87
53
4.13
390
3-i87 3.188
377, 377n6, 398, 425 377116,414
4.14
87, 93, 378, 4001155
4.14-15
391
3.188-90
387
4.14-16
200
3.190
198,414
4.15
1731118,174
3.192
102, 377116, 387
4.15-16
434
3-203
433
3.209
167
387 378 141 (bis), 182, 434
r
3.211
424
4-18-19 4.19 4.22
3.212
413,424
4.22-23
177,389
3.214
423
4.26
87, 1741118, 177, 378
3-2I5-17
433
4.27
414
JOSEPHUS 4.126-51
1861129
4-29 4-32 4-35
392 i 4 i , 392
4.36 4.36-37 4.40
i 4 i , 3^9 146, i 7 4 m 8 1741118,183,439
4.129
442 4.42-43
389,435 390
4.140
141,418
4.141-44
427
446 4.47
94, " 5 , 3 9 3 , 3 9 4 128
4.141-55
141,178, 390
4.142
392
4.47-48
427
4.143
137,412
4.48
174018,2501161
4.144
392,413
4.127
5°
4.127-28
133
r
m i
7
186
4-i3 -55
49,137,486,615
4.137
617
449
42
4.145-49
4.50 4-5i 4-5I-52 4-54-56 4-59 4.60-62 4.63 4.63-64 4.64 4.79 4.82
4i5,439 182,439 439 182 392 389 197 427 387 5421110 401
4.146
148,433
4.148-49
433
4.85 4.87 4.87-88 4.88-89 4.89-95 4.90-92
424190,433 388 427 411 178 411
4.93
1181147, 417078
4-93-94 4.94
4" 407
J
4.96
411
4.97
411
498
92,385,411
4.100-55
167
4.101
108,409
4.102
155,417
4.102-30
173
4.104
377117 {bis)
4-!05 4.106
135 135
4.107
167 n
491158,137,418
4.149
389
4.150-51
49, 392
4152 4- 52-55 4.153
49 187029 108
4-157 4.157-58 4.158
"2,37707,413 420 209, 214,430098
r
4.159
8010
4.162 4.164
118047,417078 62
4.165
95, 394,401, 447 (bi
J
4- 67
n
i43 5,439
4-174-75
393
4.177
402
4.178
390
4.179
390,392,414,420
4-i8o
423,437
4.184
413
4185
437 r
4.186
i85,4 3,453
4.187
436
4.188-89
415
4.189
no (to), 413
4.191
416
4.191-92
119
4.193
421
4.194
399,401,402,437
4.194-95 4-195
402 39i
4-"2
i35,377 7
4.113-14
179
4.196
43, 377^6, 398, 437
4.114-17
6511143
4.197
5 0 , 1 6 3 (to)
4.118
133
4.198
205, 257, 278
4.119
179
4.200
4.121
5011117
4.202
417
4-!25
25,39,50,153,649
4.203
1731118
60,424
737
738
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Antiquities (continued)
4.322
440
4.207
115, 119 (to), 647
4.323-26
174
4.215
115
4.324
44808, 453 (bis)
4.217
114
4.326
7, 37706, 396 (to)
4.218
60
4.328
98, 104, 177, 381, 400
4.219
87, 191
4.328-29
110,412
4.222
68
4.328-31
82, 305, 509
4.223
113,145,14507,435
4.329
103,108, 401 (to), 422,
4.224
62,399
4-225
141, 39<> 35> 4 3
n
6
4-33
1
423 377n6,378
419
5-1
448,453,458
5921131
54
453 (to)
4-235-38
122
5-8
444,458
4.236-37
419
5:10
458
4.238
5921131
5:11
458 (to)
4-238-39 4.244
4i9 413
5-i2
454
5^5
453 (to), 454
4.244-45 4-257 4.258-63 4.261
!3 2591179 419 280
5.16
455 (to)
5.16-20
32
5-17
444,454,455
5.19
250061
4.264
413
5-20
454,455
4.265
i73 8,174
5.22
1 0 8 , 4 4 4 , 4 5 3 , 454, 456
4.266
418
5.23
456 (to)
4-274 4.276 4.285-86 4.289 4.292 4.292-95 4293 4.294 4.294-95
3i 118,417 53 413 392 119 5 H , 436 392
5.24
456
5.28
456
528-29
459
530
123,452
5-37
449
4.296
415
54i
454
4.234 4.235-3
6
8
n l
l 8
1
5-25
448
5-27
456
5-34
445n6,454
5.36
450
4.297
141,411
543
453 (bis)
4.298
410065
5-44
454
4-299 4.300
183,439 416
545
108035, 448, 454
546
459
399,437
457 147011,446,452 449
4.302 4.303-4
60
547 5.48 5.50
4.304
62 (to)
5.52
450
4.307 4.311 4.315-16 4.316
423 447 (to) 420 123
5-55
453 (to)
4.317
413,423
4.320
5 , 3 7 7 , 422,440,
4.303
105,116,401,420,437
8
n 6
447, 650040
5-56
447
5-57
4 5 , 453 (to), 457
5.58
450,455 4,459
5.60
4 5 0 , 4 5 6 , 456016
1
n i
5.61
108035, 4 5 4 , 4 5 6
5.61-62
445
6
4.320-22
183
5- 3
450
4.321
37706
5-64
457
JOSEPHUS
.bb
n i
449,449 o
5.202
207
5- 7
445,454
5-71
444,457
5-7I-72
450
5.203 5-213 5.214
207 87, 213, 4751129 210,250061
572
444
5.215
198, 207, 210
573
444,446
5.231
141
5
6
574
123,452, 4811145
5.234
129,148
575 576 578 5.80
45 451 45 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 (bis)
1
5-257 5.264
87 2670101
1
5.264-66
277
5.266
110,527024
5-90 5.9i 5-93-98
4 4 4 , 4 4 5 , 4 5 ° , 454 452,455 455
5.276
8 7 , 1 8 7 , 4 6 2 , 464
5.276-317
461
5-277
90, 92, 203054, 213,
5-94 5-95 5-96
450 123,452 452
5.277-78
90
5-97 5.98
457 138,446
5.279
203054,476 (to)
5.280
170, 476 (to)
5.103
451 (bis)
5.281
478
5.112
458
5.284
462
5.114
458
5.285
108, 464, 466, 472,
5.115-16 5.116
38,455 452
5.286
138, 468, 478, 479,
5-H7 5.118
444 8 2 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , 398048,
5.286-317
49,615
5.287
187, 468, 479 (to)
5.120 5-i2i 5-I32 5-I32-35 5-133 5.136-37 5.144 5- 59 5.166 5-167 5-170 5-i7i 5.172-73
601179,453 449 137 143 213 186-87 2591182 601179,453 284 5921131 479 187 187
5.288
479,479041
5-179 5.180 5.182 5.182-84
137 144 108,46506 659
5-185 5.188 5.191 5-193 5.194 5.200
136 108 (to), 509 168 102 167 124,181
5.201
207
443, 446 (bis), 449
J
739
4 6 4 , 4 6 5 , 4 7 5 (to), 476034,483, 625
483 (ter), 486 488 (ter)
5.289
3701169,466
5.290
99 (to), 464 (to)
5.292
187, 479, 479H4I,
5-293
464
5-294
185, 191, 207, 472, 473,
5.295
472,484056
5.296
473 (to)
480 (bis)
480 (quater)
5-297
465
5.298
467 (to)
5.299
46304, 467 (to)
5.300 5.302
208, 465 (to), 471, 472, 484 112,469
5-303 5.304
484 481
5.305
464, 470, 472, 472026
5.306
49, 137, 187, 480,
5-307
473,481
481 (to), 486 (to) 5.308
99,464,486
5.309
470,486, 487,487061
740
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Antiquities (continued)
6.37-38 6.37-40
503 183,506,511
6.38
49IH3, 4 9 5 , 5 ° i
6.40
491112
5.310
170, 1 7 0 m l , 210,
5.311
211,486
5.312
195, 208, 473, 474
6.41
5°3
5.313
208, 464, 474 (bis), 481,
6.43
503 (to)
4761137, 481 (ter), 486
482 (ter), 484 J
5-3 4 5-3i4~i5
474,475
6.44 6-45
494 8
7 , 92, 99, 465116, 512,
1 8 1
5 i 3 , 5 i 4 (to), 543
5.316
470 (bis), 471
645-156
53
5.317
8 2 , 1 3 8 , 465, 465116,
6.45-7.6
5°9
5.318-36
208,559
488,509, 522m 6 5.318-37
187030
5.326
123
5-330
123
5.336
208, 28011137, 541
5337
208,559
8 n 6
6.46
513,526
6.47
491113, 495, 500
6.48
491113, 499, 500, 506,
6-49
183, 507 (to), 511 (ter)
5 1 1 , 5 1 3 , 526
5.339
1 4 8 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 7 , 502
5-340
491113
5.341
491113
5.341-51
49
6.51
524
6.52
491112, 491113 (to), 506,
6-54
49IH3, 497, 5 i 4
6-57 6.58 6-59 6.60
i 2 9 H 5 7 , 5 0 5 , 5 n (to), 528, 533 491113 197,525 148,501
5i4
5-343
506
5-344
505*121
5-345
493 (to), 4 9 3 m o
5-347
491113,4951114
6.61
502
5.348
494
6.63
112, 1 1 3 , 4 1 3 , 5 2 4 ,
5-349
501
5-350
495
6.64
491113, 494, 525
5-35i
49 3,500
525 (quater), 590, 634 6.65
525
i 5
6.66
491113 (to), 496
5-3 4
137
6.67
514, 515 (to)
6.19
491113,497
6.68
515
535
8
8
m
8
6.19-67
490
6.68-69
493118
6.20
148
6.69
515 (to)
6.70 6.71 6.72 6-73 6.74
515 5i5 5 5 5i5 516
6.22
497
6.23
497
6.24
497 (quater), 506
6.26
507
J
6.27
506
6.28
498 (to)
6.76
516
6.30
498,502
6.31
49IH3,496, 499
6.77 6-79
491113,5i6 5 (ter)
6.80
516 (to)
6.32
498,499
6-33
143,185,503
6.34
143115,491113, 498 (to), 499, 503
6.35
491113
6.36
115, 1 4 5 , 1 4 5 n 7 ( t o ) , 502, 503 (to)
6-37
503
l 6
6.81
146,517
6.82
517 (to)
6.83
491113
6.83-85
502
6.83-94
490
6.84
448118,458
6.84-85
145117 (to)
JOSEPHUS
741
m
204, 49 3 , 5 ° °
6.147
6.87
500
6.147-50
53
6.89
501
6.147-51
530
6.90
501
6.150
530,5301129
6.92
125, 491113 (bis), 495,
6.150-52
53
499,507
6.151
491113 (to), 500,530
6.98
148, 518 (bis)
6.153
4 9 3 , 496
6.100
491113, 498
6.154
501
6.100-5
490
6.156
45,491113
6.101
49in3(to)
6.157
500
6.102
495,501
6.157-92
53
6.103
128, 528 (bis)
6.105
519
6.158
559
6.106
518
6.160
1 0 9 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 8 , 4121171,
6.107
518, 523 (bis)
6.108
523
6.108-9
524
6.113
524
6.86
6.113-14
m
601179
6.116
144, 1 8 5 , 5 1 9 , 5 2 7 2501161 5 9
!
6.120
519
6.122
519
6.123
526
6.124
128,526
6.125
527
9
o n 2
9
m
8 n 6
496, 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 , 5 2 6 , 1
5 4 4 , 5 4 5 , 5 5 (to), m
6.162
49 3,559
6.164
93, 317, 4 9 4 , 5 4 , 5 4 2
1
6.165
6.115
6.119
o n 2
563, 577,599n37
524 (to)
6.117
4 9 3 , 501
6.126
283,527
6.127
128,526
6.129
518, 519,5201112
6.130
92,513,529
6.131 6.131-33
502 490
6.133
121
495,55
1
6.166
124,165, 533, 534, 561
6.167
542, 544 (to)
6.170 6.171 6.175 6.177 6.179-80 6.181 6.182 6.183 6.184 6.185 6.187
519 545 545 i 3,563 545 549,557 549 556 549 550 556,563
6.188
549
8
6.189
560
6.191-92
520
6.134
527,528
6.192
S^
6.135
528 (to)
6.192-223
539116
6.136
165,491113,529
6.193
187, 200, 564, 566 (to)
6.137
92, 529, 5 3 °
6.194
6.138
529
6.195
6.139 6.140 6.141 6.141-42 6.141-66
529 533 4 9 3 , 530 529 490
6.i95-3 9
!92
6.196 6.196-204
187, 345, 5 3 4 , 5 5 7 , 564 (to) 109
6.197
5*9, 534,545
6.142 6.143 6.143-45
529 49 3> 5 500
6.198
534,545
6.199-200
564
6.200
534,564
6.144
4 9 3 , 496, 5 3 °
6.201-2
519,564
6.145
123,49103,529,530
6.202
534
6.146
529
6.203
187, 3321145, 557, 565
I 2
0 0
m
,520,556
4,542
534 (to), 549 0
m
m
1 0
742
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 6.271-72
546
534 (bis), 565 (bis)
6.272
545
6.205
165,197, 534
6.272-91
539116
6.206
566
6.275
546
6.208
125
6.276
566
6.209
566
6.280
557,560
6.210
566
6.281
518
6.212
115, 1 2 5 , 1 8 5 , 5 2 6 , 5 3 5 ,
6.284
552
6.285
5 3 i , 556
6.213
552 197
6.286
556
6.215
187, 535 (bis), 564, 565
6.288
531
6.216
565
6.289
552
6.217
565
6.290
1 1 6 , 1 2 2 , 531 (bis), 550,
6.219
535,565
6.220
491113
6.291
552 560 491113
Antiquities (continued) 6.204
6.221
4 9 3 {bis)
6.292
6.221-22
535
6.292-94
82, 490, 491, 509
6.221-23
490
6.292-309
538116
6.223
495, 5271122, 528
6.294
n
6.224-34
538116
6.295
552
6.226
566
6.296
197, 544, 553
6.227
557
6.297
553
6.228
566
6.297-98
553
6.230
4 5 , 5 6 0 , 619
6.298
553
6.232
566
6.299
553
6.235 6.235-38
527 539116
6.300
544
6.301
553
6.236
557,566
6.302
111,550,55!
6.239
566
6.304
550
. 6.239-49
I n
5 , !24> 4 9 9 , 5 ° °
538n6
6.305
"3,552
6.241
566
6.307
59
6.243-44
557
6.245
567
6.247
562
6.250
535,545
6.250-70
538116
6.254
601179
6.257
601179
6.258
535 g
6.308
1161143,550
6.310-20
539 6
n
6312
531,553
6.313
549
6.315
546
6.316 6.317 6.321-26 6.323
123, 532, 557 165, 5 3 i , 5 3 2 , 5 5 3 538116 554
6.259
i 5,197
6.260
5!7 9
6.325
32
6.262
601179,185
6.326
554,555
6.262-67
509
6.327-50
538n6
6.262-68
531
6.328
601179,520
6.263
194
6.330
32
6.264
181
6.332
168,505
6.265
201,5991137
6.332-36
49°
6.266-67
198
6.267
185,201
6.335
196048,520
6.268
601179, 145117 (bis), 530
6.336
49 3
6.271
538116
n
m
6-337
520
6-339
520
JOSEPHUS 6-339-42
123
7.69
123
6.340-42
520,5201113
6.341
185
7-71-77 7.72-73
557 601179
7-74 7-75 7.76
547 547 601179
7-77 7-79 7-82 7.84 7-86
543 557 33 185 33
7.87-89
55i
6-343 6-343-5°
521,522 8
2 , 3°5, 3 i ° , 509,52i
5
539 m
6.344
4 9 3 , 522, 532,5321132
6-344-45
52i
6-345
532
6.346
521
6-347 6.348 6.349 6.351
I 0
9 , 523
523 I2
g
743
5 > i 5> 5 2 i , 522, 523 522
7-90
557,560
7.92
557
6.351-67
538n6
7-93
57i, 575, 579,580, 603
6-355
555
7.94
152 (bis), 538
6.359
601179
144115,547 547 547 2341128 560
6.368-69
522
7-96 7-97 7.101 7.101-3 7.105
6.368-78
538116
7.109
560
6.370
522, 523, 532
7.110
116 (to), 555
6.362-63
563
6.363
2351131
6.368
522
6-377
523
7-i 11
123,554
6.378
53i
7-H7
55i
7.1
564
7.120
547
7.1-6
539116
7-122 7-127 7.130
7.2
522,564
(bis)
556,557 547 731193,114,165,187,
7-5
566
7.18
129
7.22
546
7-I30-53
7-23
548
7-i3i
34
7-25
519,546
7.132
341131
7-26
553
7.138-40
5221116
7-27
491113
7.139-40
731193,558
7-29
185
7.142-45
547
7-30
555
7-147
99,
7-3i
99, i97, 204
7-153
73H93, 558 (ter), 560
7-34
185
7-158
99, 543, 6031142
7-36
197
7.160
123
7-37
198
7.162
187,558
7-37-38
550
7.164
187
556, 558 34H33,187
I Q
2 , 1 8 5 , 558
7-40
555
7.168
143
7-43
125, 544, 555
7.169
137
7-53
49m3
7.183
28011137
7-54
*23,555
7-i84
125,553
7.61
546 (bis)
7-i89
93
7.62 7-65
108,546 557
7-193
183
7.195
499
7.67
171
7.68
448118
7.196 7-I98
147 i4i,559
744
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Antiquities (continued)
6 1
7-3
8
5 9 , 619
7.199 7.205-6
54-8 556
7.362 7.370-88
589, 611 (to) 575
7.217
548
7.372
611 563,611
7.218
548
7-372-73
7.220
109
7-373
185,611,619
7.235 7.256
" 4 , 551, 555 123
7-374
556, 5 9 i , 593
7-378
571
7-259 7.262 7.265 7.269
544 142 5 3 4 116,556
7.380
7-3 3
7.270
125,551
7-3 4
7.272
5 5 4 592
6
g l
7-3
302 9 9 , 1 2 4 , 543, 552, 579,
n 2
59i 8
8
8
!95 552,556,59^594
7.272-74
123
7-3 5 7.386
7.274 7.277
554 560
7-3
7.278
141,563024
7-390
109,54
7.287
147,185
7.390-91
82, 509, 539
7-39
7.289
189032
7-29i
553
7.294
44808
8
7-3 7
109,548
7-305
4om57,5 6
5
1
544 59i 8
93, 99 (to), i n , 116, 119, 121 (to), 180,
7.300 7.305-
8 8
557 204, 595 (to), 612
6 2
6 2
7-392
543, 544, 550, 552 129, 575, 594
7-394 7.404
538n6 189033
7.310
108
8.2
91, 577, 618
7.312
185
8.2-211
575
7.3i8
559
8.4
589
7.318-34
164
8.5
5 9
7-321
34
8.8
129,594
7-322
555
8.9
590 (to)
8
7.322-23
554
8.10
590
7.324-26
178
8.13
197, 5 7 5 ™ o , 595
7-328
552
7-330
542
7.332
126 (bis), 46506, 554,
8.14 8.15 8.17
535^35,595 595 575 o
8.19
59
554018
n i
1
7-333
258 (bis)
8.20
7-334
561
8.21
7-335-42
575
7-337
H 2 , 563, 603
8.22
595
7.338
128,557,571,577,591,
8.23
5 7 i , 577, 579, 580 (to), 592
7-340 7-34i
593 571 499,563,611
8.24
578,588
8.25
595
7-342 7.348-62
576 575
8.26
580
8.27
624
6
185,591 95,96,116,575010,577, 591, 605, 606, 623
7-35 7.358
I 2
6
7-359 7.360
624 (bis) 571
1
8 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 593 624
8.29
624
8.30
174, 581, 602, 624
8.31
625
8.32
577, 625 (to)
JOSEPHUS 8.33
581 (bis)
8.109
8
6 l
1
8-34 8.35-38 8.38
99,5 i 33 148, 606, 612 (bis)
8.110
57 ,599
8.111
621
8.111-12
592,621
8.40
578,589
8.112
592, 619063
6
8.41
578
8.113
577
8.42
84, 584 (bis), 5841123,
8.114
621
8.115
174, 580, 621
58^24 8.44
584 (bis)
8.116-17
119,614
8-45
585
8.117
615
8.45-49
I o 6
> 585
8.118
599,600,604
8.46-49
585
8.49
585
8.120
128
8.50 8-53 8.54 8.55
613,619 577 575 <> 614
8.121
599 (to)
8-55~5
8.119
nl
6
621
8.122-23
601
8.123
5751110, 600, 602
8.124
578,579,5991137,
574
600 (ter)
8.56
574, 614 (bis)
8.57
575 °,
8.58 8.59 8.61
609,613 575 ° 575nio
n I
6 l
3
8.125
600, 602, 604
8.127
576
8.129
578
n l
8.63
596 (to)
8.64
5 7 5 ° (to), 596 (to)
n I
8.130
599,603
8.131
602
8.132
607 592, 607, 622
8.65-66
596
8.133
8.68
597
8.134
592, 607, 615
8.69
597 (to)
8.135
607
8.70
597
8.136
8.72
6
5 >57 >599> °3
575mo
8.137 8.138
8.73
601
8-77
5751110 n l
8.81
575 °
8.82
601,6011139
8.83
597
8.84
597, 601, 6011139
8.88
597
8.89
596
8.90
597
8.91-94
597
8.95
596,598
8-97
596,597
8.99
596, 598, 599
8.100
48,623
8.101-2
599,619
8.102
2501161, 600, 619
8.104-5
596
8.105
598
607 6
°7
608 n I
8.140
575 o
8.141
593
8.142
45,593
8.143
97,99,586,587
8.144-46
575,614
8.144-49
134, 574 (to)
8.145
616
8.146
104,590
8.146-49
113
8.147-49
134,575
8.148-49
104
8.149
59°
8.150
605
8.151
605
8.152
588,605
8.153
606
8.153-54
6
575
o6
8.106
2501161,603
8.155-59
8.107
620
8.159
5
8.108
620,622
8.160
588
8.162
610,615
1
745
746
PASSAGES F R O M A N C I E N T WRITERS
Antiquities (continued) 8.163
606
8.245
I 2
8.246
341133
7
8.164
606
8.251
144,185,198
8.165
587, 604, 625 (bis)
8.252
185
8.165-75
75
8.253
1 8
8.166
5781117, 587 (bis), 613,
8.260-62 8.262
8 n i o , 209
8.167
99, 175 (bis), 587 (bis)
8.265
127
8.168
608
8.296-97
157
8.169
602,608
8.297
8.169-70
625
625
8
(to), 19
18 (to)
"9
-307
195
8.170
608,625
8
-3i4
599n37
8.171
608 (bis)
8
-3!5
54 ,556
8.172
608
8.319
8.174
609, 625 (ter)
8.324
135 (quater)
8.175
126, 46506, 593
8.325-27
212 211
8
211
8.176-77
598,606
8.342
8.178
598
8-343
211,505
8.180
598
8.344
211
8.182
577,604
8.349
211 (to), 2501161
8.183
609,610
8.351
2501161
8.184
6
8.352
1471112
8.185
93,609
8.356
142
°9
8.186
609
8.358
68
8.187
609
8.370
142
8.188
610
8.389
7°
8.190
574,617
8-394
"9,578ni7
8.191
137, 138, 625
8-395
6
8.193
137,617
8.396
120
8.194
97, 99, 57i, 617
8.398
142 (to)
8.195
601, 617, 618
8.408
58
8.196
550, 556, 582, 604, 618
8.197 8.199 8.202 8.202-3 8.204 8.205 8.206 8.209 8.211
6
°5 °5, 5 7 5 m o , 624 624 623 610 610 i n , 140 82, 91, 5 0 9 , 5 7 6 (to), 5 7 7 , 5 8 2 , 619, 623 6
6 1 8
2
8.409
142, 176, 195
8.412
196
8.413
185
8.415
142
8.417
58
8.418
5 8 , 1 0 5 , 185
8.418-20
176
8.419 9.2
i 5, i9 ,197 124
9.6 9-
8
8
g
6
62 197
8.212
146
9- -9
8.212-420
216
9-9
154,197
8.213
126
9-i6
128,5991137
8.213-14
121
9.19-27
164
8.214
119,126
9.20
2501161
8.215
147
9.26
208,2501161
8.227
6201168
9.28
211, 212, 2501161
8.227-28
127
8.229
i o
9-3i 9.43
142 1181146,120
J
5 , 43
154
JOSEPHUS 947
72 (bis)
IO.53
!20
9.64
120
10-59
87, I97
9.92
108
10.64
622
9-94
!<>9
10.65
120
9.95-96
50
9-96
152
10.73 10.76
93 185
9.99
208
9.117
108
10.79 10.89
61 i9
9-!33
!24> 185
10.99
197
9.138
6
120
10.100
39,71,124
9.i77- 5
35,164
10.103
71,1471112, 660
9.178
71,660
10.120
71. 124
9.182
152,49!
