Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES

32

Editors Lester L. Grabbe James H. Charles worth

Editorial Board Randall D. Chesnutt, Philip R. Davies, Jan Willem van Henten, Judith M. Lieu, Steven Mason, James R. Mueller, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, James C. VanderKam

Sheffield Academic Press

Understanding Josephus Seven Perspectives

edited by Steve Mason

J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h a Supplement Series 32

Copyright © 1998 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 1 9AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd Guildford, Surrey

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-878-6

CONTENTS

List of Contributors Abbreviations Introduction

7 8 11

Parti GENERAL ISSUES JOSEPH SIEVERS

Josephus and the Afterlife PER

20

BLLDE

Josephus and Jewish Apocalypticism

35

Part II ANTIQUITIES/LIFE STEVE M A S O N

Should A n y W i s h to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): T h e A i m and Audience of J o s e p h u s ' s Judean Antiquities/Life

64

G R E G O R Y E. S T E R L I N G

T h e Invisible Presence: J o s e p h u s ' s Retelling of Ruth

104

P A U L SPILSBURY

G o d and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship

172

Part III AGAINST APION JOHN M.G.

BARCLAY

Josephus v. Apion: Analysis of an A r g u m e n t

194

TESSA RAJAK

T h e Against Apion and the Continuities in J o s e p h u s ' s Political Thought

222

6

Understanding

Index of Biblical references Index of Authors

Josephus 247 258

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

J o h n M . G . Barclay, D e p a r t m e n t of T h e o l o g y a n d R e l i g i o u s Studies, University of Glasgow, G l a s g o w , U K Per Bilde, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, D e n m a r k Steve M a s o n , Division of H u m a n i t i e s , Y o r k University, N o r t h York, Ontario, C a n a d a Tessa Rajak, University of Reading, Reading, U K Joseph Sievers, Pontifical Biblical Institute, R o m e Paul Spilsbury, Canadian Bible College, Regina, Saskatchewan, C a n a d a Gregory E. Sterling, University of Notre D a m e , N o t r e D a m e , Indiana, USA

ABBREVIATIONS

AGJU AJP AnBib ANRW

ASTI BFCT BibB BJS BWANT BZ BZNW CBQ CIG CIQ CQ CR CRBS CSCT HSCP HTR JBL JJS JQR JRS JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JTS LCL NovT

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology Analecta biblica Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-) Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Biblische Beitrage Brown Judaic Studies Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Classical Quarterly Church Quarterly Critical Review of Books in Religion Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Novum Testamentum

Abbreviations NovTSup PW

REJ SBLSP SCI SPB TAPA TANZ TSAJ ZNW

Novum Testamentum, Supplements August Friedrich von Pauly and Georg Wissowa (eds.), RealEncyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894-) Revue des etudes juives SBL Seminar Papers Scripta classica israelica Studia postbiblica Transactions of the American Philological Association Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestament-lichen Zeitalter Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

9

Introduction JOSEPHUS AS AUTHOR A N D THINKER

Not long before his death a quarter of a century ago, W . C . van U n n i k m a d e this trenchant observation on the study of Josephus: Josephus is, and will always be, used and cited... And yet the question remains whether the oft-cited historian is also truly known. Is he not much more a transmitter of data than a responsible author? Has one truly read, exegeted, and in the proper way fully excavated [ausgeschopft] his writings? 1

T o a n y o n e w o r k i n g in the fields of ancient J u d a i s m and Christian ori­ gins, van U n n i k ' s observation will ring true. Josephus provides the bulk of the material for such m a n u a l s as the new Schurer, L e s t e r G r a b b e ' s Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (1992) or E . P . S a n d e r s ' s Judaism, Practice and Belief 63 BCE to 66 CE (1992). Yet n o n e of these massive studies pays m u c h attention to Josephus as an author. Typical of the genre is the revised Schurer, w h i c h devotes its opening consideration of J o s e p h u s as a source (1.43-63) to a few 'facts' about his life and a survey of his w o r k s , w h i c h , h o w e v e r , focuses upon his sources a n d his reliability. W h e n it c o m e s to considering J o s e p h u s as an author, in the section entitled 'Jewish literature c o m p o s e d in G r e e k ' , the n e w Schurer gives the thirty v o l u m e s of J o s e p h u s a full t w o para­ graphs (3/1.545-46)—less than Tobit, Judith, or even the Q u m r a n Com­ mentary on Habakkukl Philo, w h o s e extant writings fill r o u g h l y the s a m e a m o u n t of space as J o s e p h u s ' s , gets an entire 80-page section to himself, and this is symptomatic of the attention Philo receives in dedi­ cated journals as well as conferences. If I n o w insist that it is time to pay attention to Josephus as an author, h o w e v e r , it is not simply for reasons of fairness. It is b e c a u s e d o i n g history with J o s e p h u s requires, unavoidably, that o n e r e c k o n first and 1. Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978), p. 18. The lectures printed herein were delivered in 1972.

12

Understanding

Josephus

last with the nature of the evidence. Since the past n o longer exists, and historians m u s t reconstruct it from the literary and physical traces that survive, m a k i n g an effort to understand the e v i d e n c e is obviously cru­ cial. All r e s p o n s i b l e history, therefore, m u s t i n v o l v e at least t h r e e s t a g e s — w h e t h e r it m a k e s t h e m explicit or not: understanding the evi­ d e n c e in s o m e plausible and c o m p r e h e n s i v e w a y (while admitting dis­ a g r e e m e n t a m o n g interpreters); hypothesizing about the underlying reality in w h i c h the historian is interested; and then returning to explain h o w the extant evidence c a m e into being if hypothesis X is valid. In the case of J o s e p h u s , o n e n e e d s to show h o w any h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g Herod, the T e m p l e , the rebel leaders' motives, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, or whatever, explains what w e have in J o s e p h u s . This d o e s not m e a n that h y p o t h e s e s n e e d to agree with J o s e p h u s : o n e e x p e c t s that they will not in m o s t cases. But the historian m u s t p r o v i d e a plausible a c c o u n t of the w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s c a m e to his v i e w s , for s u c h e x p l a n a t i o n s are the only controls on historical reconstruction in the absence of empirical evidence. Such explanations are mainly lacking in c o n t e m p o r a r y scholarship, however; w h e n they are given, they tend to be arbitrary and sometimes they are demonstrably false. Let us take a controversial example. J o s e p h u s is the only c o n t e m p o ­ rary native of J u d e a w h o writes unambiguously about the ' E s s e n e s ' . H e describes t h e m in his Jewish War ( 2 . 1 1 9 - 6 1 ) a n d then again in the Antiquities (e.g. 1 3 . 1 7 1 - 7 3 ; 18.18-21), for a variety of r e a s o n s . T h i s Pythagorean-like g r o u p of bachelors (mainly), w h o s e m e m b e r s m a y be found in all the t o w n s of J u d e a and regularly travel (because they lack any o n e place), w h o revere the sun a n d hold to a sublime view of im­ mortality like that of the G r e e k s , exemplify the true spirit of J u d e a n philosophy in sharp contrast to the school of J u d a s the Galilean (2.11819). T h e Essenes lead peaceful lives under extreme self-discipline, illus­ trate J o s e p h u s ' s b e d r o c k J u d a e a n values of piety toward the Deity and j u s t i c e t o w a r d s fellow h u m a n s (2.139), p l e d g e to k e e p faith w i t h all rulers, a c k n o w l e d g i n g G o d ' s sovereignty over such matters in the s a m e way that Josephus does, avoid the banditry (Xr\GXEia) that J o s e p h u s de­ nounces throughout the War, and are preoccupied with cures developed through stones and roots. T h e y are thus m o d e l s of the ' J u d e a n as g o o d citizen of the w o r l d ' that the War labours so hard to establish. T h e r e ­ fore, J o s e p h u s has n o q u a l m s about linking himself w i t h the E s s e n e s ( W a r 2.158).

Introduction

13

This portrayal, b y the only extant author w h o certainly k n o w s E s ­ senes at first hand, happens to fit well the pictures provided b y Philo of Alexandria (Every Good Man is Free 7 5 - 8 8 ; Hypothetica 11.1-18) and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5.73). T h e s e accounts of the Essenes must b e fully explained by any hypothesis about the group. W h a t are w e to say, then, w h e n scholars routinely begin their analy­ sis of the ' E s s e n e s ' with a source collection that does not self-evidently m e n t i o n t h e m by n a m e — t h e D S S — a n d then tell us that the E s s e n e s w e r e really a g r o u p of militantly apocalyptic m o n k s b a s e d at Q u m r a n (though married associates lived in the towns)? T h e s e Q u m r a n e r s evi­ dently h a d their c o m m u n a l origins in sectarian conflict, a n d their litera­ ture is suffused with a sharp c o s m i c and anthropological dualism; they await the i m m i n e n t v e n g e a n c e of G o d against the Kittim. T h e i r writ­ ings evince on every p a g e the non-Josephan visions of exclusive c o v e ­ nant, r e m n a n t theology, special end-time interpretation of scripture and awful i m p e n d i n g j u d g m e n t of the wicked. T h e y eagerly anticipate not o n e , but t w o or e v e n three, of the royal and prophetic m e s s i a h s that Josephus repudiates throughout his works. It is certainly not w r o n g that scholars should m a k e conjectures about identifying groups that seem so completely different in a i m s and spirit, and it m a y b e that they are right after all. T h e p r o b l e m is not so m u c h with conclusions as with method. N a m e l y , scholars c o m m o n l y a s s u m e the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e connection while failing either to ask h o w Josephus envisions the Essenes or to show h o w the hypothesis w o u l d plausibly explain w h a t ends u p in his text. If o n e wished to suggest, for e x a m ­ ple, that J o s e p h u s deliberately suppressed all reference to apocalyptic t h e m e s in his E s s e n e material, one w o u l d then need to s h o w that the alternative vision h e develops so compellingly and in such detail, with its priestly-aristocratic foundation and its disdain for popular apocalyp­ tic leaders, is a fa9ade. A difficult j o b ! O n e would need also to ask w h y the E s s e n e s suggested t h e m s e l v e s to J o s e p h u s as a useful e x a m p l e of the good-citizen Judean in the first place, if he needed to manipulate the evidence so violently to m a k e this case. A g a i n , t h o s e w h o w o u l d c l a i m that J o s e p h u s m i n d l e s s l y i n c o r p o ­ rated, undigested, s o m e source on the Essenes that did not really fit his aims w o u l d h a v e to m a k e such a case in the face of his consistent lan­ guage, his thought concerning the soul and afterlife, his self-reference in the E s s e n e p a s s a g e and his w a y of using sources e l s e w h e r e . Until scholarship on the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e hypothesis u n d e r t a k e s this step of

14

Understanding

Josephus

explaining the evidence, w h i c h is unavoidable for any credible Wissenschaft, the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e hypothesis will remain u n s t a b l e — e v e n if it should turn out to b e right. So w h e n w e call for attention to J o s e p h u s ' s a i m s as an author and thinker, w e are not venturing into s o m e abstruse literary theory; w e are simply a s k i n g for r e s p o n s i b l e historical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . O n e c a n n o t 'read b e t w e e n the lines', as historical investigation requires, if one does not first establish w h e r e the lines are or trouble to explain h o w they c a m e to b e there. T o b e sure, s i n c e van U n n i k m a d e his o b s e r v a t i o n s , things h a v e begun to c h a n g e noticeably. 'Josephan studies' is beginning to open up as a field, not least b e c a u s e of R e n g s t o r f ' s Concordance and, n o w , electronic searching tools based on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. It is m u c h easier than ever before to e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e and consistent (also inconsistent!) themes. T w o harbingers of this n e w di­ rection w e r e H e l g o L i n d n e r ' s Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972) and Harold W . A t t r i d g e ' s The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates ludaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976). Since these b o o k s appeared, there has been a growing interest in J o s e p h u s as an author and thinker. T h i s interest has g e n e r a t e d t w o recent inter­ national colloquia o n J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s and t w o major t e a m projects: (a) the Miinster text, translation and c o m m e n t a r y project for J o s e p h u s ' s later w o r k s and (b) Brill's English translation and c o m m e n t a r y project for all of J o s e p h u s . Articles, dissertations and m o n o g r a p h s on the rich field of J o s e p h u s ' s historiographical and literary methods are proliferat­ ing. W h e n Professor Philip Davies invited m e to c o m m i s s i o n a v o l u m e on J o s e p h u s , it s e e m e d appropriate to shape the collection in this n e w direction of considering J o s e p h u s as an author and as ? \ ' Need­ less to say, I w a s d e l i g h t e d that so m a n y e m i n e n t c o l l e a g u e s from around the world w e r e willing to contribute. Originally w e had envis­ aged a special issue of the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. But as the c o m p l e t e d e s s a y s c a m e in, w e realized that w e h a d far e x c e e d e d the p a g e limit for a j o u r n a l issue. R a t h e r than asking us to c o n d e n s e all of this material t h r o u g h protracted and risky surgery, Professor Davies offered us the alternative of a h a r d - b o u n d v o l u m e in the Supplement Series—an offer w e were happy to accept. ,_

Introduction

15

A l t h o u g h each of the following articles reflects a c o n c e r n with un­ derstanding Josephus as author and thinker, each o n e also demonstrates a distinct a p p r o a c h . In n o w a y d o they represent a single school of thought. Often e n o u g h for e x a m p l e , I find that the authors h a p p e n to disagree with some position that I have taken. This is all to the good, as w e forge a h e a d with the relatively n e w c h a l l e n g e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g J o s e p h u s ' s works as compositions. T h e logic of arrangement in this v o l u m e is as follows: from general issues in J o s e p h u s ' s outlook to specific texts in sequence. A l t h o u g h n o o n e c h o s e to devote an essay specifically to the Jewish War or Life— perhaps in part because these h a v e already received the greatest atten­ tion as w h o l e c o m p o s i t i o n s — m o s t of the studies nevertheless include significant discussion of these texts. W e begin with Joseph S i e v e r s ' s examination of afterlife in Josephus. H e r e is a clear case of an issue that has been central to the study of ancient J u d a i s m and Christian origins, but c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h the p r o ­ lific J o s e p h u s has hardly been consulted. Sievers ( R o m e ) first broadens the textual b a s e for this kind of study, then analyzes in context a few ignored but important passages (e.g. outside of the major speeches and o b v i o u s c o m m e n t s ) , to suggest a m o r e a d e q u a t e direction for future study. H e c o n c l u d e s b y offering a principle for d i s t i n g u i s h i n g J o s e ­ p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s on the afterlife from those that m i g h t c o m e u n d i ­ gested from a source. Per B i l d e ( A a r h u s ) takes u p an equally large topic in J o s e p h u s ' s approach to apocalyptic. O n c e again, although m o s t students of apoca­ lyptic h a v e d i s c o u n t e d J o s e p h u s as a significant w i t n e s s to the p h e ­ n o m e n o n , Bilde finds in the deeper structures of his writing a viewpoint that is closely related to apocalyptic. H e first defines apocalypticism in a w a y that emphasizes the sense of divine disclosure to a prophetic fig­ ure. In a g r e e m e n t with R o b e r t Hall and R e b e c c a Gray, especially, h e finds in Josephus a self-conscious prophet w h o k n o w s secrets about the future. T o the d e g r e e that J o s e p h u s ' s histories c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as ' r e v e a l e d ' , w e are entitled to understand h i m not, admittedly, as a truly apocalyptic writer, but at least as s o m e o n e w h o is connected with apoc­ alyptic in m a n y w a y s . M y essay then m o v e s to a particular text, with a new effort to under­ stand the aims of J o s e p h u s ' s m a g n u m opus, the Jewish Antiquities/Life, in a plausible social context. E v e n asking the question, ' W h o w o u l d h a v e read this h u g e work, and w h y ? ' is fairly rare, and m y efforts to

16

Understanding

Josephus

answer it should b e seen as tentative. I attempt to m o v e b a c k and forth b e t w e e n w h a t can b e k n o w n of late first-century R o m a n J u d a i s m and the actual content of the book. I argue that the t w o overriding t h e m e s of the entire w o r k , w h i c h are introduced in the p r o l o g u e — a n alternative constitution and an alternative p h i l o s o p h y — w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e resonated deeply with certain Gentile sympathizers. For them, Josephus writes a n e e d e d p r i m e r in Judean history, law and culture, along with an appendix on his character as representative of this ancient tradition. G r e g o r y Sterling (Notre D a m e ) then gives us a richly e l a b o r a t e d study of J o s e p h u s ' s Ruth story (Ant. 5.318-37). W i t h full attention to other c o n t e m p o r a r y versions of this biblical narrative ( M T , L X X , DSS, T a r g u m ) , he s h o w s b e y o n d question that our author exhibits a m a r k e d redactional p r o g r a m m e of omissions, alterations and e x p a n s i o n s . N o t only that, but J o s e p h u s appears to b e a reflective author: h e has appar­ ently p o n d e r e d the significance of the Ruth story and c o m e to his o w n interpretation of it. W h e r e a s other retellers p r e d i c t a b l y increase the divine presence in obvious ways, Josephus is m o r e subtle: having found an invisible presence of G o d in the story, he artfully recaptures this in his o w n account for Hellenistic readers. Sterling asks a fortiori: If Jose­ phus involved himself so deeply in a story that occupies so little space in his oeuvre as a w h o l e , w h a t does that imply about his activity as an author in general? Paul S p i l s b u r y ( R e g i n a ) has a general q u e s t i o n a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s world of discourse, but focuses it u p o n the biblical paraphrase in Ant. 1 - 1 1 . H e begins with the tension b e t w e e n E.P. S a n d e r s ' s famous argu­ m e n t that virtually all a n c i e n t J u d a i s m p r e s u p p o s e d a ' c o v e n a n t a l n o m i s m ' , on the o n e hand, and the m u c h - d i s c u s s e d fact that J o s e p h u s omits or alters covenantal language, on the other. W a s Sanders w r o n g about J u d a i s m for this major J e w i s h author ( w h o m S a n d e r s did not include in his analysis)? Spilsbury uses Ant. 1-11 as a test case because it is here that Josephus must most obviously deal with the biblical cove­ nant. H e first s h o w s that in place of covenantal language J o s e p h u s has introduced everywhere the language of the 'patron-client' model, w h i c h u n d e r g i r d e d b o t h politics a n d social relations in the G r e c o - R o m a n world. Spilsbury concludes that Sanders w a s right about the root con­ ceptions underlying even J o s e p h u s ' s thought; it is only that J o s e p h u s uses other, m o r e intelligible language in ' a R o m a n society'. With the contribution from John Barclay (Glasgow), w e m o v e to Jose­ p h u s ' s final surviving work. Barclay tackles the fundamental i s s u e —

Introduction

17

though again, one that is only n o w beginning to b e d i s c u s s e d — o f the rhetorical type, and therefore aim, of this famous treatise. Challenging other recent suggestions, Barclay argues that the w o r k is primarily epideictic or d e m o n s t r a t i v e rhetoric, c o n c e r n e d with praising w h a t other p e o p l e b l a m e : the J e w i s h p e o p l e and their constitution. T h e Against Apion w a s a i m e d at 'influential R o m a n figures' with 'lingering preju­ dices against the J e w s ' . But identifying the genre is only a preliminary step for Barclay: h e does so in order to understand better the tools that J o s e p h u s d r a w s from epideictic in order to m a k e his case. So Barclay surveys J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of Apion in general, and then performs an autopsy on one particular argument set, J o s e p h u s ' s response to A p i o n ' s connection of ' s a b b a t h ' with 'groin infection'. In addition to his clas­ sification of genre, Barclay confirms with new detail w h a t others h a v e suggested: that J o s e p h u s ' s blazing rhetoric w o u l d not stand u p to rig­ orous argumentative analysis. T e s s a Rajak (Reading) provides a fitting conclusion to the v o l u m e . Her study of J o s e p h u s ' s political thought begins with the Against Apion b e c a u s e it represents his clearest declaration of a political perspective. In the midst of ongoing debate about J o s e p h u s ' s possible shifts in reli­ gious-sectarian viewpoint, Rajak asks whether w e can find a continuity of perspective in this less controverted area. She concludes that, indeed, J o s e p h u s d i s p l a y s a d e v e l o p i n g interest in the J e w i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n (politeia) throughout his w o r k s . Each w o r k ' s literary a i m s constrained h i m s o m e w h a t , to b e sure. F o r e x a m p l e , it w o u l d not h a v e w o r k e d for h i m to speak of the ideal Judean 'theocracy' in the War—that might have lent too m u c h credibility to the rebels—or even in the Antiquities, where he charts the nation's vicissitudes. Nevertheless, the final Utopian picture in the Against Apion has d e e p roots in these earlier w o r k s . Throughout, Josephus a s s u m e s the omnipotence of G o d and the impor­ tance of unity, as h e abhors civil strife (stasis). In spite of the different approaches represented in these essays, they independently concur on the importance of several issues. F o r e x a m p l e , they force in a n e w w a y the question of J o s e p h u s ' s audience in R o m e . Barclay sees J o s e p h u s writing the Against Apion to p e r s u a d e influen­ tial R o m a n s w h o k n o w c o m m o n slanders about the J e w s . T e s s a Rajak argues both that there must h a v e been a certain continuity of audience and that this audience m u s t h a v e b e e n largely J e w i s h , b e c a u s e it h a d to b e f u n d a m e n t a l l y s y m p a t h e t i c to J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m s . I a r g u e that Josephus's audience was both sympathetic and Gentile. Readers'

18

Understanding

Josephus

expectations, or the extra-textual resources shared b y author and audi­ ence, include the standard rhetorical forms of the day (Barclay). Several studies highlight from different angles the importance of constitutional (Spilsbury, Rajak, M a s o n ) and philosophical (Sievers, M a s o n ) t h e m e s throughout J o s e p h u s ' s works. This v o l u m e is not the first collection of essays on J o s e p h u s ' s thought and it will certainly not b e the last. But it is still rare, and w e h o p e that it will help to focus s o m e basic issues in understanding this singularly important first-century Jewish author.

Part I GENERAL ISSUES

JOSEPHUS A N D THE AFTERLIFE

Joseph Sievers

T h e w o r k s of F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s have usually b e e n considered a gold­ mine of information about the Second T e m p l e period, albeit a g o l d m i n e with a large percentage of dross. His w o r k s h a v e been u s e d as a p r i m e source of information for the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , and a b o v e all the Essenes and their teachings and practices. J o s e p h u s ' s biases and apolo­ getic tendencies h a v e been submitted to rigorous analysis and m u c h has been found to m a k e one cautious before accepting his word. Yet, in the process, Josephus the writer has most of the time been given little atten­ tion and even less credit. T h e topic of this study is a case in point. In the past 30 years there have been several m o n o g r a p h s dealing with individual eschatology in the late S e c o n d T e m p l e period (Stemberger 1972; N i c k e l s b u r g 1972; Cavallin 1979; Marcheselli-Casale 1988). W h i l e they treat a good n u m ­ ber of pseudepigrapha in great detail, of Josephus they m a k e hardly any mention, except for what h e has to say about Essenes and Pharisees in this context. A m o n g studies on belief in an afterlife Nikolainen (1944: 173-78) a n d F i s c h e r ( 1 9 7 8 : 144-56) d e v o t e a section to J o s e p h u s . A m o n g studies treating Josephus specifically, Schlatter (1932: 259-63) and in particular M a s o n ( 1 9 9 1 : 158-70) pay attention to his v i e w s of the afterlife. Cavallin has m a d e an attempt to study systematically J o s e p h u s ' s con­ cept of the afterlife (1974: 141-47, 197). Yet, in addition to texts about the Essenes he includes only eight passages in his survey (five from the War, t w o from the Antiquities and one from Against Apion). O n e p r o b l e m in a p p r o a c h i n g this subject is the fact that J o s e p h u s does not h a v e a very set terminology. For e x a m p l e , he only once uses the term T c a ^ i Y Y ^ ( ' r e b i r t h ' ) and then in a non-technical sense. In this o n e i n s t a n c e it h a s the m e a n i n g of rebirth or restoration of the h o m e l a n d (Ant. 11.66). By contrast, Philo uses the term regularly e v e a

a

SIEVERS Josephus

and the

Afterlife

21

to describe his idea of immortality (Burnett 1984). In o n e other case (Apion 2 . 2 1 8 ) Josephus u s e s t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g verbal e x p r e s s i o n (yeveoOcu xe nakw) p e r h a p s u n d e r P y t h a g o r e a n influence (Fischer 1978: 155) o r m o r e p r o b a b l y following P l a t o ' s u s a g e (Meno 8 1 b ; Phaedo 7 0 c ; M a s o n 1 9 9 1 : 163-64). J o s e p h u s avoids resurrection lan­ g u a g e e v e n w h e r e h e refers to a bodily existence post mortem (War 2.163; 3.374). T h e term eyepoxq appears only twice, in a repeated q u o ­ tation from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s and probably refers to t h e (annual) ' a w a k e n i n g ' of Heracles (Ant. 8.146; Apion 1.119; see Stern 1 9 7 4 - 8 4 : 1.121). J o s e p h u s never e m p l o y s the verb eyeipco as m e a n i n g ' t o raise (from t h e d e a d ) ' . H e does u s e the verb dvaPioco ( ' c o m e t o life a g a i n ' ) three times, once with reference to the revival of the cult (Ant. 11.9), once in t h e story of E l i j a h ' s bringing a b o y b a c k to life (Ant. 8.327), and last b u t n o t least in h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of P h a r i s a i c beliefs in an afterlife (Ant. 18.14). M a s o n ( 1 9 9 1 : 165-69) offers a very illuminating discussion of this term but mistakenly claims that dvaPioco occurs only once in J o s e p h u s , at Ant. 18.14 ( 1 9 9 1 : 2 9 9 ) . Josephus n e v e r speaks of 'eternal life' (£cof| aicovioq), a term found already in P h i l o (Fug. 7 8 ) and in Psalms of Solomon 3.12 (Schlatter 1932: 2 6 3 n. 1). H e does gen­ erally e m p l o y dGdvaioq and its cognates to speak of the immortality of the soul. A l s o the term v|/v%f| often, but b y n o m e a n s in t h e majority of cases, does refer to the soul as the immaterial and imperishable essence of an individual. T h u s even with the help of a concordance it is not very easy to identify t h o s e p a s s a g e s that i n c l u d e affirmations a b o u t t h e afterlife. A very fruitful approach to J o s e p h u s ' s thought h a s b e e n through an analysis of the major speeches. This h a s been programmatically stated b y L i n d n e r : ' C o n c e r n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l starting point for t h e description of J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t . . . a b o v e all the major speeches of t h e War r e c o m m e n d themselves, especially since here the delimitation of the material is unequivocal' (Lindner 1972: 18). F e l d m a n b r o a d e n s this idea b y applying it to speeches in the Anti­ quities in particular a n d in ancient historians in general ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 : 2 3 8 n. 7 0 ) . Villalba i V a r n e d a h a s attempted a systematic analysis of the s p e e c h e s in J o s e p h u s , b u t h i s w o r k h a s not b e e n entirely successful (Villalba i V a r n e d a 1986: 89-117; F e l d m a n 1987: 256-58). In this regard it is significant that in t h e War, except for t h e descrip­ tion of E s s e n e and Pharisaic beliefs in 2 . 1 5 1 - 6 3 , apparently all refer­ ences to an afterlife occur in the context of major or minor speeches. In

22

Understanding

Josephus

the past, particular attention has been devoted to E l e a z a r ' s speech invit­ ing the defenders of M a s a d a to m a s s suicide. A central section of it deals with the question of the immortality of the soul. T h e speech cer­ tainly is n o t m e a n t to p r e s e n t J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t of v i e w r e g a r d i n g suicide. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n of this section, h o w e v e r (War 7.340-57), is prob­ lematic: T h e classification of this section is the most difficult p r o b l e m of E l e a z a r ' s speeches, from the points of view of literary criticism, exe­ gesis, and history of religions' (Bauernfeind a n d Michel 1967: 2 6 8 ) . M o r e l h a s tried to s h o w that J o s e p h u s d e p e n d e d for this section directly on various passages in Plato and on Poseidonius (Morel 1926: 108-110). This interpretation h a s been substantially accepted b y other scholars (Bauernfeind and Michel 1967: 2 7 0 ; Lindner 1972: 38). Michel in a later w o r k , w h i l e n o t d e n y i n g c o n n e c t i o n s with G r e e k i d e a s , stresses the similarities with Jewish traditions (1984: 964-65). A different proposal b y Briine (1913: 143-45) apparently h a s largely escaped notice. H e argues that J o s e p h u s here u s e s v e r b a t i m parts of C y r u s ' s deathbed speech as reported b y X e n o p h o n (Cyropedia 8.7.1921). T h e parallels a d d u c e d are indeed quite striking, although p e r h a p s not sufficient to prove direct dependence. T h e fact that Cicero produced a Latin version of the speech (De senectute 22) s h o w s that it h a d s o m e notoriety. Briine's proposal ought to b e taken seriously b e c a u s e besides verbal parallels, the speeches of Cyrus and Eleazar share elements of a c o m m o n outline, with a reference to the relation b e t w e e n sleep a n d death following m o r e general considerations about immortality. In any event, as this instance shows, even in J o s e p h u s ' s speeches w e have to deal with the question of his sources a n d often cannot b e sure to what extent the speeches are his o w n composition. T h e speeches, then, are a g o o d but not unproblematic starting point for an inquiry into Jose­ p h u s ' s views. M a s o n h a s criticized earlier studies (about J o s e p h u s a n d the Phar­ isees) b e c a u s e they ' d i d not attempt to g r o u n d t h e m s e l v e s in the bed­ rock of o u r a u t h o r ' s t h o u g h t ' ( 1 9 9 1 : 3 7 2 ) . T h u s h e p r o p o s e s to try to ascertain J o s e p h u s ' s view about the afterlife only from texts in w h i c h he clearly expresses his o w n opinions. M a s o n finds four such passages: (1) the moralistic interpretation of the E s s e n e beliefs xcepi \|/\)xf|(;; 1

1. Even in this case it is not entirely certain that Josephus's own views are expressed. Bergmeier thinks of one of Josephus's assistants as the author of this passage (Bergmeier 1993: 62-63).

SIEVERS Josephus

and the

(2) his J o t a p a t a s p e e c h a g a i n s t suicide (War

Afterlife

23

3 . 3 7 2 - 7 5 ) ; (3) the inter­

pretation of G l a p h y r a ' s d r e a m of her d e c e a s e d h u s b a n d as confirming the immortality of the soul (Ant.

17.354); and (4) the c l a i m that afterlife

a n d final j u d g m e n t are t a u g h t in the M o s a i c l a w (Apion

2.218). This

a p p r o a c h is basically s o u n d b u t leads to s o m e w h a t m i n i m a l i s t and e v e n t h e n not entirely c e r t a i n results. P e r h a p s it m i g h t b e p o s s i b l e to g o a step further b y l o o k i n g at a b r o a d e r r a n g e of p a s s a g e s d e a l i n g w i t h the afterlife, w h i l e trying to d e t e r m i n e in e a c h c a s e h o w c l o s e l y it m i g h t reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n position. B e l o w is a list that s u g g e s t s the r a n g e of J o s e p h u s ' s treatments of this t o p i c . War 1.58 1.84 1.650-53 2.151 2.153-58 2.163 3.356 3.362-78 6.47 6.105 7.340-57 Ant. 1.85 1.230-31 3.96-97 4.315 4.323-26 6.3 6.329-36 8.146 8.326 9.28 12.282 12. 304 13.317 17.354 18.14-18 19.325

2.

2

*Hyrcanus's mother: death with just retribution better than immortality *Aristobulus I: shameless body (II Ant. 13.317) T e a c h e r s and their *disciples Essenes: honorable death better than immortality Essenes Pharisees * Josephus's companions at Jotapata * Josephus against suicide *Titus's speech: souls released from the flesh * Josephus on Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) *Eleazar on immortality and collective suicide Biblical account of Enoch slightly expanded * Abraham's speech: expansion of Akedah account missing Moses *Moses' farewell speech: going to join the ancestors Moses' mysterious death biblical account of Philistines expanded: soul released from body Saul and the medium of Endor Menander on Heracles (II Apion 1.119) *Elijah: prays God to send breath/soul back into child Disappearance of Elijah *Mattathias: Mortal bodies, immortal memory * Judas: to die in battle = eternal glory *Aristobulus I (WWar 1.84) Comment on Glaphyra's dream Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes *Silas: soul severed from body

An asterisk (*) indicates occurrences within direct or indirect speech.

24 Apion 1.119 2.203 2.218

Understanding

Josephus

Menander on Heracles (II Ant 8.146) Soul suffers when implanted in bodies and again when severed from them by death New life

Of course I d o not propose that all these passages represent J o s e p h u s ' s point of view but I think that they ought to be taken into consideration for a study of this kind. S o m e of these passages appear in the War or in Against Apion and also in the Antiquities. A m o r e t h o r o u g h search would certainly turn up m o r e . Here J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of passages from k n o w n sources, especially his biblical paraphrase, seems to offer a fruitful line of inquiry. H e certainly h a d w r i t t e n a n d oral s o u r c e s beyond a biblical text at his disposal, but m y working hypothesis is that he selected and a d a p t e d this material a c c o r d i n g to his o w n criteria. Therefore, while k e e p i n g in m i n d the often derivative nature of his extra-biblical material, w e m a y still, at least tentatively, include it in an assessment of his o w n views. I will not g o through the entire list but would like to present e x a m p l e s in three different areas that h a v e not been widely used in this context. 3

Life without Death: Enoch, Elijah—and

Moses?

J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of the disappearances of E n o c h , Elijah and M o s e s has been amply discussed (Tabor 1989; B e g g 1990; F e l d m a n 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 : 324-25; 1993: 2 5 8 - 6 0 ) . H e r e I wish only to point out h o w J o s e p h u s ' s very brief a c c o u n t of E n o c h closely follows the biblical text, yet shows awareness of extrabiblical traditions. T h e MT reads: "p]n " ^ n m inrrfrR m a npb'^D u r w ••'rfrKn"™. This m a y b e rendered: ' E n o c h walked with G o d ; then he w a s no m o r e , b e c a u s e G o d took h i m ' (Gen 5.24 N R S V ) . T h e LXX adds some interpretive elements: K a i e i n p e a m,G£v Evco% xco Oeco Kai o\)% r|\)picK£xo oxi |iexE6r|Kev aiixov 6 Geoq ( ' A n d E n o c h w a s pleasing to G o d and he w a s not found because G o d had transposed h i m ' ) . According to J o s e p h u s , instead, h e 'returned to the divinity' (Ant. 1.85: dve%c6pr|C£ npoq xov Oeiov). T h i s is probably technical l a n g u a g e for translation to the divine sphere (Tabor 1989: 227; B e g g 1990: 691). T h e s a m e expression is twice u s e d with regard to M o s e s , only to affirm that in the end he did die instead. 3. I have not included those passages where death is simply called a departure or a rest. Schlatter affirms for these: 'Die Weise, wie vom Sterben gesprochen wird, hat den Unsterblichkeitsglauben in sich' (1932: 262).