10.138
124
8
I
9 9
I
9.196
5°n59 181
9.199
181
9.207
448118
9.208
58
9.209
160, 208 (to)
9.213
250061
9.216
46506
9.222
144
9.222-25
50
9.223
185,198
9.225
72
9.226
181
9.226-27
198 128 1 0 9 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 (to),
9.268 9.271 9.280 9.282
577ni4 622 622 448118 142 (to) 579ni9 337116
10.5
109
10.12
601179
10.16
120
10.20
19
10.21
213,2501161
10.25-27
70 I 2
10.29
156
10.31
120
10.34
!9
10.35
58
10.39
57n72
10.44
x
10.45
J
10.50
4
10.155
87,116,156,180
10.160
156 126,180 72, 631, 632 (to), 633
10.186-218
630
10.186-281
632
10.187
112, 633, 634, 645 (to)
10.188
631 (to)
10.189
633, 641 (to), 6411129
10.190
112, 634, 642 (ter),
10.190-94
643
10.191
"2,634
10.192
112,634
10.194
633, 6381120, 643 (to),
10.195
646,654
644
4
10.30
1 7 2 , 1 9 6 (to)
6421130, 643, 644
9.260
9-289
124
10.142
10.186
9.236
9.291
10.139
10.164
747
10.195-210
102
10.198
157, 648, 655
10.199
645
10.200
637
10.201
635
10.202
635 (to)
10.203
3
10.204
1181146, 646 (ter)
10.206
6491138
6 o n
5 4 , 634 (to)
10.209
6491138
10.210
39,50,153,494, 538 (to), 571, 649 (to), 651, 6511143
10.211
641, 646
10.212
201, 641, 644
10.214
157, 213, 638 (to), 653
10.215
214, 638, 646
2
42
10.216
647
10.217
136, 647 (to)
n
91,116, i97,599 37
748
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 10.277-81
Antiquities (continued)
192 (to), 640
10.218
4 1 - 4 2 , 45, 647
10.278
192, 274, 301020, 640
10.219
19
10.279
635, 635013
10.280
637,640
9, 47
10.281
8010, 209, 430098, 638
10.232
655
11.21
169
10.232-81
630
11.32
156,654
4 7 (to)
11.49-54
191
10.235-36
633
n.56
93
10.236
655
11.68
164
10.237
99,655
11.87
119,615056
10.238
655
11.109
48
10.239
638020
11.111
14507 (to) 44808
10.219-28 10.227
10.233
1711113,647 J
6
6
10.240
653
11.112
10.241
185, 634, 638020
11.114
201,202
10.242
112,634,638020,
11.120
128
647 (to), 648
11.121
116,155,654
10.243-44
637019
11.131
126
10.246
1 1 6 , 1 9 6 , 634, 636, 648,
11.138
156
10.247
650
11.139
116,124,156
647,655
11.140
139,156
10.248
655
11.141
138,156
10.249
636, 5 0
11.142
139
10.250
201, 638, 638020, 641,
11.145
138
11.146
139
10.251
644, 653 201,636
n.149
10.252
653
".15
10.254
136, 648
10.255
633,634
11.152 11.153 11.165 11.169
10.256 10.257 10.258 10.259 10.260
6
201, 633, 644, 653 l8
3>
2 0 I
> 656
1
139 139 139 (to), 164 139 104 224,310
11.177
209
3 , 250061, 638, 639
11.183
116
184, 250061, 638020,
11.185
87
11.19° 11.191-92 11.192 11.192-94
164,187,33! 136 164 181
11195 11.196
136 187
638020 2 J
656 10.260-61
639
10.262
638020, 639, 648
10.263
156, 635, 654
10.264
104,636
10.265
185
10.266
637,641
11.198
169
10.267
636017, 637, 651043
11.199
187
10.268
637, 650, 651
11.200
187
10.269
636
11.201
187
10.272
250061, 578017, 639
11.202
136, 187, 330042
10.273
6
30
11.207
170
10.275
633,653
11.209
354
10.276
154, 538, 649039, 652,
11.210
354
11.212
117
652045 10.276-77
650041
11-215
136, 169
10.277-78
427
11.216
136
JOSEPHUS 11.227
209
11.229-33
51
11.234-42 11.236
I
3-7o
345
13.74
1241151
51
13.76
1241151
136
13.195
1001124
11.237
209,2501161
13.114
1241151
11.240
209, 213, 2501161
13.152
185
11.252
136,184
13.225
203
11.256
184
11.257
183
!3-249 13285 13.288
543 345 203
II.261
170,182
11.266
270
11.267-68
185
13.297
11.268
184,656
13.299-300
11.270
185
J
I
3-294
3-3oi-i7
"3 66,69 6on8o 2141164
11.273-83
36,51
13.310
199,202
11.275-76
136
13.316
143,3141164
11.277
181,354
i3-3 -!9
11.289
164
13.348
661185
11.294
124
13.349
34i> 648
"•329-39
6461136
13.382-83
6on8o
11.337
630
13.402
203
13.430
190
11.341
337116
l 8
2141164
12.11-118
26,42,164
13.431
190
12.14
46
13.432
190 (bis)
12.15
46
14.13
126
12.20
45 (bis)
14.40
345
12.39
46
14.68
10
12.48
45
14.174-75
59178
12.49
46
14.186
107
12.56 12.103-9 12.104
599^37 6m8i 6in8i
14.250
1551126,6541148
14.255
2371136
14.265
198, 199
12.106
6in8i
H-283
599"37
12.107
46
14.324
188
12.108
46,6m8i
14.451
102
12.109
37
15-16
1781123
12.112
102
15.6
203
12.114
26
15.50
2021152
12.146
622
15.69
i90 3
12.190
2011151
15.79
204
12.195
26711101
15.82
2021152
12.226
2371136
15.89
203,204
12.249
203
15.90
204
12.322
631
15.96-103
188
n
6
15.130
203
2501161
15.164
2021152
12.388
345
15.168
1901136
12.417
190
I5-I79
172
13-15
1781123
15.202-36
188
13.45
6541148
15.219
i9° 3
13-65
345
I5-37I
192,6441133
I 2
8
.35 -59
12.359
1 8
n
6
749
750
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 19.346
196
15-375 I5-398 15.416 16.25
599n37 579,605 172 6
20.17-96
158
20.25
134
16.93
*43
20.29
2031154
16.167-73
126
20.90
126
16.174
47,48
20.100
341
16.176
114
20.106
48
16.177
114
20.150
261
16.183-87
18
20.20a
1521119,651
16.247-48
2021152
20.204
2141164
16.396-404
196
20.216
48
17-19
1781123
20.216-18
62
i7-4
59 78
n
20.218
62
17-43
59 78
n
20.229
Antiquities (continued)
I 2
20.20
26711101
20.21
2031154
J
n
4 5 7 (bis)
17.121
191138
20.234
145117 (bis)
17.125
172
20.236
345
17.200
48
20.260
9,37
17.213
48
20.261
37
I7-345-48
102
20.262
21117,47
17-345-53
102
20.262-63
18
17.354
209,4301198
20.263
1 4 , 1 8 , 25, 26, 65
18.15
104
20.263-64
26911105 45
18.17
6011138
20.264
18.21
190
20.267
611182,143,1581129
18.63
1521119,651
20.268
205 (bis), 257, 263,
18.63-64
568 (bis)
18.65-80
188
18.66
87,87117
18.81-84
158,383
1
61
18.85
397147
1-6
86
2631191, 278 Life
18.117
3971137
1-8
86
18.240
2021152
2
127, 188, 2551167,
18.241
2021152
18,255
i9 38,2021152
7-8
25
18.257
375 2
8
25, 203, 335
18.259-60
1 6 , 5 1 , 383
8-9
65
18.340
50,137
9
90,1721115
18.342-52
188,615
10
591178 102,231
m
n
6031143, 668
19-53
552116
IO-II
19.54
148
11
642
19.92
172
12
19.108
209
19.208
105 (bis)
19.236-45
341,648
13 14
5 9 1 7 8 , 6 6 n 8 6 , 1 8 9 , 192. 427, 637, 651 148 6441134
19.290
117
16
149
19.321
172
19328-31
6
17 29 36 65
149 215 140 601
19.330
126
19.340-42
155
JOSEPHUS 8o
96,200
1.77
202
82
357
1.82
542 {bis)
84-85
200
85
15
6
1.111-12
189
1.172
146118
102
156
1.208
202
112
445
"3
J
1233 1.243
195 188 195
58
122
200,362
1275
134
140
1.328
102
146
96
1.340
542
148
96
1.360
203
189-203
362
1.431-44
188
751
194
96
1.440
2021152,4761134
204
200
1.443
2021152, 4761134, 626
208-10
101
1.463
2021152
216-335
200
1.632-34
2021152
223
542
1.650
6181162
240-42
96
2.112-13
102
364-67 366
435 215
2.112-16
102
2.119-61
52,591178,102
414
26911105,345
2.121
190
414-15
188
418
25
423 423-25
™5> 53> 200 67
2.159 2.161 2.181 2.249
59 7 53 2021152 261
J
6
n 6
5
n
8
424
3 9
2.259
59
425
200,601
2.261-63
152
426-27
188
2.272-76
2141164
427
86,188
2.279
204
429
67
2.286
112
War 1.1
20
1.1-2
9,
59
2.309
648
2.331
204
2.346
204
2.427
562
1.1-3
21117,215
2.444
152
1.2
58,177
2.454
445
1.3
46, 212, 2131162
2.464
644
1.6
9 {bis)
2478
644
i-7
9
2.569-84
215
i-9
9
1.10
122, 503
!5 140 200 96
6
1.13-16
9
1.17
9, 20, 20117, 132
2.585 2.587 2.620 3.161-288
1.18
20,57
3.347
125,172
1.27
122,140
3-35!-54
101
i-33 1.34
345 in
3-352
101
3.352-53
60
I-6I 1.67 1.68-69 1.72
539,543 199,201 6on8o 2011151
3.358
106
3.361-83
532
3.391 3399-408
257 IOI
752
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
War (continued)
5.388
2131162
3.400-2
59
5-39I-92
59
3.475
146118, 147
5-393
45
3.542
146119
5.412
611
4-n
5.413
6201167,6201169
4.107 4.208 4.225 4.292
45 146 156 105 112
5.441
156
5458
619
5.491
112
5-5H
195
4-297 4.319-22
194 111116
5-572
195
6-49
195
4-357 4.389
199 156
6.63
199
6.103-4
155
4-393 4.462-64
199 212
6.122
112
6.124
i43
4.530
227
6.283
146119
4-533 4.566
227 199
6.310-15
6521146
6.299-300
6on8o
4.616
341
6.312
151
4.622
195
6.312-13
6371117
5.19
172 {bis)
6.313
195, 6371117, 6521146
5-27
113
6-347 6.439 6.442
143 539 578ni7
5-34
"3
5-137
539
5-143
539,605
7.100-11
629
5-i5i 5-182
45 45
7-i9i
147
7.252-406
i59 3o
5-234 5-257
31 209
7.254-74
5-355 5.362-419
196 215
7.344
280
5.367
611, 6511143 (bis)
7-399
82, 189
5-379 5.379-81
259 215
7405
i 5 9 3 0 , 27511122, 533
7-426
345
5.380
216,236
7.451
172
5-38i
259
7-455
45
n
nni6
7.267
143
7.272
172
n
PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES Philo
16.71 16.72 23.114 23.114-15
De Abrahamo 15.68-71
233
15.71
2641193
339 339 1921140, 640 6351113
22.112
430096
23.118
2491159,28611150
26.133
2641194
6.24
26.134
2651195,265096
7.34-38
290
27.140
265096
7.38
291
De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 3091110
32.167
266
12.61-62
3141118
32.168
226114, 270, 291
13.70
306114
32.170
255
18.99
308116
32.172-76
27711126
23.129-30
3 ! 5 8 (bis)
32.175
27411116, 4301196
32.176
212, 252, 27611124
3LI75 31.175-76
291 309-ionio, 315018
33-^7
283
33.178
255
33.180-81
283
9.33
35^97
285
30.164
40.233
235
40.233-34
54
De Decalogo
13-56
6211172 n6ri44
De Ebrietate
De Agrictdtura 12.53
n i
6211172 339
2.9-10
314
12.48
308116
20.82
306114
31.120
306114
36.143
492114
De Cherubim De Fuga et Inventione
2.8
291
31.106
270
4.24
33.118
27511117
4.24-7.43
314
35.128
339
7.39
3141118
7.40
306114
De Confusione Unguarum "•39
539
753
314
9.52
308116
30.169
306114
754
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
De Josepho 338, 338117, 340
11.77-80
288
12.81
306,30604
339
14.88
290,291
1.4
344120
22.128-29
419080
2-5 2.5-11
355148 339
37-202
54
40.225
116
7.34-36 8.37-21.124
339 339
8.38
346124
8.39
358
1.1-2.12
94°
54, 352138, 352139,
7.26
30018
14.46
430196
24.72
165
I
-
1
De Opijicio Mundi
368, 369066 9.40-10.53
339-40
9.41
3711172
30 53
De Plantatione
9.48
206
10.49
34813
n:57
352139
16.87 18.94 18.95 20.106
7.29
539
352138,352139
9-39 "43
539 (to) 133
357 339 350036
11.44 21.90 26.110-11
30604 306 312015
1
21.120
150,343017
21.121
3461125
36.213
368
11.35
263090
39.232
365164
22.75
30604
41.246
347
49.166
192139
41.246-49
355047 m
41.246-50
35 37
4L247 42.257
359153 30604
43-264
125,357150
44.269
347127,348i33
De Migratione Abrahami
De Posteritate Caini
De Praemiis et Poems 9-53
422084
De Providentia 2.40-41
171012
De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 340
2.4
1.5
30604
4.17-18
309 °
4.17
340
11.48
30806 312014
314018 n I
4.18-5.22
340
17.64
419
339, 352138
24.81
308116,30909
4.21
352138
36.120
30909
6.27
30604
38.130
422085
1374
54
39-175
3!4n8
16.89
J
7
J
De Sobrietate
29158
339
29^59
339
2.8
291
32.179
194,263090
3.!2-i5
339
38.214
30604
!3-65
30919
39.224
3!3 De Somniis
De Mutatione Nominum 2.12
290
9.66-10.76
287
LI478 1.20.120-21 1.20.126
339 (to) 30909 30604
PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES 1.24.154
27511121
1.26.160
291
1.26.163
3101112
1.27.167
290
1.27.168
290
1.35.202
De Vita Contemplativa 9.69 De
642
VitaMosis I.I.I
376,399152
3 2ni5
1.1.1-2
374, 641
1.38.219-23
353143
1.1.4
69
1.38.219-39.225
339
1.2.7
378 3841128
J
1.38.220
338
1.2.9
2.1.5-7 2.2.11 2.2.14-15 2.2.16
339 339 339 339 (bis)
1.4.13
4381109
1.4.15
3841128
1.4.15-16
3811120
1.4.18
3841128
2.4.30-5-33 2.6.42
339 339
1.5.18-24
3821122
1.5.20
911116
2.6.46
339
1.5.20-24
901115
2.6.47
339
1.5.21
383
2.12.78 2.12.79 2.14.93-99
339 339 339
15-23
383
2.14.99 2.15-102 2.15-105
1.5.23-24
97
1.6.25
4121170
339,353144
1.6.25-29
901115
338117
1.6.27
397
339
1.6.28
53
2.15.106
3521138
1.6.29
2.15.106-7
340
1.6.31
27511121
2.16.110-16
339
1.8.43-44
4141174
s
339
1.8.44
4141174
2-37-245
539
1.9.46
434
1.11.62
43411104
2.19.13
De Specialibus Legibus 1
-6-33-35 1.8.41 1.8.45 1-9-53 1.12.67
4121170
1.1479
385130
262 4221185 3°6 119,647 4241188
1.14.82
4301196
1.16.94
430196
1.21.123
430196
1.24.135
283
1.25.141
420
i-35- 72
53
1.27.148-49
43411104
1.61.334
2631190
1.27-150
387133
1.62.337
2631190
1.27.151
390134
2.32.201
4221185
1.27.154
4121170
4-7-30-31
53
1.28.158
43411104
4.10.61
39 49
1.28.162
399150
4.17.102
642
1.29.164
4081163
4.34.176
4221185
1.29.165-66
432
I
8 n
De Vvrtutibus
1.31-174
430196
1.33-185
431199
11.75
4221185
1.38.211
43211101
32.174
4221185
1.40.221
4101166
38.208
315
38.209
3!5 8
38.210
315
143.242 1.43.243 1.44.249 1.60.328 1.60.334
323 4151176 1181147,41711 4i4i73 43411104
n I
39-2i6
235
40.223
308116
755
756
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
De Vita Mosis (continued)
3.84.236
33603
3.84.237-86.242
352138
2.1.2
43411104
2.1.3
398
3.85.238
33603
2.2.8-11
118047, 417078
frag. 8 (Harris)
344™ 9
2.2.9
1161144
2.5.26
27
Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum
2.7.37
6m8i
1.7
191
27.38-39
4i
2-5
647
2.7.41
26
2-73
53
2.9.51
43611106
2-75
53
2.13.66
422084,422085
2.85
53 (to)
2.14.68
412070
2.112-14
53
2.14.70
92020
2.117-20
53
2.18.88
53 {bis) Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin
2.21.101
54
2.23.114
54
4.10
240043
2.24.117
53064
443
264094
2.28.142
387 33
n
4.148
191139
4.157
314018
2.37.203-38.208
647
2.38.205
53
4.160
317
2.43-237 2.45.247-51 2.51-291 2.51.292
393137 43 99 397 4340104
4.161-62
314018
m
Hypothetka 7-9 11.1-18 11.14-17
53i63 52 190037
InFkccum 5.30
653
Legum Allegoriae 2.1.1
422086
4.163
30604
4.165
310011
4.168
310010,315
4.172
318026
4-!94
291,295013
4.197
314018
4.198
29204
4.199
3141118
4.206
312014
4.212
301021
4.214
297017
4.216-17
300
4.218
315118
4.220
314018 315
2.22.89
30604
4.221
3.1.2
30604 (to)
4.227
314018
3.8.26
30604
4.228
3^129
3.12.37
414075
4.229
312014
3.25.81
263090
4.232
314018
3.29.88-89
3 5
4233
298018
3.30.93
306 (to)
4.236
3 5
3.32.97-99 3.44.128
262 412070
x
n l 8
4-23
8
x
n l 8
J
3 5
Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres
3.45.129
412070
345.131
412170
20.99
247057
3.46.134
412070
45.221-46.226
53
51.256
339
6
I
3- 3- 79
30
8 n 6
>339(to)
3.63.180
310012
3.68.190
306, 30604 (to)
3.69.192-70.195
318026
Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 2.3
30806
PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES 37 1445 14.46 17.60
339 3 4n8 291 291 !
Quod D-ns Immutabilis Sit 20.92
3121114
24.111
37m72
25.116
37m72
25.119-21
339
42-3 42.4
465,475132 463114
42-5 42-6 42.7 42.8 43.1 43.2-3
476135 477 478 462 478 4721126
43-3 43.4
470 4701121
43.5
472,4811146, 4871161
Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit
757
4861160
2.13
339 9
43.6
I2.75-I3-9I
52
43-7
470,485159
44.2
482
n
Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3-4
69
6.3-18
2291112,28611148
6.17
214,638
7.4
254
8.3
254,2941110
8.4
2941110
8-7
304
49-7 49.8 50.1-2 50.6 50.8 1
57i7i 571171 (bis) 5061124 49319 571171,4931110
5I51.2
57i7i 571171,490m
51.3-6 51.6
493 o 571171,490111 57171, 4 9 0 1 1 , 4 9 3
m
8.9
33613
9-7
425192
517
9-io
379
52.2
49215
10.5
43 99
53.1
4941112
15.1
4101166
53."
5717
17.2-3
3121115
53-12
57171
19.16
396145
54-3-4
5i4
20.2
447
54-5
57i7i
25-28
290,659
56.3
5 0 6 , 5 " (to), 511113
26.10-11
3in22
56-4
57i7i, 5 2, 5 ^ 1 5
26.11
25
56.6
511,512
27.1
518119
571171 (to) 517 529
m
1
J
493HO
57.4 57-5 582
32.2
273
58.4
505122
32.3
280, 28011136, 281,
59
522
282
59-2
538
32.3-4
2941110
59-3
32.4
2521163
59-4
57i7i, 495 3, 5 i
32.5
2941110
61.2
514
32.5-6
3181126
32.6
2941110
40.2
2941110
61.5 63-3 64.2 64.5 64.8
561 5*719 571171 522 522
31.1 32.1-17
207
42.1
462,463114
42.1-4
476
5"i3 n i
6
O T H E R
GRAECO-JEWISH
WRITERS
Artapanus
9.30.3
22
ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.
9.30.8
22
9.18.1
1031131,233-34
9.23.1
347127,364n
9.23.2
342
9.27
43
8 n I 0
9.34.1-20 9.34.18
g l
6131154 616
Ezekiel the Tragedian
9
9.27.1-37
23,4031160
9-27-3 9.27.3-4 9-27-4 9.27.6
583 23 23, 384,4031160 23,583
59-64
9.27.18
414
227
52
9.27.22
206
228-29
52
9-27-35
43i
237
52
175 4021159 n
68-89
395 43
210
52
218
52
Philo the Epic Poet
Demetrius ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.
ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.
9.21.1
221110
9.21.1-19
21, 305
9-24-1
349
9.21.2
22niO
Pseudo-Eupolemus
9.21.3
221110
ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.
9.21.10
221110
9.17.3
9.21.14
221110
9- 7-4
9.21.16
2941110
9-17-5
9.21.19
221110 (bis)
9.17.6
2391139
9.29.1
221110
9.17.8
2341126
9.29.2
2941110,378
9.17.9
22
9.29.3
4021159
227, 229, 232
I
232-33,235032 22
Justus of Tiberias A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings
Eupolemus
ap. Photius, Bibliotheca
ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.26.1
33, p. 6 B 2 3 - 7 A 5
85114, 2341126, 2341126,
(FGH734T2)
399
759
40,41,52
RABBINIC
LITERATURE,
MEDIEVAL JEWISH SAMARITAN
WORKS,
LITERATURE
Mishnah
Jerusalem
'Avot
Berakot
Talmud
2:4
273m 12
1.9.4a
291
2:14
273m 14,6401126
4.7b
493mo
5:6
166114, 2521163
6:8
5781116
Horayot 2.5.46a
Baba Me$ia 2:9 Megillah
5.30b
31
4:4
30 30
4:10
72 (bis)
3.2.74a 1.15a
9ini6,381
2.20
28611150
Sanhedrin 64on26 172015
4:7
68
70
10.2.29a
595-9
12.13d
Berakot
640028 572
3.io.34d
512
7.36c
450011
Sotah 5241119
1
259080
1.6a
487,487n63
5021118
1.8
483,483051,
264094
1.17b
4721127,483n5i
Sanhedrin Sotah 3:11
6
Sheviit
Tosefta
4:5
5651125
10.28b
6 (end)
4:6
192
2.20a
Shabbat
Yadaim
4:1
448
Sanhtdrin
(Hddushin
10:1
1601134
Peak
Nedarim
4:14
4721127
Megillah
4:4-10
2:1
352n4i
Ketubot
4^53
3:12
2421147
5.20c
565
3:15
472027
7.5
45
6:6
2431149 9.24b
4551114 56in20
8:1-4
n i
455 4 761
o n i 2
>
762
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Taanit 65c!
2061157, 27811132
4.8.68c!
3151120,542ml
Yoma 4.4 id Babylonian
6071148 Talmud
Arakin 17a
71
Avodah Zarah 8b
68
10b
324
36a
6341111,644
43^ 43b Baba Batra
349n35 601
4a
632118,6451135
14b
1691110,4131172,
16a
2591181
i6b-i7a
291
17a
5611122
447, 537
61 a
462 (bis)
62b
557
63b 64a 'Eruvin 18b 21b Gittin
89a 115b 124a Ketubot 27b 60a Makkot
37513 28611150 448
23b
541 3801118
121b
4501112
3
122a
452
4a 9 n 6
365163 9im6,381 492,583
Megillah
Baba Me$ia 6
m i
45 3 86 61 86,5321132 598 2441151
120a
3 5
462 (bis) 572,5841125
46a 56a 56b 57b 68a 75b Hullin
91a
39b
533H34 4841154
a
a
27, 636, 6361117 361137 271116, 29, 41115c l 6
3
n
n
5 3 > 393 3<
59b
568
ga-b
83b-84a
152
nb
6061146
86b
2491159,28611150,
13a
67
589 Baba Qamma 91b
532n32
97b
2351129
67
n
13b
525 2i
14a
192, 225, 2871115
14b
207,444113
n i
379 3
Bekorot 8b
2311118
44a
921119,3821122
Berakot
15a
632118
18a
361137
25a
557
25a-b
381139,72
28a
292114
3b
562
4a
5621123 (bis)
7b
6391121
9a
9b
4201182
16b
549 4
10a
70,562
28b
1961146
Mded Qatan 6031143 n i
Nedarim
10b
492
12a
38041 (bis)
32a
247,2471157
24b
448
32b
2391141,2401142
48b
513
54b
921119,45
55a
426
58a
541
4841154
6 n i 6
>
38a
483, 492, 578
65a
71
Qiddushin 32b 49a
n i 6
n
3 ! 3 > 347 28 441153
RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL JEWISH, SAMARITAN LITERATURE
Rosh Hashanah 2 ib 25a Sanhedrin
572 (bis)
gb-ioa
4721127
10a
4661110, 4661112, 467, 4671114,
8 n
53 5
467015, 468, 471024, 482
n
14a
3i5 20
20b
502,5021118,
(bis), 4851157, 485060,
5051120, 574,
487062, 513 (bis)
574n8 6171161
12a
380017
24a
4841154
i2a-b
379m 6
25b
3941141
12b
3 7 9 3 > 3811119,
38b
539
21b
763
ni
381020, 425091
n
39b
3!5 2o
48b-49a
595 34
n
58a
4791H2
68a
6011138
69b
28711154
89b
2471156,267099,
91a
2341127
93a
632117,6361117
280, 292
93b
72, 631115, 632
93b-94a
6361117
94a
636
96a
107,235
98a
152
98b
1521118,538114, 5611122, 6351112
13b 30b 3 b-3 a 48b Sukkah
3971147 3701169 455014 561020
14a 26b Taanit 16a 23a Tamid
477 38 562
29a Tevamot 5b
597H35
3
4
n
292 189
2820141
21a
572 115
104b
573,6021141
22b
107b
6031143
64a
n
477 38
io8a-b
166
88a
3651163
109a
2641194
96b-97a
5621123
Toma
i09a-b
2421147
ma
4671114
22b
512, 517, 524, 529,
14b
572
28b
2860150
30a
731193,558, 6031143
35b
346
30b
5621123
39b
607048
33b
1911138
45a
55b
54i
52a-b
170
73b
60080
77a
633010
Shabbat
6
5 a
540
448
n
73, 73 93> 165112, 558 (bis)
56b
6171161 (bis)
62a
6011138
Minor
89b
292
"Avot de-Rabbi Nathan
Tractates
150a
2341127
39
4021159
156a
2341127
121
469018
Sotah
2 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan
5a
2391141
9b
463, 469, 474, 483,
45 125 Derek Ere$ Rabbah
538n4
4831151, 484,
5
67088
4871163
Perek Ha-shakm
475 31» 4761136
n
764
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Minor
Tractates
(continued)
Soferim
on Judg. 3:24
136
on Num. 11:7
29
1:7
67
on Num. 12:1
402n6o
1:8
271116,29
on Num. 22:22
428^4
on 1 Sam. 17:4
482^0
Targumim
Targum Sheni
Fragmentary Targum (2 Targum Yerushalmi)
6 n
8
on Gen. 22:10
272ni09
1:2
3 3 6071148
on Num. 23:10
29
1:5-7
6071148
Neofiti 3i8n28 on Gen. 22:10
272ni09
1:16
632n8
8:12
36
Tosefta-Targum
on Gen. 25:27
314
on Judg. 17:2
on Gen. 25:34
29
on 1 Sam. 4:12
514
on 1 Sam. 11:2
517
on 1 Sam. 17:4
468ni6
Onkelos n I
on 1 Chron. 21:13
554 7
on Esther 4:5
632n8
on Gen. 4:13
28
Midrashim
on Gen. 11:2
28
Aggadat Bereshit
on Gen. 25:23
317
on Gen. 25:27
314
64on28
Bate Midrashot 3.32, ch. 52
on Gen. 25:30
3i8n27 l
and other rabbinic works
27.55
3i6n2i
on Gen. 25:25
4821148
n i 6
47in24
Beit Hamidrash (ed.Jellinek) n
on Gen. 37:3
3 3
4.86-87
573
on Gen. 41:45
3471126
4.145-46
573
on 1 Kings 21:27
29
on 2 Kings 3:11
29
4.i4 -47 4.148-50
on 2 Kings 3:13
29
on 2 Kings 3:15
29
on 2 Kings 4:11
72
on 2 Kings 9:20
29
on 2 Kings 13:14
29
, 347 28
6
4-151-52 5.167-68 6.25-26 Deuteronomy Rabbah
Pseudo-Jonathan (Yerushalmi)
573 573 573 540,562n22 540,562n22 n
1.15
3i9 30
5.8-11
502ni8
on Deut. 32:1-43
4231187
5.14
450ml
on Exod. 16:13 ff.
29
11.10
911117, 38oni8,
on Gen. 6:14
69
on Gen. 11:28
9oni4
on Gen. 11:29
28, 287ni54
38i-82n2i, 382n23 Dime Hayamim shelMoshe
on Gen. 12:11
259n8i
on Gen. 18:8
2 4 9 ^ 9 , 286ni50
402n6o
on Gen. 20:12
287ni54
1.7.9
on Gen. 21:14
245^2
i-ii
572 468
Ecctesiastes Rabbah
on Gen. 22:1
268ni02, 276ni23
1.18.1
on Gen. 25:34
29
3.14
on Gen. 26:2
292
7.23, no. 4
on Gen. 27:15
3i6n20
on Gen. 27:31
323 35
n
on Gen. 27:41
3i6n20
on Gen. 35:8
29
9.2
323H34
286ni50 574 472n27
Esther Rabbah 1.1
6061146
Exodus Rabbah
on Gen. 37:13
309n8
1.8
378n8
on Gen. 41:45
3471126
1.18
379iii6
RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL J E W I S H , SAMARITAN LITERATURE i.ig 1.20
3801118 3801117,3801118
1.22 1.24 1.25
379 3 3811119,4251191 3811120
1.26
911117,3821123, 3841128
1.27 1.32
4 59 i59 3 67 3801118
11.3 11.20 l
15- 5 16.4
n I
0 2 n
n
6
63 63.8 63.12-13
3161120
64.6
292
65.5-7
3*5™*°
65.10
292,315020 3 ! 9 3 0 (to)
65.21
72, 315020, 324,
66.3
485
542011 67.5
487063 3!9 3 322033 322-23034
3151120 72
78.12
524 Genesis Rabbah I.I.I
4941111,649038 (bis) 598 37on69
6.9
447
6.28
4571117
12.11 19-7
2351129 378
n
29204,542ml
21.7
6401128
1
3 9 3°
67.7
3i4 35.5
n
65.16
67.12 76.2 78.9
20.20
477H38 3161120
2
9 492,492115
n
0
84.7
341011
84.8 84.12
34 23> 3 4 7 8 3141117
85.2 85.6 87.3 87.7
3621157 487062 341011 352041
89-9 904
363 347 26
6n
n 2
n
34-19
532n32
90.6
3621157,366
36.7 38 38.13
68-69 9° 4 2321121
9!-5 91.7 91.7-8
3621157 3 5 63 358051
39
2291111
92.4
39.13
168118
39.14
2321121
42.3
236 (bis)
97 98.2 98.13
43
n i
765
6
n
35^51 485 636 463,46304,468, 469,469018
2391141
(quater)
44.4-5
236
45
4 2
46
2571173
470, 470020,
48
28611149
48.14
28611150
471, 485, 488064
6
98.14
46303, 469 (to),
50.4
2401144 (bis)
98.20
352041
50.9
28711152
99.11
468,485
52.12
4721127
100.3
3 3 5
53
2441151
55-4
2671199,292
55-5
27611123
55-9
2581176
6
5 -2
239
564
292
56.8
27611122,27711127, 292
56.15
2061157,27811132
100.11
6
6
n
8
n
3 4 59
Hadar 00 Exocl. 6:1
29102
ImreNo'am 00 Exod. 6:1
29102
Jerahmeel 45-56
402060
Leviticus Rabbah 2.11
282
y66
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS on Gen. 23b
Leviticus Rabbah (continued)
471^4
5-3
468
on Gen. 88a
463114
8
484
on Gen. 183b
483, 4 8 3 ^ 1 ,
8.2
483 5 > 4841153
on Gen. i83b-i84a
4701119
on Gen. 184a
467ni4, 469ni8, 472^7
n
4841153
I
n
9
475 3i
9.9
4761136
"•5
2471157
on Lev. 145a
11.7
4501112
on Num. 15b
472^7
12.5
6171161
on Num. 95b
467ni4
17.6
450ml
19.6
71
20
4721127
20.1
4881164
20.8-9
167
4 8 5 ^ 8 , 487n63
on Num. 156
487
p. 625 Schechter
3641162
Midrash Jonah 97
i6on33
Midrash Leqah Tov
21.2
5611121
on Gen. 16:11
462
23.7
2591180
on Gen. 25:21
477 38
23.9
4871163
on Gen. 49:16
4851157
25.6
240042
on Gen. 49:17
47on20
25.7
2591180
6
3 -5
292
107
5611121 379 3
2a
5611120
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael ib
6
n
4 3 3 258n75
Mekilta Devarim 5-6
502ni8
Mekilta Shira 2.362
472n27
Midrash Aggada
572
20.88
6o6n46
22.29
6021141
31.24 31.27
6361117 b
632n8
Midrash Proverbs I-I
n i
10 Mekilta Bo
55 on Exod. 12:13
Midrash Megillah 176
Mekilta Beshalah (Shirata)
n
463n4 72
Midrash Psalms 1.5 3-7
64on24 468
5-52
538114
7-63
5i4
8.7
4841156
174
5541117
18.4
469m 8
on Exod. 4:24
29in2
18.6
488n64
on Gen. 17:8
445 5
19.160
561021
on Gen. 21:1
29in2
19.244
56m2i
on Gen. 112
467ni4
19-533
5611121
on Num. 138
467ni4
25.212
492115,494 2
1.96 (ed. Buber)
364n62
57298
538114
68.318
291
n
Midrash Hagadol (ed. Schechter)
nl
1.337
72,462
75.340
538n4
1.397
292114
no
236
1.407-8
291
118.11
287ni54
1.409
291
Midrash Samuel
1.752
472n27
1.46
494iii2
2.13
483
2.12
4931110
100a
477 38
34
492
on Deut. 13a
469ni8
3.72
4931110
on Gen. 22:19
252n64
5.60
64on28
n
RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL J E W I S H , SAMARITAN LITERATURE
6.
3
767
478040,483,
468
9-74-75
492n5
n-78-79
5i4
12.4
607048
14.89
5i7
14.1
6021141
i8.99-!oo
5291126
14.2
229ml
18.100
5301128
14.9
4 6 3 , 4 6 7 n i 4 , 471,
20
192
20.5
8
5491114
21.109
5611121 (bis) 5051123 554HI7
316
4701120
323 on Gen. 25:21
485H57 477 38 n
Midrash Tanhuma B 1, pp. 73 (Buber) 1? PP- 7 3 - 7 4 (Buber) ij pp. 7 5 - 7 6 (Buber)
236 235033 236
n
4 7 63
n I
549 4
21.1
24-4 3i-1 Midrash Sekel Tov on Genesis
487
19.3 22.7 23.5 Pdaneah on Exod. 6:1 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 2.343-44 4
23oni4 468 463113 29in2 378 492115,636017
7.11
542ml
11
291
27
472n27
127
56m2i
Pesiqta Rabbati
Midrash Tanhuma Lek Leka
691190
15 236 Midrash Tannaim (ed. Hoffmann)
3-iob
357H49
4.13a
69 6021141
4
4im68
6
16
469ms
6.23
632n8
103-4
502m 8
6.25a
599 36
186
376114
11
554ni7
192-204
4231187
1459
194
264n94
14.61
224
3971147
25.127b
29in3
26
69
Midrash Vayosha 2521163 Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Midrash Agur) 151 Nispahim Leseder Eliyahu %uta 44
492
n
572 636ni7
26.129
71
43.182a
492
47.190
247n 7 5
Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 467ni4
Numbers Rabbah
10.72-73
i6on33
11
606046
17
236
3-8 8 (end)
492115 444113
22
295012
9
485n6o
23
522
9.24
469, 472n27,474,
25
482, 4851157,
251062, 2641194,
485058,487, 487n62, 488n63
2401144,2421147, 2870152 n
2
10.3
468
26 30
379 i 244050
10.5
462 (ter), 462n2,
31
252064,2770127,
475n3i> 476n36
33
5321132
(bis), 477,
38
477H38,477n39> 478 (quater),
48
292
463, 463114 (bis),
3*41117,347H28, 384028 247057
j68
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (continued) 48.21 52 53 Ruth Rabbah 2.1 (126a)
384028 6 n i
45 7,63208 4 7 2 4 > 631115 m
5.24
467ms
8 (beginning) 13 13-65 16.88
554^7 286ni5o 247n 7 71 5
Seder Eliyahu %uta 444n3 379 2 247n57 n I
Seder Ohm Rabbah 1
276ni22, 276ni23
12
357 Sijre Numbers 67
444113
Seder Eliyahu Rabbah
22.37 25 2.174
313 334.3
542
268 i5oni6,3441118 397*47 378n8
69
3221133,324
78
444113, 54i (bis) n
101 on Num. 12:3 Sijre Zuta
375 3 376114
75 Song of Songs Rabbah
444H3
I - I , no. 5 1.1, no. 9 1.1, no. 10 1.1, nos. i o - n
573 572 (bis) 574, 6061146 572
1.5
6021141
1.26
9ini6
3.6
3i6n20
3.9
6o7n48 56in2i
14
577HI5
4.4
20
56in20,6o5n45,
4.8
4im68
5-i
378 247n57
636m 7 2.21
287ni54
28.124
6541149
Sefer ha-Tashar 379ni2, 402n6o
5.22 7.9
6 3 5 m l , 640028
30.16
247n57
Tanhuma
51.20
3651163
3.68
147
3ogn8
on Num. 34
Exodus I 3 i b - i 3 2 b
3 8 2 ^ 3 , 382n25
Lek Leka 31 a
25gn81
Mikkez 100b
3651163
Vqyera 43b
267n99, 280
Vayeshev 82b
3641160 2341127
Shalshelet Haqqabala 402n6o Sifra Behuqotai
189^4
Sifra Qedoshim 1.10.87a
282ni4i
end
259n8o
Sijre Deuteronomy 17 27 32 43 109b 156 307-33
Tanhuma Ahare 1 9 Tanhuma Beshalah 12
472n27 457 472ni7
Tanhuma Emor
Sefer Tuhasin
1.1 (ed. Weiss nob)
457ni7 463^
4 Tanhuma Exodus 8 8.9 Tanhuma Ki Tissa
n 8
382n23 3 8 i n 2 i , 3841128
5
72
19
4281194
Tanhuma Lek Leka 5
493 469m 8 272ni09 264n94 19^38 502m 8 423 7
5051123
13
259n8i 273
Tanhuma Mikkez 4 Tanhuma Mishpatim
4831151
9 Tanhuma Naso
72
9
607
RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL JEWISH, SAMARITAN LITERATURE
Tanhuma Qedoshim 13
^
2471157
Tanhuma Re eh 14
291113
Tanhuma Shelah (ed. Buber) 27
477n38
1.145
487n62
1.161
467ni4
1.166
382n2i
1.765
467ni4
1.814
46gni8
921119
2.63
4 7
2.68
462,475H3
2.69
466nio, 466ni2,
Tanhuma Terumah 7
462
1.110
248
Tanhuma Shemot 54b
1.79
i54n2i, 6511143
Tanhuma Via era 171
4701120
Tanhuma Vayera 15a
2401144
Tanhuma Vayeshev 9 Tanhuma Vayikra 8 end
37
o n 6
9
3 1
4841153^ 4871162 4671115,472n27,
2.71
485,485^8
474,482 n i
2.165
554 7
2.491
46314
2.979
472n27
on E x o d u s 1.166
92m 9
on 1 K i n g s 18:26
69
Yalqut Exodus i6on33
Tanhuma Ve-ethanan 1
n 6
2.70 379m6
Tanhuma Vayehi 12
8
467ni4,483^1, 3821121
Tanhuma Vayaqhel 4
769
47in27
Tanhuma B
16.8
428n94
171
4281194
Yalqut ha-Makiri on Isaiah 111
46gn 18
Introduction, 157
572
on Ps. 1.86
47in24
1.in
639^1
on Ps. 2.31
466nio, 466m2
2.91-92
i 5 4 2 i , 65in43
on Ps. 2.68
47in24
2.122
379ni6
on Ps. 2.103
469ni8
3-45
532n3i
on Ps. 118.28
542n8
n
3-79
247n 7
4.33
697148
on E x o d . 11
2gin2
5.24
29in3
on G e n . 26:2.36c
237^6
P. 179
345H2I
Yashar. See Sefer ha-Yashar
5
Tanhuma B, Ahare 1
Yelammedenu 472n27
Tanhuma B, Exodus 33 7 Tanhuma B, Genesis 1
191
7i i59 32
on Psalm 78
247^7
ioon25
M e d i e v a l a n d R e n a i s s a n c e biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s a n d other m e d i e v a l J e w i s h works
5211115
A b a r b a n e l , Isaac
472n27
Benjamin o f T u d e l a
on 1 K i n g s 9:11
Tanna de-vei Eliyahu Rabbah. See Seder Eliyahu Rabbah
74-76
n
593 3
2
636ni4
Bibago, A b r a h a m
Tanna de-vei Eliyahu %uta. S e e Seder Eliyahu £uta Yalqut Reuveni
Derek Emunah 46b
584 Yalqut (Shimoni)
402^9
n
Tanhuma B, Ve-ethanan 1
on Yalqut 1.738 on Yalqut 2.819
Tanhuma B Leviticus 82
Yalqut Reubeni
572
Ibn AH, Jepheth on D a n . 2:1
654149
770
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Medieval and Renaissance biblical commentaries and other medieval Jewish works (continued) Ibn Ezra, Abraham on Dan. 1:3 632n6 on Deut. 1:1 169, 328 Ibn Hasdai, Abraham Ben ha-Melek ve-ha-Nazir 24 572n3 Josippon 403n6o 1.2 Kimhi
3241138
on Judg. 17:2 Maimonides Commentary on the Mishnah Sanhedrin, introduction to ch. 10 Mishneh Torah Teshuvah 3.8 Petahiah 7b Rashi on Berakot 61 a on Gen. 20:12
4821148
375n3 640026 636ni4 462 287ni53
on Gen. 21:9 on Gen. 37:10 on Judg. 17:2 on 1 Sam. 9:7 on Sotah 10a dei Rossi, Azariah Me or Einayim Shu'aib Va-liggash 21a Tosafot on Gittin 57b Zohar 1.112b
243048 354*45 482048 526 466m 2
69 29102 532n32 242047
Samaritan Literature Book of Asatir p. 2 9 - 3 0 7on92, 38oni6 9.13 38in20 Chronicon Samaritanum (ed. Juynboll) 26-32 450ml Memar Marqah i-2 4-7 5-4 6.6
397*47 397*47 397*47 397047
CHRISTIAN C H U R C H
FATHERS Hippolytus
Augustine Enarrationes in Psalmos
ap. Jerome, Epistles 36
On Ps. 80:14
J
(=Migne, PL 22.460)
n i
3 5 9
(=Corpus Irenaeus
Christianorum 39.1129, line 70)
Against Heresies
466ml
n i
4.21.2-3
3!5 9
Aquinas, Thomas Jerome
Contra Gentiles 3.64, Amplius, Eorum
Adversus Jovinianum
264^3
1.25 Chronicon 92.396
632n8
Commentaria in Ezechielem
Paschale
23.22 ff. (=PL 25.220;
636ni4
Corpus Christianorum 75.313, lines 1054-55)
Clement Of Alexandria 11.1
in Epistolam
255n67
ad Philemonem 752
Paedagogus 3.11.68.3
(=PL 26.645)
486n6o
46ml
On Dan. 1:3
Quis Dives Salvetur 10.1
473n27
Commentarii
Epistles
On Isaiah 39.7
I48ni3
632n8 631^
On Isaiah 43:27 1.135
247^7
Epistuk ad Eustochium
Ephraem Syrus
22.35 (=PL 22.421)
2870152
669
Liber Lnterpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum
Eusebius
50 (=PL 23.855; Corpus
Chronica (ed. Schone) 2.54 (=Griechische Christliche
Christianorum 72.101,
Schriftsteller 47.62a,
lines 23-24)
lines 1 6 - 1 9 ) Demonstratio Evangelica 6.18.34-42
{PL 28.1324-25) Vulgate on Gen. 19:14
72
Praeparatio Evangelica 4.12-13
466m 2
Preface to the Book of Chronicles
466ml
28411146
771
44 287ni52
772
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS
Pseudo-Cyprian
Justin M a r t y r Dialogue with Trypho
De Montibus
8
1021129
31
630113
SinaetSion
1
ni
35 9
Pseudo-Epiphanius Lactantius
Vitae Prophetarum
629m
Institutiones Divinae 1.2.5
2621189
7.3
2641192,
Pseudo-Justin Cohortatio ad Gentiles
2641193 Origen
375
Sextus Julius Africanus
Adnotationes
ap. Eusebius,
in Judices 73 (PG 17.37) Commentaria
9
Praeparatio 469*17
Evangelica 10.10.23
(6.18)
227
in Evangelium Joannis 1.23
463
H o m i l y o n Ezek. 14:14 (PG 13.703-4)
Oratio ad Graecos ^32n8
37
De Haeresibus
Quaestiones et 466n 11
Responsiones 22
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2-5
616
Theodoret
Philastrius 8 (=PG 92.237)
Tatian
n
59 76
47on22
INSCRIPTIONS Inscriptions Lnscriptiones Graecae 22.2153 Augustus, Monumentum Ancyranum
AND
PAPYRI
10
108
Literary Papyri, London 30 British Museum inv. 271 By lands Papyrus 1.26
Papyri Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs
458 3601154, 648
773
374-75*2 375*2 374*2 34
CLASSICAL G R E E K Achilles Tatius 1.4.2-5 5.11.6 5.14.2 Aeschines 2.172-76
Aeschylus Agamemnon 176-78 228-30 Choephoroe 613-22 653 Persians 465-70 Prometheus Bound 444 459 485 904 1034 Seven against Thebes 537 Aesop ap. Diogenes Laertius 1.3
A U T H O R S Alexander Polyhistor On the Jews
330041 37o 7! 370071
36, 54on7
n
ap. Clement, Stromata 1-21.130.3 ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.
9-i9 293 9.20 293n7 ap. Plutarch, Parallela Graeca et Romana 40B (315EF) 404n6o ap. Suidas s.v. AXe^avapos 6
164
181 527
Mi&rjoios
185 542n8
Andocides 3.3-12
518
(Anonymous) Apolhnius of Tyre
5821122
374
164
86n6
587 100
Antipater of Tarsus 3.109
173 180
27imo7
Antiphon ap. Diogenes Laertius 8.3
542
23oni5
Antonius Diogenes ap. Porphyry, Vita Ppthagorae 275ni2i
"
Alexander of Lycopolis
349*34
Aphthonius ap. Spengel, vol. 2
Contra Manichaei Opiniones Disputatio 24
540
21-56
293
775
776
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Apion
Aristophanes Acharnians
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.21-27
2571174
2.38
150
2.68
141
2.89-96
117
395 Clouds
542 1121138 374111 5451113 105
2.91-96
241
2.121
117
2.125
589
553-54 680 849 973 Frogs
2.135 2.148
97,346 117
480 Lysistrata
545 3
772-73 Thesmophoriazusae
2750121
226 Wasps
545 3
Apollodorus Bibliotheca 1.7.2
133 nI
n i
n i
1.7.4
9<> 5
1297-98
34 2,542n8
1.9.1
285
1307
34 2,542n8
1.9.1-2
285
m i
m i
1.9.28
352*140
Aristotle
2.4.1
1771122
De Divinatione per Somnum
2.4.7
4041160
3.12.5
1771122
3.15.8
4041160
ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.19.2 9.19.2-3 9.19.3 ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2-79 2.145-50 2.148
ff.
359 52
464A20
ff.
359 52
55.1250B22-23 228,247 86,292-93
1.4.1095A16-20
270
1.7.1098A16-18
291
230 230 106,228,
Apollonius of Tyre Erotica
1.7.1098A19
226
2.7.1107B22
126
4.3.1123A33-1125A35
413,554
4.3.1123C34-25A17
97, 464, 465
4.3.1124A21-22
85 112
Poetics 2561172
Appian Civil War 430
9.1451A-B
6
9.1451B5-11
6
9.1451B10
4
9.1452A1-2
7
11.1452A22-B8
440
13.1453A7-17
179
15.1454A28-31
28111139
Politics
Archilochus 58
126
Mcomachean Ethics
4.4.1125B7-27
2.149
191
305,342ni4
543
43
n
De Generatione Animalium 775A De Vvrtutibus et Vitiis
Apollonius Molon
n
463B15
27511121
Archytas of Tarentum ap. Stobaeus
5.7.1307A1
499, 563, 6121152
8.2.1337B9-14
474
8.2.1337B21
474
Rhetoric
4.1.132
114
4.1.135-38
114
1.1.1355A21-24
104
4.5.61
114
1.9.1366B5-6
113
7118
C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S
2.I5.I390BII-30 3.I4.7.I4I5A-B
ap. Diogenes Laertius
85 3811121
7.139
ap. Clearchus of Soli, De Somno, ap. Josephus, Ag.Ap.
620
ap. Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 39.1052D
1.179
97, 237036
1.182
no, 112, 633-34,
62in7i
ap. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 2.40
621
644 Cleanthes Aristoxenus
ap. Cicero, DeNatura Deorum
fr. 13 (Wehrli)
2301115
1.14.37
620
ap. Stobaeus, Eclogues Arrian
1.112
Anabasis
438nio8
ap. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
1.1-3
101113
1.26
430
1-527
194
Clearchus ap. Stobaeus, Eclogues
Bacchylides 13 (i2).i82-89
1.171
612051
!5.54-55
193
612^1 Conon
Battle of the Frogs 13
and
Narrationes
Mice 86
44
Berossus ap. Josephus, Ant. 1.158
115, 223-24,
9
o n i
5
Ctesias ap. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.32.4 41
232 Damocritus Callisthenes
ap. Suidas
Phocian War
s.v. AaixoKpiros
117, 241
9 Democritus fr. 30
Gelsus ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.21
249 395-9
275m 21 611
6
Demosthenes Chaeremon
37-623
439
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.290
342,347
1.299
342
Chariton 1.16-17
Dio Cassius 44.6.4
no
47.40
439
I
57- 8-5a 330
158,383 n
66.5 67.14
i59 3° J
59
Choerilus Dio Chrysostom
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.172-75
106
Chrysippus ap. Cicero, DeNatura Deorum 1.15.39
620
Orations 1.12-13
434
n i 0
5
1.15-16
434
n i 0
5
1.21
434
n I 0
5
1.38
434
n i 0
5
777
77<9
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
D i o C h r y s o s t o r n (continued) n
i-7° I-8I 3-5 -54 18.6-7
353 43 353 43 434 5 1751120 n
J
n i 0
Diodorus
1.64.4
7,396
1.76.1 i-792.18 2.38 2.40.3
88nn 9^92,385 !27n54 404n6o 7 n i o , 2ogn6o
10
2.56.2
7,396
1.2.2
126, 127054
2.62.5
127
1.14.1
343
2.68
8, i27n53
l
343
2.68.1-2
209
l l
343
2.70.5
7nio
-*5-6
- 5&
1.17.1
405n6i
2.74.5
2ogn6o
!-!7-3 1.18.3-4 1.18.4 1-27-3-4 !-54-3 1-54-6 1.55.1
343 4051161 343 343 343 343 405n6i
3.36.5
7 n i o , 209n6o
4.62
496
4.92
1271154
4.777-78
8ni2
4.778
8ni2, 126,
5.21.2
503 9
I28n55
1-94-1-5 2.14.4
375 4051161
5-7
4-38-3-5 4-39-1-2 10.7 12.20.1-3
395 395 643 27n54
6.62
J
Diogenes Laertius 3.2
88
7.84
no
n i
1
6.7
n I
5°3 9 8 1
271154
6.63
1271153
6.78.4
198
8.35.3
269ni04
10.17.1
94
10.54
8
13-5-3 De Thucydide
1271154
7.119
126
5
4i
7.130
271
7
10
7-149 10.32
194 6041144
Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 7, cols. 1-2 (Chilton)
8 45 Epistula ad Pompeium 6
41 45 5
6o4n44 Dionysius of Heraclea
Diogenianus Epicureus
3-34
271
fr. 3, ap. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 6.8.36
I48ni3
Diotogenes ap. Stobaeus
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
4.7.61
Antiquitates Romanae
4.7.62
non36
7.7.61
g6n22
392n36 1.2.1-3.6
8
I-5-I
7 i27n 96, 1271154 7, i98n49 71110, 209n6o 7 m o , 2ogn6o
1.5.2 i-5-3 1.9-2.29 1.48.1 1.48.4
5 4
114
Epicharmus Diels-Kranz B 12
62on6g
Epictetus Encheiridion 7
262
CLASSICAL GREEK AUTHORS
30 ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 1.6.28-29 2.14.11 2.14.13 4.1.62 4.1.68 4.6.34
272
271-310
127,421 262 434*105 1481113 1481113 27111107
Epimenides 1
116
1146 1256 Iphigenia among the Taurians 221-28 258-59 385-91 386-91 Iphigenia at Aulis
779
370 176 176 284, 2850147 2840145 2840145 2840145 44 175020, 272, 276, 283, 2850147,
Eupolis fr. 78(Kock)
112038
Euripides Alcestis 20 Andromeda
28511147 175 1751120
Bacchae 283, 2830142 665 884-86 Cyclops 429 Electra 785 ff. 816 838 1024-25 Erechtheus
539 180 117 2850147 2850147 2850147 2850147 2850147
94-98 98 122 359-60 396 590-91 1211-53 1255-75 1374-1401 1396 1524-25 Medea
175020 655 280
340-41 1032 Phoenissae 146 555-57 I255-5 Suppliants
Helen 17-21 7 ~ 5 1301 Heracleidae II
I
613-14 Hercules Furens 123 323-24 324 Hippolytus
44 275 176
175020 54209 175020
44 175 245, 270, 283
612-13 971-80 fr. 716, lines 3-4 [Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2460, fr. 32]
75 6
176-524
322 Telephus
!
Trojan Women
2850147 275
J
255068, 2850147 542 75 79
2
8
Hecuba 2850147
527 256070 256 283 256070 176, 275 176,270 2810139 278 283 281,298-99 118, 176, 284
272, 3 9 370
2850147 275 43
275m 21
Galen On the Diagnosis and Cure of the Soul's Passions 8 I02n2g
j8o
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Gorgias fr. 6 D
27211108
2
586
2-3 2.35
345 242
Hecataeus o f Abdera
2.44
616
ap. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica
2.75
176 343
1.69.7
4i
2.107
40-3-3
375, 496, 540
2.110
405n6i
2.121
5841124
40.3.4
137
40.3.5
117
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap.
2.123
209n6o
3.14
I76n2i, 268ni04 107,404
1.200-204
106
3.17-26
1.201
106
3.23 3-25
i68n6 404
Heliodorus
3.38
242
Aethiopica
3.80-83
144
369
3.82
1.10
3701171
3-89
3.54-5 7.20 7.25 10.16
330*41 37on7i 3701171 285
3-97 3.122.1
190
8
n
3 5 29
Hellanicus 375
8nio 186
4.147
85
5-59
ap. Photius, Lexicon
404-5
4.111-16 5.45
Helladius
343,434 435
209n6o 85
6.52
85
6.76
622
7.14-18
177
7-i7
i77
7.60
522
7.101-5
104
Heraclides o f Pontus
7.134
622
ap. Diogenes Laertius
7.187
285
7-197
285
8.68
395H44
Heraclitus (Philosoper) Epistles 284m 46
7.204
85
7.224
85
8.3
611
8.100
5451113
8.131
85
Heraclitus (scholar)
9.19
622
Quaestiones Homericae
938
622
23
620 Hesiod
Herodotus
Tkeogony
1.8-12
186
211-13
100
1.11
3701171
226-30
612
1.30
I76n2i, 271
1.60
209
384 605 901-3
439 280 611
1.107
88
1.114
382
1.136
116,465
9°2 Works and Days
1.139
116
6
1.211
564
9o-93
6
5 3 275ni2i 172
C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S 212
ff.
5801120
225
ff.
6121151
331
268
Homer Iliad
6 6.100 6.137-41 6.138 6.151 6.198-210
ff.
33° 440 186 266 266 186,266
1.1 1.51-52 1.63
465,47! 265 100
9-364-67 9.478
546 122
10.327
172
170 1.84-91
59 351
11
129,28111139
11.94
172
97
543
11.136
618
1.423
587
1 1
191 346
I J
3.161-242
308
436-39 12.117
3-3!5
172
13-399
543
3-344
172
I
543
6
122
14.2
172
6.77
546
14.47
172 26811103
343
I
6.123-231
85,307
15.246
6.234-36
528
15.348
268
6.476-81
308
16.211-12
27511121
8.491
172
17.384
377117
9.186-87
105
19.365-68
618
I
1
19.405-12
576nn
9- 89 9.410-16 9.432-605 10.231 10.498 10.520
545,55 521 535 172 172 172
13474
172
De Vita Pythogorica
14.90-91
172
15.686
6191163,
17.469-70
528
57 10, p. 11, lines 6 - 7 11 Protrepticus
17.547
166
18.249-309
103
6211172
19.560
26811103
23.283
618
Iamblichus
21
528
Isocrates
19.408-17
214
Ad Demonianum
21.430
172
22.60
172, 184, 268
36
280
221
22.304-5
521
Archidamas
22.370
91
23-141
543
24
J
29,555
Odyssey
643
1141140
8, 10
6i6n59 3m
Busiris 28
23oni5
Evagoras
3.67-68
241
3.104
172
3 22-23 71 Helen
4.209-10
618
»
185
88 91 23oni5
Antidosis
22.38-76
184,268
IOI
23.212
19.86-90
24.487
ff.
3 9 82 3
1
781
782
PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S
Lysimachus
I s o c r a t e s (continued)
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap.
Mcocles 5 Panathenaicus
434
1.305-6
362
1 1
3 m (bis)
13051.309
385 117
121-22 Panegryricus
Manetho
9 167-68
3 3m
33
23CT115
ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap.
Julian Contra Galilaeos 209D-E
306
218B
107
224C-D
579
238C
4161177
340A
349 34
354A
293
n
342m5 342,349*35 342ni5> 345 342ni5> 349*35 385 342ni5> 349*35
Marcus Aurelius Meditations 6-4
193
Megasthenes
Lucian
Indica
Alexander the False Prophet
ap. Clement of
89
Alexandria, Stromata
Cynic 13 De Dea Syria 12 De Morte Peregrini
1.238-39 1.238-50 1250 1.265 1-279 1.286
395*42
1.5.72.5
237n36
Menander
133 395*44
fr. 671 (Kock)
269nio4
Deorum Concilium 395*44 Philopseudeis 16
105-6
Menander of Laodicea flepl €7TL8€IKTLK(A)V 1.17-20 346.26
Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit
I
3112, 27811129, n i
279 33 1
1751120
7
nni6
I
2-37 - 7-372.2
82 126 7 90
Musaeus Hero and Dander 6
10
2091160
17
8
37
1
0
6
47
4i
49
106
60
8mo
Musonius On Kingship ap. Stobaeus 4.7.67
114
Nicarchus ap. Photius, Lexicon
Lycurgus
s.v. aX>a
Against Leocrates 40
37°* 9
385n29
26911104 Nicolaus o f Damascus ap. Josephus, Ant.
Lysias 25.26
610
7.101
540
30.13
610
16.179-83
540
C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S
Nonnus
7-21
Dionysiaca
7-38
395*44
395*44
6.269
383
8-5
395*44
27.228
383
8.7
395*44
8.29
395*44
Numenius ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.8
Pindar 4281194
Isthmian Odes 2.26
Palatine Anthology 11.442
439
Nemean Odes 163
Parthenius
6 i
7-99 10.8
9 265
Olympian Odes 13.6
612
1.1 5 9.18
330 4041160 4041160
Pythian Odes 2.51-52
27511121
21
4041160
2.89
27511121
22
4041160
4.286
549*15
Pausanias
Plato
1.2.1
4041160
Apology
1.5.2
285
35B
545*13
1.22.1
369
38A
584 280
4-94-5
285
41C
10.410
395
Gorgias
Philochorus 375
484
2421146
516A
115
Hippias Maior 285D
Philodemus
10,85
Laws
Concerning the Stoics (Herculanensia Volumina) 339.7
27111107
Volumina Rhetorica
2.654A-B
105
2.671A
146
4.722B
95
6.782C-D
643,6431133
10.886A
2621186
Philostratus
10.886C6-9
272
Life of Apollonius of Tyana
12.966E
229
2.146 [Sudhaus]
230
100
Meno
1.1
28411146
1.2 1.4
395*44 85
Phaedo
17-11 1.21
90*15 6431133
Phaedrus
1.26
1031132,230-31
2.17 2.26 2.40 3.16 4.20
395*44 6431133 395*44 1031132, 231 105
5.24 6.10
ff.
ff.
395*44 103032,231
383 280 279 Protagoras
9i
330B
126
332E
55°
349B
83, 96, 126
Republic 1.328
26911104
1.331A-B
273
i-33
l G
116,451,473
783
784
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
Brutus
Plato (continued) 1.332D 2.376E
300 105
Cato the Younger
2-377 3414B-415C
44 344
44-8 44.11-14
442iB 4435E 4443C-45E 5473C-D 6488A7-89A2
434 5 2301114 (bis) 421 94 94, 147, 389, 578, 635 94,578 343 543 94 91,386
6493A6-G8 6.500E1-4 6.51 iD 7-519-20 7.535A11-12
1-2
n I 0
8.543-9.576 8.557A-61E 8.566C-80B 9.571D-72A 9.571D-72B Symposium
144 94 147,433 207 643
189B 202E-3A 203A Timaeus 21E 22A 22B
545 3 179 100
22B-G
n l
178
23B
84
28C
179
37D 40C 41C 42E 90E
327 179,327 165 165 191
113 113
Cicero 2.2
901115
Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 3-4 4
113 6211171
De Defectu Oracubrum 15.418D
179
51.438B
58
De Genio Socratis 9.580B-12.582C
179
19.588B-20.589F
179
De Sollertia Animalium 13.968F
133
De Superstitione 8.169G
28711155
Demetrius 42.5-9 Dion
"3 901115
Fabius Maximus 1
231 103,2301114 84,85115
85
8 5
Isis and Osiris 24.360B
374
Lycurgus 85 5 Marius 3-3-4-I Mulierum Virtutes 17
89 89 4041160
Parallela Minora 15
4041160
Pelopidas
Plotinus 64.12
21.4 6211172
6.2-3
Plutarch
"3 188
Pyrrhus
5 89 90 901115
Quaestiones Convivales
Alexander J
-2 2.5 4.8 5.1 l
7 Aristides 6.2
89
Precepts on Public Life
Alcibiades 1.2
284
Pericles
1 4.4.4
85 642
Romulus 7-3-4
90
430
8 Sertorius
9° 5
113
9
2661197
n I
C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S
Ptolemy Chennos
Sobn 2
901115
ap. Photius, Lexicon
Themistocks 2.1
190 7
3 64 Titus 114-5
85 901115
Adversus Physicos
113
1.22
2621186
1.26
2621188
Solon 143 I-73-76 3.28 3.31-39 4.19
Polyaenus 4041160
Polybius 2.8.10
5
2.56.63
6-7
Sophocles
6
129
Ajax
6.57
144116
2
8.8-11
nni6
1326
9.1.4-5
52mi4
10.24
5
1326-27
174 I73ni8
Antigone 129 38
9
Porphyry 643
Posidonius 620 ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap.
85
88
no
179
1731118, 174
283
Vita Pythagorae
2.79
579 579 611 612 611
173*18, 174
Mumantine War
7
2
Sextus Empiricus
32.3 Theseus
8.36
8
3 5* 9
901115
683-723
1731118, 174 565
768
174, 2281110
1327
I73ni8,174
1347 Oedipus at Colonus
230 188-91
6 l
9
174, 395 594
Pseudo-C allisthenes
279
594
Alexander Romance
287
594
901115
740-42 6
n
594 33
7 2
594
Pseudo-Hecataeus
806-7
5941133
ap. Diodorus
825
594*33
831-32
594*33
1.54
4031160
Pseudo-Longinus On the Sublime 9-9
594*33
938 957
26, 40, 98, 133,
97i
4014.6
Pseudo-Plutarch De Musica 3.1131F-32A
594*33
9i3 399*52 375
12.4
880
105
594 594*33 594*33
992
594
1000
594
1028
594*33
1138
594*33
1202
594*33
498
594*33
785
y86
PASSAGES
FROM ANCIENT
Sthenidas of Locri
Sophocles (continued) 1655-60
WRITERS
ap. Stobaeus
212
Oedipus the King
47.63
97
440 25-29
174,580
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.64.40
126
142
588
150
580
217
580
280
594 33
4.4.5.198
117
3°3 316
5 ° 9 7 , 1 7 4 , 228119
7.3.7.300
117
16.2.35.761
620
371
582 {bis)
16.2.36.761
375
Strabo n
8
16.2.36-37.761
4161177
8
16.2.38-39.762
2071159
8
16.4.4
4°5J 4051161
17.1.29.806
345
391-92
582
391-94
5 2
393 396-98
5 2 586
430
588
433 454 540
5 5 2 (bis) 586
549-50
180
Syncellus
617
588 (bis)
Ecloga Chronographica
675 760 765 851-53 883-89 915-16
594*33 173*18,174 588 594*33 594*33 582
945 960 1080-81 1131
5 580 619 588
"54
5
1189-91
619
1234
588
Theophrastus
1282-83
594*33
Characters
1340
588
16.11
1410
588
ap. Porphyry,
1426
580
1429
588
1429-3 1436
8
6
8
1
8
8
8
8
594 588
s.v. Serapis
5 o 582 588
14 1369 Trachiniae
5 7 1731118,174
(ed. Mosshammer)
ap. Spengel, 60-130
27911133
Theophilus ap. Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.34.19
De Abstinentia 2.26
616
100 293^
Theopompus Philippica 4*3, 5 - 6 Thucydides 58,614
1.22
581
1.22.1
58
1.22.2 1 7 3 * 1 ^ 174 117
2341127
Theon
1.21.1 8
325
377.20-22
8
1455 1524-25 1524-26 Phihctetes
925 1095
Suidas (ed. Adler)
1.22.4
nni7,58n75 5 9 , 1 5 3 * 2 0 , 614, 650
C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S
L90-93 2-34 2-37-3 2-42-3 2-43-2 2-47-54 248-52
95 225 39 4^5 52i 533 178
2-49-53
146
2.514
J
2.52-53 2.53.1 2-53-4 2.60
Tyrtaeus 2
563, 6121152
8
46 "4
2.60-65
140 146,398 104,146,177, 348,400 96
2.60.5
446
2.60.5-6
443,450
2.60.6
94,394,
2.61.3
144,146
Vettius V a l e n s Anthologiae 2.28
233
Xenophanes Diels-Kranz B 24
6201169
Xenophon Agesilaus 414 8.3-4
4i8
10.4
82
Anabasis 81112 J
5-8-3 Cyropaedia
5 3
636 2.62-64
443
2.64.1-2
361
2.65
228,610
2.65.4
94 46,177
2-65-5 2.65.8 2.81 3-36 3.36.6 3.82-84
407
4-8
1271154
544 446,451,
4.4.12
114
4.5.6
6161160
499 448
4.5.7
6171160
47,389 104
4.6.12
115
4.6.14
610
11
1271154
140,178,190, 610 104
474
619
6.2.1
2091160
6.19
147,389
6.35.2
104
6-77 7.83-84
2.2.3 Memorabilia
610
4.21.3
6.72
8ni2, 185 Helknica
4.4.11
390 4.7
787
141,4111169 435 178,411067
Timaeus
Xenophon o f Ephesus Ephesiaca (Habrocomes and Anthia) 86n6, 3291139 i-3 1.12 1.164 2.52.2 3-» 4-5 5.15
330 330 3701171 37 7! 330 330 2561172 o n
Zeno
War of Pyrrhus
ap. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 9
1.21
621
CLASSICAL LATIN
A U T H O R S
Apuleius
1.34.93
374m
Apology
2.14-15
262
2.15
2621189
90
428
91
4281194
De Officiis 1.11.34-36
Florida 9
i'*3-39-4° 3.26.99-31.112 De Optimo Genere Oratorum
1
Metamorphoses 4.28
86n6
10.2
37on7o
4.14
1931141 Augustus
44
2.30.53
502
3-23-34-35 De Senectute
4i5
19
Monumentum Ancyranum
5761112
Pro Flacco
635
28.66 Censorinus
151,648
Pro Lege Manilia
DeDieNatali 21.1-2
I 2
8 128
De Re Publica
On Plato and His Doctrine
19-21
415
16.47
5761113
ProDgario
227
2.6
no
Cicero
4.10
no
Ad Familiares
5.15
no
6.19
no
5-12 512.2 5.12.3 De Divinatione 1.53.121 1-70-71 De Legibus 1.5 2.63 3-2 De JVatura Deorum
7,9 9
Somnium Scipionis 3.8
9 6431131
1.4
359
1-53-54
44
1.97-99
44
4-33-70-34-73
271
5-3-8-9
584
82, 175, 27911133 121119
105
349 Curtius, Quintus History of Alexander
231 1.18.46
272
Tusculan Disputations
1
6041144 789
901115
ygo
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS
Firmicus Maternus De Errore Prqfanarum Religionum n
13-2 Mathesis
349 35
4, Prooemium 5
233
4.17.2
233
191
Gellius, Aulus Metes Atticae 3.15
4041160
Historia
Augusta
Alexander Severus 29
224113
Antoninus Pius 1.1-7
85
3-1-5
89
n
349 34 1 5 9 , 1 6 0 , 2301116 118,417 117,634
Livy
Gaius Institutes 1.44
6.546-47 14.96-106 14.103 14.103-4
Preface
144116
Preface 7
85, 399054
1-7-3 1.8.4 1.9 1.11 1.16
95 95 187 4041160 396146
i-i9-3 1.27-28
95 310
2.5 7.6.4 7.9.6-10.14 8.9 10.28
527 285 164 285 285
Lucretius
Hadrian
De Rerum JVatura
1.1-2
85
2.4
89
1.101
2.8
89
5.1041-55
2.9
89
27611125,284 192
Macrobius
Severus 1.7-8
Commentary on Cicero, Somnium Scipionis (De Re
89
Vita Claudii 25-2-4-5
Publica, bk. 6) 116-171144
375,42i 1.8
117145
Horace Martial
Ars Poetica i-33 Odes
12.57-1-14
44
1.34.12-14
27511120
1.37
204
3.30.1
414
Medicina
93,578
Plinii
3-!5-7
585*29
Nepos, Cornelius
Satires 1.4.139-43
Epaminondas
157
1.4.142-43
2301116
1.5.97-103
209
1
85
Timoleon 5
225
Hyginus Ovid
Fabulae 63
177112 2
91
1771122
Ars Amatoria 1416
106
Fasti Juvenal 3-
1 0
-
1 6
93,57
8
3-296
93,578
6.542-47
93,578
1.261 ff.
404n6o
2.481-509
396*46
Heroides 4.163-64
370*7!
CLASSICAL LATIN AUTHORS
Metamorphoses
Seneca the Elder
8.6-151
185
Suasoriae
8.611-737
!23
3
10.298-518
332 n
11.172-93
393 38
14.805-85
39 46
6 n
279
Seneca the Younger Apocohcyntosis 395*44
Plautus
De Clementia
Asinaria 400
317
Captivi I
648 Pseudolus 1218
n
3 7 23 317
1.5.2
115
1.5.4
no
11.11.2
no
Epistles 90.40 Oedipus 1058
Pliny
193*43 582
Phaedra
Natural History 7.43.139
82
7.49.163-64
4221183
486 527-28 ap. Augustine, De Civitate D-i 6.10
9.6.18
2091160
30.2.11
428
30.30.99
18
Suetonius
35.36
607,6071149
Augustus
Pompeius Trogus ap. Justin, Historiae Philippicae
193*43 193*43 197
94
89
94-4
89,3951144
Claudius
36, Epitoma 2.3
224m,
25.4
234
Domitian
36, Epitoma 2.3-5
305
12.2
36, Epitoma 2 . 6 - 1 0
349
151 Nero
36, Epitoma 2.7
351, 428
36, Epitoma 2.11
342ni4, 3 4 6 ^ 2 ,
36, Epitoma 2.12-13
384 420
35-3 Tiberius 36.1
I58n28 48 159 i4S*H 158,383
Vespasian Propertius
4-5
3.11.296°.