SIEVERS Josephus

and the

Afterlife

25

J o s e p h u s is the first author k n o w n to m e w h o points out the analogy between the disappearances of E n o c h and Elijah: both of t h e m ' b e c a m e invisible and n o one k n o w s of their death' (Ant. 9.28). T h e t w o are fre­ quently paired in Christian apocryphal texts and in patristic and m e d i ­ aeval exegesis. Before J o s e p h u s , 1 En. 89.52 briefly reports that E n o c h sees Elijah c o m i n g u p to h e a v e n to j o i n h i m . P o i n t i n g out their analogous destiny m a d e it unnecessary for Josephus to b e m o r e explicit about E l i j a h ' s extraordinary m o d e of travel via a h e a v e n l y chariot. E v e n without these details, it remains clear in J o s e p h u s that Elijah too w a s translated to heaven (Begg 1990: 692). A l t h o u g h Josephus affirms that in Deut. 34.5 M o s e s w r o t e about his o w n death, h e heightens the mystery b y saying that he disappeared in a c l o u d (Ant. 4 . 3 2 6 ) . A l s o , w h e n M o s e s d e l a y e d his r e t u r n from the mountain, J o s e p h u s suggests that sober-minded people thought that h e had been translated to heaven (Ant. 3.96-97), again using the same lan­ g u a g e as applied to E n o c h . In M o s e s ' final speech, J o s e p h u s has h i m a n n o u n c e to the p e o p l e that h e is leaving to j o i n 'our a n c e s t o r s ' (Ant. 4.315). T h u s J o s e p h u s treads a fine line in giving M o s e s s u p e r h u m a n stature, but carefully pointing out that h e was less than divine (Feldman 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 : 324-26; 1993: 259-60, 543-44 nn. 86, 89). 4

For E n o c h and Elijah, it is clear in Josephus that they c o n t i n u e their existence b e y o n d their earthly life, e v e n though h e avoids describing Elijah's ascent to heaven. For M o s e s , instead, J o s e p h u s highlights the m y s t e r y s u r r o u n d i n g his death and refers to his c o n t i n u e d existence 'with our a n c e s t o r s ' . T h u s in all three cases J o s e p h u s operates subtle changes that emphasize in different w a y s a belief in an afterlife.

Isaac

Unbound

A n o t h e r famous reference to an afterlife m a y b e found in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e of G e n e s i s 2 2 . Instead of b i n d i n g Isaac as in G e n . 2 2 . 9 , A b r a h a m gives h i m a solemn speech. It is not m y task here to analyze that speech, w h i c h b e l o n g s to the genre of ethopoeia, h e r e used as a p r o g y m n a s m a t i c exercise as F e l d m a n ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 : 239) has pointed out. It is p o s s i b l e but not very likely that J o s e p h u s found such a speech 5

4. For a list of texts, with the possible exception of the Apocalypse ofZephaniah all later than Josephus, see Bauckham 1976: 447-49; Tabor 1989: 225 n. 1. 5. On Ethopoiea see Naschert 1994.

26

Understanding

Josephus

6

ready in a non-biblical s o u r c e . In it (Ant 1.228-31) A b r a h a m suggests that he is sending his son out of this life to G o d w h o — h e b e l i e v e s — i s going to receive I s a a c ' s soul amid prayers and the offering of sacrifices and is going to k e e p it close to himself. T h u s Isaac will b e a protector for A b r a h a m , b y giving h i m G o d instead of himself. H e r e the belief in the immortality of the soul is clearly implied as a reason for A b r a h a m ' s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. A n a n a l o g o u s belief in resurrection is attributed to A b r a h a m in H e b . 11.17-19: ' B y faith A b r a h a m , w h e n put to the test, offered u p Isaac. H e c o n s i d e r e d the fact that G o d is able e v e n to raise s o m e o n e from the d e a d ' ( N R S V ) (cf. R o m 4.17). A c c o r d i n g to m a n y interpreters the belief in resurrection is expressed here according to a pre-existing formula similar to the e n d i n g of the s e c o n d of the E i g h t e e n B e n e ­ dictions ' B l e s s e d are you, O Lord, w h o revives the d e a d ' . Later r a b ­ binic tradition attributes to Isaac belief in the resurrection and has h i m recite this prayer (e.g. Pirqe R. El 3 1 . 3 ; cf. Spiegel 1967: 28-37). Such a connection with a belief in resurrection or immortality of the soul a p p e a r s to b e u n k n o w n to Philo (cf. Abr. 167-207) but since it seems to h a v e b e e n k n o w n to Paul and to the author of the Epistle to the H e b r e w s as well as to rabbinic tradition, J o s e p h u s m a y well h a v e b e e n a w a r e of its e x i s t e n c e . H e r e as e l s e w h e r e , b u t n o t a l w a y s , h e seems to reinterpret resurrection language in terms of the s o u l ' s i m m o r ­ tality. O n e should note, h o w e v e r , that 4 Maccabees, to b e dated in the first or p e r h a p s second century C E , uses Isaac as a m o d e l for its m a r ­ tyrs, with the corresponding idea of eternal life (Segal 1987: 117-19). This idea is expressed not in terms of bodily resurrection but of i m m o r ­ tality of the soul (4 Mace. 18.23). This tradition is nearly c o n t e m p o r a ­ neous with J o s e p h u s and clearly independent of him. T h u s , ideas about A b r a h a m ' s belief in resurrection and/or immortality of the soul p r o b ­ ably circulated in J o s e p h u s ' s time. Josephus chose to use the latter con­ cept, in addition to the affirmation of divine providence (rcpovoia, Ant. 1.225), to explain A b r a h a m ' s readiness to sacrifice his son. It is also to b e noted that J o s e p h u s depicts A b r a h a m ' s expectation that I s a a c ' s soul will b e close to G o d , and will b e able to influence G o d on behalf of A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.231).

6. The LAB skips Gen. 22 entirely. Jub. 18 in this instance follows the biblical text fairly closely. 4Q252 and 4Q225 briefly allude to Gen. 22, but do not expand Abraham's role.

SIEVERS Josephus

Liberation

and the

27

Afterlife

from the Body

Quite frequently, death is described b y Josephus as the s o u l ' s liberation from the b o d y . O n e case that h a s hardly been noticed is that of the Phil­ istines after they c o n q u e r the ark of t h e covenant. T h e y w e r e afflicted by a painful fatal disease, h a e m o r r h o i d s or t u m o r s in 1 S a m . 5.6 (MT), 8 \ ) a e v x e p i a in Ant. 6 . 3 . LXX is very different from both M T and J o s e ­ p h u s , a l t h o u g h it shares with J o s e p h u s the a p p e a r a n c e of s w a r m s of mice. Unfortunately n o Q u m r a n manuscript includes this verse. J o s e p h u s adds that this disease afflicted them 'before their souls w e r e released from the b o d y b y a h a p p y (or ' e a s y ' ) d e a t h ' (rcpiv f\ xr\v \\fv%r\v avxolq

e\)9avdxco<; drcoA/uGfivai xov ocoinaxoq). O n e m i g h t dismiss this

as a s i m p l e formula that J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e t a k e n from a source or from popular parlance, but I h a v e not found any e v i d e n c e for this. T h e adverb evGavdxox; is quite rare. It is a hapax

legomenon

in J o s e p h u s

and is attested o n c e in Cratinus (a fifth-century B C E c o m i c writer) a n d four t i m e s in M e n a n d e r , in a different context. T h e t h e m e of the soul that needs to b e released from t h e b o d y is found in Plato (Phaedo

65a).

J o s e p h u s uses this expression on several occasions. H e h a s Titus speak to his soldiers of ' s o u l s released from the flesh b y the s w o r d o n the battlefield' (War 6.47) (xdq | i e v e v rcapaxd^ei \|/i)%dq ai8r|pcp xoiv aapKcav d7CoA,\)9eiaa<;). A c c o r d i n g to E l e a z a r ' s speech t h e Indian phi­ losophers 'hasten to release their souls from their b o d i e s ' (War 7.353) /

(a7C£ 68oi)ai 8 e xaq yv%a,c, d7coA/uaai xcov aco|idxcov). T h i s v i e w of death s e e m s to draw on the Orphic concept of the b o d y as t h e prison of t h e soul ( P l a t o , Cratylus

400c).

7

It h a s frequently b e e n n o t e d that

J o s e p h u s attributes this idea to the Essenes (War 2.154) a n d to Eleazar (War 7.344). Y e t t h e s a m e idea m a y underly also the d e a t h b e d speech of A r i s t o b u l u s I, a fact that h a s e s c a p e d notice in t h e literature. T h i s speech appears in nearly identical versions in War a n d

Antiquities:

War\.S4

Ant. 13.317

|ie%pi xov uxn, arista dvaiSeoxaxov, xnv d8eAx|>c5 Kai u/nxpi KaxdKpixov xjruxnv Ka0e£eiQ;

u£%pi xivoq, a> acopxx dvaiSeoxaxov, vjruxriv 6<|)£iA,onevnv d8eA,(|)0'u Kai uiycp°<; Ka0e£ei<; 5ai|ioaiv;

J o s e p h u s h a s Aristobulus, w h o is responsible for the death of his m o t h e r and brother, exclaim ' H o w long, most shameless b o d y , will y o u detain the i|fuxf|...?' U p to this p o i n t t h e w o r d i n g in b o t h t e x t s is a l m o s t 7.

For a brief history of this idea see Courcelle 1965.

Understanding

28

Josephus

identical. In War the \\fv%r\ is c o n d e m n e d to ( u n d e r g o t h e v e n g e a n c e of?) m o t h e r and brother. In Antiquities it is m o r e specifically o w e d to the spirits of brother and mother. It is not entirely clear to m e w h a t this m e a n s . M a r c u s thinks simply in terms of a death penalty for the crimes c o m m i t t e d . W h i l e M a r c u s ' s is a plausible explanation in light of the 8

context, the cursing of the b o d y b e c a u s e it detains 'life' is s o m e w h a t i n c o n g r u o u s on the lips of Aristobulus (often p r e s u m e d to h a v e b e e n associated with the S a d d u c e e s ) . W h e n w e a d d to this that the life or soul is o w e d to the 8at|iov£<; of two dead persons, the picture b e c o m e s a little complicated. A further complicating factor is the question of sources. In the t w o accounts of A r i s t o b u l u s ' s life and death, War a n d Antiquities s h o w for the first time close verbal parallels. Is this convergence b a s e d on the use of the War in the Antiquities or are b o t h accounts d u e to a c o m m o n source? O n e indication m a y b e found in the u s e of the t e r m 8ai|Licov, rare in J o s e p h u s . O n c e h e b l a i m s a 8ai|icov for his fall from a horse (Life 4 0 2 ) but w i t h reference to spirits of the d e a d the t e r m is u s e d exclusively in connection with m e m b e r s of the H a s m o n e a n or Herodian family (War 1.521, 5 9 9 , 6 0 7 ; Ant 13.317, 4 1 5 , 4 1 6 ; cf. War 1.556, 628). T h u s there is a strong likelihood that this u s a g e is taken over from N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s , J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n source for this p e r i o d . T h e 9

question of whether, then, Nicolaus is the source for the entire account of A r i s t o b u l u s ' s life is interesting a n d c o m p l i c a t e d (did h e d e s c r i b e Judas the E s s e n e ' s prediction about the feast of tabernacles?), but can­ not detain us here. F o r m y p u r p o s e it s e e m s safe e n o u g h only to state that J o s e p h u s found the idea of spirits of the dead not objectionable e n o u g h to elim-

8. Thackeray (War 1.84) translates yvxAv as 'soul', whereas Marcus (Ant. 13.317) renders the end of the sentence more smoothly 'the life that is forfeit to the spirits of my brother and mother?' Normally the counterpart to the 'most shameless body' should be the soul and not life. 9. This point has been noticed by Schlatter: 'Hier warten die 8aip.ove<; der Gemordeten auf die Bestrafung des Morders. Diese Vorstellung kommt nur in dem von den Hasmonaern und von Herodes handelnden Abschnitt vor und wird der hier von J[osephus] bentitzten Quelle angehoren' (1910: 41). In his later work he specifies that this source was Nicolaus of Damascus (Schlatter 1932: 36). It is intriguing that through Stobaeus we are in possession of a description of Nicolaus's views of the soul. Unfortunately it deals merely with the parts of the soul and not with the afterlife (Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.844).

SIEVERS Josephus

and the

Afterlife

29

inate it from his account. W h e t h e r he himself actually shared this belief will b e hard to verify. In a different context h e does seem to hold s o m e such belief. O n e of J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e extraordinary reworkings of biblical material is found in the story of S a u l ' s visit to the m e d i u m of E n d o r (1 S a m . 28). J o s e ­ p h u s a d d s an e n c o m i u m about this w o m a n (Ant. 6.340-42) and about Saul (Ant. 6.343-50), thus assigning this pericope m o r e w e i g h t than it might otherwise have. W h a t is of interest to us is that the ventriloquist, as J o s e p h u s n a m e s her profession, is able to bring u p S a m u e l ' s \\fv%r\. In this pericope, the LXX uses \\fVxA only twice (1 S a m . 2 8 . 9 , 21), both times translating ( ' m y [i.e. the w o m a n ' s ] life'). J o s e p h u s , instead, in this p a s s a g e refers only to S a m u e l ' s or other d e a d p e r s o n s ' ' s o u l ' or 'spirit' or ' s h a d e ' (Ant. 6.329, 330, 332, 3 3 4 ) . J o s e p h u s m a y be influ­ enced by H o m e r i c language h e r e — O d y s s e u s , in a very similar scene, is 10

able to bring u p a host of \|n)%cd of the dead (Odyssey 11.36-635). Yet it m i g h t also b e that J o s e p h u s h e r e introduces l a n g u a g e reflecting a concept of an immortal soul that m a y b e reconnected in s o m e w a y to a bodily a p p e a r a n c e . 11

T h e t e r m \\fv%r\ never m e a n s ' s o u l ' in any of its four o c c u r r e n c e s in the Life. A g a i n , in Apion 2.202 it obviously refers to a life and not a soul that is destroyed through abortion. Yet in the next p a r a g r a p h it is said that the soul suffers w h e n entering the b o d y and w h e n leaving it (Apion 2.203). A s T h a c k e r a y indicates in a note to his translation, this is a Platonic idea, attributed b y J o s e p h u s to the E s s e n e s (War 2.154) and here apparently m a d e his o w n . 1 2

10. Marcus translates 'those who call up the spirits of the dead' (Ant. 6.329); 'this sort of ventriloquist raises up the spirits of the dead' (330); 'to bring up for him by divination the soul of whomever he should name' (330); 'bring up for him the soul of Samuel' (332); 'being asked by the shade of Samuel' (334). The unsus­ pecting reader would not think that 'spirits', 'soul' and 'shade' (italics added) trans­ late the same word in the same context. Perhaps a greater consistency should be at­ tempted. For the sake of completeness I should add that at Ant. 6.329 xr\v \|n)%f]v aveneae is—correctly—rendered 'his heart failed him'. 11. A similar question arises in the story of Elijah's raising a dead boy. Elijah prays to God: xr\v \jn)xr)v eio7t£UA|/ai n&Xiv xcp 7tai5i (Ant. 8.326). This is a fairly close rendering of 1 Kgs 17.21, where the LXX too has \|/\)%T|. Marcus translates 'to send the breath into the child again'. Yet it seems that just as elsewhere the soul is released from the body, here the nuance of the soul's relation to the body may be present as well. 12. A similar idea is found in Philo, Somn. 1.138-39; Plant. 14.

Understanding

30

Josephus

T h e a b o v e a r e j u s t a few s a m p l e texts that s e e m to h a v e a b e a r i n g on this subject. E v e n t h e s e limited c a s e s s h o w that w e d o not h a v e to restrict o u r s e l v e s to t h e m a j o r s p e e c h e s and t o explicit c o m m e n t s b y J o s e p h u s . It is t r u e that from the texts cited w e d o not get a s y s t e m a t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n of h i s v i e w s of t h e afterlife. H o w e v e r , e v e n h i s m o s t detailed t r e a t m e n t s of the subject for e x a m p l e , t h e J o t a p a t a speech, cer­ tain parts of E l e a z a r ' s d i s c o u r s e on t h e immortality of t h e soul a n d t h e description a n d appraisal of the E s s e n e views, d o not give u s a c o h e r e n t a n d c o m p l e t e picture. E v e n t h o u g h the additions to the b r o a d e r c a n v a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e t e x t s c i t e d m a y b e s m a l l , t h e y are of c o n s i d e r a b l e interest. B e y o n d its limited s c o p e this study h a s also led to the b r o a d e r q u e s ­ tion: C a n w e d e v e l o p criteria for discerning w h e r e w e h e a r J o s e p h u s ' s o w n voice? A s criteria of a u t h e n t i c i t y h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d in N e w T e s t a m e n t studies, p e r h a p s a n a l o g o u s m e t h o d s m a y b e u s e d in the study of J o s e ­ p h u s . I w o u l d t e n t a t i v e l y s u g g e s t o n e s u c h criterion: w h e n h e u s e s a t e r m or tradition or c o n c e p t in different parts of his w o r k that c a n n o t c o m e from the s a m e source, it probably reflects his o w n v i e w .