204n55
4.4
404n6o
151-52
Tacitus Agricola
Pseudo-Seneca
I98n49
Octavia 404-5 427-28
^3*43 193 (bis)
Quintilian 3-7I-2I 10.1.95 10.1.68
85
6
344
39-43
!98
44-45
83,377
Annals 375 97 175 J
Sallust De Catilinae Coniuratione 5
4
269ni05
2.85.4
158,383
4.74.1-3
no
Histories 4.47
275ni2i
5-2-3
*33
5.3.1
386n3i
5.3.2
3861131
7QI
792
PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T
Tacitus (continued) 5.4.1 5-5 5.5.I
242,389 158 117, I l 8 , 121, 2301116, 241 6
5-5-1-2 5.13.2
13 60, 151
5-!3-3
159*30
WRITERS
1.124-47
400
1.124-56
446
1.132-41
517
1.148-53
447
1.148-56
400
1.198-207
391, 497, 51*
1.267
498
635 1.461-62
269
Terence
1-525
"7
Phormio
1.607-9
379*
5
1
317
Valerius Maximus 1-3-3
8
I5 ,383
2.634-704
319
2.634-751
128
4
37on7i
4.625
88
6 Varro
4-3i
129
6.851-53
ap. Augustine, De Civitate D-i 197
1 1
125^2
6.852
108
6.852-53 6.853
415 416,611
Virgil
8.688
204
Aeneid
9.176-502
523
8 4 - 8 5 , 399*54
9.189-90
524
1.9-10
94
9-424-45
522
1.10
319, 32on3i
!2.435-3
i-33
546
12.676-80
6
32on3i, 546 521
GENERAL INDEX
Aaron, downgrading of by Josephus, 387
citement in Josephus's version of, 182; hospi
Abdemon, Tyrian lad, solves problems sent to
tality of, 239-40; influence of contemporary events on account of binding by of Isaac,
him by Solomon, 104, 113
257-58; instructs Egyptians, 228; Josephus's
Abel, similarity in interpretation of name of in
treatment of, 223-89; less emphasis placed
Josephus and Philo, 54
on G-d's promise of Palestine to, 154; lesser
Abiathar, high priest, approached by David to
importance of happiness to as compared
prophesy before going to battle, 6on7g Abigail, positive portrayal of by Josephus, 192
with faithfulness to G - d , 280; lying of, 116;
Abimelech, high priest, prophesies to David,
miracles downgraded in narrative of, 210; as missionary, 49, 231; open-mindedness of,
6on79
103; parallel of with Priam, 268; persuasive
Abimelech, king of Gerar, acknowledges power
ness of, 104; piety of, 128, 247-49; portrayed
of G - d , 245; has lustful intent toward Sarah, 237; romantic additions in narrative of, 261;
as philosopher by Josephus, 97, 229-30;
vindication of, 251
power of reasoning of, 229; proof of for ex istence of G—d, 229, 2 2 9 m l ; reason of for
Abimelech, son of Gideon, attacked by Jose phus for transforming government into
leaving Mesopotamia, 229, 229m2; refutes
tyranny, 148
blood libel against Jews, 241; reward to for his faith, 248; shows compassion for Hagar,
Abner, commander in Saul's army, gifted in in
244-45; similarity of with Oedipus, 174; skill
tellect, 99
of as general, 107; skill of in astronomy, 103,
abortion, death penalty for in Josephus as in
232-33, 234n27; sons of join Heracles, 107;
Philo, 53n63
Stoic influence on Josephus's presentation
Abraham, alleged lying of, 239; antiquity of, 226-27; apparent unequal treatment of sons
of, 194; teacher of Egyptians in mathematics
by, 239; attack of upon Assyrians in Jose
and astronomy, 84, 233-34; temperance of,
phus as in Philo, 54; binding of Isaac by and
237-38; tolerance by for other religions, 242;
defense of, 255-56; compared with
visit of angels to, 286; wealth of, 93, 228; wisdom of, 2 2 8 - 3 4
Agamemnon, 278; compassion for Sodomites, 121; courage of, 234-37; deem-
Absalom, as demagogue, 147; filial impiety of,
phasis on G—d's promise of Palestine to,
129; guilty of lawlessness, 141; handsomeness
253-54; descendants of by Keturah excel in
of in Josephus, 93
war, 2 6 5 - 6 6 ; displays justice, 115; erotic ele
Adam, biblical difficulties in connection with
ments in narrative of, 2 3 8 - 6 1 ; excellence of in sciences, 103; expulsion of Hagar by
avoided by Josephus, 166 Aeneas, Roman hero, death of as told by Diony
justified, 244; feels pity toward Sodomites,
sius, influence of on Josephus, 7; model
242; genealogy of, 86, 227-28; as general,
leader, 94
235-37; G-d's covenant with, 253; grandsons
Aeschylus, knowledge of by Josephus, 172-73
of by Ishmael, 226; heightened dramatic ex
Agag, Amalekite king, handsomeness of, 92
793
794
GENERAL INDEX
aggada, lack of distinction between and halakhah
anthropomorphisms, avoided by Josephus, 166,
as far as relationship to tradition is con
169; avoided by targums, 28; avoided in nar
cerned, 66
rative of Abraham, 249
Agricola, father-in-law of Tacitus, qualities as
anti-Jewish charges, Josephus's answer to, 660-61
cribed to by Tacitus, 83 Agrippa I, Jewish king, compared with Herod
Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, ungovern able passions of, 111
by Josephus, 6; generosity of, 126 Agrippa II, Jewish king, grants Levites permis
Antiquities, Josephus' motive in composing, 132;
sion to wear robes on equal terms with
purpose of, to counter anti Jewish slander,
priests, 62, 62n83
48; purpose of, to remind Domitian of his toric rights granted to Jewish people, 48; sig
Agrippa, Marcus Vipsanius, kindness of, 126
nificance of title of, 84
Ahab, king of Israel, goes with bare feet, 29; partly exculpated by Josephus, 142
antiquity, importance of according to Josephus, 83^85
Ahasuerus, attendance of by bodyguards based on fact that Vespasian had such guards,
aphorisms, in Josephus, 185
56n7o; viewed favorably by Josephus, 136
Apion, anti-Jewish Egyptian Greek historian, 18; author of lost work on Jews, 40
Albinus, Roman procurator of Judaea, 62 Alcibiades, Athenian leader mentioned by Aris
Apollonius Molon, author of treatise about Jews, 40; mention of Isaac by, 2 9 2 - 9 3
tode, 4, 4n3 Alexander the Great, birth of predicted, 89; precociousness of, 90 Alexander Polyhistor, historian, author of lost
Apollonius of Tyana, birth of predicted, 89 apologetics, in Joseph narrative, 3 6 1 - 6 2 'Aqedah, binding of Isaac by Abraham,
work on Jews, 40; cites writers on Jewish
2 6 6 - 8 5 ; influence of Euripides in Josephus's
history, 2 0 - 2 in7; confirms historicity of
version of, 270; parallel of with Homer, 268;
Abraham's descendants, 134; mention of
virtues aimed at by Josephus in retelling of,
Isaac by, 293; quotes Demetrius, 22nio; source of Hellenistic Jewish writers known
279ni33 Aramaic, major language used by Jews, 27
to Josephus, 5 i - 5 2 n 6 i , 52
Arauna, generosity of, 125-26
allegorical interpretation of Bible, rarely re
"archaeology," in title of Josephus's work,
sorted to by Josephus, 1 7 0 - 7 1 ; similarity of Josephus with Philo in, 53; used by Philo, 171
meaning and scope of, 1 0 - 1 2 Archelaus, son of and successor to Herod, told
Amalek, Israelites' encounter with in the wilder ness, 409; as symbol of Rome, 5 0 ^ 9
in a dream that his rule would end, 102 aristocracy, best form of government according
Amalekites, command to wipe out, 121, 4 1 5 - 1 6 ;
to Josephus, 145, 502; equated with theoc
kings of, attack Israelites, 133; target of King Amaziah of Judah's seemingly unprovoked
racy, I45n7
Aristotle, compliments Jews for wisdom, 97; dis
attack, 5on59
tinguishes tragedy and history, 6; knowledge
Amanos, name of Ahab's anonymous slayer, ac
of by Josephus, 179; scientific school of, 3-7;
cording to Josephus, 29 Amaziah, king of Judah, outrages and is pun ished by G—d, 181 Amram, father of Moses, dream of predicting birth of Moses, 102; genealogy of, according to Josephus, 8 6 - 8 7 angels, beauty of in Josephus, 92; downgrading of in Daniel narrative, 6 3 8 - 3 9 ; rationaliza tion of in Josephus, 212-13 Anilaeus, Jewish robber baron, had affair with a Parthian general's wife, 4 9 - 5 0 , 137 animals, protection of who have taken refuge in one's house, 53n63 antediluvians, age of, 50
stresses importance of wisdom, 97 c
arob, plague of, consists of stinging insects ac cording to Septuagint and rabbinic tradition,
67 Artapanus, historian of Jews, allegedly replied to by Josephus, 52n62; parallels with Jose phus's account of Moses' campaign in Ethiopia, 52; unlikely model for Josephus, 22-23 Artemidorus, author of handbook on dream in terpretation, 100 Asa, king of Judah, conversions to Judaism under unmentioned by Josephus, 1 5 9 - 6 0 ; idols put away by omitted by Josephus, 119
GENERAL INDEX
Asatir, Samaritan book, alleged common source of with Josephus, 2 9 - 3 0 ; parallels of with Josephus, 7on92, 380m 6 assimilation, Josephus's opposition to as seen in Samspn narrative, 4 8 6 - 8 7 assistants, Josephus's use of, 26, 46, 173; steeped in Thucydides, according to Thackeray, I78n23 Assyria, prophecies against, intended to predict overthrow of Parthia, 48, 50 Astyages, king of Medes, grandson of destined to conquer Asia, 88 audience of Josephus's works, Jewish, 4 9 - 5 0 ; non-Jewish, 4 6 - 4 9
795
phus, 1 8 - 1 9 ; says that his work is a mere translation from sacred text, 41 Bible, historical reliability of, 6 6 5 - 6 6 biblical personalities, lines about in Hebrew, Septuagint, and Josephus, 7 6 - 8 1 ; lines about in Pseudo-Philo, 81 biblical text, accessible to Josephus in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, 668; difficulties in ex plained by Josephus, 3 6 3 - 6 6 , 6 6 5 - 6 6 biography, focus on by Peripatetics, 4 birth of heroes, Josephus's concern with, 8 7 - 9 0 brazen serpent, account of omitted by Josephus,
37 burning bush, angel omitted in account of, 210
Auerbach, Erich, contrasts Aqedah and recog nition of Odysseus by the nurse Eurycleia, 266
Cadmus of Miletus, early Greek logographer, 11 Cain, punishment of, 28
Augustus, Roman emperor, birth of predicted,
Calchas, Greek prophet in Homer, knows past, present, and future, 59
89 authorship of Bible, omission by Josephus of passages raising questions about, 39, 169, 457
Caleb, downgraded by Josephus, 444 Caligula, Roman Emperor, persuasiveness of,
avarice, as motif in Josephus, 203
104; visited by Jewish delegation headed by
Azariah dei Rossi, sixteenth-century author of
Philo, 16
c
Me or Einayim, explains "errors" of Septu agint, 27
Canaan, curse of, parallel of in Dead Sea Scroll and rabbinic midrash, 6 8 - 6 9 candlestick, seven-branched, symbolic of seven
Babel, Tower of, historicity of confirmed by Sibylline Oracles, 134; penalty imposed by G—d upon builders of, 140 Balaam, cryptic reference of to calamity des tined to befall Roman Empire, 50, 152-53; eschatological prophecy of, evasiveness of Josephus about, 39; hellenization in Jose phus's account of, 179; military terminology in pericope of, 108; praises Israelites, 133; speaking ass of, 214; viewed more favorably by Josephus, 135, 151 2 Baruch, Apocryphal book, refers to Romans as Chaldaeans, 6 m 8 2 Bathsheba, wife of King David, dispute among rabbis as to incident of with David, 73, n
73 93* incident of with David not to be
planets in Josephus as in Philo, 53 cherubim in the Temple, in disregard of biblical prohibition, 6 0 0 - 1 Choerilus, Greek poet, cites evidence that Jews had participated in Xerxes' expedition, 106 Chronicles, books of, as alternate version of a sa cred text, 41; Josephus's biblical text for, 34-35 chronological difficulties, in Book of Daniel, 654; solved by Josephus, 1 6 8 - 6 9 chronology, of years from creation to Babylon ian exile, 43 Cicero, alleges that Jews lack patriotism and are economically aggressive, 151 Cincinnatus, Roman hero, model leader, 94 circumcision, reason for, 245-46. 257 civil war, abhorrence of by Josephus, 112, 122,
translated or read in synagogue according to
140-43, 436, 6 1 0 - 1 1 , 667; freedom from
rabbis, 72; Josephus's treatment of incident
promised by G—d, 141-42; Josephus's view of
with, 557-58; use of 2 Samuel by Josephus
influenced by Thucydides, 177-78; as punish
for account of, 34n33 beggars, Jews as in anti-Jewish literature, 93 Belshazzar, punished severely by G - d , 647; viewed more favorably by Josephus, 647-48 Berossus, Babylonian priest, author in Greek of a history of Babylonia, confirms historicity of Abraham, 134; possible model for Jose
ment inflicted by G—d for sin, 140 Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher, arguments of for existence of G - d , 263 Cleodemus Malchus, "the prophet," 58 Cleopatra, covetousness of, 203-4 concealment from friends, prohibition of, agree ment of Josephus with Philo in, 53n63
yg6
GENERAL INDEX
consistency of Josephus, 55, 6 6 8 - 6 9 contradictions, avoided by Josephus, in narra tive of Isaac, 300; in narrative of Joseph, 365 cosmos, as robe of G—d, in Josephus as in Philo, n 6
53 4 courage of biblical heroes, emphasized by Jose phus, 1 0 6 - 9 , 663 cowardice, of Hezekiah, 109; Jews reproached with, 106; Josephus's reply to charge of, 106-7 creation, account of from preexisting matter avoided by Josephus, 165; agreement of Philo and Josephus as to why account of precedes that of giving of commandments, 53; indebtedness of Josephus to Philo for ac count of, 30m 8 creativity of Josephus, 669 credulity, stock charge against Jews, 209 cruelty by Israelites to Canaanites, alleged, toned down by Josephus, 445-46 cupidity, opposite of justice, 204 Cynics, philosophical school, Nabal an adherent of, 197 Cyrus, Persian king, precociousness of, 91 Damocritus, author of lost work on Jews, 40 Danae, destined to have a son (Perseus) who will kill his grandfather, King Acrisius, 88, 88nio Daniel, awareness of rabbinic tradition about, 71-72; courage of, 633; genealogy of, 631; handsomeness of, 631; honors accorded to, 641; importance of for Josephus, 630-31; in creased drama in Josephus's account of, 183; interpretation of dreams by, 633; irony in Josephus's version of, 184; Josephus's treat ment of, 629-57; justice °f> 6 j 634; leader ship of, 635-36 loyalty of to King Nebuchad nezzar, 156-57; made plain faithfulness to truth of his prophecies, 58; miracles in narra tive of, 213-14; modesty of, 634; not amenable to accepting bribes, 636; observes dietary laws, 641-44; piety of, 634-35; predic tion by of messianic kingdom, obscured by Josephus, 39; as prophet, 636-37; reflects events in Josephus's own life, 629-30; sub jected to envy, 201; temperance of, 112, 633-34; trustworthiness of, 654; unselfishness of, 634; wisdom of, 99-100, 632-33 H
Daniel, book of, evasiveness of Josephus con cerning stone in, 649-52; to be read by read ers of Josephus, 50, 153, 651
Darius, Persian king, viewed more favorably by Josephus, 136, 648 darkness, account of that overcame Egyptians, influenced by Ezekiel, 52 Dathan and Abiram, rebel against Moses, 414-15 David, compared with Solomon, 5 7 0 - 7 1 ; courage of, 109, 544-50; doubts on piety of, 557-58; elevated in Philo, 539; elevated in rabbinic literature, 539-40; genealogy of, 541; generosity of, 125, 554-55; G-d's role heightened in narrative of, 5 5 9 - 6 1 ; gratitude shown by, 123, 554; handsomeness of, 93, 542-43; hospitality shown by, 123; humanity of, 119,121, 552; increased drama in Jose phus's account of, 183; Josephus's treatment of, 5 3 7 - 6 9 ; justice of, 116, 551-56; kindness of, 126; mercifulness of, 552-53; modesty of, 550-51; neutral opinion about in pagan writ ers, 540; observance of law by, 114; omission of reference to as ancestor of messiah, 152, 538-39; passages impugning reputation of for piety omitted by Josephus, 37; piety of, 5 5 6 - 6 1 ; as poet, 562; praised by Saul for showing righteousness, 122; praised for wis dom, 99; prevents dissension, 563; as prophet, 5 6 0 - 6 1 ; remorse of for affair with Bathsheba, 165; as scholar, 562, 5 6 2 ^ 3 ; selfcontrol of, 111; son of Saul according to Eu polemus, 22; subjects of give thanks to, 124; temperance of, 5 5 0 - 5 1 ; treatment by Jose phus of sin and repentance of, 73n93; truth fulness of, 116, 555-56; unselfishness of, 553-54; urges Solomon not to yield to pas sion, 137; wealth of, 93, 543; wisdom of, 543-44 Dead Sea commentary on Genesis, as exhorta tory historical exegesis, 66 Dead Sea Scrolls, text of Bible in, 24 Deborah, role of G-d stressed by Josephus in narrative of, 207; Song of, omitted by Jose phus, 38 decrees, issued by Romans, show that Jews were treated with respect, 47 Delilah, treatment of by Josephus, 480-82 demagogues, contempt of Josephus for, 147 Demetrius, courtier, writes to King Ptolemy Philadelphus to seek translators of Jewish scriptures, 46 Demetrius, historian, author of history of Jews, 20; errors of, 22, 22nio; unlikely model for Josephus, 21-22, 22nio
GENERAL INDEX
deposits, law of, similarity of Josephus with Philo with regard to, 53 detheologizing, in Josephus, 205-14, 326-27
797
Eleazar, leader of Zealots, represented as most persuasive, 105 Eli, deemphasized in Josephus, 495; high priest
Diaspora, as a curse, 157
at the time of Solomon's coronation accord
Dido, Queen of Carthage, prediction of con
ing to Eupolemus, 22; prophesies concerning
cerning her avenger, 88
David, 6on79; sons of act tyrannically, 148
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, historian, influence
Eliezer, Abraham's servant, admires kindliness,
of on Josephus, 7 - 8 , n n i 5 , 1 2 - 1 3 , 8 8 n n
241; qualities of, 226; romantic flavor in
Dios, Greek historian, confirms historicity of Solomon, 134
search by for a wife for Isaac, 186, 261 Elijah, prophet, disciple pours water on hands
Diotogenes, philosopher, lists virtues, 96n22
of, 29; identification of as zealot omitted by
divination, reference to eliminated by Josephus,
Josephus, 37; miracles of toned down, 2 1 1 - 1 2
328 division of Land of Israel among tribes, omitted by Josephus, 38 Domitian, Roman Emperor, anti-Jewish mea sures of, 48 Dositheus, Jewish commander-in-chief of Ptole maic army, 106 dramatic interest, increase of, in narrative of
Elisha, prophet, cursing of disciple Gehazi by omitted by Josephus, 37; cursing of little boys by omitted by Josephus, 37; downgrad ing of miracles of, 212; identification of Josephus more closely with than with Elijah, 152; response of King Jehoram to, 29 encomium, separated from history, n n i 6 ; type of speech delineated by Theon, 83
Daniel, 655-56; in narrative of David,
Endor, witch of, seance of Saul with, 6
5 6 3 - 6 4 ; in narrative of Isaac, 300-2; in nar
Enoch, father of Methusaleh, identified with
rative of Jacob, 329-30; in narrative of
pagan mythological Atlas by Pseudo-Eu-
Joseph, 3 6 6 - 6 9 ; in narrative of Joshua,
polelmus, 22
4 5 8 - 5 9 ; in narrative of Moses, 4 3 8 - 4 0 ; in
envy, as cause of hatred of Jews, 300; as directed
narrative of Samuel, 505-7; in narrative of
to Daniel, 644; directed to Josephus, 200;
Solomon, 624-25
emphasis on in Josephus, 668; fraternal,
dreams, interpretation of, as indication of wis
203n54; power of, 198-203; role of in debacle
dom, 100-102, 633; of Pharaoh, 366; ques
of the war against the Romans, 199-200;
tioning of significance of by Jews, 100; skill
role of in Josephus's paraphrase of the Bible,
of Jews in interpretation of, 3 4 9 ^ 4 dual loyalty, charge of, answered by Josephus, 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 661; answered in Josephus's narra
200-1; theme of in Joseph narrative, 362 Epaphroditus, patron of Josephus, encouraged Josephus to write history, 20, 132
tive of Daniel, 652-53; answered in Jose
Ephorus, historian, influenced by Isocrates, 5
phus's narrative of Joseph, 362
Epicureans, criticism of by Josephus, 192,
Dura Europos synagogue paintings, parallel of to rabbinic tradition, 69 Duris of Samos, historian, influenced by tragedy, 6
273-74, 640 erotic motifs, in Joseph narrative, 370-72; in Josephus, 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 666; in Samson narrative, 478-82 Esau, birth of, 3 1 6 M 7 ; Church Fathers' treat
economic aggression, answer by Josephus to charge of against Jews, 151 Edom, cipher for Rome, 323-24; equation of
ment of, 3 i 5 n i 9 ; equated with Rome by Josephus and rabbis, 72, 322-24; filial piety of, 129, 1 2 9 ^ 6 , 319; Josephus's treatment of,
with Rome on basis of Idumaean origin of
136, 3 1 6 - 2 2 , 660; Jubilees' treatment of, 314;
Herod, 323
New Testament's treatment of, 315; Philo's
Eglon, king of Moab, rehabilitated by Josephus, 135-36 Egyptians, lack of moderation of, i n , 137; per versity of, 242 Ehud, courage of, 108; obscurities in biblical ac count clarified by Josephus, 1 6 7 - 6 8 Eleazar, exorcises demons, 585
treatment of, 314-15, 3 i 4 n i 8 ; rabbinic treat ment of, 3i5~i6n20, 3 1 9 ^ 0 ; reconciliation of with Jacob, 321-22; redness of, 317; relation ship of with Isaac, 3 1 9 - 2 0 ; sale by of birthright, 3 1 7 - 1 9 1 (3) Esdras, Apocryphal work used by Josephus, n
26, 35, 3 5 3 5 , 5 i
yg8
GENERAL INDEX
2 Esdras, Apocryphal book, equates Romans and Chaldaeans, 6 m 8 2 Essenes, ability of in interpreting dreams, 102;
famine, effect of upon people, 144, 146 fate, Stoic influence on Josephus's view of, !94-97
account of in Philo parallel to that of Jose
fines, laws of, recorded in Tannaitic period, 68
phus, 52; belief of that bringing wives into a
First Episde of Peter, in New Testament, recog
religious community opened the way to dis sension, 190; gift of prophecy possessed by connected with priesdy status, 60; link of with Josephus and prophets, 5 9 ^ 8 Esther, age of, 1 6 8 - 6 9 ; detestation of non-Jews by omitted by Josephus, 120; divine inter vention toned down in narrative of, 209;
nizes parallel between destroyers of the First and Second Temples, 6 m 8 2 jiscus Judaicus, tax on Jews enforced by Emperor Domitian, 48 Flood, historicity of established by non Jewish historians, 133 funeral orations, influence of on Josephus, 12
heightening of suspense in story of, 182; irony in Josephus's version of, 184; scene of before Ahasuerus as prefigurement of Jose phus's experience before Vespasian, 5 6 Esther, additions to, Apocryphal work used by Josephus, 26, 3 5 - 3 6 , 51 Esther, book of, gathering of virgins in omitted by Josephus, 38; Josephus's biblical text for, 35-36; read on Purim, 3 6 ^ 7 ethopoeia, progymnasmatic exercise of speech as
Gad, prophet, offers King David a choice of a seven-year famine, 34 Galen, author of lost work on Hippocrates' Anatomy, 40 Gedaliah, comparable to David, 180; justice of, 116; kindness of, 126; sympathetic attitude of Josephus to, 156 genealogy, importance of to Josephus, 8 6 - 8 7 ; importance of to Plato, Theon, Homer,
signed to Abraham by Josephus, 279,
Herodotus, Sophocles, Aristode, Nepos,
279ni33
Plutarch, Tacitus, Gospels, 85; lesser impor
eulogies, of biblical figures in Josephus, 8 0 - 8 1 ; Josephus's practice of, not anticipated by Dionysius or Diodorus, 12m 8 Eupolemus, errors of, 22; Samaritan historian of Jews, 20; unlikely model for Josephus, 22 Eupolemus (Pseudo-), historian of Jews, syncretistic elements in, 22; unlikely model for Josephus, 22 Euripides, human sacrifice in, 285ni47; infl uence of in Josephus's narrative of Aqedah, 270-71, 274-75; knowledge of by Josephus, 175-76, 270 Evagoras, king of Salamis, biography of by Isocrates, 3 exaggerations, avoided by Josephus, 170
tance of for rabbis, 86; as subject for satire, 86 generalship, importance of in antiquity, 107 generosity, importance of, 124-26 Genesis, comparison of with Josephus, 216; paraphrase of by Josephus, carefulness of, 55 Genesis Apocryphon, Dead Sea scroll, free version of Genesis 12-15, 15, 27 Gentiles, liberal attitude of Jews toward, 121; praise of Jews by, 133 Gerizim, Mount, sacred mountain of Samari tans, site of Abraham's reception as guest according to Pseudo-Eupolemus, 22 Gideon, Israelite judge, account of smashing of c
Exodus, reasons for roundabout route of, 408
altar of Ba al by, omitted by Josephus, 37,
expulsions of Jews from Rome, 49
119; rescues Israelites from civil strife, 141;
Ezekiel, Jewish tragedian, known to Josephus,
role of G—d deemphasized in narrative of,
52, 175 Ezra, does not take the lead in breaking up in
tive of, 210
termarriages, 138-39; genealogy of not elab
207; role of miracles deemphasized in narra G - d , anger of with Balaam, 167; change of
orated by Josephus, 87; generosity of, 124;
mind by avoided by Josephus, 166; does not
Josephus's biblical text for, 35; loyalty of to
crave human blood, 118; downgrading of
Persian king, 156; mission of to strengthen
role of by Josephus, 3 8 - 3 9 , 205-14, 664; ex
control of Persians, 155; originator of prac
ceptions to downgrading of, 6 6 4 - 6 5 ; plural
tice of translating Bible into Aramaic, 27;
ity of, avoided by Josephus, 165; proof for
righteousness of, 116
existence of, 2 6 1 - 6 4 ; role of, diminished in
GENERAL INDEX
Abraham narrative, 249-50; role of, dimin ished in Daniel narrative, 638; role of, di
799
Hermes, Greek god, identified with Moses by Artapanus, 23
minished in Joseph narrative, 3 6 0 - 6 1 ; role
Herod, Jewish king, compared with Agrippa I
of, diminished in Joshua narrative, 453-55;
by Josephus, 6; illustrates disastrous effects
role of, diminished in Samson narrative,
of envy, 2 0 2 ^ 2 ; tirade on by Josephus, 5;
4 8 2 - 8 6 ; role of, diminished in Solomon nar
warned by a dream of imminent death of
rative, 603-5; role °f>
m
Jacob narrative, 327
golden calf, account of omitted by Josephus, 37,
his brother, 102 Herodotus, Greek historian, criticized by Jose
72; second account of to be read but not
phus, 18; influence of romantic motifs of
translated in synagogue according to rabbis
upon Josephus, 186; interest of in biography,
and omitted by Josephus, 72
4114; knowledge of by Josephus, 176-77
good fortune, effect of upon people, 144
Hesiod, knowledge of by Josephus, 172
government, ideal form of, 144-45
Hezekiah, childlessness of when sickness befell
gratitude, importance of, 123 Greek, as primary language of Jews in Dias pora, 49 Greek historians, criticized by Josephus because of their concern for style rather than accu racy, 59 grumbling of Israelites, omitted by Josephus, 37
him, according to Josephus, 70; generosity of, 124; ingratitude of to G - d omitted by Josephus, 38; offers gratitude to G—d, 124; piety of, 128; shows hospitality toward nonJews, 120 Hiel, confederate of priests of Ba'al, depicted in Dura Europos painting, 69 high priests, garments of described in Josephus