1 3

On the

13. This criterion is somewhat analogous to the 'criterion of multiple attes­ tation' used by N e w Testament scholars. (For a full discussion of this and other criteria see Meier 1991: 167-95, esp. 174-75, 186-87 n. 7 [bibliography]). It is different, however, in that it does not pretend that the view expressed is original with Josephus. One may immediately object that even when Josephus does not use any source he is quite capable of presenting opinions not his own, such as Eleazar's call for suicide (War 7.333, 380-88). It should, however, be noted that Josephus gives us only one speech in support of suicide, a mirror image of his own speech against it. Where he uses an idea in different parts of his work, it is probably not too far from his own thought. This analysis of Josephus's ideas is to be distinguished from a stylistic analysis. Williams attempts to determine authorship through a stylometric study comparing Josephus with, among others, Nicolaus of Damascus (Williams 1992: 41-57). The study is flawed by unintentionally including among its samples texts that are proba­ bly based on written sources, and thus unsuitable for discovering peculiarities of Josephus's style (Ant. 20.38-80; Apion [2.] 145-219). Williams does rectify this shortcoming by a different selection of sample texts for a stylistic comparison between passages composed by Josephus himself and passages probably based on Nicolaus (Williams 1993: 180). Although Williams notes stylistic differences be­ tween Josephus's own compositions and passages based on Nicolaus, it is impos­ sible to reach conclusions about the original author of a particular passage, because

SIEVERS Josephus

and the

Afterlife

31

other h a n d , if a tradition is found only in o n e part of his w o r k or in different parts that m a y b e derived from the same source, then there is considerable likelihood that it is derived from that source. A s an e x a m p l e of multiple attestation it is possible to cite the idea of the s o u l ' s being freed by death from the body. It is found in the account of the P h i l i s t i n e s (Ant. 6.3), in T i t u s ' s s p e e c h (War 6.47) a n d in E l e a z a r ' s speech (War 7 . 3 5 3 ) . In the specific form of t h e b o d y as a prison of the soul the idea is attributed to the E s s e n e s (War 2.154), to Eleazar (War 7.344) and less explicitly to Aristobulus I (War 1.84; Ant. 13.317). O n e is forced to conclude that the idea did not originate with Josephus (it is present in Plato), and even its expression in J o s e p h u s is largely b a s e d on a variety of sources. Yet it does s e e m likely that h e found the idea congenial to his o w n views. 14

O n the other hand, the idea of the 8ai|iove<; of the dead, although it recurs several times in War and Antiquities, is only found in contexts strongly suspected of originating with Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s , and thus does not s e e m to b e integrated into J o s e p h u s ' s o w n thought world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauckham, R.J. 1976 The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?', JBL 95: 447-58. Bauernfeind, O., and O. Michel, 1967 'Die beiden Eleazarreden in Jos. bell. 7,323-36; 7.341-88', ZNW 58: 26772. Begg, C. 1990 '"Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses": Some Observations', JBL 109: 691- 93. Bergmeier, R. 1993 Die Essenerberichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des jiidischen Historiographen (Kampen: Kok). Josephus is capable of altering the source material and impressing on it largely his own style. 14. This passage on the Indian philosophers is quite interesting for source criti­ cism. It is almost repeated verbatim in Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4.18. Since Porphyry knew Josephus's works and quoted extensively from the section on the three schools of thought in War 2.119-59 in De Abstinentia 4.11-13 (Stern 1 9 7 4 84: 2.435-43 no. 455), for his account on the Indian philosophers which follows almost immediately (De Abstinentia 4.17-18) he did use Josephus as well (against Morel 1926: 112, 114).

32 Briine, B. 1913

Burnett, F. 1984

Understanding

Josephus

Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentume, zur griechisch-rdmischen Welt und zum Christentume (Gutersloh; Repr. Wiesbaden: Sandig, 1969). 'Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo's Concept of naXvyyeveoia', CBQ 46: 447-70.

Cavallin, H.C.C. 1974 Life After Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15. I. An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup). 1979 'Leben nach dem Tod im Spatjudentum und im friihen Christentum. I. Spatjudentum', ANRW: 2.19.1: 240-345. Courcelle, P. 1965 Tradition platonicienne et traditions chretiennes du corps-prison {Phedon 62b; Cratyle 400 c.)\ Revue des etudes latines 43: 406-43. Feldman, L.H. 1968 'Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus', TAPA 99: 143-56. 1984-85 'Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: the "Aqedah"\JQR 75: 212-52. 1987 'Review of Villalba i Varneda 1986', JSJ 18: 255-58. 1991-92 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses', JQR 82: 285-328. 1993 Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Fischer, U. 1978 Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Franxman, T.W. 1979 Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus (Biblica et Orientalia, 35; Rome: Biblical Institute Press). Lindner, H. 1972 Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Marcheselli-Casale, C. 1988 Risorgeremo, ma come ? Risurrezione dei corpi, degli spiriti o dell' uomo ? Per un contributo alio studio delta speculazione apocalittica in epoca greco-romana: II sec. a.C.-II sec. d. C. (RivBSup, 18; Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane). Mason, S. 1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (SPB, 39; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Meier, J. P. 1991 A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday). Meyer, R. 1937 Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologic (BWANT, 22; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).

SIEVERS Josephus Michel, O. 1984 Morel, W. 1926 Naschert, G. 1994

and the

Afterlife

33

'Die Rettung Israels und die Rolle Roms nach den Reden im "Bellum Iudaicum": Analysen und Perspektiven', ANRW: 2.21.2: 945-76. 'Eine Rede bei Josephus', Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie NS 75: 106-14.

'Ethopoiea', in G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Worterbuch der Rhetorik (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag): II, cols. 1512-16. Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 1972 Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS, 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Nikolainen, A.T. 1944 Der Auferstehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt. I. Religionsgeschichtlicher Teil (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B, 49.3; Helsinki). Puech, E. 1993 La croyance des Esseniens en la vie future: immortalite, resurrection, vie eternelle? Histoire d'une croyance dans le judaisme ancien (Etudes Bibliques Nouvelle, 22; Paris: Gabalda). Rengstorf, K.H. 1973-83 A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Rohde, E. 1907 Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen (2 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 4th edn). Schlatter, A. 1910 Wiesprach Josephusvon Gott? (BFCT, 14.1; Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann). 1932 Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann). Schwankl, O. 1987 Die Sadduzderfrage (Mk. 12,18-27 parr.): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BibB, 66; Frankfurt: Athenaum). Segal, A. F. 1987 The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (BJS, 127; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Shutt, R.J.H. 1961 Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK). Spiegel, S. 1967 The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice. The Akedah (New York: Pantheon Books). Stemberger, G. 1972 Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palastinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca 170 v. Chr.—lOO n. Chr.) (AnBib, 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press). Stem, M. 1974-84 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities).

34 Tabor, J. D. 1989

Understanding

Josephus

'"Returning to the Divinity": Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses', JBL 108: 225-38. Villalba i Varneda, P. 1986 The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Williams, D.S. 1992 Stylometric Authorship Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature (Jewish Studies, 12; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press). 1993 'On Josephus' Use of Nicolaus of Damascus: A Stylometric Analysis of BJ 1.225-273 and AJ 14.280-369', Scripta Classica Israelica 12: 176-87.

JOSEPHUS A N D JEWISH APOCALYPTICISM

Per Bilde

1.

Introduction

It is not m y purpose to defend the hypothesis that J o s e p h u s is a repre­ sentative of J e w i s h apocalypticism. This is impossible, n o matter h o w this troublesome figure is defined. T h e r e is not m u c h point in claiming that J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s are of the s a m e breed as the b o o k s of D a n i e l , 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra and the Revelation of John. W h a t I w a n t to d o in this essay is to raise the question of the relationship b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s and Jewish A p o c a l y p t i c i s m . M y a i m is to e x p l o r e , a n a l y s e a n d discuss m o r e t h o r o u g h l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t w o p h e n o m e n a that are usually not regarded as c o n n e c t e d to each other (cf. b e l o w ) , a n d m y procedure will consist in examining a n u m b e r of features in J o s e p h u s ' s works that h a v e s o m e degree of similarity with w h a t I define as Jewish apocalypticism (section 3 below). 1

Generally, scholars h a v e rejected the idea that J o s e p h u s h a d any in­ terest at all in Jewish apocalypticism. Arnaldo M o m i g l i a n o (1982) m a y b e m e n t i o n e d as a distinguised representative of this v i e w . H e c l a i m s that J o s e p h u s has nothing to relate on c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h a p o c a l y p ­ ticism, b e c a u s e h e failed to g r a s p the i m p o r t a n c e of the a p o c a l y p t i c i d e a s . Accordingly, M o m i g l i a n o does not even consider the possibility that Josephus himself w a s interested in or influenced by a Jewish apoc­ alypticism. A n d this evaluation seems to be the c o m m o n view on this issue. T h u s the first task can b e d e t e r m i n e d as that of verifying this evaluation b y sketching an overview of earlier research o n this subject (section 2). 2

1. I have long been interested in this relationship, cf. Bilde 1979: 198-200; 1988: 187-88, 214, but I have not before had the opportunity to analyse it properly. 2. 1982: 330: 'Flavio Giuseppe non anticipa la condanna dei rabbi, che non facevano mestiere di storico, nel trascurare questa letteratura
36

Understanding

Josephus

T h e project is m a d e m o r e difficult by the fact that so far n o c o n s e n ­ sus has b e e n o b t a i n e d c o n c e r n i n g the definition of J e w i s h a p o c a l y p ­ ticism. In order to solve m y main problem I cannot escape m a k i n g a bid for circumscribing this notion. Accordingly, m y second task is to estab­ lish a sort of definition of Jewish apocalypticism (section 3). I c o n t i n u e the project b y the m e t h o d indicated a b o v e , n a m e l y by e x a m i n i n g those parts of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s that m a y b e s u s p e c t e d of t o u c h i n g m o r e specifically on e l e m e n t s of J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m . I have c h o s e n the following items: his use of the root apokalyptein and related w o r d s (section 4); his description of the Essenes (section 5); his account of p r o p h e c y in the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n period (section 6 ) ; his description of himself as a divinely inspired prophet (section 7); Jewish apocalypticism and historiography with special reference to J o s e p h u s (section 8); his interpretation of ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' figues in the Bible such as A d a m , E n o c h , M o s e s , Elijah and Daniel (section 9), and, finally, his reproduction of eschatological and messianic p r o p h e c i e s in the B i b l e (section 10).

2. Research

History

In earlier research there has not b e e n m u c h interest in the relationship b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s and Jewish apocalypticism. A hint at the lack of in­ terest in this s u b j e c t e m e r g e s from the f o l l o w i n g facts. In H e i n z S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s bibliography (1968), w h e r e I h a v e e x a m i n e d the three most relevant c a t e g o r i e s , 1 h a v e only been able to discover three titles, containing the w o r d ' a p o c a l y p t i c i s m ' , and not o n e of t h e m refers to Josephus and J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m . A l m o s t the same result is found in the supplementary bibliography (1979). Here, I have found five titles containing the w o r d ' a p o c a l y p t i c i s m ' , out of w h i c h only o n e (Michel 1969) c o m b i n e s Josephus and Jewish apocalypticism. 3

4

5

3. No. 15: 'Judische Theologie und kultische Praxis, Sadduzaer, Pharisaer, Samaritaner'; no. 16: 'Essener, Qumran\ and no. 23: 'Personlichkeit und historiografische Eigenart des Josephus, Polemik um seine Person'. 4. These three are Hilgenfeld 1966; K. Kohler, T h e Essenes and Apocalyptic Literature', in idem, Studies, Adresses, and Personal Papers (New York, 1931), pp. 20-36; S. Giet, L'Apocalypse et Vhistoire: etude historique sur VApocalypse johannique (Paris, 1957). 5. The other four are T. Glasson, Greek influence in Jewish Eschatology: With special Reference to the Apocalypse and Pseudepigraphs (London: SPCK, 1961); J.J. Gunther, St Paul's Opponents and their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic

BILDE Josephus

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

37

This evaluation is confirmed b y an e x a m i n a t i o n of F e l d m a n ' s great research history (1984), w h e r e there is n o h e a d w o r d on J o s e p h u s and J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m at all. In section 19.0 ( ' J o s e p h u s ' O u t l o o k on J u d a i s m : G e n e r a l ' ) n o relevant titles are listed. T h e s a m e situation is found in section 10.15 and 16 ( ' D a n i e l ' and ' T h e Prophetic B o o k s ' ) . In section 19.23 ( ' P r o p h e c y ' ) I h a v e found only M i c h e l (1969) and Vielh a u e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . In section 19.32 ( ' T h e M e s s i a h a n d E s c h a t o l o g y in g e n e r a l ' ) 23 titles are listed, and not o n e of t h e m con­ tains the w o r d 'apocalyptic'. T h i s p i c t u r e d o e s not c h a n g e m u c h w h e n I turn to t h e history of research on J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m a n d J u d a i s m in g e n e r a l . In 1857 Hilgenfeld published the first comprehensive m o d e r n exposition of J e w ­ ish apocalypticism. H e r e , h e treated the b o o k of Daniel, the Sibylline Oracles, the b o o k of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Ezra, the ancient reports on the Essenes, and, in a supplement, the sources on the gnostic system of B a s i l i d e s . In H i l g e n f e l d ' s w o r k J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e m e r g e as a source of Jewish apocalypticism, nor is h e seen as related in any w a y to this p h e n o m e n o n ; h e is only d r a w n u p o n as a secondary source, e s p e ­ cially on the Essenes (1966: 245-78). 6

M o r e than one h u n d r e d years later I find the s a m e v i e w in R u s s e l l ' s w o r k from 1964. Russell gives a thorough presentation of Jewish apoc­ alypticism, and again J o s e p h u s is m e n t i o n e d only as a source for the description of the Essenes and as a representative of the idea that p r o p h ­ ecy had ceased in the Jewish p e o p l e . 7

and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); E. Kocis, 'Apokalyptik und politisches Interesse im Spatjudentum', Jud 27 (1971), pp. 71-89; P. Vielhauer, 'Apokalypsen und Verwandtes', in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tubingen: Mohr and Siebeck, [4th edn, 1973]), II, pp. 405-27. 6. For an account of the research history of Jewish apocalypticism until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Schmidt (1969). An overview of the research and discussions on Jewish apocalypticism of the last three decades is given in Murphy 1994. In these two works, however, Josephus is not mentioned, nor is one single text of Josephus quoted. 7. Cf. Russell, 1971: 79-80 on Against Apion 1.38-40. The same or a similar evaluation of Josephus is found in Charles 1913; Bousset-Gressmann 1966: 39, 242-89, 437 (Josephus and Jewish apocalypticism are not mentioned together at all); Schreiner 1969; Koch 1972; Schmithals 1973; Rowland 1985; Hellholm 1983; Collins 1984; VanderKam 1984; Collins and Charlesworth 1991; Himmelfarb 1993

Understanding

38

Josephus

Similarly, Paul V o l z d o e s not m e n t i o n J o s e p h u s in his p a r a g r a p h s on J e w i s h A p o c a l y p t i c i s m ( 1 9 6 6 : 4 - 5 1 ) . A n d in his p a r a g r a p h on J o s e p h u s there are the following r e m a r k s : Even Josephus does not completely avoid the national expectations of his people. In Ant. 4.114ff. he gives a vivid and rich paraphrase of Bileam's promise (Num. 24), and in War 5.19 he seeks to keep down his grief caused by Jerusalem's destruction by the exclamation: 'you may perhaps recover when you have reconciled yourself with the deity who destroyed you'. Generally, however, his position is different. In War. 6.312f. he changes the ancient oracle, that one from Judea would gain world domination, interpreting it as referring to Vespasian. With this interpretation he expressly dissociates himself from the messianic zealots, who, according to Josephus, were stirred up to a messianic war precisely by this oracle. Moreover, it is strange how unclearly he expresses him­ self in Ant. 10.210 on the stone from Daniel ch. 2. It is similarly strange that in Ant. 10.267ff., surveying the prophecies in Daniel, in the first place, he does mention Daniel ch. 8, but not ch. 7, and secondly, he does describe the serious visitation prophesised by Daniel, but in his para­ phrase he includes nothing about the 'Son of Man' in Daniel 7.13 or about the positive prospects of salvation linked to this figure. Accord­ ingly, Josephus' personal opinion did not include the eschatological belief and the national expectations, but only the individual belief in an hereafter, where the national redemption and the eschatological salvation have been replaced by the redemption of the soul and its immortality... 8

A c c o r d i n g to V o l z , J o s e p h u s not o n l y h a s n o t h i n g to d o w i t h J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m b u t e v e n to J e w i s h (national, m e s s i a n i c ) e s c h a t o l o g y h e h a s only slender c o n n e c t i o n s , as his p e r s o n a l e s c h a t o l o g y consists p r i ­ marily in a n individualistic h o p e for the i m m o r t a l i t y of the s o u l .

9

A further step in t h e d i r e c t i o n of s e p a r a t i n g J o s e p h u s a n d J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m w a s t a k e n b y M a i e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) , w h o p l a c e d J o s e p h u s in outright c o n t r a d i c t i o n to J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m as found in t h e b o o k s of 4 Ezra a n d 2

10

Baruch.

T o m y k n o w l e d g e , h o w e v e r , it is M o m i g l i a n o ( 1 9 8 2 ) w h o h a s for­ m u l a t e d m o s t d i s t i n c t l y t h e i d e a that in his w o r k s J o s e p h u s s i m p l y

(who, however, explicitely disagrees on the issue of the cessation of prophecy, cf. section 6). 8. Volz 1966: 53. On Josephus's 'national' eschatology, see below in section 10. 9. Similarly Fischer 1978: 145, 157, 174. 10. Maier 1972: 29-30. Similarly Michel 1969: 241-42 (referring to War 6.285).

BILDE Josephus

and Jewish Apocalypticism

39

neglected Jewish apocalypticism (as well as the institution of the syna­ g o g u e ) . A c c o r d i n g to M o m i g l i a n o , J o s e p h u s also missed t h e fact that the J e w i s h revolt against R o m e w a s driven b y apocalyptic h o p e s , a n d both mistakes w e r e d u e to t h e fact that h e did not c o m p r e h e n d J e w i s h apocalypticism. 11

12

In contrast to this m a s s i v e phalanx only a few scholarly w o r k s e x ­ press s o m e understanding of a positive relationship b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s and J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m . A c c o r d i n g l y , it is hardly t o o d a r i n g to c o n c l u d e that in earlier research there is not m u c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a positive relationship b e t w e e n Josephus a n d Jewish apocalypticism. 13

3. Jewish Eschatology

and

Apocalypticism

O n e r e a s o n for this interpretation m a y b e found in t h e u n c e r t a i n t y regarding t h e definition of J e w i s h apocalypticism. W e h a v e seen that M o m i g l i a n o a p p e a r s to u n d e r s t a n d J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m as v e r y closely r e l a t e d to t h e militant e s c h a t o l o g y a n d m e s s i a n i s m that h e thinks stood behind the Jewish revolt against R o m e in 6 6 - 7 0 . T h i s v i e w is in k e e p i n g w i t h an inclination in earlier r e s e a r c h to define J e w i s h apocalypticism as a v a g u e , literary a n d ideological p h e ­ n o m e n o n with close relations to eschatology and m e s s i a n i s m . 14

11. These two important phenomena Josephus 'did not see', according to Mom­ igliano (1982: 230). Rajak (1994) writes on Josephus and the Essenes in contrast to Momigliano, and her conclusion is that, in fact, Josephus did 'see' (the Essenes), but was forced to adapt his personal experiences to literary conventions: '"What Josephus did not see" should therefore perhaps be reformulated as "what Josephus did see but could not write about". For there were strong constraints upon him.. .the constraints of literary form...' Morton Smith (1987) is close to Momigliano: 'Except for Daniel, Josephus says almost nothing of the apocalyptic literature florishing in his time' (1987: 245). 12. 1982: 330. It should be noted that Momigliano does not distinguish between apocalypticism and eschatology (cf. section 3). 13. I have only been able to find Chesnut 1971: 76; Lindner 1972: 43-44; Davies 1978: 16-19. However, Chesnut and Lindner do not analyse this relation­ ship in any details, and Davies does not distinguish between apocalypticism and es­ chatology. 14. Thus Bousset and Gressmann 1966: 242-89; Volz 1934-66: 4-62; Russell 1971: 17-18; Davies 1978: 19.

40

Understanding

Josephus

In recent years, however, m u c h energy has been devoted to m o r e ac­ curate definitions of apocalypticism as a separate category that should not be completely identified with messianism and e s c h a t o l o g y . Jewish eschatology ought to b e defined as a w i d e category referring to the future h o p e s of the J e w i s h people, either i m m a n e n t or transcen­ dent. T h e s e h o p e s w e r e cherished by actualizing interpretations of the prophetic oracles in the Bible about the c o m i n g of the M e s s i a h to lib­ erate his p e o p l e from foreign political d o m i n a t i o n , to re-establish the Davidic k i n g d o m as the s u p r e m e p o w e r in the w o r l d and to create j u s ­ tice and piety in the J e w i s h p e o p l e . H o w e v e r , eschatological h o p e s are also found in the rather few and isolated texts expressing the h o p e s of the r e s u r r e c t i o n of the d e a d , the final j u d g m e n t a n d e v e r l a s t i n g reward and p u n i s h m e n t of the just and the w i c k e d . 15

16

17

18

In contrast, Jewish apocalypticism is a modern, scholarly c o n s t r u c t . It is, h o w e v e r , defined differently in v a r i o u s s c h o l a r l y t r a d i t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g to B o u s s e t - G r e s s m a n n (1966) and Russell ( 1 9 7 1 ) J e w i s h apocalypticism refers primarily to the ' n e w ' eschatology c o v e r i n g the transcendent, c o s m i c , dualistic, universal and individualistic soteriolo g y w h i c h is b e l i e v e d to h a v e d e v e l o p e d in the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n period. According to J o h n J. Collins and m a n y others, Jewish apocalypticism is primarily a literary c a t e g o r y . A third possibility is to define Jewish apocalypticism as an esoteric p h e n o m e n o n concentrated on the disclosure of divine s e c r e t s . This act 19

20

15. Cf. Collins 1979; 1984; Hellholm 1983; Bilde 1994. 16. Cf. Volz 1966: 63, 368-71; Bousset and Gressmann 1966: 213-42. 17. Cf., e.g., Dan. 12.2-3; 2 Mace. 7. This definition of Jewish eschatology is opposed to earlier research such as, for example Bousset-Gressmann (1966: 2 4 2 89), where they are termed 'apocalyptic'. Here, Jewish apocalypticism was primar­ ily defined as the 'new' transcendent, universal, cosmic, dualistic and individualis­ tic type of Jewish eschatology; similarly Russell 1971. On the other side, this view of Jewish apocalypticism was opposed to 'prophetic eschatology': ' . . . A u c h aus diesem Grunde empfielht es sich, jiidische Apokalyptik und prophetische Eschatologie scharf voneinander zu sondern...' (Bousset-Gressmann 1966: 242 n. 1). More cautiously, Russell 1971: 104-39, esp. p. 104-105. 18. On the development on this category in the nineteenth century, see Hilgen­ feld 1966: 1-16. 19. Collins 1979: 1-19; 1984; Hartman 1983; Hellholm 1983. 20. Thus Hilgenfeld 1966: 5-6; Koch 1972: 25; Rowland 1985: 9-22; Stone 1982: 29-47, esp. p. 4 1 ; Bilde 1994: 20.

B I L D E Josephus

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

41

of 'disclosure' is either oral (expressed in a sort of prophetic oracle) or written (in the literary genre of the Apocalypse). T h e act of uncovering is e m b e d d e d in a sort of religious m e s s a g e that m a y entail the e s t a b ­ lishment of a social g r o u p constituted precisely on the basis of the con­ tent of the 'apocalyptic' disclosure of G o d ' s word, his will and his plans for history. This content b e c o m e s the core of the ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' ideol­ ogy. A c c o r d i n g to the third v i e w , J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m is generally m a d e u p by a prophetic revealer figure, b y his revelatory m e s s a g e , b y a social g r o u p receiving the m e s s a g e , by an ideology constructed on the basis of the revelatory message, and, in s o m e cases, by the specific type (genre) of literature containing all these e l e m e n t s . 21

Further, this definition understands Jewish apocalypticism as closely related to J e w i s h p r o p h e c y . U n l i k e biblical p r o p h e c y , h o w e v e r , in Jewish apocalypticism there is a special interest in the secrecy of the divine revelations, in the h i d d e n n e s s of the d i v i n e w o r l d a n d in the revealer figure w h o is the mediator of the revelation of these secrets. 22

T h u s , J e w i s h apocalypticism should not b e regarded as only o n e — ' n e w ' , transcendent, c o s m i c , dualistic, universal and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c — section of Jewish eschatology. O n l y in s o m e cases is J e w i s h apocalyp­ ticism c o n n e c t e d to the future h o p e s of the Jewish people, a n d in those cases the emphasis is put on the revelation of the c o m i n g eschatological events (Dan. 7 - 1 2 ; R e v . 6 - 2 2 ) . In other cases, h o w e v e r , J e w i s h apoca­ lypticism appears without this connection, and then it is oriented to­ wards an exploration of the divine, heavenly world and its secrets (thus esp. 1 Enoch, cf. section 9). Finally, the close relationship b e t w e e n J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m and Jewish p r o p h e c y cannot b e e m p h a s i z e d strongly e n o u g h . A n d by J e w ­ ish p r o p h e c y I m e a n not only ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' interpretations of the bib­ lical prophets, as w e find it in the D e a d Sea Scrolls and the N e w T e s ­ tament, but also actual, living—Jewish or Christian—prophetic activity by w h i c h n e w 'apocalyptic' revelations are gained and m e d i a t e d to the

21. Bilde 1994: 18-24. Thus, as historical examples of this type of apocalyptic groups we can refer to the Qumran-Essenes, John the Baptist's circle, the Jesus movement, and Paul's communities. 22. Cf. Hilgenfeld 1966: 5; Russell 1971: 92-100; Charlesworth 1991: 91-92; Murphy 1994: 156-57. This definition contradicts the mainstream of earlier re­ search, cf., e.g., Bousset and Gressmann 1966: 242; Volz 1966: 4-10, and many others. Koch (1972) is one heavy attack on this mainstream view.

42

Understanding

Josephus

chosen group (cf. section 5 - 7 ) . Thus, by Jewish apocalypticism I under­ stand an actual, living prophetic activity directed towards the disclosure of the secret plans of a distant divinity.

4. Josephus's

Use of the Greek Word apokalyptein and Related

Words

It has been demonstrated b y M o r t o n Smith ( 1 9 8 3 : 9-20), that J o s e p h u s never uses the n o u n apokalypsis, and only four times the verb apoka­ lyptein. In War 1.297 (= Ant. 14.406) 5.350 and Ant. 12.90 it is always used in a pragmatic (non-theological) m e a n i n g in the sense of s h o w i n g something that is normally concealed, either an attitude or w e a p o n s or the scrolls of M o s e s . Accordingly, it m a y b e stated that in Josephus this w o r d is not used in any technical 'apocalyptic' sense. H o w e v e r , this fact does not imply that J o s e p h u s is unfamiliar with the ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' idea of d i v i n e , h e a v e n l y secrets that are r e v e a l e d t h r o u g h a c h o s e n prophetical figure. In fact, h e is familiar with this idea, but he expresses it in other w o r d s , for e x a m p l e , deloun (cf. Ant. 10.210): ' A n d Daniel also revealed (edelose) to the king the m e a n i n g of the s t o n e . . . ' 2 3

In Ant. 10.271 the verb epideiknymi ( ' s h o w ' , ' d i s c l o s e ' , ' r e v e a l ' ) is used in the same sense, and in Ant. 10.277 J o s e p h u s m a k e s use of the related verb deiknymi, still with the same m e a n i n g . In Ant. 10.210 w e find this idea expressed in a third way: 24

...if, however, there is anyone who has so keen a desire for exact infor­ mation that he will not stop short of inquiring more closely but wishes to learn about the hidden things that are to come (hos kai peri ton adelon ti genesetai boulesthai matheiri), let him.. . 2 5

This m e a n s that ' t h e hidden things that are to c o m e ' h a v e b e e n r e ­ vealed to Daniel, w h o had written d o w n this revelation. It also m e a n s , however, that J o s e p h u s , w h e n h e wrote the Jewish Antiquities, claimed

23. This, and the following translations of Josephus, are borrowed from the Loeb Classical Library. In Josephus the verb deloun is often used in the same 'apocalyptic' explanatory sense, e.g., Ant. 4.105; 10.177, 195, 198, 201, 202, 205, 208, 272. 24. Cf. the use of this verb in Ant. 10.205, 270. Other verbs such as semeinein can be used by Josephus in the same way, cf. Ant. 2.276 (quoted in section 9). 25. I return to this text in section 10.

B I L D E Josephus

and Jewish

43

Apocalypticism

to k n o w the content of this revelation although h e shrinks from stating it openly. Finally, in War 3.351-53 w e meet the same idea in a fourth variation: But as Nicanor was urgently pressing his proposals and Josephus over­ heard the threats of the hostile crowd, suddenly there came back into his mind those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold (proesemanen)

to

him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sov­ ereigns. He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity (en de kai peri oneirdn hikanos symbalein

ta amphibolds

kriseis

hypo tou Theiou legomena)\

a

priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophe­ cies in the sacred books. At that hour he was inspired (enthous

genom-

enos) to read their meaning...

Like Daniel, Josephus once had nightly dreams in w h i c h G o d h a d re­ vealed to h i m what w o u l d h a p p e n to the Jewish p e o p l e (cf. section 7). T h e constellation of his o w n d r e a m s a n d the biblical oracles suggest that w h a t w a s disclosed to J o s e p h u s w a s the correct interpretation of the biblical oracles, p r e s u m a b l y those in the b o o k of D a n i e l . T h u s Josephus here seems to present himself as an authorized interpreter in a double sense: h e is capable of interpreting the biblical oracles as well as his o w n inspired nightly d r e a m s . Or e v e n better: t h r o u g h his divinely inspired d r e a m s Josephus is divinely authorized to interpret the ambigu­ ous biblical o r a c l e s . 26

I c o n c l u d e this section by pointing out that, although J o s e p h u s never uses the v e r b apokalyptein in the technical ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' sense, h e is well a w a r e of the underlying idea of divine secrets being u n c o v e r e d to a chosen prophet as a mediator.

5. Josephus's

Description

of the

Essenes

N o m a t t e r h o w J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m is defined, and n o m a t t e r h o w the D e a d S e a Scrolls are identified and related to the E s s e n e s of Philo and J o s e p h u s , it seems to b e a general consensus that both the E s s e n e s and the Qumranites are expressions of Jewish a p o c a l y p t i c i s m . 27

26. Similarly Betz 1960: 105-108; Mason 1994: 177. 27. Cf. Russell 1971: 23-24, 40-48, 319-23; Rowland 1985: 113-20; Philonenko 1983.

44

Understanding

Josephus

J o s e p h u s is fascinated b y the E s s e n e s , and h e presents t h e m to the Gentile w o r l d as a J e w i s h elite c o m p a r a b l e to the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n philosophical schools and r e l i g i o n s . J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions of the Essenes (esp. War 2.119-61 and Ant. 18.18-22) h a v e b e e n analysed and c o m p a r e d with the D e a d Sea Scrolls several t i m e s . G e n e r a l l y , the a s t o n i s h i n g a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e Scrolls a n d J o s e p h u s ' s long description h a v e b e e n e m p h a s i z e d , a n d need not b e repeated here. 28

2 9

W h a t I w o u l d like to stress here is the importance of the p h e n o m e n o n of prophecy in nearly all J o s e p h u s ' s accounts of the E s s e n e s . In War 2.159 Josephus calls attention to the connection b e t w e e n E s s e n e proph­ e c y and their familiarity w i t h the biblical b o o k s : T h e r e are s o m e a m o n g t h e m w h o profess to foretell the future, b e i n g versed from their early years in holy b o o k s . . . ' Further, this connection b e t w e e n E s s e n e prophecy and their study of the sacred scriptures should b e interpreted in the context of War 2.136: T h e y display an extraordinary interest in the writings of the a n c i e n t s . . . ' Perhaps it should also b e studied in rela­ tion to the information in J o s e p h u s ' s w o r d s about the d o m i n a n t role of the priests a m o n g the Essenes (War 2.131). 30

If this is an adequate interpretation of J o s e p h u s ' s accounts on E s s e n e p r o p h e c y , it c o r r e s p o n d s r e m a r k a b l y to the situation in the D e a d S e a Scrolls, for e x a m p l e l Q p H a b 2.5-10: ... The interpretation of the word [concerns the trai]tors in the last days. They shall be violators of [the coven]ant who will not believe when they hear all that is going [to happen to] the final generation, from the mouth of the Priest whom God has placed wi[ithin the Community,] to foretell the fulfilment of all the words of his servants, the prophets, [by] means of whom God has declared all that is going to happen to his people [Israel]. 31

This idea is formulated e v e n m o r e p r o n o u n c e d in l Q p H a b 7.4: 'Its interpretation c o n c e r n s the T e a c h e r of R i g h t e o u s n e s s , to w h o m G o d

28. Cf. Rajak 1994: 146; Bilde 1998 (forthcoming). 29. Cf. esp. Beall 1988; Vermes-Goodman 1989; Bergmeier 1993; Rajak 1994. 30. War 1.78 (= Ant. 13.311-13); War 2.113 (= Ant. 17.346-48); War 2A59; Ant. 15.373-79. In all these cases prophecy refers to divinely inspired predictions of future events. 31. Martinez 1994: 198.

B I L D E Josephus

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

45

has disclosed all the mysteries of the w o r d s of his servants, the prophets (eth kol raze' dibre' abadau ha-nabVim)'? In t h e s e texts actualizing eschatological p r o p h e c y is closely c o n ­ nected to the authoritative interpretation of the biblical prophets given by the 'priest' (the Teacher of Righteousness), w h o has received a spe­ cial revelation from G o d r e g a r d i n g the p r o p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the 'secrets' in the prophetic scriptures. 2

T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of living prophecy, the study of the holy scriptures and the importance of the priesthood appear both in J o s e p h u s ' s descrip­ tions of the Essenes and in the D e a d Sea Scrolls. Finally, these ideas correspond to J o s e p h u s ' s description in War 3 . 3 5 1 5 3 , quoted above, of his o w n role as priest, scribe and p r o p h e t (cf. sec­ tion 7).