Haftarah, Josephus's adherence to Hebrew text of, 33n27, 34 Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, arrogant attitude of, 238; harsh treatment of has ring of Greek tragedy, 180; omission of promise to that Arabs would become great, 254 Halakah (Jewish law), similarity of Josephus to Philo in, 53n63 Haman, castigated by Josephus for not showing moderation in time of prosperity, 181; charge of that Jews refuse to mingle with others, 117 Hannah, mother of Samuel, omission of prayer of, 38 happiness, qualities crucial to, according to Isocrates, Xenophon, and Pliny the Elder, 82-83; Hebrew text of Bible, known by Josephus in Joseph narrative, 336n3 Hebron (Nabro), antiquity of, 226-27 Hecataeus of Abdera, author in Greek of a his
as in Philo, 54; garments of symbolic of heavenly bodies in Josephus as in Philo, 53; names of, 43 historical works, reason why less reliable since time of Artaxerxes, 57 historicity of biblical events, established by nonJewish writers, 133-35, 665 history, relationship of to poetry, 7n8; as teacher, 666-67 Homer, allegorized, 43; Josephus's indebtdness to in account of Solomon, 6 1 8 - 1 9 ; knowl edge of by Josephus, 171-72 hospitality, alleged lack of by Jews refuted by Josephus, 122; importance of, 122, 266; in ac count of Ruth, 122-23 hostility, of Jews alleged toward non-Jews,
»7-i8 hybris and its consequences, favorite theme of Josephus, 1 8 0 - 8 1 Hyrcanus, high priest, decency of, 126
tory of Egypt, cites evidence that Jews had served in campaigns of Alexander and of his successors, 106; confirms historicity of Abra ham, 134; possible model for Josephus, 19, 19*4-5 Hellenistic midrash, allegedly used by Josephus, 669 hellenizations, in account of Abraham, 2 6 1 - 6 6 ; in account of Moses, 437-41; in Josephus, I7I-79
ibis, role of in Moses' invasion of Ethiopia, 405 idol worship, criticized by Varro, Strabo, and Seneca the Younger, 197; tolerance of Jose phus toward, 504 incense altar, description of in Josephus as in Philo, 54 ingratitude, of Jews toward G - d before emer gence of Deborah, 124
8oo
GENERAL
INDEX
intermarriage, attitude of Isaac to, 300; attitude
Jacob, alleged deceitfulness of, 3 1 0 - 1 2 ; children
of Jacob to, 3 2 0 - 2 1 ; condemned by Jose
of compared to stars, 29; courage of, 3 0 8 - 9 ;
phus in Samson narrative, 4 8 7 - 8 8 ; Jewish
cunning of in connection with flock omitted
opposition to, 1 3 6 - 3 9 ; opposition to based
by Josephus, 37; deception of Isaac by
on opposition to yielding to passion, 139,
justified by Philo, 3 i 2 n i 4 ; deception of Isaac
662; threat of reduced in Joshua narrative,
by omitted by Josephus, 37, 165; diminished
446 intolerance, Jewish opposition to, 241 Iphigenia, change of from opposition to the sac rifice to acceptance of it, 2 8 i n i 3 9 ; compared with Isaac, 276, 2 8 1 - 8 3 irony in Josephus, 1 8 3 - 8 5 , 302, 666; in narrative
importance of for Josephus, 305; dreams of, 327-28; erotic element in love of for Rachel, 186; favoritism of toward Joseph, 165, 313-14; favoritism of toward Rachel and ha tred of toward Leah, 312; genealogy of, ac cording to Josephus, 86; generosity of, 310;
of Abraham, 270; in narrative of Daniel,
good birth of, 307; handsomeness of sons of,
656; in narrative of Joseph, 3 6 8 - 6 9 ; in nar
307; Josephus's treatment of, 304-34; justice
rative of Moses, 440
of, 310; moderation of, 309; Philo's treatment
Isaac, age of at time of binding by Abraham,
of, 306, 3o6n4; piety of, 128, 310; prepares
275-77; binding of, omission of by Josephus,
dish of lentils, 29; reaction of to massacre by
277; binding of, vindication of G—d in con
sons Simeon and Levi, 313; sons of, hand
nection with, 251-52; compared with Iphige
someness of in Josephus, 92; trickery of in
nia, 276-77; courage of, 2 9 6 - 9 7 ; duplicates
dealings with Laban, 165, 312-13; wealth of,
life of Abraham, 295; expiatory view of
93, 307; wisdom of according to Philo,
sacrifice of held by rabbis, 279m 34; extraor
3o8n6; wisdom of, 9 7 - 9 8 , 3 0 7 - 8
dinary birth of, 278; filial obedience of em
jealousy: see envy
phasized by Josephus, 272; generosity of,
Jehoash, king of Israel, appraisal of by Josephus
125; good birth of, 295; gratefulness of,
contradicts Bible, 71, 660; favorable ap
2 9 7 - 9 8 ; irony in Josephus's account of
praisal of in rabbinic tradition, 71; speaks to
Abraham's readiness to sacrifice, 184; Jose phus's treatment of, 290-303; justice of, 297; messianic implications in willingness of to
prophet Elisha, 29; Jehoiachin, king of Judah, appraisal of by Jose phus contradicts Bible, 39, 7 0 - 7 1 , 660
die, 282; obedience of to Abraham, 282-83;
Jehoiada, high priest, generosity of, 124
omission by Josephus of testing of, 277;
Jehoram, king of Israel, responds to prophet El
Philo's treatment of, 2 9 0 - 9 1 ; piety of, 128,
isha, 29; shows compassion, 120; speed of
2 9 8 - 9 9 ; praised for wisdom by Josephus, 97;
decision of, 108
rabbinic treatment of, 2 9 1 - 9 2 ; sacrifice of in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo compared, 2 7 9 - 8 0 ; shows sympathy, 298; temperance
Jehoram, king of Judah, transgresses ancestral customs, 50 Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, cherished by neigh
of, 297; truthfulness of, 298; virtues of
boring peoples, 1 1 9 - 2 0 ; offers thanks to
amplified by Josephus, 226; wisdom of, 296
G - d , 124; prayer of focuses not on land but
Isaiah, prophet, also assumes priesdy function of offering sacrifices, 6on7g; attack by G - d on Assyria mentioned by omitted by Josephus, 120; marvelously possessed of truth, accord ing to Josephus, 58 Iscah, identified with Sarai, 28 Ishmael, assassin of Gedaliah, wickedness of, 156 Ishmael, son of Abraham, education of by Abraham emphasized by Josephus, 226;
on the Temple, 154; promotes unity of Jew ish people, 142; removal of pagan high places by omitted by Josephus, 119 Jehu, king of Israel, conversion by of temple of c
Ba al into outhouse omitted by Josephus, 38, 120; quiet driving of, 29 Jeremiah, prophet, said to have left behind writ ings concerning capture of Jerusalem by Romans, 61; similarity of traditions concern
similarity in interpretation of name of in
ing in Qumran fragment and Pseudepi-
Josephus and Philo, 54
graphic and rabbinic texts, 69
Isocrates, notes items crucial to happiness, 82; rhetorical school of, 3, 3 m , 5 - 6
Jeroboam, king of Israel, called to power by leaders of the rabble, 146; hotheadedness of,
GENERAL INDEX
801
i n ; rebellion of parallel to that against
historiography of in War vs. Antiquities, 9; his
Rome, 142; represented as demagogue, 105,
tory as supplement to autobiography of, 667;
143; sedition of similar to that of John of
identification of with Joseph, Jeremiah,
Gischala, 140; sets up alternative to
Daniel, Esther, Mordecai, and Saul, 56, 203;
Jerusalem Temple, 127 Jesus, birth of predicted in Luke, 89; precociousness of, 9 o n i 5 Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, admires Moses, 133; conversion of not cited by Josephus, 159 Jews' contribution to civilization, 541 Joab, David's general, envy practiced by parallel to that of John of Gischala, 201; piety of to ward the dead, 129
identified with Saul, 82; as interpreter of dreams, 101; Jewish learning of, 14; knowl edge of Hebrew text of Bible by, 25-26; looked upon himself as akin to prophets, 5 9 , 6 6 7 - 6 8 ; looked upon himself as a latter-day Jeremiah, 59, 5 9 ^ 7 ; popularity with Church aided by emphasis on the prophets, 57; possi bly nameless philosopher whom rabbis met in Rome, 67n88; predicts that Vespasian will
Joash: see Jehoash
become emperor, 59; projected works of,
John of Gischala, represents power of persua
205; sources of for midrashic-like traditions,
sion for negative ends, 105 John Hyrcanus, king and high priest, prophesies concerning sons in batde, 6on8o Jonah, prophet, anger of with G - d omitted by
6 9 - 7 0 ; status as priest as link with prophets, 59~
6 0
Joshua, circumcision by omitted by Josephus, 445; compared with Pseudo-Philo and rab
Josephus, 38; anti-Assyrian prophecy of, 50;
bis, 447-48; courage of, 108, 4 4 8 - 5 0 ; exag
downgrading of miracles in narrative of, 212;
geration avoided in narrative of, 457; as gen
role of G - d deemphasized in narrative of,
eral, io8n35, 4 4 8 - 5 0 ; generosity of, 452;
208
gratitude shown by to Rahab and to
Jonathan, son of Saul, bravery of, 523-24,
Reubenites, 123, 452; heightened drama in
5 2 6 - 2 7 ; friendship of with David, 5 6 5 - 6 7 ;
Josephus's version of, 182; inspires troops,
piety of, 128
450; intellectual gift of, 99; Josephus's treat
Joseph, ability of to persuade, 3 4 8 - 4 9 ; amount of space given to by Josephus, 75; avoids
ment of, 4 4 3 - 6 0 ; justice of, 451; persuasive ness of, 104, 446; piety of, 128, 452; prevents
proskynesis, 353-54; brothers of, thoughdess-
civil war, 458; as prophet, 447; restrains the
ness of, 113; courage of, 351; deemphasis on
multitude, 4 4 6 - 4 7 ; temperance of, 451;
G - d in narrative of, 206, 3 6 0 - 6 1 ; genealogy
truthfulness of, 451; wisdom of, 4 4 6 - 4 8 ; wis
of, 86; generosity of, 125, 355-58; good birth
dom and eloquence of reminiscent of Peri
of, 344-45; gratitude shown by to his broth
cles in Thucydides, 443-44
ers, 123; gratitude shown by to Potiphar, 359;
Joshua, book of, Josephus's biblical text for, 32
handsomeness of in Josephus, 92, 345-46; as
Josiah, king of Judah, destruction of pagan tem
ideal administrator, 149-50; identified by Samaritans as their ancestor, 337-38; impor tance of for Josephus, 335-38; as interpreter
ples by omitted by Josephus, 120; righteous ness of, 116; wealth of in Josephus, 93 Jubilees, Pseudepigraphic work containing sum
of dreams in Josephus, 101-2, 3 4 9 - 5 1 ; Jose
mary of Genesis and first half of Exodus,
phus's treatment of, 335-73; justice practiced
parallels of with Josephus, 5 i n 6 o ; unlikely
by, 354-59; as leader, 341-44; loyalty of to ruler, 150; modesty of, 353; Philo's ambiva lent treatment of, 338-40; piety of, 3 5 9 - 6 0 ;
model for Josephus, 15 Judah, appeal of to Joseph, 129; episode of with Tamar omitted by Josephus, 37
sells grain to strangers, 118; temperance of,
Judges, book of, Josephus's biblical text for, 32
352-54; treatment of his brothers by, 357-58;
judges, reverence toward stressed by Josephus,
variable approach of Josephus in narrative °f> 3355 wisdom of, 3 4 6 - 5 1 Josephus, contradicts Bible in War, 2 1 5 - 1 6 ; deliberateness and consistency of works of, 214-17; emphasis of on military affairs as reflection of his experience as general, 667;
"5 justice, importance of, 1 1 3 - 1 6 , 6 6 3 - 6 4 Justus of Tiberias, alleged source of Josephus, 52; author of lost work, A Chronicle of the Jew ish Kings, 40; unrivaled in fomenting sedition, 140
802
GENERAL
INDEX
Juvenal, Roman satirist, scorns Jews as beggars, 93
loyalty of Jews to rulers, emphasized by Jose phus, 1 4 9 , 1 5 5 - 5 7 Lucceius, Roman historian, addressed by Ci
kaige recension of Greek Bible, use of by Jose phus, 33n29 Kenaz, Jewish judge, expanded account of in Pseudo-Philo, 16, 75, 81 Kierkegaard, author of Fear and Trembling, com pared with Josephus's treatment of Abra ham, 248
cero, 9 Lucian, satirist, emphasizes that historian's at tention should be directed to generals, 106 Lucretius, proof of for existence of gods, 263 luxury, criticism of, 143, 1 4 3 ^ , 144 Lysimachus, antijewish writer, scorns Jews as beggars, 93
Kings, books of, comparison of with Josephus, 216; Josephus's biblical text for, 34-35 kings, names of whom Israelites defeated upon entering Land of Israel omitted by Jose phus, 36 kingship, condemned by Josephus, 502-4 Korah, leader of rebellion against Moses, heightened drama in Josephus's version of, 182; rebellion of, 140-41; represents power of
1 Maccabees, stresses virtue of martyrdom for cause of religious freedom, 56n68; text of used by Josephus, 3 5 ^ 6 , 54 magic, importance of in antiquity, 105 Manasseh, emphasis on prophets seen in Jose phus' portrait of, 57; praised by Josephus, 142 Manetho, Egyptian priest, anti-Jewish author in
persuasion for negative ends, 105; wealth of
Greek of a history of Egypt, possible model
in Josephus, 93
for Josephus, 1 8 - 2 0 , 1 9 ^ - 6 ; says that his work is a mere translation from sacred text,
landmarks, removal of, viewed politically by Josephus, 141 Latin, Josephus's knowledge of, 8 7 ^ , I33n2, 269ni05 law, administration of, importance of, 114; obedi ence to, stressed by Josephus, 139 leadership of heroes, emphasized by Thucy dides, Plato, and Josephus, 9 4 - 9 6 ; shown in ability to bring peace, 94 Leontopolis, site of Jewish temple in Egypt, al leged recensional activity at, 3 4 ^ 1 Letter of Aristeas, Pseudepigraphic work, impor tance of to Josephus, 26; influence of on Josephus, 8 n n ; Josephus's avoidance of phraseology of, 31, 5 5 - 5 6 Levites, attempts of to usurp status of priests, 62; downgraded in Josephus, 62; reason for exemption of from military service, 4ion65 liberty, as leitmotif of Jewish history, 148 Livy, Roman historian, antiquarian concerns of, 10 Lot, Abraham's nephew, aggrandized by Jose phus, 224-25; hospitality of learned from Abraham, 240 Lot's daughters, intercourse of with Lot, 254-55, 255n67; suitors of, 2 8 6 - 8 7 Lot's wife, evidence supplied for narrative of, 251; lack of faith of, 248
4i manna, complaint of Israelites about, 29; de scription of, 29 Marsus, Roman governor of Syria, orders Agrippa I to break up conference of petty kings, 154-55 Martial, Roman epigrammist, satirizes Jews as beggars, 93 martyrdom, influence of on Josephus's account of sacrifice of Isaac, 56 1
masses, Josephus's contempt for, 1 4 5 - 4 7 , 4 7 n n , I47ni2, 503 Mausolus, king of Caria, subject of encomiastic tragedy by Theodectes, 5 Megasthenes, author in Greek of a history of India, possible model for Josephus, 19 Menahem, leader of Sicarii, messianic-like figure, 152 Menander of Ephesus, Greek historian, con firms historicity of biblical drought, 135; confirms historicity of Solomon, 134 Menander of Laodicea, rhetorician, paralleled by Josephus in encomia, 279m33; standard rhetorical pattern in followed by Josephus, 279ni33 mercy, importance of in Jewish heroes, 121-22 messiah, Jewish expectation of, 151-54; Jose phus wary of, 661 Micah, idolatry of omitted by Josephus, 37
GENERAL INDEX
Micaiah, lying prophet since he contradicts an other prophet, Elijah, 58 "middle source," alleged source of Josephus's biblical narrative, 54 Midianite women, Moses' handling of incident with, 392; sin of Israelite youths with, em phasized by Josephus, 4 9 , 1 3 7 ; universal flavor of incident of, 56 midrash, definition of, as genre to which Jose
803
increased drama in Josephus's account of, 183; marriage of to Esther according to Sep tuagint and rabbinic tradition, 6 7 - 6 8 ; offers thanks to G - d , 124; 122 years old according to biblical book of Esther, 391142 Moses, account of campaign of in Ethiopia infl uenced by Herodotus, 176; accused by Zam brias and Korah of acting tyrannically, 433-34; alleged leprosy of, 3 8 5 - 8 6 ; attitude
phus's Antiquities belongs, 1 6 - 1 7 ; as designa
of toward the masses, 3 8 8 - 8 9 ; attitude of
tion for nonrabbinic exegesis, 66; origins of,
toward mercy, 4 1 5 - 1 7 ; birth of, circum
42; paralleled in Josephus, 72
stances of, 3 8 0 - 8 1 ; birth of predicted, 89,
Midrash Lamentations Rabbah, indicates parallel be tween events leading to destruction of First and Second Temples, 61 military terminology, use of by Josephus in nar rating biblical history, 163 Miqse Mdase Ha-Torah, Dead Sea Scroll, parallel of with Mishnah Tadaim, 68 miracles, care in dealing with in narrative of
3 7 8 - 7 9 ; campaign of in Ethiopia, 28, 37, 52; compared with Aeneas, 94; as composer of song in hexameter verse, 105, 4 0 0 - 1 ; courage of, 4 0 1 - 1 1 ; death of, account of by Josephus, reminiscent of Dionysius, 7; death of, description of by Josephus reminiscent of Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus, 174, 395; defi ciencies of in the Bible, 376, 664; denigra
Moses, 427-28; cures through by figure of
tion of by non-Jewish writers, 374-75; de
serpent mounted on a standard omitted,
scription of in Josephus as in Philo, 54;
4335 downgrading of by Josephus, 39,
dignity of, 393; education of, according to
2 0 9 - 1 2 , 665; downgrading of in narrative of
Philo, 97; as educator, 95, 394; encourages
Abraham, 250-52; explained in Joshua nar
Israelites, 391; exhorts moderation, no; fair
rative, 455; at Marah rationalized, 431;
administration of justice by, 115; focus shifted
Philo's affirmative attitude toward, 4 3 0 ^ 6 ;
from G - d to, 425-26; gallantry of, 419; ge
of pillars of cloud and fire omitted by Jose
nealogy of, 378; as general, 1 0 7 - 8 , 4 0 1 - 1 1 ; as
phus, 432; of quails rationalized, 431; ratio
general against the Ethiopians, 4 0 2 ^ 9 ; gen
nalized in Daniel narrative, 638; rationalized
erosity in lawcode of, 4 1 8 - 1 9 ; generosity of,
in filling of the tabernacle with the divine
418; gratitude shown by to G—d, 123, 420;
presence, 432-33; rationalized in Jacob nar
gratitude shown to by Jethro and Jethro's
rative, 327-28; rationalized in Solomon nar
daughters, 123, 419; handsomeness of in
rative, 603-4; in revelation at Sinai left to the
Josephus, 92, 92n20, 3 8 4 - 8 6 ; hospitality of
reader, 432; role of in David narrative di
to Jethro, 122; humanity of code of, 417; hu
minished, 561; at Sea of Reeds, heightened
mility of, 4 1 3 - 1 4 ; increased emphasis on G - d
by Josephus, 4 0 7 ^ 2 ; of Urim and Thum
in narrative of, 426-27; inspires troops,
mim explained, 433; of victory in batde with
4 1 0 - 1 1 ; integrity of, 420-21; inventor of
Amalekites rationalized, 432; of water from
trumpet, 105; Josephus's treatment of,
rock supported by writing in Temple, 432
374-442; as judge, 4 0 9 - 1 0 ; justice of, 4 1 4 - 2 1 ;
Miriam, sister of Moses, leprosy of omitted by Josephus, 37 misanthropy, charge of answered by Josephus, 241-42, 299, 6 1 3 - 1 5 , 661 Moabites, prohibited marriage with omitted by Josephus, 138
as killer of Egyptian overseer, 414; lack of prejudice by against non-Jews, 4 1 7 - 1 8 ; law of parallel to Plato's Laws, 115; as lawgiver, 398-400, 435-36; as leader of Israelites dur ing the Exodus, 4 0 6 - 1 1 ; leadership qualities of, 3 8 6 - 9 7 ; left Pentateuch in scattered con
modesty, importance of, 112-13
dition, 50; as legislator, 423-24; liberty as
monarchy, Josephus's understanding of, 1 4 5 ^
goal of, 435; as magician, 4 2 8 - 2 9 ; marries
moralizing, in Joseph narrative, 3 6 2 - 6 3
Ethiopian princess, 402~4n6o, 405; model of
Mordecai, discovery of conspiracy of Bigthan
forgiveness, 415; moderation of, 110; modesty
and Teresh by explained by Josephus, 170;
of, 112; most ancient legislator who ever lived
804
GENERAL INDEX
Moses (continued) according to Josephus, 85; nepotism charged against, 387; not called a king, 434-35; not
nationalism, sensitivity of Josephus to, 324-26, 436-37, 661-62 Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, dream of,
deified, 394-97; open-mindedness of in ac
102,153; viewed more favorably by Jose
cepting advice from Jethro, 104; parallel of
phus, 136, 645-47
with Thucydides' portrait of Pericles, 177; persuasiveness of, 104; as philosopher, 398;
Nehemiah, charge made to by neighbors of Jews that Jews were rebelling against Persian
piety of, 128, 421-25; postponement of battle
king omitted by Josephus, 38; failure by
by Egyptians with influenced by Ezekiel, 52;
Jews to dwell in sukkot until days of omitted
praised by non-Jewish writers, 375; preco-
by Josephus, 38; infighting among Jews in
ciousness of, 9 0 - 9 1 , 9 0 - 9 i n i 6 ; presented by
days of omitted by Josephus, 38; justice of,
Josephus as author of biblical story, 39; as
116; persuasiveness of, 104; role of G - d
prophet, 422-23; as psychologist, 388; refuses
deemphasized in narrative of, 209
to accept bribes, 394; role of G - d not deem phasized by Josephus, 206; sedition con fronted by, 3 9 0 - 9 3 ; selflessness of, 3 8 9 - 9 0 ; as shepherd, 394; skill of in speech, 400; slaying of Egyptian by omitted by Josephus, 37; Stoic influence on Josephus's presenta tion of, 194; as Stoic-like sage, 437-38; strik ing of rock by omitted by Josephus, 37; strik ing of sea by influenced by Ezekiel, 52; subjected to criticism by Israelites, 3 8 8 - 8 9 ; supreme faith of, 424; temperance of, 412-14; temperance of, according to Philo, 4i2n7o; trains successor, 95, 394; truthfulness of, 116, 420; upbringing of, 3 8 1 - 8 4 ; urges re sistance to passion, 137; as viewed by Samar itans, 397n47; wisdom of, 99, 397-401 Mosollamus, Jewish soldier, best of bowmen, 106 Mundus, Decius, love affair of with Paulina, 87, 8 7 1 1 7
Musaeus, mythical teacher or disciple of Or pheus, identified with Moses by Artapanus, 23 music, importance of in antiquity, 105 myths, freedom of interpretation of by Greek tragedians, 4 3 - 4 4 Naaman, name of Ahab's anonymous slayer, ac cording to targum, 29 Nabal, lack of judgment of, i n Nahash, Ammonite king, successful campaign of Saul against, 5 1 6 - 1 7 Nahum, prophet, anti-Assyrian prophecy of, 50 names, hellenized by Josephus with a view to euphony, 48; lists of omitted by Josephus, 164; source of in Josephus derived from Palestinian tradition, 70 Nathan, prophet, tactful and understanding, 99
Neofiti, Aramaic targum, paraphrase of Penta teuch, 17,17n2 Neusner, Jacob, critiques of methodology of, 73^94 Nicarchus, author of lost work on Jews, 40 Nicolaus of Damascus, admires Abraham, 224; confirms historicity of Abraham, 134; con firms historicity of the Flood, 134; as histori cal source for Josephus, 4, 4n5, 8 n n , 74, 234, 234n28 Ninevites, conversion of avoided by Josephus, 160 Noah, biblical difficulties in connection with avoided by Josephus, 1 6 6 - 6 7 Nob, city not only of priests but also of prophets, 6on79 non-Israelite religions, Jewish attitude toward, 118-19 ra
non-Jews, Josephus's concern for, 644-45; P ise for Jews by, 661 Obadiah, steward of King Ahab, supported prophets according to Josephus and rabbis, 72 obscurities in Bible, clarified by Josephus, 167, 505, 623 Oedipus, parallel of with Solomon, 5 7 9 - 8 3 ; slays father Laius, 88 Og, giant, batde of Israelites with, 411; hand someness of in Josephus, 92 Ogyges, oak of, antiquity of, 227; residence of Abraham near, 227 omission of translation of biblical passages, sanctioned by rabbis, 3 8 ^ 9 , 72-73 Onias, Jewish commander-in-chief of Ptole maic army, 106 Onkelos, author of Aramaic targum, paraphrase of Bible, 17, 27 oral Law, difference between Pharisees and Sad ducees on acceptance of, 66
GENERAL INDEX
Palestine, deemphasis on G-d's promise of, 299 paraphrasing, variation in language used by Josephus, 164 patriarchs, longevity of, explained by Josephus, 168
805
physical attractiveness, importance of for Diony sius of Halicarnassus, Homer, Iamblichus, Isocrates, Josephus, and Plato, 91 piety, coupled with other virtues, 128; filial, im portance of, 1 2 6 - 2 9 , 664; one of the cardi
patriotism, alleged lack of by Jews, 150-51
nal virtues according to Plato, 83; relation of
peace, as goal of military leader, 1 0 8 - 9
to justice, 127-28; shown toward the dead,
Pentateuch, Josephus's biblical text for, 3 0 - 3 1
129
Pericles, model leader in Thucydides, 94
plagiarism, frowned upon, H2n38
Peripatetics, school of Aristode, 4
plague, Josephus's account of influenced by
persuasion, importance of power of, 104; possi ble use of for negative ends, 104-5 Pesharim, Dead Sea scrolls, commentaries on Bible, differences of from Josephus, 15 Phaedra, parallel of with Potiphar's wife in Jose phus's narrative, 369 Pharaoh of Abraham's era, defended by Jose phus, 135, 242; disease and civil strife brought upon because of his unjust passion for Sarai, 140, 2 5 9 - 6 1 Pharaoh of the Exodus era, lack of moderation
Thucydides, 178 Plato, alleged to have imitated Moses, 98; knowl edge of by Josephus, 1 7 8 - 7 9 ; prediction of oracle concerning, 88; stresses importance of proper leadership, 94; stresses importance of wisdom, 97 plausibility of events, explained by Josephus, 169-70 Pliny the Elder, encyclopedist, notes greatest things sought by men of wisdom, 82 Pollio the Pharisee, gift of at prediction, 5 9 ^ 8
of, 1 1 0 - 1 1 ; viewed more favorably by Jose
pollution, connected with fratricide, 143
phus, 135
Polybius, historian, author of encomium on
Pharaoh of Joseph's era, admired by Josephus, 135; Pharisees, Jewish religious sect, influence of on Salome Alexandra criticized by Josephus,
Philopoemen, 7; avoids rhetoric, 6; influence of on Josephus, 8 n n ; opposed to exaggera tion, 11—12 Poppaea Sabina, consort of Emperor Nero,
189; persuasiveness of, 1 0 4 ^ 3 ; possessed gift
hoped with gifts to influence Josephus to
of foreknowledge, 5 9 ^ 8
defuse the incipient rebellion, 1 4 8 - 4 9 , n l
Philip II, Macedonian king, focus on by Theopompus, 5 Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, account of Essenes as parallel to that of Josephus,
i49 4 population of Jews, eight million, according to Baron, 4 9 ^ 7 Potiphar's wife, episode of with Joseph, 54,
52; drew upon oral tradition, 69; etymologies
352-53; parallel of with Euripides' Phaedra,
of, 28; legal portions in Hypothetka as parallel
369
to Josephus, 52; possible influence of on
power, corrupting influence of, 198
Josephus, 16, 30, 5 2 - 5 4
precise information, given by Josephus,
Philo the Elder, historian of Jews, 20; possible identification with Philo the Elder the epic poet, 21 Philo, Herennius of Byblus, author of lost work
654-55 precociousness of heroes, typical motif of Hel lenistic, Roman, Christian, and rabbinic bi ographies, 9 0 - 9 1
on Jews, 40; says that his work is a mere
priesthood, centrality of in Josephus, 62, 668
translation from sacred text, 41
priests, blessing of, not to be translated or read
Philopoemen, Greek general, subject of en comium by Polybius, 7 Phineas, courage of, 108; high priest, acts as G-d's interpreter, 6on79; zealot, kills Zam brias (Zimri) for consorting with Midianite woman, 49 Phylarchus, historian, censured by Polybius,