6. Josephus's

Account

of Prophecy

in the Hellenistic-Roman

Period

In this essay it is claimed that Jewish apocalypticism is closely related to Jewish prophecy (cf. section 3). This interpretation w a s supported by the o v e r v i e w of J o s e p h u s ' s description of the E s s e n e s in section 5. 'Jewish p r o p h e c y ' , however, is not j u s t like that identical with biblical or Old Testamental prophecy. A c c o r d i n g to earlier research (cf. n. 22), Jewish apocalypticism w a s quite different from biblical p r o p h e c y . This position w a s not unaffected b y the ideological ( G e r m a n Protestant) Christian belief that biblical p r o p h e c y w a s a positive p h e n o m e n o n , a genuine expression of divine revelation, which w a s continued by Jesus and Christianity. In contrast, J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m w a s r e g a r d e d as s o m e t h i n g n e g a t i v e , an e x p r e s s i o n of the d e c l i n e of ' l a t e ' J u d a i s m against w h i c h J e s u s and Christianity protested a n d w i t h w h i c h they broke. 33

This ideological interpretation w a s related to the belief that (genuine) p r o p h e c y h a d ceased in postexilic J u d a i s m . T h i s belief w a s b a s e d on texts s u c h as P s . 7 4 . 9 , 1 M a c e . 4 . 4 6 , 9.27 a n d 1 4 . 4 1 , a n d it w a s accepted by m a n y s c h o l a r s . 34

32. Martinez 1994: 200. 33. Koch (1972) gives a critical account of this ideological approach to Jewish apocalypticism. 34. Cf., e.g., Hilgenfeld 1966: 8-10; Charles 1913: 200-206; Russell 1971: 7 3 82; Muller 1982: 188-89; Feldman 1990: 398-407.

Understanding

46

Josephus

H o w e v e r , as this belief is o b v i o u s l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s accounts of predicting prophetic figures in the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n per­ iod, it could not b e m a i n t a i n e d in the long run, and today it h a s been given up by most s c h o l a r s . In this essay I d o not need to repeat the t h o r o u g h survey in G r a y ( 1 9 9 3 ) a n d o t h e r r e c e n t w o r k s . A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , predicting p r o p h e c y w a s a very important living p h e n o m e n o n in the HellenisticR o m a n period. E s c h a t o l o g i c a l p r o p h e c y w a s a m a i n e l e m e n t in the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e c o m m u n i t y . It w a s a fundamental feature in m o v e ­ m e n t s of the 'sign p r o p h e t s ' (including J o h n the Baptist) a n d other prophetic figures. M o r e o v e r , prophecy w a s a major force in the Jesus m o v e m e n t and in the Pauline c o m m u n i t i e s (cf. A u n e 1983). Finally, it w a s the strongest driving force behind the Jewish revolt in 6 6 - 7 0 . 35

36

37

3 8

C o n s e q u e n t l y , to J o s e p h u s , p r o p h e c y — u n d e r s t o o d as divinely in­ spired predictions in relation to eschatology, m e s s i a n i s m , politics as well as a p o c a l y p t i c i s m — w a s very m u c h alive in the Hellenistic-Roman period.

7. Josephus's

View of himself as a

Prophet

In section 4 w e saw that in War 3.350-54 J o s e p h u s presents himself as a divinely inspired ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' prophet. T h r o u g h nightly d r e a m s and by his priestly ability to interpret the sacred scriptures h e received divine revelations concerning 'the i m p e n d i n g fate of the J e w s and the destinies of the R o m a n sovereigns' (3.351). In War 3 . 4 0 0 - 4 0 2 J o s e p h u s describes his actual p e r f o r m a n c e as a prophet to V e s p a s i a n to w h o m h e predicted that h e w o u l d b e R o m a n e m p e r o r in the near future. 35. To the evidence of Josephus may be added that of the N e w Testament. Today, therefore, most scholars regard this idea as a Rabbinic construction, cf. Bousset-Gressmann 1966: 395-99; Aune 1982: 240; Aune 1983: 103-106: Greenspahn 1989; Hall 1991: 24; Gray 1993: 9-34 (in particular); Himmelfarb 1993: 96; Bilde 1996: 95-96. 36. Cf. section 5 above and Gray 1993: 80-111. 37. Cf. Gray 1993: 35-79, 112-44 and 145-63. 38. Cf. War 6.285-86 and 312-13; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5. See Gray 1993: 112-44. Feldman (1990, esp. pp. 400-407) has argued that Josephus distinguishes clearly between the biblical prophets and the prophetic phenomena in the Hellenistic-Roman period. I do not think that this is accurate (cf. Bilde 1996: 96 n. 13).

BILDE Josephus

and Jewish Apocalypticism

41

In War 6.312-13 Josephus refers to his disagreement with the Jewish rebels on the interpretation of a decisive ' a m b i g u o u s o r a c l e ' , perhaps D a n 2.44-45; 7 . 1 1 - 1 4 . T h e disagreement concerns the date for the ful­ filment of the J e w i s h e s c h a t o l o g i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o s e p h u s did not share the belief of the rebels that the m o m e n t of fulfilment h a d arrived during the w a r with the R o m a n s . Therefore, he terms this belief a 'false p r o p h e c y ' (War 6.285-86). This view, however, does not i m p l y that the m o m e n t of fulfilment w o u l d not c o m e at all, only that it w o u l d h a p p e n at a later d a t e . 39

40

E l s e w h e r e , I have argued that these texts are n o e x c e p t i o n s in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s w o r k s , but rather crucial and f u n d a m e n t a l . T h e y s h o u l d b e seen and interpreted in connection with his evident attempts to present himself as closely related to earlier great p r o p h e t s in J e w i s h history such as Joseph, Daniel and J e r e m i a h . Especially in his speech to the J e w s in Jerusalem (War 5.375-419) Josephus presents himself as a sec­ ond J e r e m i a h . 41

42

43

In m y v i e w , this interpretation of J o s e p h u s should b e carried on to cover his view of his literary w o r k as a whole. In the 1996 essay I h a v e m a d e an attempt in this direction on the basis of an analysis of Against Apion 1.28-56. In this important text Josephus s e e m s to present his his­ torical writings as in s o m e sense ' p r o p h e t i c ' w o r k s , w h i c h are claimed to b e seen as continuing the 'prophetic' tradition of the biblical b o o k s . Moreover, I h a v e argued for the hypothesis that there are other signs in 44

39. Cf. Ant. 10.268, which is quoted in section 9. On Daniel in Josephus, see also section 10. 40. Cf. Bilde 1988: 187-88. 41. Cf. Bilde 1996: 95-97. Similarly Betz 1960: 105-109; Chesnut 1971: 91-92; Blenkinsopp 1974; Johnson 1983; Rajak 1983: 185-95; Hall 1991: 25. 42. Cf. Bilde 1996: 94-95 with references to, for example Chesnut 1971: 92; Lindner 1972: 49-68; Blenkinsopp 1974: 244-45; Daube 1980: 20; Aune 1982: 420-21; Cohen 1982; Johnson 1983: 340-46; Sterling 1992: 236-38; Gray 1993: 3579; Mason 1994: 167-77. 43. Cf. Bilde 1996: 95. Similarly, for example Cohen 1982; Hall 1991: 27-28: T h u s Josephus, claiming the ethos of a Jeremiah, speaks the message God had given him at his call, casting it in a prophetic form. Josephus certainly conceived these speeches as prophecies in which he fulfills his prophetic commission' (p. 28). 44. Bilde 1996: 98-107 (with numerous references to texts and secondary litera­ ture). Similarly Hall 1991: 22-30.1 regret not having known this work when I wrote my 1996 essay.

48

Understanding

Josephus

J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s indicating that h e u n d e r s t o o d his w h o l e historiographical w o r k as intimately c o n n e c t e d to his status as a priest and a prophet. Accordingly, J o s e p h u s appears to h a v e interpreted his experience in Jotapata, his prediction to V e s p a s i a n and his w h o l e literary w o r k in prophetic terms and categories. These observations lead m e to the same conclusion as Hall (1991): J o s e p h u s ' s self-understanding should b e in­ terpreted as focusing on his role as a writer of prophetically 'revealed history' (cf. section 8). 45

8. Jewish Apocalypticism

and

Historiography

Hall has demonstrated the close relationship b e t w e e n Jewish apocalyp­ ticism and historiography, not least in J o s e p h u s . Obviously, the writ­ ing of history in the O l d T e s t a m e n t presupposes divine revelation. T o the Old Testament mind, the proper meaning in history can only e m e r g e through religious interpretative ideas and schemes. Hall has s h o w n that this idea d o m i n a t e s not only w o r k s w h i c h are traditionally defined as apocalyptic, such as the b o o k s of Daniel and 4 Ezra, but that it applies also to J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s and the historical b o o k s in the N e w T e s t a m e n t (Hall 1 9 9 1 : 12). H a l l has s u g g e s t e d the general c a t e g o r y ' r e v e a l e d history' for this type of historical writing (Hall 1 9 9 1 : 18-19). M o r e spe­ cifically, Hall terms J o s e p h u s ' s works (esp. the Jewish War) 'prophetic history' ( 1 9 9 1 : 2 2 - 3 0 ) . 46

H a l l ' s insights should not lead us to believe that there is n o difference b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s historical w o r k s and the proper apocalyptic b o o k s , for e x a m p l e the b o o k of Daniel. J o s e p h u s claims to write ' p r o p h e t i c ' history (cf. section 7 ) , but, at the s a m e t i m e , h e c l a i m s to w r i t e 'accurate' history on the basis of eyewitnesses and s o u r c e s . Hall m a k e s a distinction between the following t w o types of 'revealed history': J o s e p h u s ' s 'prophetic history' and the 'apocalyptic h i s t o r y ' . Hall characterizes ' a p o c a l y p t i c history' as follows: 'it thrives on un­ c o m f o r t a b l e p e r i o d s in w h i c h history m a k e s n o sense a c c o r d i n g to normal H e b r e w suppositions and where delivery is sorely n e e d e d ' (Hall 47

48

45. Bilde 1996: 103-107; cf. Blenkinsopp 1974. 46. Hall 1991. Similarly Davies 1978. 47. Cf. War 1.2-3, 6-16; Life 357-67; Against Apion 191-206; 1996: 103-107; Moessner 1996. 48. 1991: 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 2 - 4 7 , 6 1 - 9 6 , 2 4 2 - 4 8 .

1.1-56; see Bilde 1988:

BBLDE Josephus

and Jewish Apocalypticism

49

1991: 244). H o w e v e r , it is a question whether, on the basis of this defi­ nition, 4 Ezra and The Jewish War should b e p l a c e d in t w o different groups. F o r not only the former but also the latter could b e maintained to match this definition. 49

In any case, it m a y b e learned from Hall that Jewish apocalypticism and (Jewish) history writing n e e d no longer be regarded as incompati­ ble, but should rather b e seen as t w o categories b e l o n g i n g to the s a m e general genre, namely, that of 'revealed history'.

1

9. Josephus

s Interpretation of 'Apocalyptic' and Figures in the Bible

Themes

In his rendering of Genesis, Josephus sometimes demonstrates a 'scien­ tific' interest in the h e a v e n l y w o r l d r e m i n d i n g us of w h a t is found in 1 Enoch, especially in chs. 14, 1 7 - 1 8 and 7 2 - 8 1 . It is the case in Ant. 1.30: O n the s e c o n d d a y G o d set the h e a v e n a b o v e t h e earth ' c o n ­ gealing ice about it and withal rendering it moist and rainy to give the benefit of the d e w s in a m a n n e r congenial to the e a r t h ' . 5 0

51

In his paraphrase of Gen. 5.1-8 Josephus brings s o m e additions to his source. In Ant. 1.70 w e read that A d a m had predicted the later destruc­ tions of the world b y fire and water. A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s interprets A d a m as a p r o p h e t in a w a y that is related to t h e p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c a l A d a m and E v e literature. 52

In his rendering of Gen. 5.(18-)24 (on E n o c h ) J o s e p h u s follows the biblical text rather closely: ' E n o c h lived 365 years and returned to the divinity, w h e n c e it c o m e s that there is n o record in the chronicles of his death' (Ant. 1.85). H e leaves out, however, the biblical ' h e w a l k e d with G o d ' , a n d r e p l a c e s the biblical ' G o d took h i m ' with t h e e m p h a t i c phrase ' r e t u r n e d to the d i v i n i t y ' . A s it is noted by T h a c k e r a y in the L o e b edition, this wording is similar to that used in Ant. 4.326 of M o s e s

49. Cf. Bilde 1979: 199-200: the causes of the catastrophe of the Jewish war, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple are unexplainable. In the end they 'could not but occur in accordance with His (God's) plan and will' (p. 199). See Ant. 10.276 and nn. 97 and 98 in Bilde 1979. 50. Cf. Stone 1981: 35-47; VanderKam 1984: 76-109. 51. Cf. Genesis 1.6-7; I En. 14.8-13. 52. Cf. LAE 49 where this prophecy is attributed to Eve. See Davies 1978: 17.

Understanding

50

Josephus

53

(cf. 3 . 9 6 ) . It has to b e noted, however, that in these t w o texts Josephus expressly rejects this interpretation of M o s e s ' d i s a p p e a r i n g . A c c o r d ­ ingly, J o s e p h u s insists that M o s e s died. T h u s w h a t h e rejects with regard to M o s e s , h e accepts in his writing on E n o c h . C o n s e q u e n t l y , it can b e c l a i m e d with g o o d reasons that J o s e p h u s represents o n e step in the direction of the g r o w i n g ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' interpretation of G e n . 5.1824 on Enoch. M o s e s d o m i n a t e s b o o k s t w o to four in the Antiquities, b u t w e need only look at a few texts on the special revelation granted to h i m b y G o d . In Ant. 2.276 J o s e p h u s renders E x o d . 3.13-14 in the following way: ' T h e n G o d revealed (semainei) to h i m His n a m e , w h i c h ere then h a d not c o m e to m e n ' s ears, and of w h i c h I a m forbidden to speak.' H e r e , the emphasis on the divine communication as a revelation as well as the underlining that J o s e p h u s is not allowed to report it c a n both b e regarded as ' a p o c a l y p t i c a l ' additions to the biblical text, b e c a u s e they refer to divine secrets as revealed to a chosen (prophetic) figure. In Ant. 3.38 Josephus m a k e s the following addition to E x o d . 17.1-7: ' A writing deposited in the t e m p l e attests that G o d foretold to M o s e s that water w o u l d thus spring forth from the rock.' This addition, too, testifies to J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e of 'secret' additions to the Bible. In Ant. 3.90 w e find a similar interpreting addition to Exod. 19.19 and 2 0 . 1 - 2 1 : ' T h e s e w o r d s it is not permitted us to state explicitly, to the letter, but w e will indicate their p u r p o r t ' . A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s does not quote the ten c o m m a n d m e n t s , but he paraphrases t h e m (3.91-2). E n o c h is m e n t i o n e d o n c e m o r e in Ant. 9.28, w h e r e J o s e p h u s d e ­ scribes Elijah's disappearance: Now about that time Elijah disappeared from among men, and to this day no one knows his e n d . . . However, concerning Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written in the sacred books that they be­ came invisible, and no one knows of their death (cf. 2. Kgs 2.1-14).

J o s e p h u s leaves out the story about E l i j a h ' s ascention in the chariot of fire (2 K g s 2.9-14) and restricts himself to the w o r d s q u o t e d above. 53. To this expression, see Tabor 1989. Tabor concentrates his essay on the aspect of 'apotheosis and immortality * in these texts. Another aspect could be termed that of pre-existence. Enoch and Elijah 'returned' to the divine world, that is, they went back to the place they had come from. A third aspect is that of their nearness to God. Because of that they are able to reveal divine secrets. Josephus does not use this expression about Daniel. Instead, he writes 'that Daniel spoke with God' (Ant. 10.267, quoted below). But I think that the meaning is the same.

BILDE Josephus

and Jewish Apocalypticism

51

This fact need not b e interpreted as an expression of J o s e p h u s ' s 'ratio­ nalizing t e n d e n c y ' . Another possibility is to interpret it as an expres­ sion of J o s e p h u s ' s reserve w h e n rendering e p i p h a n i c , e s c h a t o l o g i c a l and ' a p o c a l y p t i c a l ' p h e n o m e n a in the Bible. T h e important point here is that E l i j a h — a n d E n o c h — d i d not die, but ' b e c a m e i n v i s i b l e ' , that is, they 'returned to the divinity' (Ant. 1.84). 54

J o s e p h u s has nothing ' a p o c a l y p t i c a l ' to recount a b o u t Isaiah, Jere­ m i a h a n d Ezekiel. H e describes t h e m as prophets in the sense of pre­ dictors of (hidden) future e v e n t s . 55

T o Josephus, Daniel is ' o n e of the greatest p r o p h e t s ' w h o s e ' m e m o r y lives on eternally' (Ant. 1 0 . 2 6 6 ) . J o s e p h u s has m o r e to relate about Daniel (Ant. 10.186-281) than about any other prophet. H e indicates his reasons for this preference as follows: 56

57

For the b o o k s which he wrote and left behind are still read by us even now, and we are convinced by them that Daniel spoke with God (hoti Danielos hdmilei to theo), for he was not only wont to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass. And, whereas the other prophets foretold dis­ asters and were for that reason in disfavour with kings and people, Daniel was a prophet of good tidings to them... (Ant. 10.267-68).

W h a t should be noticed in this text is that the b o o k of Daniel is 'still read by us even n o w ' , apparently precisely because the J e w s (including Josephus) believed that Daniel h a d particularly close c o m m u n i c a t i o n s with G o d , and because he prophesied not only disaster, but salvation as well. W i t h these phrases Josephus seems to share the 'apocalyptical' inter­ pretation of Daniel as the J e w i s h prophet of highest relevance, b e c a u s e he was the prophet w h o s e predictions concerned the actual sufferings of the J e w i s h people, b e c a u s e h e fixed the time for the fulfilment of his prophesies and b e c a u s e he w a s the unique revealer of G o d ' s salvatory plans for the Jewish people. Despite the reticence regarding 'apocalyptical' matters in his w o r k s J o s e p h u s clearly reveals familiarity with the particular ' a p o c a l y p t i c a l ' 54. Thus Marcus in Thackeray 1969, Vol. VI, 1966: 17 n.c. 55. Ant. 10.11-14, 32-35 (Isaiah); 78-80; 103-107 (Jeremiah and Ezekiel); 8895, 112-30 (Jeremiah); 142 (generally on prophecy). 56. Cf. Vermes 1991; Feldman 1992; Mason 1994; Bilde 1996: 95-96. 57. The plural (ta biblid) may refer to apocryphal additions to the Book of Daniel, cf. Marcus in Thackeray 1969, Vol. VI, 1966: 305 n.e.