6-7
in synagogue according to rabbis and omit ted by Josephus, 72; Pentateuch, containing prophecy of future events, consigned to, 60 progymnasmata, type of rhetorical exercise known to Josephus, 82, 82n2 prophecy, cessation of with destruction of First Temple, 60, 6on8o; importance of for Jose phus, 102-3
8o6
GENERAL INDEX
prophet(s), coupled with historians, 20, 5 7 - 5 9 ; from Bethel designated as "false prophet,"
Rahab, innkeeper rather than harlot in Jose phus, 444
29; importance of in Josephus, 56; intro
rain, origin of, explained by Josephus, 165
duced by Josephus where not mentioned in
rate of composition of Antiquities, 55
biblical text, 57; motivation for sign given by,
readership of Josephus's works, Jewish and
29; substituted for "man of G—d," 29 proselytism, aggressiveness in charged against Jews, 1 5 7 - 6 0 ; as aim of Josephus in Antiqui ties and Against Apion, 4 8 - 4 9 ; expulsions of Jews from Rome because of, 1 5 8 , 1 5 8 ^ 8 ; not halted after destruction of Temple, 158; omission by Josephus of increase Jews' numbers through, 326; reasons for success
non-Jewish, 6 4 9 - 5 2 Rebekah, blamed for Jacob's deceit, 311; chronology of death of, 29; generosity of, 125, 240-41; hospitality shown by, 266 Rehoboam, king of Judah, fortifications of, use of Chronicles by Josephus for, 341133; urged to be more lenient, 126 Reuben, declares confidence in Joseph's human
of, i59n3o; self-consciousness of Josephus
ity, 121; intercourse of with his father's con
concerning, n m 3 7 , 662; success of in official
cubine Bilhah, read but not translated in
circles during reign of Domitian, 1 5 8 - 5 9
synagogue according to rabbis and omitted
Proto-Lucianic version, Josephus's use of, 32-33,
by Josephus, 72; spelling of in Josephus, 28
321126, 33n29, 34-35 Pseudo-Hecataeus, author of book about Abra ham, 223 Pseudo-Jonathan, Aramaic targum, extensive geographical knowledge of, 28; paraphraser of Pentateuch, I7n3
Pseudo-Longinus, literary critic, reference of to Moses, 375; paraphrases Genesis, 40, 401146 Pseudo-Philo, author of Biblical Antiquities, akin
Revelation, Book of, in New Testament, equates Babylon and Rome, 6 m 8 2 reviling of other people's gods forbidden, ac cording to Philo and Josephus, out of re spect for the name of G—d, 53 rhetoric, role of in historiography, 3-13; useful ness of for writing of history, 279m 33 Romans, antiquity of, 8 4 - 8 5 romantic motifs, in Josephus, 185-88; in narra
to Josephus in buildup of personalities, 7 4 m ;
tive of David, 5 6 4 - 6 5 ; in narrative of Jacob,
amount of space given by to biblical person
330-32; in narrative of Joseph, 3 6 9 - 7 2 ; in
alities, 75, 81; biblical text of, 33; classifica
narrative of Moses, 440, in narrative of
tion of, 66; drew upon oral tradition, 69;
Samson, 4 7 5 - 8 2 ; in narrative of Solomon,
original language, Hebrew, of, 4 7 ^ 4 ; paral lels of with Josephus, 7on9i; possible model for Josephus, 16; sacrifice of Isaac in as com
625-26 Romulus, Roman hero, death of as told by Dionysius, influence of on Josephus, 7;
pared with Josephus, 2 7 9 - 8 2 ; source of in
handsomeness of, 91; kills great-uncle King
common with Josephus, 70
Amulius, 88; precociousness of, 90
psychologizing, analysis of true motives of peo ple in Josephus, 197 Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), king of Egypt, re quests translation of Pentateuch into Greek, 14 Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, generosity
Ruth, account of diminished in Josephus, 8 1 - 8 2 ; book of, Josephus's biblical text for, 32; conversion of not cited by Josephus, 159; role of G—d diminished in narrative of, 208; sexually charged scene of narrative of com pressed, 1 8 7 - 8 8 ^ 0
of, I24n5i Pythagoras, Greek philosopher, handsomeness of, 91; influenced by Jews, 98; prediction of oracle concerning, 88
sacrifice, of humans by Jews alleged, 117-18; pagan vs. Jewish attitude toward, 284-85 Salome Alexandria, Queen of Judaea, dispar aged by Josephus, 1 8 9 - 9 0
Queen of Sheba, compliments Solomon, 6 0 8 - 9 ; romance, wealth, and wisdom of, 586-87 Qumran, biblical texts at, relation to Septuagint and Hebrew text, 27
Samaias, disciple of Pollio, gift of at prediction, 59n78 Samaritans, accept nothing beyond the book of Joshua, Josephus's reply to, 37; omission by Josephus of details about, 3 8 ^ 0
GENERAL INDEX Samson, birth of predicted, 8 9 - 9 0 ; courage of, 465-72; etymology of name of, 4 6 6 m l , 466ni2; good birth of, 4 6 2 - 6 3 ; handsome ness of, 463; humility of, 112; Josephus's treatment of, 4 6 1 - 8 9 ; justice of, 473-74; me nial labor of omitted by Josephus, 109, 474; miraculous elements eliminated by Josephus in narrative of, 210-11; objections of parents to intermariage of modulated by Josephus, 138; as prophet, 483; relations of with alien women, emphasized by Josephus, 49, 137; role of G-d deemphasized in narrative of, 207-8; strength of, 465-72; temperance of, 472; tempestuous nature of, 471-72; truthful ness of, 473-74; wisdom of, 99, 464 Samuel, prophet, birth of, 493; emphasis on as prophet in Josephus, 492; generosity of, 124; gratefulness of, 501; Josephus's treatment of, 490-508; justice of, 115, 499-501; kindliness of, 5 0 0 - 1 ; leadership qualities of, 4 9 4 - 9 6 ; lesson to be drawn from fact that sons of did not walk in the ways of their father, 143; mil itary leadership of, 4 9 7 - 9 8 ; piety of, 501; portrait of in rabbinic literature, 4 9 2 - 9 3 ; as prophet, 4 9 5 - 9 6 ; temperance of, 4 9 8 - 9 9 ; tmthfulness of, 500; wisdom of, 496—97 Samuel, books of, Josephus's biblical text for, 32-33 Sarah, Abraham's wife, aggrandized by Jose phus, 225; alleged lack of faith of, 238-39, 248; not contemptuous of Hagar's servile status, 244; reason of for opposition to Ish mael, 243; relationship of to Abraham, 287 Sarapis, Egyptian god, cult of including inter pretation of dreams, ioon26 Saul, asks G—d through prophets, 6on79; at tempts of to kill David, 165; courage of, 109, 514-24; death of, 522-23; failure of to wipe out Amalekites, 528-30; filial piety of, 129, 533; genealogy of, 512-13; generalship of, 515-20; generosity of, 125; gifted in intellect, 99; gratitude shown by to G-d, 123; hand someness of in Josephus, 92, 513; increased drama in selection of by G-d, 183; irrational behavior of toward Jonathan, 165; jealousy of toward David, 534-35; Josephus's treat ment of, 509-36; madness of, 533-35; mod esty of, 112, 524-25; piety of, 128, 1 2 9 ^ 7 , 5 2 6 - 3 3 ; receives greater attention than Samuel, 511; respect of for an oath, 526; re sponsible for murder of Abimelech the high
807
priest and the priests of Nob, 5 3 0 - 3 1 ; seance of with witch of Endor, 6; sense of remorse of, 531; slaughter of Amalekite women and infants by defended by Josephus, 165; suicide > 532-33; wisdom of, 514 schools of Judaism, explored by Josephus, I02n29 sciences, Jews' excellence in according to Jose phus, 103 Sea of Reeds, crossing of, described by Josephus, 407-8; Josephus's description of entry of Is raelites into influenced by Ezekiel, 52; miracle at heightens achievement of Moses, 429—30; miracle at paralleled by Alexander the Great's crossing of Pamphylian Sea, 430-31 Second Ezekiel, Dead Sea scroll, as combination of genres, 66 Seder Ohm, rabbinic chronological work, I2n20 sedition, disastrous consequences of, 201-2 self-love, power of, 198 Sennacherib, king of Assyria, letters written by casting contempt on G-d of Israel omitted by Josephus, 120 Septuagint, translation of Pentateuch into Greek, additions to and modifications of for bidden by Alexandrian Jewish community, 37; alleged avoidance of use of, 33; alleged use of by Josephus in Ant. 6 - 1 1 , 3 4 ^ 2 ; as al ternate version of a sacred text, 41; avoid ance by of terms used in pagan worship, 621-22; blind following of avoided by Jose phus, 31; changes in as compared to Hebrew text, 15; changes in noted by rabbis, 27m 6; generally ignored by pagans, 132-33; infl uence of on Josephus, 8 n n ; known by Jose phus in Joseph narrative, 336n3; miraculous manner of translation of, 4 1 ^ 0 ; model of for Josephus, 14-15; parallels of with rab binic tradition, 6 7 - 6 8 ; as precedent for Jose phus's Antiquities, 47; text of used by Jose phus, 26-27; translators of not described by Josephus as prophets, 6 m 8 i ; use of by Jose phus, 23m3, 24-27 of
sexual intercourse, permitted, according to Philo and Josephus, solely to beget children, 53 Sheba, rebel against David, termed a lover of dissension by Josephus, 141 Sheba, Queen of, amount of space given to by Josephus, 75 Shechem, sanctuary at sacred to Samaritans omitted by Josephus, 38
808
GENERAL
INDEX
shewbread, symbolic of twelve months in Jose phus as in Philo, 53 Sodomites, lack self-control of, 237-38 Solomon, administrative skill of, 610; asks G - d to grant prayers of foreigners, 119, 660; avoids civil strife, 6 1 1 - 1 2 ; brings about per fect peace, 95, 6 0 6 - 7 , 6 1 1 - 1 2 ; as builder, 6 0 5 - 6 ; builds the Temple, 5 9 5 - 6 0 0 ; com pared with David, 5 7 0 - 7 1 ; compared with
superstition, alleged of Jews, 2 8 7 - 8 8 suspense, heightened by Josephus, 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 666; in Daniel narrative, 655; in Jacob narrative, 328-29; in Joseph narrative, 367; in Moses narrative, 440-41 suspicion, in Samson narrative, 4 7 6 - 7 7 ; in Samuel narrative, 507; in Solomon narrative, 623-24 "sympathizers," non-Jews who accepted certain
Oedipus, 174-75, 5 7 9 - 8 3 , 5 8 7 - 8 8 ; dedicates
practices of Judaism without converting,
the Temple, 599; exorcises demons, 106,
i6on34
5 8 4 - 8 5 ; filial piety of, 129, 594; generosity of, 5 9 2 - 9 3 ; gives security to his people, 95; gratefulnss of, 592; great spirit of, 126; im portance of for Josephus, 574-76; incredible
Tabernacle, division into three parts, similarity of Josephus with Philo in, 53 Tamar, daughter of David, beginning of inci
details avoided in pericope of, 5 8 5 - 8 6 ,
dent of with Amnon not to translated or
5 9 8 - 9 9 ; intermarriages of, 6 1 5 - 1 8 ; Jose
read in synagogue according to rabbis and
phus's treatment of, 5 7 0 - 6 2 8 ; judges the case of the two harlots, 5 8 0 - 8 3 ; justice of, 116, 5 9 0 - 9 3 ; justice of in punishing Shimei, 591; leadership qualities of, 5 7 8 - 7 9 ; modesty of in acknowledging great wisdom of Abde mon, 104, 113, 590; non-Jewish references to, 574-75; palace of, 6 0 7 - 9 ; piety of, 128,
omitted by Josephus, 72 tapestries, symbolic of four elements in Jose phus as in Philo, 53 Targum Sheni, free, midrashic-like paraphrase of Book of Esther, Greek words in, 3 6 ^ 8 targumim, Aramaic paraphrases of Bible, as possible model for Josephus, 17, 27-30
593-602; rabbinic portrait of, 572-74; skill in
temperance, importance of, 1 0 9 - 1 2 , 663
battle of, 5 8 8 - 8 9 ; temperance of, 5 8 9 - 9 0 ;
Temple in Jerusalem, building of, 5 9 7 - 9 9 ; dedi
upbringing of, 577; wealth of, 93, 578; wis
cation of by Solomon, 596; destruction of
dom of, 99, 5 7 9 - 8 8 ;
paralleled with destruction of the First Tem
Sophocles, influence of in Solomon narrative, 5 7 9 - 8 3 , 5 8 7 - 8 8 , 619; knowledge of by Jose phus, 173-75 Spartans, connections of with Jews, 2 3 7 ^ 6 Sthenidas of Locri, Pythagorean philosopher, stresses importance of wisdom for a king, 97 Stoicism, combated by Josephus in proof for ex istence of G - d , 2 6 2 - 6 3 ; favorable view of by Josephus, 192-97; influence of in Daniel nar rative, 6 3 9 - 4 0 ; influence of in Josephus's c
narrative of Aqedah, 271, 273; influence of in Josephus's portraits of wise men, 55, 666; influence of in Solomon narrative, 6 1 9 - 2 1 stones on breastplate of high priest, terminology of Josephus for as compared with that of Hebrew and Septuagint, 31; terminology of Josephus for as compared with that of Pseudo-Philo, 3 1 - 3 2 ^ 2 Strabo, Greek historian and geographer, infl uence of on Josephus, 8 n n
ple, 6 m 8 2 , 1 5 5 ; devotion to as primary indi cation of piety, 127; focus of Josephus's in terest, 6 1 - 6 2 ; Temple Scroll, Dead Sea Scroll, parallels of with Josephus's classification of laws, 68 Ten Commandments, not reproduced literally by Josephus, 38; recitation of prohibited by rabbis, 381141 Teucer of Cyzicus, author of lost work about Jews, 40 "thematic" school, of historiography, followed by Josephus in rearranging biblical material, 163 Theodectes, tragedian, influenced by Isocrates, 5 Theon, rhetorician, notes utility of rhetorical exercises for writing of history, 82, 279m33 Theophrastus, alleged knowledge by of sacrifice of Isaac, 293n5 Theopompus, Greek historian, diverted by a dream from translating Pentateuch into Greek, 102; influenced by Isocrates, 5; intro
strength, of biblical heroes, 108
duces personal history, 5n6; lauded by
suicides at Jotapata and Masada, influence of on
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 8; turns to biog
Josephus's account of sacrifice of Isaac, 56
raphy and psychology, 6
GENERAL INDEX
Thermuthis, daughter of Pharaoh, named thus in both Jubilees and Josephus, 5 i n 6 o Thetis, nymph, destined to have a son more powerful than the father, 88 Thucydides, Greek historian, criticized by Jose phus, 18; does not exclude mythical from his tory, 10; influence of in Solomon narrative, 619; knowledge of by Josephus, 177-78; model of used by Josephus, 11, n n i 7 ; stresses importance of proper leadership, 94 Titus, Roman Emperor, destroyer of Second Temple, 61 Torah, passages in questioning authorship of omitted by Josephus, 328 tragedians, freedom of in dealing with Greek myths, 4 3 - 4 4 tragedy, connection with history, 6; influence on Josephus, 1 8 0 - 8 5 , 4385 666 tragic motifs, in Samson narrative, 474-75
809
washing of hands over heifer, in Temple Scroll and Josephus, 68 wealth of biblical heroes, can lead to insolence, 93; emphasized by Josephus, 93 wisdom, virtue emphasized in Josephus's bibli cal heroes, 9 7 - 1 0 6 , 6 6 2 - 6 3 Wisdom of Solomon, Apocryphal book, known to Josephus, 51 witch of Endor, generosity of, 123; source of recognition of Saul by explained by Jose phus, 168 witnesses, number of, according to Dead Sea Damascus Covenant and Josephus, 68; slaves disqualified as, 87 women, can be praised only in comparison with other women, 1 8 8 - 8 9 ; derogatory attitude to of Homer, Plato, Aristode, and Philo, 190; disparaging view toward of Philo, 1 9 0 ^ 7 ; Josephus's attitude to, 1 8 8 - 9 0
"translate," various words used by Josephus for, 44-46 translation, theories of, 44 translator, qualifications of, 45 truth, Josephus's concern with, 238; as link be tween prophecy and history, 58
Xenophon, Greek historian, lauded by Diony sius of Halicarnassus, 8ni2; notes items cru cial to happiness, 82 Xerxes, Persian king, kindness of, 126; piety of, 128
tyranny, worst form of government, according to Josephus, 147-48
Zambrias (Zimri), Israelite who consorts with Midianite woman; reflects arguments of as
Uriah, Joab's armor bearer, 34
similated Jews of Josephus's day, 137, vehe-
Urim and Thummim, oracles of high priests,
mendy condemned by Josephus, 49, 4 9 ^ 8
ceased to function after reign of John Hyr
Zealots, hot-bloodedness of, 112
canus, 6on8o
Zedekiah, king of Judah, exonerated by Jose
Uzziah, King of Judah, earthquake in time of,
phus, 660; generosity of, 124; ingratitude of
reported by Josephus, 72; punished by G—d
attacked by Nebuchadnezzar, 124; like Aris
with leprosy for his insolence, 181
totelian tragic hero, 1 7 9 - 8 0 ; possible rab binic source of Josephus for favorable view
vegetarianism, of Daniel, 643-44
of, 71; view of in Dead Sea fragment, 71 Zelophehad, daughters of, Moses' handling of
war, avoidance of, 415 War, by Josephus, translated from Aramaic to Greek, 46 warfare, skill in, emphasized by Josephus, 106
request of, 393 Zerubbabel, leader of returning Jewish exiles, declares that Temple is open to all people, "9
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND A R A M A I C W O R D S
GREEK
WORDS d/cAeai?, 618
dpXaPrjs, 193, 272 dfiovXia, 113
aKfjiaiordrovs,
"Aftpafxos, 226
aKfxats,
dyadoi,
aKorj, 613
515
d/co?)?, 528, 613
ay ados, 71 ay ados TO tfdos, 512 dyadov
467
631
Kal SiKaiov,
aKOOfjLCDS, 389 aKpaiv6)v, 643
634
dyadwv,
450
aKpaaia,
dyaXfxa,
622
aKpaaia
6161160, 6171160 d(f>pooioio)v, 137
ayaTT-qoei, 312
aKpaaiav,
i l l , 616, 625
aya7nyrov, 267
aKpaoias,
in
ayyeXos,
aKpdrov
328
aKparots,
dyeVeia, 87 dyrjpo) fxvrjiJLrjv, 521
aKpifieias,
dy-qpoiv cnaivov,
aKpodofxai,
521
6161159
fyXorvirias,
2021152
187, 2031154, 475, 6251178 577 228
dyvo)fMOva, 180, 181, 238, 244
aKpodr-qs,
ayi>cojU,ocrw>ai>, 180
aKpos,
dyvaifJLoavvT], 181
aKpoo)pi€VOLS, 97, 230
230
225
dy^ivoias , 581
dAa£oi>€ia, 545
aycovi^oju-evot, 522
dAa£oj>eia?,
dSeiav, 144, 296
dA^fleiew dya7rcoaa, 556
1
aSeoTTOTajs fivdoXoyovficvaiv, aSiKov,
389
dXTjdrjs, 473n28
20
dA^Tiyv, 157
297
aSi/cov €7n6vp.Cav
t
259
dXXorpicus, 615 dAAo^uAow?, 122, 140
dSiKOV, 143 dSi/coua^s',
dAdy«7TO!>, 617
204
dAoyov, 476
(XSUTOV, 622 di)/) TT€7rXTjyix€vos, nXrjyf) depos,
dA<£a, 3851129
621
at&'p' 62in72
dA^ous, 3851129
aifMari Kal 6vq), 284
dfxadias,
aiviyfxa,
dfjLeXeorcpov, 42
alviyp.ara, alviyp.ari,
582
dfxrjxaviav,
582
180
515
dfXLKTOV, 117
581
aliBia)s, 5 1 6
dfJLOifirjs, 621
alajviov,
dfMoipos yfjs, 1731118
248
811
812
GREEK,
LATIN, AND
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC
WORDS
dvaftoXrjs, 527
aTrAoTT/s, 554, 5541118, 555
dvdyKT), 177
airXoT-qra, 189
dvdyK-qs,
d7ro8eiAidaas, 570
196
dvaypa<j>ai, 42, 43 (bis)
aTToSeitjeats, 614
dvaypa<j>als, 42
a7roSou, 319
dvadrffxa,
aTToAuop'TO?, 358
622
dvdfxvriaLv, 383
a7rovoiav, 531
dva^vqais,
d7roya>s, I43n5
383
dvopayadia,
406, 465
dvSpayadiag,
107
dvSpcia, 109, 127, 421, 497, 541, 544, 545, 548 M, dvhpeia,
diropa
p,iv yiverai
diropa
TTopi/AOS, 173
diropias,
388, 586
556,564
diropov,
5 1 6 , 547, 577
aTTOOTjuaivaiv,
587 167
dvSpciav,
109, 412
dirpdyiAOva, 389
dvSpelos,
109, 521, 548
dnpagias,
avSpetorarov, dvopciov,
388
aTTpoaderj, 621
108
d77/>oaSe77?, 620, 6211171
523
dvcKpayov,
r d nopi/Aa, 172
dirreadai
500
jSouAeu/zdraw, 1731118
dv€7riKXr]TOL, 467
aTTTOfxaL, 259
dverXr), 172
aTTTio, 2591179
avi}/», 396
a p y o s , 547
di>77/>7raa€v, 600
dp€OK€odai,
dvdpa)7rivr)s . . . vo€a>s, 529
dperd?, 270
dvOpumivov,
dpe-nj, 112, 127 (Aw), 226 (for), 269, 378 (Aw), 399,
1181146
dviouaav, 621
421, 465, 469, 548, 564
dvorjTOv, 503
T
a/* ??> 377
dvo^TOj, 97, 464
dp€T^v, 1 0 3 , 1 6 8 , 224 (Aw), 226, 231, 296, 347,
dvofxia, 140
356, 377 (to), 3 8 7 , 4 1 4 , 4 2 5 , 5 7 7 , 604
dvTTjTTaTa, 464 dvTLT€xvdoaodai,
dp€TI7?, 138, 224, 331, 378, 3 9 8 , 4 2 4 , 4 8 8 , 5 9 1 308
dpLOTOKpariav,
a£av, 600 d^ias,
dpiGTOv,
602
apiOTOS,
d^t/c€T€uciv, 173m 8
apioros
d|ia>/xa, 226, 608
doi8ifxov, 551
471
dp^aioAoyiav, 37 dp^aioAoyos, 10
a7rd0eia, 193, 271 (fer), 666
dpxouorrjs,
184, 193, 270 (Aw), 271 271
dp^i) fxeyiarrj TWV i v dvdpwnois ra Xiav dyaOd,
aTTavdpwnoi, 119, 615
dirdvdpa)TTOS, 119
a7raTec(iva, 374 diraTrjv, 614 dir€^>aiv€, 231 a7rcxo/xcvoi, 643
265095
dpxih€ap.ofj>vXa^, 3711172
diTavdpumov riva, 117 diravdpoiTTOV Tiva Kal /XLOO^CVOV,
84
<W?> 5 5 °
d7ra0ijs, 193 (Aw), 271 (fay)
drrAaaTO?, 314
291 . . . pwiirj, 547
dpxaioAoyia, io(quinquiens), 111115, 84, 85
doiSifjios, 5 5 2 m 6
dnadrj KaKOV,
144
516
dpnaadp,€vos,
d^tcojLta T17S pLop
diradri,
624
dpx^dyeipos, 137
dpxovres,
311119
300
daapdd,
28
doepeia,
115,558
dac^etav, doepcts, daepeaiv,
127, 421 265 143
daryma,
31
aoKfjoiv,
3091110
KaKwv,
wyade,
GREEK,
LATIN, AND
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC WORDS
aoKTjTrjs, 306
fiovXrjois, 501, 560
daK7)TLKOS, 308n6
fivKavr),
dop.€va>s, 418
jScu/Ltos, 622
doTTaodjxevos,
322
daTaaiaarov,
392
401
yajxfipovs,
doTeiov,
384
yavpos,
doreios,
99, 306114, 3101111
ycyovws,
28711151
385 45 (bis)
davp.<j>vXov, 117
yeycjvorcpov,
439
doa\€OT€pav, 534
yeiTviwvTtov,
242
fl.Tr),
yeXwra,
612
248
drrj, 528
yeXcjTa TiOcoOai,
droirov,
517
yev€L, 87
avddSr),
524
180, 238, 244
y€V€<J€U)S, 283, 527
avdaSiav,
180 (Aw)
yewaiov,
avrdpK-q,
621
ycvyafov . . . T O (fypovrjfjia,
avrapK-qs,
226, 236, 278, 295, 523, 610
avT€£oucriov, 148, I 4 8 n i 3 , 433, 435
yevojxeva,
avTOfiaTiaixw,
yeyos, 228, 325
640
58, 447
avTOjxdrov,
301
ycuaov, 318027
avTOiidrats,
192, 3011120, 423, 427 (Aw), 640
y»7/>'. . . Xnrapto, 618 yrjpai . . . Xinapcp, 618
auTOV, 248 daviaai, 265
yrjpas, 618
dfeXeodai,
yrjpas . . . Xmapov,
274
618
dpo8iaio)v, 625
yy\poKO[LT]Oovoiv,
d<j>p6vTi<JTOV, 192, 640
y-qpoKopLias, 2800137
d<j>poovvq, H i , 113, 550, 551
yripoKOfAOLO, 280
dpoavvr)s, 314
yrjpoKOfiov, 280, 302
dV€OTaTOVS, 228
yr)s" a/capma, 580
dxOdfjLcvos,
yifc
298, 312
tyopiq,
yvrjolov,
dipvx<*>v, 642, 643
yvcofiji,
261
yvwpifioi,
paadvov,
yor/ra, 374
503
yor)T€iav,
244
flaoKaivovTas, (iaoKaivovai,
579
582
jSapeia? ef^o?, ^43
^aoiXi^ovoa,
280
y v ^ a i o v , 261
259
fiaoKavia,
296
yevvai(x)S, 278, 295, 522
6211170
dxpavTos,
539
429
yopyds, 542, 54209
199
y w a i K e i a s , 190
201
yvvaiKtlas
644
fiovXds,
191
jSaa/cavias, 201
ywai/cciov, 190036 (fo?), 191, 371
fiaoKavov,
yvvaiK€LO)v . . . KOv<j>oXoyi
200
ftaGKavcDS, 199
yvvaiKeicos,
fieXos, 265
y w a i / c e ? , 564
^
813
190036
y w c u o v , 189032, 189033
5!5
jSiaia npoordyixara, j8iW, 238, 246
434
yuvatov . . . rt aw<j>pov /cat avverov, y w i y , 189032
^Xaa
Sai/Ltovios dvijp, lOO
jSoijs, 465
Seiy/xa, 581
ftovXfj, 443112
SeiAias, 109
jSouAijaci, 501
Seivoi a w i e v a i , 97, 229, 265, 308
ftovXrjoiv,
Seivdv, 419, 527, 586
137, 501
188—89032
814
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND A R A M A I C W O R D S
oeivov ovra
irpdypLOvra., 99
OVVLSCLV
8iaepovras, 92 8iadeip€iv, 416
oeivos, 228, 232 Scivos cuv ovvicvai,
97, 174, 228
Siewr/oaycov, 564
oeivcbv, 521
Sii7/LiapT€, 311
oeivtbs, 502
Si/caia, 124, 556, 577014
oetodai, 593
Si/caiois, 501
oetjiOTrjs, 98, 347
SiWov, 116 (Aw), 499, 503, 551, 591 (Aw), 594
he^LOTqra, 346, 348
SiWos, 39, 71, 115 (fer), 124 (Aw), 223, 521, 550, 552 (to), 555, 556 (Aw), 590, 594
Beos, 644 o€onov\ag, 371072
Si/caio? Adyoj, 115, 116 (Aw), 526
oecmoTas, 435
Si/caioawiy, 124, 499, 541, 544, 552
oeoiroTr), 435
8iKaioovvr), 577
hevrepcoais, 72
Si/caioaw7/v, 96, 115, 116 (quater), 122, 156, 599
Si7/naya>ycoi>, 147
8iKaioovvr)s,
orjixiovpyel, 179
8IKCLIOV,
Srjfxiovpyov, 262
Si/caiou?, 611
8^/xioupyd?, 179, 262n87 (Aw), 327, 37707
Si/caia>, 556, 5 5 (to), 591
Sij^iois, 104033
8iKaitos, 500, 556, 591
Siy/noi? d/ziAeiv TndavcoTaros,
400055
145, 224, 310, 502
116, 190, 419, 594 8
8iKrj, 113, 156, 611, 612, 612051
0-qp.oaia, 225
SoAepdv, 464
8r)fJLOTLKO)T€pOV, 4*3
BoXepcbrepov, 191, 480
Sialatvos,
SoAicoTaros, 156
324
8L €vy€veiav iirufxivovs, 87
So£d£cTai, 224
81 VTT€pfioAr)v €vvias, 633
Sd£av, 224, 231, 377, 464, 521 (Aw), 578, 603
Sid r>)v irarpcoav dpeTrjv, 87
86£r)s, 522
Sid
TIVO?
8ovXevaei, 316
Sid
TOUTO,
€xav, 8011 203054
SouAof . . . (frpovrjfxa, 144
Sid fax^s dperrjv, 313
SpaTreVai, 553
Sia^oAri, 531, 556
Swd/xeco?, 262
SiaSo^, 226
Suva/xiv, 236, 429
8ia8oxjj, 243
8vvapLLS, 237035
SiaSpo/zdv, 600
Swards', 51204
8iadr)Kr), 154
8voap€OTOV,
8ia9riKr)v, 154022
8VOKOXOV,
S i W a , n o , 112 (fer), 486, 634 (fer), 644, 644033
8vOpL€VCl>S, 242
Siairav, 137, 472, 486, 505021, 647
Avovopiir), 612
SiaiVas, 498
8vox€prjs, 580
SiaiVfl, 112, 472, 634, 644
8top€ats, 356
BiaKoapcqaas, 4 9 6
8cdpoV,
8iaKoapLrjaovai
146, 386 503, 580, 581
622
409
}
Sia/Liaprias, 321
ifidoTatjev,
Sidvoia, 543 (Aw), 581
efiovXevoaro,
Siavoia, 97
ifipdfevev,
Sidvoiav, 97, 99, 514, 579, 581, 625 (Aw)
'EftpaiKcov . . . ypapLfxaTcov, 25
Siavoia?, 144, 146
iycXaae,
8ia7T€7Tovrjix€vr)v, 586
cy/cpdreiai, 412070
8lOL'TTp€TTTjS 592, 607
iyKpdrciav,
Sia7TTuaaa>v, 231, 231019
eSeSici, 238
t
470 156
499 248 112, 525 (Aw)
8iaaarjaavTas, 46
eSei, 195, 474
Sidra^iv T O U 7roXiT€vixaTOS, 140
cSouAeuev, 612
8ia€pov, 463
cSouAou, 144
GREEK,
edeOl,
LATIN, AND
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC
ep.<j>vXos GTaois,
edvos,
efx
622
610
ev dy covia 8eivfj, 518
efSei, 93
ev dperaf? TeXeiov, 291
efSoAov, 622 ei8os dyrjTOV,
ev <xpxi7 exTioev
91
ei/ca£e, 262
6 deos TOV ovpavov
622
ev dAiyois, 87 ev dAiyois dpiOTOS,
elp.app.evr)s,
ev T O I S einxcopiois
194
87, 462 r)p,cov jSi/JAiois, 51
ev T O ) 7ravri . . . ^pdvoj, 598
400
elprjvrj, 6 1 1 , 612, 612051
ev rep of$etodai avTOvs avrov,
elprjvrjv, 611
evBo^OTaros,
efs,
Kal TT)V yrjv,
30018
elp.app.evr], 194 (Aw), 195, 274
elrreiv,
815
ep,7To8cov, 275 (Aw), 283
242
ediapicov, 6 1 6
eiKov,
WORDS
467013
574
evedvfjLrjdr), 166
622
ciS" airoiKiav,
evrjKev, 169
244
evdavfxd^ovoa,
€i? "EXXrjvas, 47 €i? epcora Setvdv toXiodev,
476
evioi, 262088
440
eis 'Peydv, 32
evvous, 582, 582022
ei? TT)V 717V TT)V viprjXf)v, 257
evo^Aaiv, 406
€i? T O p.eXXov, 251
evpdooei,
eis >paTpias, 437
evoeiodeis,
elaeTTOi-qaaro, 261 (Aw)
evvfipiocooiv,
e/c TTO.T4.PLQV SiaSo^s, 69
e£ depos,
472 471 181, 475
621
e£efior)drj, 258
e/c Taavovs, 252 eV TCOV !Bj8paiKaiv ix€drjpp.rjv€vix€vrjv
ypap.p.aTUiv,
i^eipcovevofievcov,
190036
e^e'Aero >pevas eodXds,
37
528
e£eraaiv, 614 €Karovdpxr)S,
341132
€KaTOvapxos,
341132
e£r)yr)Tas, 33603 e£oKeXXovT€s
159
}
e/cjSidaai, 4801143 e£vPpi£,eiv,
244
ii<8ir)yr)oaTO, 476 e£vftu£ev, 181 €KKXrjoia, 443112 egvfipiCov, 180 €KXCLVO€V, €KIXdV€LS,
4691118, 485 2021152, 6 l 6 , 625, 626
€K7rr)8rjoas,
e^vfipioat,
186
eioopfirjoev,
566
129056, 319, 546
eWAaye'vTi, 313
* V T I ? , 557
€K7rXr)£iv,
eVayajyois, 614
476
eKTifxrjixeva,
erraivov, 521
228
€KTLO€V, 165
Zireide, 138
€KavXi ,6vTcov, 242
eneip&TO,
€K
eVeAvero, 587
€K€pU), 48O
eire^epx^Tai,
€KptOV, 528
€7T€OTpapLIJL€VOV,
eXeyev,
erreoTpe^e,
r
481
iXeyxofievos,
iXevdepiav, eXevdepias, eXevdepov,
498
338
e7T€vr)iAr)oe, 497 €7rr)Xvv, 157
148 (Aw), 504 148 (quater), 435 (ter), 504 (Aw)
€7T7jXvS, 234
148, 435 (ter)
err^veoe,
613
CTTi yrjpaos ov8co, 176021, 268 (Aw), 2680103,
433
2690104 (Aw)
ejXLoeiro, 312 ep.Tro8il.ovTa reus emdvp.iais,
$12
91
€7T€Tilxr)0€V,
368
eAeeivdv, 118046 eXevdepia,
392
259082
e7n yrjpoKOfxia,
2800137
816
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND A R A M A I C W O R D S
172, 183, 268, 26911104 (ter)
epcoTt, 330 (bis)
inl
yrjpcos ovotp,
im
TroXXrjs €lpr)viqs, 95, 606
ipCOTLKCOS, 369
inl
rots irapovatv
ea7rov8d£eTO,
dyadots,
619
602
€7rl TCOV . . . p.ayeLpcov, 3 i n i 9
€07rovodK€i, 129056, 319
€7TL€LK€LaV, 38O
eOTTOVOOLKcbs, 269, 298
€7TL€LK€LaS, 530
COTLCLV,
€TTl€LK€lS, 531
€Tcupo£,op.€vr)s, 187, 480, 481
€7ri€LK€OT€pOV, IIJ
iratpoL,
€m€tK7J, 4 9 9
€T€XVIT€V€,
€TTl€lKr)S, I I I , 121, 55O
€Ti 770.1?, 542
irndvp/qaas
atpLaros dvOpconivov,
€7ridvp,r)oas
p.eydXcov,
473
€ToAp,rjO€, 244
284
€Tp€€TO, 226, 243, 346, 384
140
yeyovdrcov, 86, 378
237, 586
eu yeyoi>a>s, 87, 512
irndvpLLa, 137 imdvpiia
539
€Toip,OTr)Ta, 527
l-nMprn.p.a, 393
imdvpbia,
511
TCOV p.r) 7rpoarjKOVTCov yvvaiKi,
190
euyeveiav, 86, 344
€7Ti0VpLLaLS, 137, 412
euyevcias, 86
€7ndvp.Lav, 369, 521, 522
euyeve's, 3441120
€TTLdvp,LaS, 2 6 l , 284
evyeveoTaTovs,
€TTip.aV€S, 259
euyev^s, 85, 344020
€TTtp.€\€iaV, 346, 360
euycvi)? 7T€vKas, 85
eVi/neAeias, 346, 384
evyvcbpLOVL, 296
€7TLIX€XeS, 602
€vyixcop.ovL Aoyiop.cp, 97
631
€7Tivoiq, 515
ev8a.Lp.ova, 271 (Aw)
€TTIVOIOLV,
57
euSai/Lioveiv, 180
emvoias,
398
€v8aip.ovr)0€iv,
2800138, 302
€7TL7TOVOV, 580
€v8atp.ovia, 247, 302
€7Tiornxos, 306114
€v8aip.oviq,
€7TLaTpe€adai, 92
€uSai/Aoi>iai/, 252, 262, 270, 2800138 (Aw), 307,
€7TLTr)8evp.aTa, 91 €7TLTp€lpaVTOS, 2C)6
576, 619
607, 619 euSat/u-ovias, 307 (Aw), 326, 619 (Aw)
€7TlTVXOVTaS, 541
euSai/zdvcos, 226, 2800138 (Aw), 302
€7TL(f)dv€ia $€OV, 62HI73
eueiSeaTciTous, 91
€TTl(LV€iaS, 621
evcpyeotas,
€7TlaV€LS, 307
euepycTeiv, 419080
€7n<j>av€OTepav, 231
evepyeT-qdeioai,
tTTKfcavrjs, 4751130
euepycT^aavros:, 553
€7TOL€L, 5I5
evdeia,
€7TOir)0€V, 165
€vdvp,iav,
epa, 478
euflvs, 248, 552, 564
epaodeis,
261, 481
555
478 635
cuAoyia, 622
ipyaoLdLS,
605
ei5^evi7, 437
epL^ovoai,
320
€vp.opia, 463
v
419
€vp,opiais, 631
2?pis, 612
€pp,r)V€ia, 46
cvp.op^iav,
€pp,r)V€iav, 46 (bis)
€vp,op>ias, 92, 384
€pp,r)V€Las, 46
cvvoia,
ippL-qvevaai,
€uvoiai>, 296, 414, 517, 613
45
€pp,r)V€VTr)S, 46
n
259, 345, 5 9 9 3 7 ,
6 o
9
555, 5 6 6
e w o i a s , 481
epixrjvevco, 45, 46
e w o / z i a , 4 9 9 , 563, 6 1 1 , 612, 612051
epcos, 271, 312, 331
evvofAiav, 499, 611
GREEK, LATIN, A N D HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC W O R D S
Evvop.LT), 612, 6121152 evvofiirj, 612 Evvofxirjv TC AiKt]v re Kal Elprjvrjv, 6 l l evvovs, 546 eimouav, 419 ewrpayiais, 181, 224 €V7rp€7T€tq, 92 €V7Tp€TT€S, 608 evoefiei, 556, 594 eiWfcia, 127, 1271155, 310, 421, 424, 541, 544, 548, 55°> 556 (bis), 593 euae/Seia, 128, 452, 526, 577, 600 euae'/feiav, 128, 421 (bis), 422, 599 euacjSeias, 128, 526, 594 (bis), 595 (bis) evoefiets, 611 evoefsr), 593 evoeffis, 124, 556, 577014, 593 (Aw) evoefHrjs tov Kal Si/caio? /cat dvSpeios, 576 ei5aej3a>s, 556, 593 €VOTOX<*>S, 561 evraKTOv TCOV ovpavicov KLvrjaiv, 262n88 evra^ia, 194, 262 €vroA/Ltta, 545 €VTOVC0T€pC0V, 643 curu^tav, 181 €v<j>r)p.ias, 522 €Vvias, 641 euxapianyaas, 4 6 eui/ru^ia, 548 evi/tvxoi, 309, 523 €VlftVXOS, 108, 109 euojxta, 357 eua>xiais, 409 ec^auAiaaaa, 480 €avXioev, 318 €<^€lA/COVTO, 643 2
idovr)6r), 201 iiXoo6r)0€, 584 e^Aeua^ev, 625 ixoprjyrjoe, 236 ^rjXoTVTrrjdrjvaL, 201051 L^rjXoTVTria, 476034 tpnXorvTTiav, 199, 202052 (Aw), 203054, 476,595, 612 tflXoTVTTLaS, 476034 ^AOTUTTOS, l87, 203O54, 475, 476034, 625078 ^AoTWTOUVTWV, 203 ^Aoriwouatv, 201 ^ A o T W r O ) ? , 202052 £i}Aa>, 202052, 588 ^ A a > T O S , 588
817
rfyavaKTrjoe, 547 rjycp.ova, 401 ijyc/xdva /cat ovp.fiovXov, 423 r)yep.ovia, 326 r)y€p.oviav, 299 r)y€p,ovias, 226, 243 r)yep.cov, 107, 401 (Aw), 401058 r)yv6rjO€v dyvoiav p,€ydXr)v, 527023 iJSecos, 331 iJSovdj, 616059 17S0V17, 137 dAdyiaros, 137 r)8ovrj TOV /cepSaiveiv, 143 17S0V17V, 137 IJSOVT/S, 143 17S0V6OV, 137 ^0ei 7roAAd>v yvvaiKtov 8ta
464
17/zepos, 550, 555 r)p,€poTr]Ta, 118,417 r)p.4pcos, 589 lyvdy/ca^e, 318 rjvayKa^ero, ill r)v8payd0r)O€, 236 -qvioxov, 192, 640 ijaflev, 497 lyat^i'av dyet, 297 rjTTf]TO, 145, 502 TjTTOva, 190 0aAAdv, 31021 0aAAdv cAaias, 31021 0appeiv, 498 dappovvra, 406 Bappovvroiv, 274 dappcov, 308 Odpaos, 405 Savp.aoLWTaros, 233 Bavp.aoTrjs . . . 86£rjs, 516 6avp.aor6v, 375, 385, 597 0eia . . . eVivoia re /cat O7rov8fj, 609 0cia Karoxr), 539 0eiav, 581 0eiav Sidvoiav, 99 0*">v, 375, 385 0eiov dv8pa, 396 0eiaa TO rrai8iov iftvxoppayovv, cos p>r) irapovorjs rr)v iftvxqv dfj Trpofjci, 2J0 deos, 638020 (Aw) Seooeftci, 558
818
GREEK,
LATIN,
AND
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC
WORDS
OeooePrjs, 556, 558
KaOdirep evOovoiaivres,
OeofaXets,
Ka6apu>v, 643
640
deofaXeoTdTOS,
574
0€oiXris, 299, 560, 635 depaireia,
Sepias,
278, 295
/cat 7repi T O U T O irovetv, 525
150, 269, 272, 344
/cat 6fios OVK €7TL^r)o€Taiy 4711123
112
depfjLrjV . . . Kaphiav, Bepfxos,
4871161
Kadiepcjoiv,
KdOaJS V7T€v6r)<J€, 258
272, 27211108, 2951115
Bepaireias,
KadevSovra,
6in8i
KOLlVOTTOltoV, 6 l l
no
KaipicoTdrrfv,
in
409
depfjiorepois,
H 2
KdKLOTOVS,
depfxorepov,
ill
KOLKOl KdK(X>S aTToXXvoOaU, I7311l8
dcpfxorepovs,
KdKOvpytov,
112
deafioBeTris,
367, 439
311
/ca/cai €7ri y ^ p a o ? ou8ai, 268
98, 375, 399 (to)
/cdAAei, 92, 513, 606
0eo7T€Oios, 539 (to) deoTTiOTrjs, 349
KaXXiepeco, 622
drjp&odai,
KdXXiepovvres,
1731118
622 (fer)
0 i a a o ? , 539
KdXXiarr}v,
didacbrrjs,
/cdAAos, 92, 384, 529
539
409
BiaacoTOv, 3141118
/cdAAous, 92, 384
dopvfiov,
KaAds, 464
535
dopvpa>8r), 146, 389
/caAou, 190, 465
Bpdaos,
KdXovs Kdyddovs,
191
dpr)OK€iav, 269, 298
646
*aA<£, 92, 475
fluea*, 622 (to)
/caAaiv, 513 a
€
aa
dvfxaoiv ($poTT)oiois x P ^ >
/caAais, 522
284
0uaia, 557
KdfXdTcov,
OvoLCLOTrjpiov, 622
Kdprepds,
235
6a)TT€ia, 552
Kdprepid,
127, 405, 421
390
KdprepLd, 4121170 TSios, 8 n n
Kdprepiai,
l8lO>T€UCOV, 4 I 3
Kdprepiav,
Upets,
Kdr
180
tepoypa/x/xarea,
96
dyvoidv,
504
KdT iiridvixidv
347
UpoypafxixaTcvs,
4121170
(hpfjbrjixcvos, 186, 261
KdT €7TL(f>pOOVVr)V TOV 0€OV, 579
n
377 7
lepd? evoefirjs re, 594
/card 0€ou irpovoidv,
Upo^dvrrjs,
/card TdVTOfjLdrov,
4221185
483
640
1/CaVO? . . . €LTT€LV, 4OOII55
/card TT)V M ^ O V I O U ovp,fiovXidV,
iKaviOTaros,
/card TT)V olKidv
548
rd^iv,
IXapov, 5 6 6
KdTdyeXdoros,
ijixciTta, 336113
KdTdyatyiov,
IfxaTiov, 336113
KdTdKoXovdrjoei,
TovXos,
KdrdXdfjL^dvopLevos, 587
498
163
545 4811145 230
KdTdfJL€fJuJjdlX€VOl, 467 iffXW, 108 (quater)
Kdravvx^evTOS,
loxvos,
KdTdirXdyeis,
loxvpov,
309, 466, 471 630113
KdTdirXdy€VT€S,
KdTd>povr)a€i, 437
ICTXlk, 465
'JwiJA, 498, 4981116 IwrjXos, 4981116
515
Kdrdax^aLV, 1541123
LOXVpOS, 464
ia>, 1 0 6 , /xeydAai fxcydXcov evSaipLoviai,
312 570
270
KdTdp6vr)oiv, 531 KdTdpovu>v, 405 KdreSeiae,
534
139
GREEK,
Kareixe
LATIN, A N D HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC
T O TrXrjdos, 4 4 6
KaTevtoxrjoas,
WORDS
819
Aoyi^d/Ltcvos, 527 Aoyiov, 433
555
Aoyia/Ltoi?, 348, 6161159
KarrJKOOV, 551 KaT7)(j>r]s, 371
AoyioTxdv, 9 8 , 137, 348, 3481132, 353
KOLTOIKCIV, 326
AoyioTxds, 97, 971123, 98, n o , 347 (Aw), 3481130
KaTOiKrjaiv, 154
Aoyia/xoiJ, 617
K€Kivrjdai,
Aoyia/Ltai, 9 8 , 271, 296, 348 (Aw), 350, 5271124, 586
642
K€KpaTr)K€VCLl, 297
AoyicoTaVous, 351
/ceAcuaavTO?, 26911105
Xoyoypdoi, 58
Krevous, 231
Adyov, 99, 464
KCVTpOLS, 137
Adyo?, 212
K€XQ-pi>op>€vr)V, 28411144
Adyou 7ravTds . . . p,€i£,ov, 597
K€Xdpiop.4vov,
Adyous aiViy/xaToSSei?, 5 8 6
308 (Aw)
K€xa.piop>€vcos, 350
Adyous Trpoo(f>€povor}S rrepl piitjccos, 3691166
K€XVp.€VOV, 6191164
Adyw, 515
K€XVp.€VOS, 560
Aoi/xoV, 5791119
KrjSepLova, 280, 302 (Aw)
Xvrrrjs, 520
Krj8€p.6vos, 302 (Aw), 388 KlfitoTOS, 133
p.a0rjoecos, 306114
tfAea dVSpojv, 545, 551
p.aKpdv OVK d€OTr)Kas, 620
/cAeos, 545 KXCOS
p.avicbhr)s, 475
doihip.ov,
Kopivdicos,
p.avia>8rjs VTT epcoTOS, 475, 6251178
551
622
p.dvr€LS, I O O
KOOfXLorrjra, 368
p.dvTLS, 377117 (quater), 622
Koop.ov, 392, 421
p,dx€odai, 5 4 6
KOOpLOTToXlTTjS, 194, 437
/xeya povtbv, 107
KOOpiOV, I44
p.eydXrjv r)y€p.oviav, 226
KovoXoyiq yvvaiKeicp,
1911138
pbcyaXoyvcopioovvrj, 418
Kov^OTrjTd, 191
p.€yaXo7Tp€irtos, 596, 602
KpOLTCLV TOV TTO.QoVS, 352
/LteyaAoToA/xoi, 523
Kpdros, 325
pi€yaX6roXp.os,
Kpioiv, 336113
p,€yaXovpyr)p,a, 432
108, 109
Kpva . . . €K8papL€tv, 523
p,eyaX6(f>povos, 5221116
KTTjOLS, 394
pL€yaXopoovvrj, 126
Kvap.os, 642
pL€yaXopoovvrjv, 593
KvfiepvrjTtdv, 635
p.€yaX6<j>ptov, 465
/CWIKOS,
197
p^yaXoifivxia,
127, 421, 554, 5541118, 555 (Aw)
pLeyaXoiffvxicis, 126 XapLTTpfj OTTOVofj, 6 4 I
/ixeyaAd«/»uxos, 85, 97, 413, 464, 465, 473
Xap.Trp6v, 5 1 6 , 551
/xeydAa>, 92, 475
Aa/xTrpo's, 555
/xcydAcov €7ndvp,r)Tr)s irpaypLarcov, 140
Xapnrporepov, 5 6 4
p.eyas, 223
XapLrrpcos, 522, 602
//.eyas Kal KaXos, 607
Aads, 622
/xeye'flei, 92, 606
XdpvaKa, 133
p.€yedos,
XipLCOTTCOV, 318
p.€y4Bovs, 92, 384
Ai7rapdv, 618
/xeSidaai, 248
AiTrapds, 619
piedeppirjvevKa, 45
92, 529, 570, 609
Xirrapcp . . . yrjpai, 6 1 8
p,€0€pp,r)vevoai, 45
Xnrapcos, 503
pLeOeppcqvevo), 44, 45 (fer)
Xnrapcos yrjpdoKeiv, 618
p,€0€oxr)Kcos, 45 (Aw)
820
GREEK, LATIN, AND
p,€i8iaodor)s,
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC
p,opds, 92, 307
248
p.€ipaKiov, 577, 625
juo/0^17, 384
p.er aKpifieias,
p,opfj . . . deiov,
20
384
p.opfj re deiov, 92
p.€T oXiyov, 211 jLterd oo<j>ias, 308
p.opr)v apioros,
p.€TOL &apacb,
p.op>rjs, 91
150, 3441118
/LterajSdAAco, 46
92
pLVCOTTlCopLeVOS, 137 p.copia, 257 (Aw)
p.€raypdai, 45 p.€TaKoop.rjo€iv, p.€rdvoia,
WORDS
Mcopiov,
230
8, 127053
257
pLCjpOS, 586
pL€TapdCeLV, 45 (Aw) vcavia, 342
pLeraifypd^co, 45
veavia, 213
pL€Ta<j>pdoas, 19 p.€Tapaoiv . . . ovyxcoprjreov,
45
veavioKos,
342, 542
p,€Tdpaois, 45
vcos, 341
p.€T€lOl, 477
veorrfros,
p.€TpiOl,
veou T17V i^Ai/aav, 577
53I
623
/xer/nos, 353, 551
V€C0T€piO€l€,
p.€TpiOTrjS,
v€C0T€piarT]s,
550
4360IO7
vecorcpoLS,
p.€TpiCx)S, 551
140
458
JLIT) pLvrjoiKCLKrjoai, 619
vecorepcov . . . eVeflu/xei rrpayp.drcov,
/A17 oraoid^eiv,
viymov, 244 (Aw)
pLTjSev dyav,
563 109
vrjTTLoriqTa, 383
pirjBev dpyov pLTjSe pd.dvp.ov, 144052
vqiriorrfros,
p.r)8ev exovras
viKaia,
dXrjdes, 231
ptrjSev p.vr)oiKaKr)o€iv, 619
330
439
vi/cafov, 438
pLTjSeV VOpcbpL€VOV, 589
vi/caios, 439
pLTJVLV, 47I
iW/07, 439
pLTJVLS, 471025
vorjOeioiv,
pL7jVVa€L€V, 477
vorjoai, 99, 228, 398048, 446, 544
pLrjxavdrai,
vorjoai re /cat eiVefv, 99
puapas,
265
398
vorjoai re Kal ovviSeiv,
143
140
99
vop.ip.a, 66, 242
pLiapots, 143
v6p.ip.ov, 2840144
piiapov, 143 pbiapwraroi,
143 (Aw)
vopioOeoia,
paapcbrepov,
143
vopLodereat, 399051
399051
piLKpoi, 471
vop.o6€Trj, 95, 394
pLLKpoXoyovs, 241
vop.od€Tr)s, 98, 399, 399052, 437
p.lKpOV, 3O9
vop.01, 42
pLLKporepov, 63003
vopuos, 1 7 2 , 1 9 4 (Aw), 242, 4 0 0 , 4 3 7 (Aw)
puKpoifivxla,
vop.ovs, 42
525
p.ioavdpcorrovs, 117
voptatv, 144
puoeiv,
vdaois, 580
200
piioo^evoi,
246
vdaos, 580
p.io6£evov,
117
vdaw, 579
pLtaog, 403, 644
vow uyo), 579
p.vqp.r]v, 248, 521
vovs, 582
p.vr\p.r)v aicbviov, 522
vovs dpTji /cat vou? d/couei, 620069
p.vr)orrjp€S, 287
vvpufrooToXco, 480
piovoyevrj,
vw, 651043
p.6vos,
622
267
^
394
GREEK, LATIN, AND
£av0ds, 317, 3171125 {bis), 542 (bis), 5421110, 543, 5 4 3 m 2, 568
HEBREW
AND
ARAMAIC WORDS
821
O V K €is r u x o v r a , 535 ou/c ^ e A c v , 332
£eviav,
240
oi5/c
gevias,
555
ouAos dpa, ouAos Se voei ouAos Se T ' d/cou€i,
£eVtos, 122
OKVOUVTCOV,
519
620069
jjcvos, 122 (bis), 240
ovpdviov
Kal deiov cpcora, 53
ov^ d Tt>xd>v dV^p, 375 6 dvetjeraoTos
jSios ou jSicurds dvdpcoTrcp, 584
ou^ OVTCOS rjiraTrjoev TOV Tcoar)^) aAArj yvvrj, 486060
oi depfJLorepoi, 112 oi 'IovSaicov rvpavvoi,
o^Aov, 146
122
018a, 582
o^Aov dAAcos, 147
OLKOVpLCVT), 187
d^Aos, 146 (bis), 147 (bis), 147011 (bis), 147012 (bis),
0?KTOS,
191, 408
566
o^Aos . . • dAAa»s, 147
OLKTCp, 529 olp,ai,
dxAou, 147012
209
ofds T * ^ V dijtaodai,
d^Acov, 146, 14608, 147 (bis)
259
of? aV €vp.€vr)s fi, 273
oj/»eis, 212, 237
olorpos,
oif/ecov, 632
539
dAodv . . . yrjpas,
280
dAoai €7ri yiypaos ouSai, 184, 268
irddei,
opuArjoat,
rrdde 1 p.ddos, 181
400
opuACas, 246
137
Tradeiv, 354
opuAos, 146
irddr), 352042
djLtiAowTO?, 481
rrddos, 352, 352042, 353
opiovoiav,
Trddovs, i37> 352, 352n42, 367, 3
421
6p.6vAot, 563 6p.ovAovs, 122, 140 dvoov vfipiOTorcpos, dVajs rdyiara,
6 8
,47
6
7raiSa, 342013 7raiSaycoyois, 72 513
iraihapiov,
588
2760124, 341
TratSeia, 95 Traioeiais,
465, 4 7 l 558 5
383026
dpy*/?, 471, 472, 535
7raioViav . . . iAevdepiov,
opyiadeis,
TraiSevdevres,
406, 535
346
95, 394
7raiSiais, 383026
dp/xTJv, 137, 348 6pp,rjais, 545
7raiSds, 2760124
OppLLOOlV, 9
TraUiv, 341012, 54208
o? 7rdvT iopqs Kal Travr eVa/couets, 620
•n-at^eis, 524
os r d r e KpvTrra -rravra iopq Kal TCOV
Trats, 318, 341 (bis), 341012, 342 (bis), 541, 542, 54208, 549 (bis)
oiycopbcvcov d/couei, 620069 oaicos,
Travr)yvpiv, 479 (bis)
500
daov rdxi>oB\ 588
Travr)yvpis, 479
SoTrpia, 642030
77-avrds altovos,
oVetSov aurdv, 467013
Trap r)p.iv Traiheiav, 14
o n rdxiora,
7rapd
588
TrapdfioAos Kal a-rnoros, 545
20
oi5 7Tpoodr)o€T€ . . . OVK dfeAeire,
481
irapa tcov elSorcov Trvvdavop.€vov, 11017
ov y a p Aavfldvouaiv avrov, 464 oi5 7roAw TT;S dArjdclas,
7TOTOV,
327
42
ouSeV TrporjodrjpLcvcp, 332
Trapdho^ov, 347 TrapaKoAei, 478
ouSeV Trpoodcls ovb* av TrapaAnrcov, 37
irapaKoAovdeco, 11017
Our/Aos, 498016
irapavopLia, 115
O U K daK07ra)s, 308
Trapavop.lav, 142
ov/c dawercos,
irapavopLias, 142, 204
308
822
GREEK,
LATIN, AND
HEBREW AND
ARAMAIC
WORDS
Trapdvofxos, 141, 563024
niBavos,
TrapavopLCorepoL, 559
iriBavcoraros,
TrapavopLcoTcpois, 141
7n6ava>repa,
TTapovnepmLo, 3521140
TTtdavdirepos, 104, 105
7rap€7r€p.7T€, 352
7TLOTLV, 360
napexdpaooev,
228
-rrXeove^ia, 203 (quater), 204 (quater), 550 (to), 644
4 9 , 137, 486
TraprjKoXovOrjKOTa rots yeyovooLV,
111117
7T\€OV€$Lq, 203, 204 (to)
Traprjvei, 349
TrXeove&ais,
7rapr)T€Lro,
irXeoveiiav,
634
napBevoi,
104, 104033, 105 105
204 204
7rA€ove£ia?, 203 (ter), 204, 500
564
TTapo£vv0€is, 472
-rrXrjBeL, 236
7rapopp.cdvra, 391
nXrjBos, 503, 608
napprjaiav,
449
t t A o u t o v , 578
7rappr)(jias,
504
7rAouTa>, 307, 576
7rdaxcL, 28
noBeivorepov,
iraripcov,
2961115
7TOLCCO, 165
7rarpiSos,
325
TrdAeis, 265, 399
irarpos
564
TTo\lT€ia, 399, 437
lXov, 247
77-auAav, 1541122
TToXireiav, 139
TT€iOapxta-v, 527
TToXireias, 144
TTClBot, 4 I 2 n 7 l , 577
7ToAlT€ia? KOOpLOV, 436
7T610CO, IO4, 496, 4 9 6 n i 5 , 54I, 544, 55O, 55I, 563
7ToAAd, 647
7T€LO0€is, 139
7ToAA^, 520
7T€7TLOT€Vpi€VOS, 638
7roAA^v, 499
7T€7TVVp.€VOS', IO3
7roAAi7V . . . evvopiiav,
7T€7TpCOpL€VrjV, I96
7toAAt)v c ^ o v KardpiepafjLV,
7T€TTpCOpL€Vr)S, I96 (to)
7roAAi7?, 299
7T€7TpCOpL€VOV, 195, 196
527
iToXvapxio-, 141
77epi dpxouoTrjTOs lovSaicov, 7T€/n 0eov /cat T T ; ? ovoias
499
84
avrov,
TToXvirpaypLOvelv, 417 263
TToXxmpaypLovovoa, 248
7T€/Dl piltjeCOS X6yOVS 7TpOO€
TToXvreXeia, 608
7repi 7rad(x)v, n o
t t o A u t c A c i s , 498
7T€/H re c&v €LKao€L€v ov 8iap.aprdvcov,
228
1
TroAvTeA^s , 555
7repi T O U ? tjevovs iXdvBpcoiTOS, 225
7roAuTeAai9, 596
7repij8A€7TToi, 631
TToXvrpOTTOS,
TrepifiXeirrov, 463
7roXvx€i.pia, 236
TTepL^orjrov, 551
TROVEIV, 390
7T€pL€$€LV, 10
TrovrjpoL, 515
Trepiepyias,
novrjpos,
600
172
156, 531
TrepipiaxrjrorcpoL, 410
7rovr)povs . • . yeirovas,
nepiovoiav,
TTOVOL, 546
90
243
TTdVoiS, 389, 39O
TT€pLTT€0€lV, 474, 475 7T€pUT€T€ia, 184, 184028, 465, 475, 520, 580, 582 nepiooov,
189
nepirrov,
20
546 3O909, 318
7T€pipOV€lV, 642
7TOVOUS" VTTOori)vai yevvaiov,
TT€pixapy]s, 308
7rdvouv KarapovrfO€i,
nepovis,
7r6pvrj, 187, 481
173018, 174
TTpayp,ar€ias,
7T€OC0V 8'€7ri OT0p.a, 25OI5 7react>v rry? Koprjs els epojra, TTidavois, 614
330042
irpayp-dratv, 7rpd^€LS,
173 498
91
108
194, 389
GREEK, LATIN, A N D HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC WORDS
irpdcos, 246, 551 TTp€7T€LV, 517
7Tpvrav€vaj, 44302
npofiaXXopiai, 46405 7Tp6fiAr)pLa, 46506 npofiXrjpia r)p.iv irpofiaXXopiai, 46405 7Tpo€v6r)(J€, 390 npoe^rcvov, 61081 irpo6vp.ia, 236, 546, 548, 549 7rpodvp.iq, 522 npoOvpiiav, 109, 517, 519 7rpodvp,cos, 555 npoiSetv, 548 irpoKOirrjS, 30604, 30909 irpovoijoai, 194, 262
7Tra>x€vcrai, 480043
irpovoia, 51 (bis), 100024, 193, 194, 276, 327, 383, 429, 430, 437, 501, 544 (sexiens), 555, 556, 557 (to), 559> 639, 666
adftSara, 28 oapPtb, 257074 aaAcuciv, 523 oa6(f)pcov, 612051 Zappa? nais, 349035 oaa>s, 443
npcoros, 622
npovoiq, 214, 423, 638 irpovoiav, 192040, 194, 224, 271, 273, 327, 429, 437, 640025 Trpovoiav cx^iv 7repi
irvppaKTjS, 317, 542, 543012 wppaKys,
oXos ojoci Sopd Saavs, 317
pqdvpiois, 137 pd6vp.os, 547 /5ij£as, 486 pi7TT€l, 468 pi«/»aavovs, 465
rrpovoias, 194, 195, 273, 299, 358, 437, 578, 600
oefiopievoi rov deov, 160 oepivorcpov, 212, 328
7rpovoovp.€vov, 206
OTJKOS,
7rpo7rr)\aKiop.6s, 547 7rp07Tl7TTOVOr)S, 187, 480
aiydV €Kpiv€, 300 OKXrjpd, 357 OKXrjpayatyeiv, 642 (to) OKXrjpaycoyia, 642 OKXrjporepov, 529 OKvdpcoTTOV, 655
TIVOS,
173018
npos dXXrjXovs evpcevtbs, 517 npos avrov, 325 npos epya xeipcuv /ecu TTOVCOV VTropiovrjv fjoav evi/tvxoi, 107 77-^09 novovs • . . Kaprepoi, 108, 265 7rpd? T17V 'EXXrjviSa a>vqv, 173 7rpd? rd napdoogov rrjs ovveoecos, 98 7Tpooaya>y6r€pov, 614 7rpoo€Kvvr)oav, 353 7rpoo€rjr€V€, 416 npoodeivai
823
ris ovSev ovre dfeXeiv avrcov ovre
pieTadeivai, 37 npooKwrjoas, 599 TrpooKvvrjois, 353, 354 (to) Trpoopeovoi, 519
622
ao<£ta, 98, 296, 347, 543, 584024, 585, 632 ao<£ia, 312, 515, 586 oo(f>iav, 350, 608, 616060 ooiav KOI rr)v Sidvoiav, 99 ooias, 97, 30806, 350036, 581, 586 ooias doKTjTTJs, 30806 ooiopia, 587 ooiopiara, 586, 587 (Aw) ooiop.drcov, 587 oo6v, 228 oo6s, 632 oo6s dvijp /ecu 8eu>d? evpeiv rd d/zifoava, 99 oocoraros, 548
Trpoorideis yj p,€ra€pcov TI . . . rj noiovpievos daip€Oiv, 41 7rpooi\€is, 361055 7TpOOC07T€La, 181, 531
oocbr€pos, 614 a7T€uaas, 450 onopdSrjV, 163 (Aw) a7rouSdaas, 258, 321
7rpor€pfjo€iv, 316
aTrouSij, 546, 555 07TOv8rj, 515
7Tporp€7rriKOS, 2810139 7rpor)T€iav, 103
a7rouS^v, 521, 522
7Tporjrrjs, 622
07701/817?, 249, 252
npvravevoai, 443
OTTOUST}? dtjiojv,
450
824
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND A R A M A I C W O R D S
07TOv8rjS
TTJS
TT€pl
ypapLfxarcov, OTaXrjvai,
TTaihtVOlV
TCOV
446, 585, 587 (to) auverdv 586
256 TCOV
a w c c n s , 90, 98, 127, 347, 347027, 381 (to), 421, ffuveais /cat ao^ia, 106, 585
476
ordoei,
ardaei
TTJV
633
irpa.yp.drcov, 140
auverds, 99, 546
ardaei xcu'pcov, 141, 563024
awercuv, 464
ardaeLs €p.vXtoi 5 6 3
ardaccov, 141, 142, 390, 436
ovvercoraTos, 228, 232, 407 ovvexvdr), 500
ardaecov €p,vXicov, 610
a w ^ x d i s , 479, 481
ardaecos, 141 (bis), 190, 392, 436 ardaecos ip,vXiov, 392
ovvrjv, 481
araatd^eiv,
auvouaicus", 232
t
390, 611
araaiaadvrcov, 229 ordoLv, 141, 199, 201 ardais, 140 (ter), 177, 390 (to), 391, 563024, 567,
ordoLs
awTcAci, 262
. . . 8eivfj, 144 OLKCta, 122
ovox^devros, 558 ofaXepov, 462 o68pa, 318 o68pa 8voKaropdcoros, 343 o<j>o8pcos ovvexvdrj, 618
irXeov, 606
(JXeSoV, 39
611 ordctLS
(jwiSetv, 99, 544
OTiXflei aroLXctcov,
ocbp.aros, 345
584
arparevaas,
aaiTTJp, 337
498
arpaTrjyeco,
401
arpar-qyta,
401
OTpaTrjyov,
107, 401, 408,
410
ocopov€iv, no, i n , 225, 238, 413 ocopovrjoavTas, 413 ococfrpovrjociv, n o (to), 413
406
ocbpovi Xoyiopicp, 181
448
auyycvcov, 229
oaxfrpovi^opLCVOv, i n ocopovovoav, 238, 244 ocopovcos, 589 OCOpOVCOOLV, l 8 l
OVyK€XVpL€V7], 371
oco>poovvr), no, 113, 347029, 412070, 472, 550
arpar-nyov
KOI -qyep.ova,
arparrvyos,
107 (to), 401,
arpar-qyov, arparco,
409 410
ovp.fSa.Xcbv, 242
(to), 617060
ovpL^e^rjKos, 646
OC0p0OVV7), 412070, 413
ovp.p,ax(.a, 560019
oco<j>poovvy)v, 96, 112, 113, 368, 472, 525 (to), 633 acopoavvr)s, 353, 412 ocb(/)pcov, I I I , 521, 550 (to)
aujLt/xaxos, 127053, 560, 560019
OVpLTTOOlOV, 474, 475 ovp.opq, 475 ovp,<j)0pais, 180
rd
rroai /ca/cd, 173018
r d /x€v ouv aKpcPrj TCOV iv rats dvaypacfrais, 37
OVp.<j)Vp6p.€V0V, 245
rd ovpdvia epLTtcipos, 224, 232
ovp.VTa, 597 ovp.(f)coviav, 96, 421
r d Tiarpia . . . €#77, 50
OVV8L€TTCOV,
r d ovpunavTa
150,
344
r d rrXeiova TOV poveiv, 399 Tev^eraL, 379
OVVCpTJ, 258
r d rd>v lov8aicov rjOrj, 159
ovveftovXcve, 348
TaXamcbpcos, 255
ovvcpyoLS,
rd£cu, 163
173
ovvepyovoL, 262
r d ^ i s , 163 (to)
o W a c i , 98, 101, 347027, 349, 361, 397, 587
Tapaxai, 563024
o W a c a j s , 99, 347, 350, 398, 398048 auvcaiv, 347027
Tapaxais, 612 Tapax^vTi, 371 Tapaxtf, 141
a w c a i v LKavcbraros, 98, 351
ra/>axT7v, 535
ovv€0€co$ cov ivSerjs, 99
GREEK, LATIN, A N DHEBREW A N D ARAMAIC W O R D S
kpmovr\oai
rapaxqv rapaxfjs,
Kal dopvfiov, 523
472
rapaxdevTOs,
558
TOW pLcrd TOVTCOV
T O V evoe^rj fipocov, 5 9 4 TOT6, 5 6 6 dvaypads,
T O U SiKaiov, 115
42
T O V eOvovs 7TpeofivT€pcov, 6 9
TOVTCO, 163 ravra
p,a9ovoa,
Tax€is,
ToApuqpov, 610 ToApLTJpOS, 548
141 (bis), 392
rapa\B4vTas,
T O V KeAeuovros, 194, 262
474
€(
TOO XP *>V,
588
TOUS
ra vs,
Tp€7T€TaL,
587, 588 581
r€Kp,rjpicov
laxvpcov,
t
Tpvav, 14305
306114
. . . rrjs p.€Taf3o\rjs,
TCpaOTLOV, TCptffLV,
rpvav dnovcos
TpV<j}€pOLS,
520
otdyovTas,
439
I I I , 137, I44
Tpi^T}, I37
432
Tpi^T/V, I43O5, I44, 498
614
T€ToXp,7]p,€VC0V,
TpV>7JS, 143, 144
467
rrj Siavoia T€TVXcop.€vcov,
581
T))v SiaTGL^lV TOV 7To\lT€Vp.CLTOS,
TvpavvLKcos,
IO
147, 433
Tupavvov, 389
TT)V t a ^ w * a i TT)V jSiav, 108
Tvpavvos, 582
TT)V d0iv oi5/c cvTrpenrj, 331
TVpaWCOV . . . TpOTTCp, 434
rr/s" dpioro K par las, 145, 502
™X1> *99 Tux*/?, 619 TOO SrjpLcp, 104
T17? jSaaiAeias d£ico/xa, 5321132 T7/s OAT;? ovoias, 327 7-779 . . . TCOV iravripcov
depaTTCias, 296
TCO pieyedci
TOV ocbp.aTOS,
Ti/xdj, 272
rat 7rXrjd€i, 104
T I / X T / , 641
TCO XP ^ > 9 5
TIVO?,
avTOV,
TpO<\>T\V 318
614
TcAcidrr/TO?, 290, 306114 TCXOS
dvyarepas
Tpo
T€Kp.rjpiov,
TCKVOV,
176, 195 (Aw)
€iXr)6Tas Ta?
r d x o s , 527, 588, 5991137, 609 X
e
>i;
93
J
377
TCOV
Seivcov
KaTa<j>povTjTai,
523
424
TCOV
Seivcov
KaTapovr)Trjs,
109
TAr/ttcATyaavTC?, 363
TCOV inixcopicov idiopLcov, 50
T\r)p,ov€OTdTr),
TCOV
172
€i5 yeyovoVcov, 87
T O . . . d/cpijSe? TT}? l o T o p i a s , 58
TCOV Upcov ypaptpiaTcov,
T O dvSpeiov, 408
TCOV
T O €7TLp.aves els Ta? yuvaiWas, 2591180
TCOV oXcOV,
TO €V7Tp€7T€S, 413
TCOV SxXcov, 146
43
/caAcov, 522
TO 061OV, I96, 327 (Aw), 638n20
TCOV rradcov
TO 7rA7/0O? KOLTCIXOV, 4 4 6
TCOV
262
avroKparcop,
n o , 412
TToAAcOV, 4I3
T O T C p6vr]p.a Kal TT)V Sidvoiav, 9 9 T O TT/S" *l>VxfjS • • • /cdAAo?, 541
i5/8pi£d/x€vo?, 1 8 1 , 4 7 5
T O povr)p,a
ujSpiv, 181, 238, 246, 472
€ V
T O XP ° >
j
yevvaios,
108
1
77J 961148
uftns, 1 4 4 , 1 8 0 , 2 4 4 , 4 7 5 (Aw), 547, 666
T O x p c ^ v , 1 7 7 , 1 9 5 (oeft^w), 1951145 (Aw), 196 (ter)
vfipis . . . * a i KaTa^povrjOLV, 180
ToiavTTjv o v v o v o i a v , 481
ujSpiaai, 180
T o i a u T T / j , 558
vjipioOeir), 181
TOl? aKpOCOpLCVOLS, 228
i3/SpiaTai, 181, 264
roi? AoyicoTaTOi?, 231
vfiptOTas,
Tofs TTOAAOIS', 104
«V"?> 579, 5 9
180
2
ToA/xa, 5 4 9 (Aw), 558
uy«7?> 5 5 uiois, 325
ToA/xav, 531
U/XVOl, 562
TOKOIOL
825
T€ dyovots
yuvai/ccov, 580
1
28711151
826
GREEK, LATIN, AND
HEBREW
V7T€p€^€l, 316 vncp^ydna,
AND
ARAMAIC
WORDS
iXoooias, 45
267,
>iX6oo>os, 98, 398
301
virepoTTTas, 180
lX0O00VVT0S, 3481I3I
VTT€ppOVOVVT€S , 264
tXooTopyia, 270
tmeTidero,
lXoT€XV<*>V> 598
348
VTT7)p€Tr), 4 I 3 , 423
iXoTip.iq, 596
{mo
<j>lXoTipiOS, 587
OTpaTTjycp,
413
V7T6 TOV nddovs,
lXoTip.OVp,€VCOV, 464
367
WTO TOV TToXXoV
TTV€Vp.aTOS
£XaVv6pL€VOS, 528
iXopovrjodp.€vos, 123, 555
V7TOpi€V€LV, 351
(f>iXop6vcos, 555
VTTOp.€V€LV, 351
lXT C0V I39, 283, 527
VTTOp.OVX] 3 5 I
iXcov, 242
wrovoiav,
(fyo^epoi, 410
P
t
476
t
V7T07TT€VO7]S, 535
o^€p6v . . . ixQpois, 308
xmooTpajT-qyoi,
fofiepos,
423
n
475 3°
VOpcbpL€VOS, 464
6f3ov, 238
v^Xov,
ofiovpi€VOL TOV deOV, l 6 o
<£o0ou, 535 545
pcvas i^eXeTo,
528
(f>avTaoiav, 603
>pov€iv . . . beivov, 97, 174, 228119
(/>dvTaop.a, 213 (to), 475, 4751129
pOV€lV lOXVpOS, 99, 464
^avrdattara, 212, 328
pov€iv p.€it,ov, 174, 228
avXoTaTOS, 374
pOV€LTCO p.€lt,0V, I74, 228niO
<£w"7> 545
p6vr)p.a, 971123, 98, 3441120, 347 (to), 3481130,
352, 384,5*4. 545
>deipco, 261 6ivovoa, 580
povr)pLaTa, 409, 498
0ov€pcbs, 200
povrjp,aTL ycvvaiov,
<j>6ovr)dr}va.L, 201051
<j>povf}oai Seivovs,
>06vov, 200, 203 (to), 300
tpovrjoei,
>66vos, 199, 403, 644
povrjo€i Kal
(/>dovov, 199, 200, 201 (to), 202, 2021152, 644 0OVOVVT€S> 203
92
407
313, 345, 347, 3471127, 574, 576, 619
7raiSeia TTXZIOTCOV
8iaepovoa, 189 <j>povrjO€cos, 581
>06va>, 2011151, 202, 2021152 (to), 203 (to)
p6v7)Oiv, 350, 604, 608
(f)6opq XoipuKr}, 580
p6v7)oiv dyadrjv, 579
iXaiTiov, 146, 386
>p6vr]ois, 98, 314, 347 (to), 550
(/yiXavdpcoma, 116, 123, 354, 356, 359, 419, 452,
552, 553 (fer), 554 (to), 592 (to) ^iXavdpcoiriav,
(f>pOVTl8oS, 5O3 <£tr»7, 641
118, 121, 241, 417, 535
91
>iXav9pt07Tias, 1181147, 358, 4171178
vXeTcov, 463114
iXdvdpcoTTOv 1181147, 119,4171178
<£uAij, 437
>iXdvdpa)7Tos, 119, 121 (to), 240, 241, 246 (to), 550, 552
<£uAAoi>, 311121
iXavTov, 198
vpai, 517
}
vXXov eAcuas Kapos, 311121
iXavTovs, 198
vo€cos, 283, 527
iXia, 566
voiv, 356, 641
iXoKaXos, 609
^COVT)
(friXogevias, 241
covfj, 621
(frcovrj, 621, 6211172 8e 01 aldep* iKavev, 6191163
<j>iXoTTodas, 271 iXo7Toviav, 643
XaipovTa,
<£i'Ao
XaipovTas,
566 284
yvvatKcov
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND A R A M A I C W O R D S
XaXenaLVOvTL, 313
annus mirabilis, 9
XaXeiTov, 190036 Xapds, 465
cedrinis, 69
Xapeij], 308
dementia, n o (for)
Xapl&rai,
credat Iudaeus Apella, 209
dpis,
X
103, 233
552
X^pis fj 770,181/07 iroXXrj Kal aKparos, 92
dirigetur tempus tuum, 511
6\os, 4 7 2 5 Xpcta, 196, 562
disposition et utilitate, 262089
Xpeuv,
dormientem, 487061
m
X
divinus, 233
196 (fer)
Xpf]oap,€vos, 318 Xprjoifjicbrepov, 262
erexit vias tuas, 511
Xpy]ora 125
excelkns ingenium, 349
t
Xpijcmj, 124, 577ni4 Tw&y interpres, 44
XpryaTT?, 125 XprjGTOis, 125
fides Punka, 311
Xprjorov, 125 (Air), 126, 499
formae pukhritudo, 384
Xpiycrro's, 39, 71, 121, 124 (ter), 1241151, 125 (to),
fornkariam, 481046 fortitudo, 466012
126 (fer), 310 {bis), 357, 500, 551, 555
58073
XpyoTos Kal iieyaXoifjvxos, 126 XprjOTorcpov, 126 XprjOTOTrjs, 124, 125, 553 XprjOTOTTjTa,
125,
156,
298,
humanitas, 116 419
Xp-qoror-qri, 356
fafefo, 191038
Xp-noTOT-qros, 125 (?wafer), 126, 225, 240, 356, 530
infantia, 383026
XprjOTio, 125
intelkgentiam, 349
Xptaro?, 152, 538
iftfco, 2690105
XpodV, 542 Xaipos, 172
lararium, 22403
ifjvxoppayovv, 175
mansuetudo, n o metuentem, 160
j/n>Xpa? 7rpoao€is, 1JO
Moribus antiquis res stat Romana viresque, 114, d)bai, 562
617
a>^dv, 529
204
(hfxorrjTos, 142 (bptirjKOTa, 553
o/>*tf... oratorium maxime, 175
U>piX7)0€V, 226, 277, 301 a>?