52

Understanding

Josephus

figures in the Bible, w h o had been so close to G o d that they w e r e able to c o m m u n i c a t e his divine m e s s a g e s . J o s e p h u s expresses himself cau­ tiously a b o u t these matters w h i c h are not of p r i m a r y c o n c e r n in his historiographical w o r k s . Nevertheless, it is clear that J o s e p h u s d e m o n ­ strates s o m e k n o w l e d g e of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical traditions of 'apocalyptical' nature.

10. Josephus's

'Apocalyptic'

Rendering of Eschatological in the Scriptures

Prophecies

J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m is not identical with J e w i s h e s c h a t o l o g y , b u t neither is it entirely separate (cf. section 3). J e w i s h apocalypticism is about the revealed disclosure of divine secrets a m o n g w h i c h the future destiny of the Jewish people is o n e of the most important. In this sec­ tion I will e x a m i n e the w a y in which Josephus renders s o m e of the cen­ tral eschatological prophecies in the Bible. In Ant. 4.100-31 Josephus gives an extensive paraphrase of N u m b e r s 2 2 - 2 4 on the non-Jewish diviner Balaam, w h o w a s sent for b y the M i d janite king, Balak, to 'deliver curses for the extermination of the Israe­ lites' (4.104). Generally, J o s e p h u s follows N u m b e r s 2 2 rather closely. But in 4.114-17 he extends and elaborates B a l a a m ' s first blessing of the Israelites in N u m . 2 3 . 7 - 1 0 , t h o u g h in general t e r m s . S i m i l a r a m p l i ­ fications characterizes J o s e p h u s ' s reproduction of the following conver­ sation b e t w e e n B a l a k a n d B a l a a m in 4 . 1 1 8 - 2 4 ( N u m . 2 3 . 1 1 - 1 7 ) . Josephus renders B a l a a m ' s second blessing as follows: Instead, falling upon his face, he foretold what calamities were to come for kings and what for cities of the highest celebrity (of which some had not yet so much as been inhabited at all), along with other events which have already befallen men in bygone ages, by land or sea, down to times within my memory. And from all these prophecies having received the fulfilment which he predicted one may infer what the future also has in store (4.125).

W i t h this choice of w o r d s Josephus clearly understands the first part of B a l a a m ' s prophecies as referring to the decisive events in his o w n lifetime, n a m e l y , t h e d e s t r u c t i o n s d u r i n g the J e w i s h r e v o l t a g a i n s t R o m e . Accordingly, the concluding clause can only b e taken to refer to the c o m i n g messianic salvation and restoration of I s r a e l . 58

58. Cf. Blenkinsopp 1974: 242, and the cautious evaluation by Volz 1966: 53, quoted in section 2. This interpretation of Ant. 4.125 corresponds exactly to

BILDE Josephus

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

53

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of J o s e p h u s s e e m s to r e c e i v e s u p p o r t from his rendering of B a l a a m ' s third prediction ( N u m . 24) in 4 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 : ... doubtless this race of Hebrews will never be overwhelmed by utter destruction, neither through war, nor through pestilence and dearth of the fruits of the earth, neither shall any other unlooked-for cause exterminate it. For God is watching over them to preserve them from ill and to suffer no such calamity to come upon them as would destroy them all. Yet mis­ fortunes may well befall them of little moment and for a little while, whereby they will appear to be abased, though only thereafter to flourish once more to the terror of those who inflicted these injuries upon them. T h e last sentence m a y b e interpreted as a h i d d e n threat against R o m e . In his p a r a p h r a s e of D a n . 2.34-35 a n d 2.44-45 J o s e p h u s writes as fol­ lows: And Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought it proper to relate this, since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not of what is to be; if, however, there is anyone who has so keen a desire for exact information that he will not stop short of inquiring more closely but wishes to learn about the hidden things that are to come, let him take the trouble to read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings (Ant. 10.210). A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , t h e ' h i d d e n things that are to c o m e ' w e r e r e ­ vealed b y G o d to D a n i e l w h o in his b o o k discloses t h e m to his r e a d e r s . A n d in his b o o k J o s e p h u s interprets this revelation as p e r t a i n i n g to the crucial e v e n t s in his o w n lifetime. A c c o r d i n g to B r u c e ( 1 9 6 5 ) , J o s e p h u s h e r e s u g g e s t s that the fourth r e a l m in D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y is referring to R o m e , a n d that t h e s t o n e is t h e m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m of Israel: ' A t the end, it m a y b e suggested, his [ J o s e p h u s ' s ] patriotism t r i u m p h e d a n d h e foresaw his p e o p l e ' s v i n d i c a t i o n . ' correct e m e r g e s from Ant.

5 9

T h a t B r u c e ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is

10.276-77:

And these misfortunes our nation did in fact come to experience under Antiochus Epiphanes, just as Daniel many years before saw and wrote that they would happen. In the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken by them and the temple laid waste. All these things, as God revealed them to him, he

Josephus's interpretation of Dan. 7 - 1 0 in Ant. 10.267-68, given in section 9, and 10.276 given below. 59. Bruce 1965: 160. Similarly Chesnut 1971: 76; Lindner 1972: 43-44; Davies 1978: 18-19. Against: Volz 1966: 53, quoted in section 3; Fischer 1978: 174-81.

54

Understanding

Josephus

left behind in his writings, so that those who read them and observe how they have come to pass must wonder at Daniel's having been so hon­ oured by G o d . . .

C o n s e q u e n t l y , it appears that Josephus understood the prophecies in N u m b e r s 2 3 - 2 4 and in Daniel (2 and 7 - 1 0 ) to b e predictions referring to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n lifetime, partly the catastrophe in the year 7 0 CE and partly the approaching eschatological redemption of the Jewish people. J o s e p h u s thus seems to h a v e foreseen R o m e ' s u p c o m i n g as well as her downfall. This interpretation of J o s e p h u s ' s eschatology appears to receive sup­ port from War 5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 w h e r e J o s e p h u s r e p r o d u c e s his s p e e c h on behalf of the R o m a n s to the J e w s on the walls of J e r u s a l e m . H e r e , h e urges the J e w s to surrender because G o d w a s ' n o w ' o n the R o m a n side: Fortune, indeed, had from all quarters passed over to them, and God who went the round of nations, bringing each in turn the rod of empire, now (nyn) rested over Italy (War 5 . 3 6 7 ) . 60

Despite the Hellenistic colouring of the sentence it is a g e n u i n e ex­ pression of the apocalyptic worldview which w e find in Daniel 2 and 7: G o d is the master and director of history. H e brings the great p o w e r s to fall a n d rises n e w o n e s to p o w e r . ' N o w ' , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to say, in these years, G o d has given this p o w e r to R o m e , but only for a limited period. A n d w h e n this period is over, then the eschatological turn will c o m e to the J e w i s h p e o p l e , if, h o w e v e r , it w o u l d c h a n g e its u n g o d l y way of life. 61

T h i s interpretation of J o s e p h u s w a s first p r e s e n t e d in full by d e Jonge: 'It is obvious that Josephus is expecting a glorious future for an " I s r a e l " b e i n g o b e d i e n t to G o d . T h e R o m a n E m p i r e is not the last word.' T h i s v i e w of history is not only ' t h e o l o g i c a l ' , ' D e u t e r o n o m i c ' , 'eschatological' or 'heilsgeschichtlicK (Attridge 1976). It m a y also b e t e r m e d ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' . T h e crucial point is that G o d is defined as the u n s e e n director of history; that h e ' n o w ' , in J o s e p h u s ' s lifetime, has granted world domination to R o m e ; that R o m e ' s d o m i n a t i o n is c o m i n g to its end; that G o d then will pass it to the Jewish p e o p l e ; that G o d has 6 2

63

60. 61. 62. 63.

Similarly in War 2.390; 3.354; 5.2. Cf. War 5.19-20, 415. See also Ant. 4.125-28; 10.142, 210 and 276. De Jonge 1974: 212, cf. Poznanski 1887: 29-30; Schalit 1975: 259, 268-69. Similarly Lindner 1972: 43-44, 142-44

B I L D E Josephus

and Jewish Apocalypticism

55

disclosed to Daniel and other prophets the secret k n o w l e d g e of all this; and that J o s e p h u s believes that h e is authorized to c o m m u n i c a t e a di­ vinely authorized interpretation of this message. Therefore, J o s e p h u s m a y b e claimed to represent a sort of revealed actualizing eschatological reading of B a l a a m s and D a n i e l ' s prophecies, a reading w h i c h m a y b e c o m p a r e d to the ' r e a d i n g ' of the T e a c h e r of Righteousness in the D e a d Sea Scrolls (cf. section 5) and the ' r e a d i n g ' of Paul in his letters.

11.

Conclusion

A s stated in the introduction, Josephus cannot simply be categorized as an ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' theologian and writer. S u c h an interpretation w o u l d be simplistic and unhelpful. O n the other hand, it w o u l d b e j u s t as simplistic to negate any con­ n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m in the sense defined in section 3. O n the basis of the examination carried out in this essay the relation­ ship b e t w e e n the t w o m a y b e described as follows: (1)

A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s d o e s not use the term apokalyptein in the technical ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' sense, h e is interested in related verbs, and, consequently, in the ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' idea of d i v i n e disclo­ sure of hidden secrets through chosen prophetic mediators.

(2)

Josephus was very m u c h absorbed by the 'apocalyptic' E s s e n e s , their studies of the Bible, their e m p h a s i s o n priest­ h o o d and their prophetic power. J o s e p h u s is our best witness to the important role of J e w i s h p r o p h e t i s m in the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n period, a p h e n o m e n o n k n o w n also from the D e a d S e a Scrolls a n d the N e w Testa­ ment. In this context belongs the growing recognition in recent years of J o s e p h u s ' s picture of himself as a divinely inspired prophet. B e c a u s e J o s e p h u s relates his prophetic abilities to his qualifi­ cations as a priest and to his k n o w l e d g e of the holy scriptures, his type of p r o p h e c y appears to b e closely related to that of the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e s . A s his o w n prophecies are closely con­ nected to his interpretations of the biblical, p r o p h e t i c , escha­ tological oracles concerning contemporary events, they appear to b e similar not only to Essene prophecy, but also to 'Zelotic'

(3)

(4)

56

Understanding

(5)

(6)

Josephus

and early Christian p r o p h e c y . A s J o s e p h u s ' s p r o p h e c i e s are related to the revelation of divine secrets c o n c e r n i n g c o n t e m ­ porary history, w e m a y also call t h e m ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' . J o s e p h u s ' s claim to prophetic p o w e r is also connected with his historiographical work. I h a v e argued in favor of the h y p o t h e ­ sis that J o s e p h u s regarded his w o r k s as a sort of continuation of the 'prophetical' w o r k s in the Bible (Bilde 1996), and Hall (1991) has proposed to term t h e m 'revealed history'. J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s reveal k n o w l e d g e of w e l l - k n o w n apocalyp­ tic ideas and figures, a n d of the l e g e n d s that g r e w u p about t h e m in the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n period. J o s e p h u s w a s very m u c h i n t e r e s t e d in p r o p h e t i c a n d 'apocalyptic' figures as ' m e d i a t o r s ' b e t w e e n G o d and the h u m a n world. At the s a m e time h e describes such figures with great r e s e r v e , partly for political-apologetic reasons b e c a u s e of the close connections b e t w e e n the ' a p o c a l y p t i c ' world v i e w and the J e w i s h revolt against R o m e , and partly b e c a u s e of the g e n r e and nature of his writings w h i c h are primarily historical.

O n this b a c k g r o u n d it can n o w longer b e m a i n t a i n e d that J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m and J o s e p h u s b e l o n g to t w o different w o r l d s . O n the contrary, J o s e p h u s and Jewish apocalypticism are connected b y several connecting links.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Attridge, H.W. 1976 Aune, D.E. 1982 1983 Beall, T.S. 1988 Bergmeier, R. 1993 Betz, O. 1960

The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). The Use of PROPHETliS in Josephus', JBL 101: 419-21. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Josephus* Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des jiidischen Historiographen (Kampen: Kok). Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tubingen: MohrSiebeck).

B I L D E Josephus

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

57

Betz, O., K. Haacker, and M. Hengel (eds.) 1974 Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Bilde, P. 1979 'The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus', JSJ 10: 179-202. 1988 Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1994 'Gnosticism, Jewish Apocalypticism, and Early Christianity', in K. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen and B. Rosendahl (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press): 9-32. 1996 'Contra Apionem 1.28-56: An Essay on Josephus' View of his own Work in the Context of the Jewish Canon', in Feldman and Levison (eds.): 94114. 1998 'The Essenes in Philo and Josephus' (forthcoming). Blenkinsopp, J. 1974 'Prophecy and Pristhood in Josephus', JJS 25:239-62. Bousset, W., and H. Gressmann 1966 Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter (repr.; Tubingen: Mohr and Siebeck, 3rd edn [1926]). Bruce, F.F. 1965 'Josephus and Daniel', ASTI4: 48-62. Charles, R.H. 1913 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life In Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity: Or Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from Pre-Prophetic Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon (London: A. & C. Black). Charlesworth, J.H. 1991 'Folktraditions in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', in Collins and Charlesworth (eds.): 91-113. Chesnut, G.F. 1971 The Byzantine Church Historians from Eusebius to Evagrius: A Historiographical Study (unpublished dissertation, University of Oxford). Cohen, S.J.D. 1982 'Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius', History and Theory 21: 366-81. Collins, J.J. 1979 'Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre', Semeia 14:1-19. 1984 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad). Collins, J.J., and J.H. Charlesworth (eds.) 1991 Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Collo­ quium (JSPSup, 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Daube, D. 1980 'Typology in Josephus', JJS 31: 18-36. Davies, G.J. 1978 'Apocalyptic and Historiography', JSOT5: 15-28.

58 Feldman, L.H. 1984 1990 1992 Feldman, L.H., 1987 Feldman, L.H., 1996 Fischer, U. 1978 Gray, R. 1993

Understanding

Josephus

Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). 'Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus', JTS 41: 386-422. 'Josephus' Portrait of Daniel' Henoch 14: 37-94, 96. and G. Hata (eds.) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Leiden: E.J. Brill). and J.R. Levison (eds.) Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portions Missing in Greek (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung judentum (Berlin: W. de Gruyter).

im hellenistischen

Diaspora-

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press). Greenspahn, F.E. 1989 'Why Prophecy Ceased', JBL 108: 37-49. Grimm, W. 1972 'Der Dank fur die empfangene Offenbarung bei Jesus und Josephus', in Das Institutum.Judaicum der Universitat Tubingen in den Jahren 19711972 (Tubingen: Institutum Judaicum): 69-78. Hall, R.G. 1991 Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Histo­ riography (JSPSup, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Hartman, L. 1983 'Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre', in Hellholm (ed.): 329-43. Hellholm, D. (ed.) 1983 Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceed­ ings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (Tubingen: Mohr and Siebeck). Hilgenfeld, A. 1966 Die judische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Christentums nebst einem Anhang tiber das gnostische System des Basilides (repr.; Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi). Himmelfarb, M. 1993 Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Johnson, G.L., 'Josephus: Heir Apparent to the Prophetic Tradition?', in Society of Biblical Literature Special Papers 1983 (SBLSP, 22; Missoula, MT; Scholars Press): 337-46. Jonge, M. de 1974 'Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes', in Betz, Haacker and Hengel (eds.): 205-19. Koch, K. 1972 Ratios vor der Apokalyptik (Giitersloh: Giiterloher Verlagshaus, 1970). ET: The Rediscovery of Apocalypticism (London).

B I L D E Josephus Lindner, H. 1972 Maier, J. 1972

Martinez, F.G. 1994 Mason, S. 1994 Michel, O. 1954 1969

Moessner, D.P. 1996

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

59

Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Geschichte der jiidischen Religion: Von der Zeit Alexander des Grossen bis zur Aufklarung mit einem Ausblick auf das 19./20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: (Leiden: E.J. Brill).

The Qumran Scrolls in English

'Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House', in Parente and Sievers (eds.): 161-91. 'Spatjiidisches Prophetentum', in Neutestamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 60-66. 'Studien zu Josephus: Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6,390f., 293-95); ihre Umdeutung bei Josephus', in A.V.M. Black, Neotestamentica et Semitiea (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 240-44. '"Eyewitnesses", "Informed Contemporaries", and "Unknowing Inquir­ ers": Josephus' Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of PARAKOLOYTHEO',M>vr28: 195-222.

Momigliano, A. 1982 'Ci6 che Giuseppe non vide', Rivista Storica Italiana, 91 (1979): 564-74; repr. in La storiografia greca (Torino: Einaudi, 1982): 322-35. Muller, K. 1982 '"Die Propheten sind schlafen gegangen" (Syr Bar 85.3)', BZ 26: 179207. Murphy, F.J. 1994 'Apocalypses and Apocalypticism: The State of the Question', CRBS 2: 147-79. Parente, F., and J. Sievers (eds.) 1994 Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Philonenko, M. 1983 'L'apocalyptique quomranienne', in Hellholm (ed.): 171-210. Poznanski, A., 1887 Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Halle). Rajak, T. 1983 Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983). 1994 'Cio che Giuseppe vide: Josephus and the Essenes'; in Parente and Sievers (eds.): 141-60. Rowland, C. 1985 The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982; repr.).