TCKV
€ioi8<x)ix€v ifjvxoppayovvra
Kal
pacisque imponere morem, 108
KaXovvra lATjrepa, 271 a»s oXtyw, 150, 344
Palaestino . . . Syro, 106034
diaaTO, 471
parcere subjectis et debellare superbos, 416, 611
a>07T€p <x)vrjs ovarjs
Kara,
TOV
depa 7roXXdi
Kal Xoyov i v rrj <j>a>vfj, 621072
pktas, 127, 128, 129057, 272, 319, 533 pluribus, 151 praetorium, 410064 principes, 502
LATIN
WORDS
propter animi laevitatem, 191038 pukhritudo, 346022
aequalis in ipsa varietate, 264093
qui accepturi erant, 2870152
annus magnns, 193
quipraesit et cuipareatur, 262
827
828
GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS
ratio, 264093
eter, 477
rex, 502
Wrf, 342 (bis), 469 (Aw)
sagacissimus, 349
^z'Aor Aay*7, 512, 51204
sanctificatus, 46508
giborim, 548
sanctions, 224113
go/>A*r, 69
sanctus christus, 152, 538 seditionis, 141
halakhah, 324
sol, 4661112 soleorum, velsolis fortitudo, 4661112
hale'iteni, 318
sollerti ingenio, 349
ha-yeled, 341
subrufus, 3171123
^ f o 349 35 A#n#/, 393040
tot adire labores, 320031
himesh, 365
Aamor, 393040 n
holetah, 483 ultro, 193043
Aor, 120048
urbs aeterna, 324
hoshen, 433
utilitatem, 262089 Wor, 32 verax, 473028
wA, 342013
verbum pro verbo, 44
wA milhamah, 548
verum laborem, 546
wAaA hakamah, 189032
verumque laborem, 320031 virtutem, 546
to,
197
kireetam, 467013 kireotam, 467013
HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS
kiverat, 22010 Kushit, 402059 lefa'amo, 483, 484
abtbmtos, 640
lemozaot, 120048
'ademoni, 317 (bis)
le osher, 577
'Adorn, 318
^ 579 tez/az/, 579
aharei-ken, 552
c
'am ha-arez, 462 'apiqoros, 640
limehora'ot, 120048
c
aqad, 277
Ma'adim, 316020
anm, 33603
menuhah, 46202
aroA, 67
merahefet, 169
'avadim, 33603
meshiah ha-qadosh, 152, 538
9>S£ 3
l 8
meturgeman, 30 mezahek, 243
W a r , 513
meAew jAmar/, 469018
behazakah, 51507
mm habashan, 469018
behidot, 587
mitehazeq, 546
A#* zequnim, 313016
mizeraq, 487063
Am/, 154, 154022
mora , 471023
Elokim, 115
Mosheh Rabenu, 437
5
mora/ ruah, 320 Elokim lo tekallel, 119 W a r , 32 572
na'ar, 276, 298, 341, 342 naar qato'n, 623
G R E E K , LATIN, A N DH E B R E W A N D A R A M A I C W O R D S
nazid, 318
M&'flrp, 325
nazir, 46508 nevalah, 550
va-tahel, 483
nissah, 26811102
vayelek, 1 2 9 ^ 6 , 319
nizeraq, 4871163
vayemaen, 352
nofel, 25015
va-yet, 470 (
vaye tar, 477 pa am, 484
vayihar, 500
philosophos, 67
vayiqerd, 485
pundekita, 444114
vayishaqehu, 321 vayiterozezu, 316
qiqayon, 208 (bis)
vayivez, 318 ve-hikitiv, 549
re ah, 480
mare'eh, 348
ruah, 447 ruha min qadam, 28
ydaveduka, 300 yaavod, 316, 3 i 6 n 2 i
hovi milemishebaq, 28 w , 349035
ye'emaz, 316 jtf/otf to V , 348
sar ha-tabahim, 3 i n 19
jV^A einayim, 542
senuah, 312
yehideka, 267
c
shamen, 4 6 6 m 2
yesherah, 478
shamir, 598
j>tr «A, 252n63 (to)
shejijon, 467
yirei shamayim, i6on34
314 shemen, 465ns shemesh, 4 6 6 m 2 (quater)
yishta'aved, 3i6n2i Tisrael, 32 yitegaal, 642
shemo, 462 shimesh, 465ns
347n28
shimshotaik, 4 6 6 m 2
3?A ^ana hokema, 3 4 7 ^ 8
shittim, 31
zekut avot, 469ms
467 tern, 314 few, 384, 513 (ter), 542
557 635ml
829
MODERN SCHOLARS
Abel, E. L., 158
Baumgarteo, J. M . , 66, 68
Aberbach, M . , 3161121, 37605, 412
Beckwith, R. T., 642030
Adler, W , 227, 234027
Beer, B., 229011
Albrektsoo, B., 42
Beers, E. E., 175, 2750121
Alexaoder, P. S., 1702
Begg, C. T , xvi, 23, 24, 29 (sexiens), 30, 34 (quater), n
Altshuler, D., 709, 207
34 33> 35 (deciens), 48, 50 (ter), 50059, 57, 70,
Amaru, B. H., 154, 225 (bis), 256, 299, 325, 326,
120 (bis), 121, 1 5 2 , 1 6 4 (ter), 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 181 (bis), 192, 1 9 5 - 9 6 , 196, 196047, 198, 208 (bis),
400056 Amiooff, I., 315
211, 216 (bis), 578, 578018, 612053, 620069,
Amir, Y , 95, 115
669
Amstutz, J., 561021
Belkio, S., 52063
Aptowitzer, V , 255067, 261085
Beo-Sassoo, H. H., 152
Ararat, N., 35
Beotwich, N., 54067, 53701
Aroim, H. F. A. voo, 177
Beo Zeev, M . P., 1905
Asmis, E., 604044
Beo Zvi, E., 34033
Attridge, H. W , 709, 8, 9 (bis), 11, 41047, 41048,
Berchmao, R. M . , 58
52062, 55, 103, no, 113, 113039, 116043,127,
Beroays, J., 2840146
127053, 127054, 128055, 184028,195045,197
Berosteio, M . J., 24, 68
(bis), I 9 7 - 9 . i 9 5 ° > 205, 205056, 217 (ter),
Best, E., 484055
266098, 274, 2840146 (bis), 37605, 390,
Betz, O., 637
422084, 427, 501, 501017, 503019, 510,
Bhattacharji, A., 2810139
522016, 525020, 531, 551, 560019, 569028,
Bickermao, E. J., 709, 22, 36, 43, 621, 622
8
n
8 n
Bieler, L., 90015, 37605
6
639 23> 5 2 Auerbach, E., 266 (ter) Auoe, D. E., 58 Aveoarius, G., 302, 4 1 0 4 7 , 1 6 3 , 2780129 Avi-Yooah, M . , 601038
Bilde, P., xiv, 8 0 1 1 , 5 4 0 6 7 , 1 7 8 0 2 3 , 217, 652046, 669 Blaufuss, H., 349035 Bleokiosopp, J., 176, 196048, 480, 637 Blidsteio, G. J., 272, 2820141, 538
Bacher, W , 66
Bloch, H., 24014, 35,48055, 399053, 403060
Bailey, J. L., 154, 188, 225, 299, 311013
Bloch, R., 28, 42
Balch, D. L., 7, 8 2 , 1 9 8 , 2790133, 2790133 (bis)
Bogaert, P.-M., 1601
Baroo, S. W , 49057
Bomstad, R. G., 2780129
Barthelemy, D., 33029
Boooer, C . , 585029
Baskio, J. R., 410064
Bowley, J. E., 18, 134
Basser, H. W , 39
Brauo, M., 186, 340, 370, 370068, 370070,
Bassler, J. M . , 33807
370071, 371, 374, 37605, 402059, 403060 (bis),
Baumgarteo, A. I., 68, 189035
404060 (bis)
831
832
MODERN S C H O L A R S
Braverman, J . , 63209, 65U142, 6521145, 6541149
Dawsoo, D., 171
Bregman, M., 252063
Delliog, G., 210, 4320102, 640027
Brelich, A., 101
Destioon, J . von, 54
Brock, S. P., 32, 321126, 27711126, 376115
DeWitt, N. W, 6o4n44
Brooke, G. J., 66
Diamond, J . A., 3321144
Brown, C. A., 123, 207, 5201113
Dibelius, M., 278m 29
Bruce, E E, 629111, 63003, 649
Dietrich, E. L., 28m7
Bruoe, B., 176021,179024,179026, 193042
Dietzfelbinger, C , 513ns
Burkert, W , 2830142
Diez Macho, A., 17,1702
Burnet, J . , 230m4
di LeUa, A. A., 639021, 646n36
Burnett, A. P., 43
Dimant, D., 15, 6 6 - 6 7 , 69
Butterweck, A., 326
Dodds, E. R., 359n52
Butts, J . R., 82
Donner, H., I55n26 Doran, R., 6
Cahn, W , 282
Downing, F. G., 709, 8, 55, 127053, 217, 376ns
Carras, G. P., 52n63
Drazin, N., I9in38
Cams, P., 4 6 6 m l
Drexler, W , 349n35
Case, S. J . , 48n55
Dreyer, P., xvi
Charles, R. H., 322, 323
Driver, S. R., 5i2n4
Charlesworth, M. P., 544
Droge, A. J., I72ni6
Chilton, B. D., 1703, 2750122, 2760122, 2770128,
Driiner, H., 54,153n20, 178
2820140 Christ, W. von, 401146
Duckworth, G. E., 3i7n23 Duling, D. C , 105, 585026, 585n27 (bis),
5851129
Churgin, P., 376n5 Clark, D. L., 82n2, 2790133
Edersheim, A., 376ns
Coggios, R. J . , 38040
Eisler, R., 54067, 65204.5
Coheo, G. D., 3i6n20, 323, 324
Ek, S., I76n2i
Cohen, J . , 376ns, 379ni5, 387032
EUiott, J . H., 6 m 8 2
Coheo, N. G., 27, 28, 34032, 278ni29, 53on29
Elmao, Y, 73094
Cohen, S.J. D., i o n i 4 , 23ni3, 3in20, 41, 4in47,
Epstein, A., 28, 316020
42, 48n55, 54067, 59n77, 73094, 1 0 0 , 1 6 3 ,
Eroesti, J . A., 42051
164, 214 (ter\ 5 i 7 n 9 , 519010 Cohn, L., 69
Faerber, R., 57202, 574
CoUins, A. Y, 6 m 8 2
Faroell, L. R., 395042
CoUios, J. J., 568n26
Feldmao, L. H., passim
Colson, E H., 52063, 263090, 29001, 30604,
Fergusoo, J . , 271, 276
3 i 5 n i 8 , 399n50
Ferrari d'Occhieppo, K., 89
Connor, W. R., 5 , 5 n 6 , 7n8
Fiedler, M. J . , 599037
Conybeare, E C , 585n27
Fioley, M. I., 341012, 542n8
Cross, F. M., 33
Flesher, P. V M., 17 (bis)
Crouch, J . E., 52n63
Flusser, D., I3n4i (bis), 376ns, 382n24, 397n47,
Daly, R. J., 258n75, 27inio7, 282ni40, 283ni43
Foakes-Jackson, F. J., 709, 54067
Daniel, J . T., 376ns, 537m
Fornaro, P., 376ns, 395043, 640
Danielou, J . , 279m34
Frankel, Z., 403060
Daube, D., 56, 56070, 59077, 8709, 13302,188,
Fraoxmao, T. W., 31021, 51060, 54n66, 55, 101,
402n59 (bis), 537, 5 6 9 ^ 8 , 6 5 0 ^ 1
203, 2690105, 369065, 629, 647 Dautzeoberg, G., 102028
216, 252, 273m 11, 277, 278ni3i, 298ni9, 305n3, 3 0 7 n , 311, 3 i m i 3 , 335, 340, 350, 669 5
Davies, G. I., 651044
Fraser, P. M., 175
Davies, P. R., 2750122, 2760122, 2770128,
Frazer, J . G., 4 6 6 m l
2820140
Freud, S., 8 9 m 3
MODERN
Freudenthal, J., 51-52061, 52, 232023, 234026,
SCHOLARS
833
Grossfeld, B., 316021 Grufydd, W. J., 37605
237036, 266097, 403060
Griiobaum, M . , 606047
Frimer, D. I., 532032 Fritz, K. voo, 4, 404, 5, 230015
Guillaumoot, A., 190
Fuok, H., 2810139
Gutbrod, W , 399050 Gutmao, Y , 349035 Gutmaoo, Joseph, 252063
Garni, L, 56068 Gager, J. G., 374, 3 9 9 5 > 422, 4281194
Gutmaoo, Joshua, 160034
Gao, M . , 33501
Guttmaoo, H., 40044
n
2
Gaster, M . , 29, 52, 70092, 37605, 378010, Haacker, K., 37605
380016, 397048 Gaster, T., 317022
Hadas, M . , 83, 145,178, 295, 369, 369067
Geiger, A., 402059
Hadas-Lebel, M., 133
Gerber, C , 133
Halevi, E. E., 43052
Gibbs, J. G., 341012, 54208
Halevy, M . A., 37605, 402059 (bis), 403060
Giozberg, L , 2501, 50059, 53, 68, 69090, 71,
Harriogtoo, D. J., 33030, 41049, 75, 37605
229011, 231, 234027 (bis), 235029 (bis),
Hartmao, L. E, 639021, 646036
235 33> 236 (bis), 239038, 240042, 241045,
Hartmaoo, L., 636017
243049, 247057, 252064, 255067, 255069,
Hata, G., 37605, 385, 386
256071, 258076, 258077, 259080, 259081,
Hayward, R., 2750122, 2770128, 323035
264094, 267099, 268, 2680102 (bis), 2700106,
Heioemaoo, I., 709, 74, 323, 3 7 4 m , 37605 (bis),
n
2730112, 29102, 29103, 29204, 317024, 323, 323036, 358051, 37604, 404060, 423087,
385029, 403060, 404060 Heller, B., 56069, 402060
424089, 424090, 431099, 4310100, 4320102,
Heodersoo, L, 105
44506, 455014, 457017, 46508, 469018 (bis),
Heogel, M . , 100, 107, 349035
472027, 482048, 483, 484052, 49205, 49307,
Herr, M . D , 43, 323036
497, 502018, 519010, 520012, 522017, 524019
Hilgert, E., 33807 (bis)
(bis), 527025, 532031, 533034, 541, 542,
Hoeoig, S, B., 532032
54208, 543012, 561020, 561021 (bis), 565025,
Hoflmaoo, K., 40044
572 (bis), 57202, 57203, 573, 57304, 577015,
Holladay, C. R., 2 1 0 8 - 9 , 22011, 54, 55, 107, no,
585, 585027, 586 (ter), 599, 603043, 606046,
127, 194, 217, 223, 233023, 37605, 397047,
607, 607048, 617061, 618062, 63105, 636014,
405061, 421, 50901, 53701, 550, 583
636017 (bis), 639021, 640028, 649037 (bis)
Hollaoder, H. W , 350036, 352
Gouse, R., 100, 101 (bis), 102,102028 (bis)
Holscher, G., 31020, 35, 36, 54, 403060, 669
Goethals, T. R., 8606
Homeyer, H., 403, 404
Goldberg, A. N., 340010
Horsley, R. A , 151
Goldeoberg, D., 41051, 68
Howard, G. E., 33029
Goldsteio, J. A., 532032, 63003
Hiiboer, H., 25
Goodeoough, E. R., 83, 91018, no, 114040, 271, nl
338, 33808, 340, 349, 353n43> 4 3 4 0 5 > 523>
Hug, A , 341012 Humphreys, W. L., 509
539 Goold, G. P., 40046
Ilao, T., 214 (ter)
Goreo, S., 532032 Gosheo-Gottsteio, M . H., 1702
Jacobsoo, H., 16, 1601, 32022, 47054, 52, 66, 174, 6
Graetz, H., 159 Graf, M . R., 37605
n
175,175020, 395043,429n95> 4 5 8 Jaeger, W , 262086, 29305
Graot, M . , 48055
Jellicoe, S., 34031, 35035
Graot, R. M . , 430096, 430098, 639021
Jeremias, A , 466011
Greeoe, W. C , 194
Jobliog, D , 523018
Gressmaoo, H., 89, 581021
Johosoo, G. L., 188031
Groibart, Y. L., 316021, 323036
de Jooge, M., 151, 352, 651043
834
MODERN
SCHOLARS Mason, S., xvi, 9, i o n i 3 , 66, 6 6 n 8 6 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 4 ^ 3 ,
Kahle, P. E., 32025, 33 Kardimoo, S., 261085
i89n35, i93n4i, 194, I94n44, 200, 201,
Katz, P., 33
202n53, 215, 629m
Keooedy, G., 2790133
Mastin, B. A , 641
Keooedy, H. A. A., 26, 2790133, 2790133
Matenko, P., 252n63
Kiodler, A , 33705
McDonough, J. T., 2 6 6 ^ 8
Kiogdoo, H. P., 40044
Meeks, W , 95, 376ns, 394, 395, 397*47, 4
o m
58,
4 3 4 m o 4 , 435, 437
Klausner, J., 650
Melamed, E. Z., 35n36
Koox, B. M . W , 2 8 m i 3 9 , 4 7 o n i 9 , 582, 586,
Mendels, D , 5 6 8 ^ 6
587
Meulen, H. E. van der, 24, 74, 83, 5 7 0 m , 575nio,
Kolitz, Z., 532n32
582-83,611
Kopidakis, M . Z., i 7 2 n i 5
Meyer, R., 62n83
Kottek, S. S., 178
Mez, A , 23, 32-33
n
Krauss, S., 3 4 9 3 5
Migliario, E., 48nss, 4 9 n s 6
Ladouceur, D J., 8 n n (bis), i78n23, 275
Mikalson, J. O., 43 (bis), 44
Lambertoo, R., 43, I 7 i n i 2
Millar, E, xiii
Lammert, E, 155, 654
Milokenski, E., 198
Laqueur, R., 48n55, 54n67
Mirsky, A., 376ns
Larson, E., 71
Moehring, H. R., 186,407n62
Lassner, J., 570m
Momigliano, A. D , 4 (bis), 4114, sn7, 7, 10 (ter), I2ni9, I2n20, 630
Le Deaut, R., H7n44, 267nioo, 376ns
Mommsen, T., 401146, I72ni4
Leon, H. J., I 5 9 n 3 i
Levison, J. R., 179 (bis)
Montgomery, J. A , s 8 m 2 i
Levy, I., 52n63 (bis), 90015, 9 1 , 2790134, 37605,
Moore, G. E, 32, 32n26, 6 1 , 1 9 6 , 272nio9, 273m 13, 461, 4 6 6 m l , 466ni2, 469ni7,
402059 (bis), 403060
47on22, 474, 4821149
Lewiosky, A., 2730113 n
Liebermao, S., 160034, 172015, 322033, 349 35> 64on24
Moscovitz, L., 276ni22 Motzo, B. R., 35
Loeweostamm, S. E., 376ns
Muraoka, T., 34032
Lord, J. R., 278m 29
Murphy, E J., 16, 1 6 m , 66
Lowy, S., 74
Murray, O., 176
MacDonald, J., 376, 38oni6 (bis),
Nadel, B., 8 7 ^ , I33n2, 2 6 9 n i o s
3971147 (bis)
Neitzel, H., 2 8 1 m 3 9
MacMullen, R., 105
Nesde, E., 4 6 6 m 2 , 479n4i
MacRae, G. W , 210, 427
Neuman, A. A., 6 3 0 ^
Macurdy, G. H., i89n34
Neusner, J., 65, 7 3 ^ 4 , 151, i89n35, 537, 5 6 8 ^ 7
Maier, J., 316
Neyrey, J. H., 82, 83, 90, 91, 96
Malbim, M . L., 75, 293n8, 3 0 5 ^ , 575n9
Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 7 4 m (bis)
Malina, B. J., 29, 376ns
Niehoff, M . , i o m 2 7 , 341 (bis), 345n2i, 346n24,
Mantel, H. D , i89n35 Marcus, R., 2 8 m , 75,154n23, 169, 4 9 6 m s , 538,
36in55, 362, 367 (bis), 3 6 9 ^ 5 Niese, B., 54, 2 3 6 ^ 5 , 473n28
5 7 5 9 (to), 6 2 i n 7 i , 625n7i, 639n2i, 64in29,
Nikiprowetzky, V , 65in44, 6s2n46
652n45, 655n50
Nock, A. D , 100, I02n29, 228
n
Margalith, O , 155
Nodet, E., 43, I93n43, 383n26
Marmorstein, A , 27onio6, 278ni32
Norden, E., 54067, 8708, 621
Marrou, H. I., 82n2,103, 228, 232 (bis), 233,
North, H. E, 8202, 110036, 115041, 2790133
279m33 Martin, L. H., 193, 274m 15
Obbiok, H. W , 379012
Martin-Achard, M . , 272m 10
Oepke, A , 102028
MODERN SCHOLARS
Olmstead, A. T., 34034
Renzer, J. S., 466012, 469018, 471024, 472027 n
8
8
8
n
(bis), 4 7 7 3 > 4 3> 4 3 5
Oswald, M . , 13904
835
I 5
4 ^ 5 ^
4871162
Ricciotti, G., 32025 Paul, A., 154022, 347, 395043, 568, 630, 640
Richards, G. C , 709, 178023
Pearce, S.J. K., 115
Rivkio, E., 189035, 2800135
Pearsoo, A. C , 252
Robbios, V K., 89
Pease, A. S., 262086, 263092
Robertsoo, S. D., 54066
Pelletier, A., 37, 5 5 - 5 6 , 1 6 4 , 178023, 669
Rofe, A., 32
Perrot, C , 66, 90014, 37605, 379012
Rokeah, D., 28, 54
Perry, B. E., 33502
Rose, H. J., 37707
Peter, H., 40044
Rosenthal, L. A., 335m
Peterseo, H., 263091
Rudolph, W , 35
Petit, M . , 37605
Ruooalls, D., 52062, 37605,402059
Pfeifer, G., 114, 552 Pfister, E, 395042
Sachs, M . J., 349035
Philip, J. A., 230015
Sacks, K. S., 6
Pioes, S., 193041
Saoders, E. P., 73094
Pisano, S., 32025
Saodmel, S., 54065, 223, 22604, 233, 235,
Pohlmaoo, K.-E, 51
240044, 241, 243049, 245052, 246, 246054,
Portoo, G. G., 16
249 59> 250, 251, 254, 255069, 257073,
Poznanski, A., 559
264093, 266097, 270, 277, 287
n
Price, J. J., 214 [ter)
Saosone, D., 2840145
Priebatsch, H., 340010
Saroa, N. M., 537 Sarowy, W , 57001
Prijs, L., 67
Satran, D., 100, 6 2 9 m , 642, 642030 (bis), 643, 643032, 643033 (bis)
Qimron, E., 68
Schafer, P., 37605 Rabioowitz, L. I., 532032 Raglao, L. F. R. R. S., 386031 Rahlfs, A., 23013, 24014, 25, 32, 32026, 34034, 75, 29409, 5 7 5 m o , 63003
Schalit, A., 7 0 9 , 1 2 , 23, 23013 (bis), 24, 28017, 32023, 33, 54066, 54067, 67, 70, 225, 230, 230017, 245053, 256, 256072, 2690104, 402060, 403060, 466012, 487061, 621073
Rahmer, M . , 243049, 255067
Schaublio, C , 172015
Rajak, T., 10 (bis), 11015, 31, 31019, 31020, 32
Scherb, H., 90015
(bis), 32026, 36038, 42051, 49056, 52,
Schiao, R., 418079
102029 (bis), 133, 178023, 37605, 379014,
Schiffioan, L. H., 68 (bis), 568027
402059
Schlatter, A. von, 128, 323, 323 35> 552, 559,
n
620069, 62in73
Raok, O., 8708 Raoke, L. voo, 37605, 380017, 402060
Schmeling, G. L., 86n6
Rappaport, S., 28017, 30, 32023, 51060, 54,
Schmidt, G., I76n2i
54067, 67087, 70, 72, 225, 22604, 2 2 9 m l ,
Schmitt, J., 28ini39, 285ni47
229012 (ter), 229013, 234027, 240044, 243049,
Schoeps, H.-J., 2790134
246054, 249 (bis), 251062, 255067 (bis),
Scholem, G., 316020
255069, 261, 261085, 264094, 2700106,
Schorr, A., 230017, 584024, 619064
2870154, 340, 347028, 402059 (bis), 402060
Schreckeoberg, H., 44301
6n
(bis), 4 6 6 0 1 2 , 4 7 3 3 > 480, 53701, 5 5 9 , 5 7 6 ,
Schreiber, H. M., 2810139
585026, 585029, 599036, 601, 601039,
Schurer, E., 24014
602041, 624075, 63209
Schwartz, D. R., 14507, 155024, 214064
Ratteoberg, R. M . , 404060
Schwartz, S., 48, 56, 62, 215, 216, 644
Reioach, T., 342015
Scott, R. B. Y , 581021
Reiohardt, K., 62on6
Sedgwick, W. B., 40046
Reogstorf, K. H., 11017, 584025
Seideosticker, B., 2830142
836
MODERN
SCHOLARS 132, 13302, 1531120, 173, 173018 (bis), 178 (bis),
Seyberlich, R . - M . , 36 Shinan, A . , 167, 37605, 402059
178023 (bis), 206058, 226, 231, 243, 249059,
Shochat, A , 157027
258, 264092, 2690104, 2690105, 270, 288,
Shutt, R . J. H . , 709, 8, 24, 178, 178023
29308, 296015, 30502, 37809, 396, 410064,
Siegel, H . , 2810139 (bis), 282 (bis)
411067, 411069, 479041, 498016, 57509, 63003, 636015
Sifakis, G. M . , 175020 Silver, D . J., 37605, 402059
Theiler, W , 262086
Skiooer, J., 245
T h o m p s o o , S., 8708,123050
S l o a o , S., 252063
T h o r o t o o , T , 38, 38040
Slotki, J. J., 468 (bis), 482049
T i e d e , D . L., 37605, 428, 428093, 429, 432, 438, 4380108
Smallwood, E . M . , 48, 48055 Smith, E . W., 340010
T o b i o , T. H . , 33807
Smith, M . , 48055, 100, 155025, 189035, 213063
Torrey, C . C , 36
Smolar, L., 37605, 412
Tov, E., 27, 33
S o o w d e o , E M . , 405
Trimble, P. L., 532032
Solmseo, E , 611, 611051
Trisoglio, E , 54067
Sowers, S. G., 51
T u l a o d , C . G., 169
Speiser, E. A , 317022, 318 Ulleodorff, E , 586
Speogel, L., 82 (bis), 85, 2790133 Spero, S., 532032
Ullmao, B. L., 6
Speyer, W , 41047
Ulrich, E . C , 32, 33 (bis), 34, 34032, 49308,
Spicq, C , 117044 (bis) Spiro, A , 51002, 51103, 51305, 529027, 5 3 3 3 3
5!5 7 U o o i k , W. C . v a o , 41, 49058, 56, 59076, 137, 148013, 186029, 37605, 392036, 418, 639023
Spottoroo, V , 33, 33028
Useoer, H . K . , 90015
n
Spiegel, S., 252064, 2790134 (bis) n
Sprodowsky, H . , 52, 340, 345, 404060 Stagg, E . a o d S t a g g E , 188
v a o d e r K a m , J. C , 15
Steio, E., 178023
Vassiliev, A . , 382024, 397047
Sternberg, E., 33705
Vawter, B . , 317022
Steiothal, H . , 466011
Vermes, G., 29, 42051, 55, 252064, 268, 2720109,
Stemberger, G., 649039 Sterliog, G . E., 6, 709, 8, 8011, 9, 11017 (bis), 18, 1904, 1906, 20-2107, 22, 22011, 22ni2, 23 (bis), 45, 48, 48055, 50, 52, 52061, 53, 132,
2790134, 2820140, 37605 (bis), 62901, 639021 Villalba i V a r o e d a , P., 11017,195045, 196, 328, 44301, 53701 Vogelsteio, H . , 62083
149014 S t e m , M . , 40045, 40046, 106034, 422083, 54007 (bis), 62902
Wacholder, B . Z . , 4, 405, 52, 22707, 232022, 232023, 233, 233024, 233025, 234028,
Stooe, M . E., 323
235032, 236034, 239039, 239041, 403060,
Strugoell, J., 6 6 - 6 7 , 68, 69
54007
Stuart, D . R., 12
W a l b a o k , F. W , 6 (bis) Walzer, R . R., 40046
Tabor, J. D . , 174, 396, 397
W a r d m a n , A . E., 44
Tachauer, G., 23, 42051
Wassersteio, A . D . , 460018
Talbert, C . H , 85 (bis), 89013, 90015, 37605 (bis),
Weber, W , 54067
395 T a r o W. W. a o d Griffith, G. T , 193 Tcherikover, V A , 117, 152, 342015 T e r i a o , A , 118 Thackeray, H . St. J., 7, 709, 7010, 20, 24014, 27, 28, 28017, 29, 32 (bis), 32023, 32024, 38041, 39043, 43, 46, 51060, 59, 75, 8709,125052,
Wegoer, J. R., 191039 Weill, J., 608 Weiofeld, M . , 147010 Welles, C . B . , 395 Whitaker, G . H . , 52063, 263090, 29001, 30604, 315018, 399050 White, R . T , 15
MODERN SCHOLARS
Wiedemann, A., 4 0 2 ^ 9
Wolff, C ,
Wieneke, J., 175
Wolfson, H . A . , 1161144, 1171145, 170, 194, 21
5 9
n77
Williams, D . S., 189
263n9o (bis), 264092, 2641193 (bis), 327,
Williams, M . H . , 158
422n86, 43ong6
Williams, S. K . , 522ni6
W o o d , J. E., 279ni34
Williamson, G . A . , 54n67 Willrich, H . , 403n6o (bis)
Yadin, Y , 68
Waiter, P., 267m01
Y a m a u c h i , E . M . , 376ns
Wirszubski, C , n o n 3 6 W i s e m a n , D . J., 4811145
Z e r o n , A . , 7on9i
Wojcik, J., 5 3 7 m , 558 (bis)
Z u n z , L . , 323
837