60 Russel, D.S. 1971 Schalit, A. 1975 Schmidt, J.M. 1969

Understanding

Josephus

The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press [1964]).

200 BC-AD 100

'Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud and Midrasch: Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie', ANRW, II.2: 208-327. Die jiidische Apokalyptik: Die Geschichte ihrer Erforschung von den Anfangen his zu den Textfunden von Qumran (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag).

Schmithals, W. 1973 Die Apokalyptik: Einfiihrung und Deutung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schreckenberg, H. 1968 Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1979 Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementsband mit Gesamtregister (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Schreiner, J. 1969 Alttestamentlich-jiidische Apokalyptik: Eine Einfiihrung (Munich: KoselVerlag). Smith, M. 1983 'On the History of APOKALYPTO and APOKALYPSIS\ in Hellholm (ed.): 9-20. Smith, M. 1987 'The Occult in Josephus', in Feldman and Hata (eds.): 236-56. Sterling, G.E. 1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Stone, M.E. 1982 Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Tabor, J.D. 1989 '"Returning to Divinity": Josephus' Portrayal of Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses', JBL 108: 225-38. Thackeray, H.St.J., et al (eds.) 1969 Josephus in Nine Volumes (LCL; London and Cambridge, MA: W. Heinemann and Harvard University Press, [1926]). Unnik, W.C. van 1978 Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider). VanderKam, J.C. 1984 Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America). Vermes, G. 1991 'Josephus's Treatment of the Book of Daniel', JJS 42 : 149-66. Vermes, G., and M. Goodman (eds.) 1989 The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press).

B E L D E Josephus Volz, P. 1966

and Jewish

Apocalypticism

61

Die Eschatologie der judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der rabhinischen, apokalyptischen und apocryphen Literatur (Tubingen: Mohr and Siebeck, 1934; repr.; Hildesheim: Olms).

Part II ANTIQUITIES/LIFE

' S H O U L D A N Y W I S H T O E N Q U I R E F U R T H E R ' (ANT. T H E A I M A N D A U D I E N C E O F J O S E P H U S ' S JUDEAN

1.25):

ANTIQUITIES/LIFE

Steve M a s o n

T h e following essay is part of an ongoing effort to r e o p e n basic ques­ tions about J o s e p h u s ' s social situation, audience and literary a i m s . That such questions are s e l d o m p o s e d m a y s e e m astonishing, but it is per­ haps only s y m p t o m a t i c of a scholarly tradition that h a s t e n d e d to do everything with J o s e p h u s except read his w o r k s coherently. This tradi­ tion is, of c o u r s e , gradually changing under a w i d e variety of stimuli: witness the present v o l u m e . E v e n still, I find myself not so m u c h chal­ lenging entrenched opinion as trying to a n s w e r e l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n s for the first time: For w h o m , exactly, did Josephus write, and w h a t did he m e a n to tell t h e m ? H o w can o n e match w h a t is in his w o r k s to the particular social situations in w h i c h he wrote? H o w did his first hearers and readers in R o m e understand his lengthy treatises? B e c a u s e such pointed questions are quite n e w with respect to Jose­ phus, m y essays in this vein are exploratory and, I h o p e , suggestive. I d o think that the proposals offered here explain the content and context of the w o r k s better than other theories. But I d o not intend these efforts as the definitive w o r d b y any m e a n s , reserving the right to c h a n g e m y m i n d as I learn from future analysis. In this project of re-evaluating the aims and audiences of J o s e p h u s ' s works I have m a d e a rough beginning with the Jewish War and a fuller study of the Against Apion. This essay will e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s m a g 1

2

1. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (SPB, 39; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 57-81; Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 58-64. 2. Steve Invitation to phus ' Contra to the Portion

Mason, 'The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Judean Philosophy' in L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison, (eds.), Jose­ Apionem: Studies in Character & Context with a Latin Concordance Missinz in Greek (AGJU, 34; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 187-228.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

65

n u m o p u s , the Antiquities and Life. A l t h o u g h the Antiquities a n d Life m u s t be read together for reasons that will b e c o m e clear, I h a v e e x a m ­ ined the Life m o r e fully in a parallel s t u d y . 1 begin with an attempt to s h a r p e n t h e formulation of the p r o b l e m and with s o m e a n t e c e d e n t reflections on J o s e p h u s ' s situation in R o m e after his arrival in 7 1 . 3

1. The Problem:

Why Did Josephus

Write, and Why Did People

Listen?

T h e sheer size and detail of t h e Antiquities/Life forces u p o n us the question of audience: W h o w o u l d h a v e b e e n willing to h e a r J o s e p h u s t h r o u g h t h e s e t w e n t y - o n e v o l u m e s , filled as they are w i t h S e m i t i c n a m e s and J u d e a n arcana? V e r y few scholars today h a v e read the w o r k t h r o u g h e v e n in translation, as a c o n t i n u o u s n a r r a t i v e , t h o u g h o u r translations hide most of the stylistic variations and difficulties of the Greek. W h o in antiquity w o u l d h a v e sat and listened through this? T h e p r o b l e m of a i m s m a y b e f o r m u l a t e d t h u s : W h a t q u e s t i o n d o e s the Antiquities, taken as a whole, answer? T o b e sure, for m o s t m e m b e r s of the g e n e r a t i o n of s c h o l a r s w h o established the critical study of J o s e p h u s , these questions w e r e irrele­ vant and u n a n s w e r a b l e . F r o m the 1870s through about 1920, J o s e p h u s w a s v i e w e d m o r e or less as a cipher for his various source collections. H e w a s a 'stupid copyist' (stumpfer Abschreiber), in the w o r d s of the m a n w h o did the m o s t to bring this period of scholarship to an e n d . T h e a u t h o r m o r e or less d i s a p p e a r e d before the m a s s i v e a n o n y m o u s source collections that he w a s thought to h a v e b o r r o w e d w h o l e s a l e and sewn together with the flimsiest of threads.

4

Since R i c h a r d L a q u e u r and, in English, H e n r y St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y b r o u g h t the m o r e e x t r e m e source-critical c a m p a i g n to a grinding halt,

3.

A draft of that paper, T h e Aim and Audience of the Vita' was presented to

the Josephus Kolloquium at the Institutum Iudaicum Delitzschianum,

Munster-

Westfalische Universitat, June 20-22, 1997. It will appear shortly, in Folker Siegert (ed.), Munsteraner judaistische 4.

Studien, II (1988).

Richard Laqueur, Der judische

Historiker

Flavius Josephus

(Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 [1920]), p. viii. The most convenient example of the older source criticism is Gustav Holscher's article 'Josephus' for PW 18 (1916), pp. 1934-200, which is almost entirely devoted to Josephus's alleged source collections.

66

Understanding

Josephus

scholars have indeed b e g u n to think about Antiquities' aims a n d audi­ ence, but they (we) h a v e usually contented themselves with v a g u e , un­ realistic proposals. H a v i n g decided that the War w a s a c o m m i s s i o n e d p i e c e of R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y a g r e e d that Josephus had lost his putative imperial patrons by the t i m e h e c a m e to write Antiquities. His major w o r k represents a n e w p h a s e in his life, with a suitably n e w patron (Epaphroditus): ' h e s e e m s finally to sever his connexion with R o m a n political propaganda, and henceforth figures solely as Jewish historian and a p o l o g i s t . ' This rather b r o a d description, 'apologetic history', has set the tone for twentieth-century scholarship. 5

But what is m e a n t b y ' a p o l o g e t i c ' and w h o m did J o s e p h u s expect to endure these twenty-one v o l u m e s of it? In keeping with Victor Tcherik o v e r ' s principle that J e w i s h apologetic w a s typically read first and foremost by J e w s — b e c a u s e the nature of ancient publication required a willing audience to hear the t e x t — a few scholars from L a q u e u r o n w a r d have suggested that J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e written primarily for fellowJews (if also secondarily for Gentiles). T h e m o s t c o m m o n m o t i v e sug­ gested is repentance: in later life h e felt so badly a b o u t the traitorous War that h e n e e d e d to d e m o n s t r a t e , p e r h a p s to the b u d d i n g rabbinic m o v e m e n t at Y a v n e h b u t certainly to other J u d e a n s , his l o y a l t y to Jewish history, law and culture. S o the Antiquities is a powerful nation­ alistic-religious text written in part to rehabilitate h i m s e l f w i t h his fellow J e w s . 6

7

B u t all such attempts to find a primarily J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p for the Antiquities fail to e n g a g e either J o s e p h u s ' s social situation or the con­ tents of the b o o k . First, it is not only J o s e p h u s ' s clear and consistent programmatic s t a t e m e n t s , w h i c h admittedly m i g h t b e m e r e l y formal, 8

5. Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav, 1967 [1929]), p. 52. 6. 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos 48 (1956), pp. 169-73. 7. Laqueur, Der judische Historiker, pp. 258-61; Hans Rasp, 'Flavius Jose­ phus und die judischen Religionsparteien ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 27-47, esp. 46. The most important developments of this theory are: Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (CSCT, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), p. 145 (the Pharisees' heirs 'were now established and influential at Yavneh and Josephus wanted their friendship') and Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (CSCT, 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), pp. 199-201. Schwartz has Josephus go much further than repen­ tance: he intends to intervene directly in Judean politics by backing the Pharisaic coalition. 8. E.g. Ant. 1.5, 9; 20.262. ,

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

67

but his countless incidental r e m a r k s explaining basic J u d e a n language, customs a n d l a w s that a s s u m e a Gentile audience. H e d o e s not expect his first hearers to k n o w anything about the laws or J u d e a n origins. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s that o n e of his o w n compatriots m i g h t by c h a n c e peruse his w o r k , b u t significantly h e worries that such a hypothetical reader w o u l d seek to correct his a r r a n g e m e n t of the l a w s (4.197). T h a t fits with his claim elsewhere that all Judeans are well educated in this m a ­ terial (Apion 1.42-43, 6 0 ) ; it is the Gentiles w h o n e e d e l e m e n t a r y ex­ planations of Judean w a y s . 9

Second, supposition of a Diaspora or Y a v n e a n audience w o r k s better with a m o d e r n pattern of b o o k publication: one often writes in a social v a c u u m , then hands the manuscript to a publisher w h o disseminates it to target audiences. In the absence of such a b o o k culture in J o s e p h u s ' s day, w h e n b o o k s w e r e normally ' p u b l i s h e d ' by recitation before m o r e or less sympathetic h e a r e r s , h o w are w e to get his b o o k s t o the p r o ­ posed D i a s p o r a and even Y a v n e a n audience? A n d w h y w o u l d the Y a v neans prefer to read G r e e k ? 10

Third, insofar as these theories i n v o k e Y a v n e h and c o n n e c t J o s e ­ p h u s ' s P h a r i s e e s in s o m e w a y with the rabbis, they r u n u p against current scholarship on Yavneh, w h i c h suggests that it did not represent the triumph of Pharisaism as m u c h as a beginning coalition of perhaps five or m o r e surviving J u d e a n groups after the war, and that the Y a v ­ n e a n coalition had little i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t even u p o n J u d e a proper, let alone the D i a s p o r a . A n d those studies that have Josephus converted to 11

9. E.g., 1.128-129; 3.317; 14.1-3, 186-187; 16.175; 17.200, 213; 20.106, 216, 262; Life 1, 12. 10. E.g., R.M. Ogilvie, Roman Literature and Society (Harmondsworth: Pen­ guin Books, 1980), pp. 12-16. Such a book trade as there was by Josephus's time relied heavily on deposits in the growing number of libraries, whence readers could borrow the 'volumes'. Of course, it was simply impractical to copy and distribute widely multiple-roll books such as the Antiquities/Life. 11. E.g., Jacob Neusner, 'The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 7 0 to 100', ANRW 2 (1979), 19.2.3-42; S.J.D. Cohen, 'The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism', HUCA 55 (1984), pp. 27-53; Lee LA. Levine, 'Judaism from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt: 7 0 - 1 3 5 C.E.', in Hershel Shanks (ed.), Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of their Origins and Early Development (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), pp. 125-49, esp. 136; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), II, 592-95.

Understanding

68

Josephus

adulation of the Pharisees in Antiquities/Life are vulnerable to funda­ mental c r i t i c i s m . Finally, Josephus seems to expect roughly the same sort of readership for all of his w o r k s : h e h a d considered including the ancient history in War (Ant. 1.6); h e constantly refers the reader of Antiquities b a c k to War for m o r e precise or detailed discussions (Ant. 1.1-4, 2 0 3 ; 13.298; 18.11; 2 0 . 2 5 8 ; Life 10, 2 7 , 412); and he reflects on both w o r k s together as part of a single project (Apion 1.47-56). Contrary to w h a t w e should e x p e c t from the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y thesis, J o s e p h u s evinces not the slightest e m b a r r a s s m e n t over the War in his later w o r k s . All of these works are aimed at Gentiles. 12

W e face the problem, then, of explaining what sort of Gentiles would b e inclined to sit patiently through J o s e p h u s ' s 6 0 , 0 0 0 lines in 2 0 vol­ u m e s on Judean history and culture (20.267). W h a t w e r e these Gentiles expected to m a k e of J o s e p h u s ' s ubiquitous (if self-conscious) introduc­ tions of S e m i t i c n a m e s a n d p h r a s e s , his e x t e n d e d n a r r a t i v e s a b o u t J u d e a n kings, the temple, and priesthood, the J u d e a n s ' b l o o d y victory u n d e r E s t h e r a n d M o r d e c a i ( 1 1 . 2 1 ) , or his l e n g t h y e x p l o r a t i o n s of H e r o d the Great and his family, the brothers Anilaeus and A s i n a e u s in Parthia and the conversion of the royal h o u s e of A d i a b e n e ? W e are in search of c o m p e l l i n g a n d plausible m o t i v e s : for J o s e p h u s to d e v o t e about 14 years of his life to writing this e x h a u s t i n g a c c o u n t (1.7) of Judean history from creation to the eve of the revolt; for s o m e Gentiles to h a v e the patience to read it. It is r e m a r k a b l e that so m a n y detailed studies of the Antiquities rest content with the rubric 'apologetic for Gentiles', ignoring specific ques­ tions of aim and audience. Louis F e l d m a n ' s massive bibliography does not e v e n contain a section on the purpose of the Antiquities, t h o u g h it records debates concerning J o s e p h u s ' s other w o r k s . B u t s o m e schol­ ars h a v e seen the problem and have attempted to solve it. 13

T h e m o s t c o m m o n route has b e e n to understand the Antiquities as a response to w i d e s p r e a d slander and misinformation a b o u t J u d e a n ori­ gins. It is undeniable that such misinformation circulated fairly widely in J o s e p h u s ' s day, and o n e can often draw direct parallels b e t w e e n the claims explicitly refuted by J o s e p h u s in Against Apion and the narra­ tive of Antiquities, w h i c h does not often refute, h o w e v e r , but typically 12. See Mason, Pharisees. 13. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship W. de Gruyter, 1984).

(1937-1980) (Berlin:

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further*

69

precludes the slander in its presentation. Thackeray already noticed this p h e n o m e n o n , and F e l d m a n ' s n u m e r o u s articles on J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e h a v e b o r n e it out in d e t a i l . Harold Attridge d e v e l o p s the parallel with Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u s ' s Roman Antiquities, to s h o w that both D i o n y s i u s and J o s e p h u s w r o t e to dispel i g n o r a n c e about the origins of a great p e o p l e . Attridge notes J o s e p h u s ' s 'implicit rebuttal' of stock slanders at certain p o i n t s . 14

15

16

A l t h o u g h o n e c a n n o t d e n y that J o s e p h u s ' s narrative implicitly p r e ­ cludes the c o m m o n slanders a b o u t J u d e a n origins, this k i n d of apolo­ getic d o e s n o t e x p l a i n either his or his r e a d e r s ' m o t i v e s . First, the ancient history only comprises about half the b o o k (Ant. 1-11), and so leaves o n e grasping to explain w h y J o s e p h u s b o t h e r e d w i t h the other half. Thackeray had to suggest that Josephus added a good deal of filler to bring his b o o k u p to the 20 v o l u m e s of D i o n y s i u s , but that sugges­ tion d o e s n o t m a t c h the seriousness or consistency of l a n g u a g e , tone and p u r p o s e in the latter h a l f . Second, an implicit defence is ineffi­ cient: W h y not b e explicit? A 2 0 - v o l u m e narrative reaching to the period revolt is an implausibly a w k w a r d m e a n s of countering slander a b o u t Judean antiquity. Third, then, w e remain stuck with the p r o b l e m : Which Gentiles, especially of the hostile or disdainful literati, w o u l d have tol­ erated this m e a n d e r i n g and u n c o n g e n i a l history? Finally, the parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s ' G r e c o - R o m a n p u b l i c ' and D i o n y s i u s ' s a u d i e n c e d o not help us m u c h to envision J o s e p h u s ' s audience. Dionysius w a s an e s t e e m e d teacher of G r e e k rhetoric, w h o wrote his history partly in o r d e r to illustrate his rhetorical principles. A n d w e c a n r e c o n s t r u c t 17

18

14. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, p. 59; Gohei Hata, T h e Story of Moses Interpreted Within the Context of Anti-Semitism', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata, (eds.) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Uni­ versity Press, 1987), pp. 180-97; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in Antiquity: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton Uni­ versity Press, 1993), pp. 84-186 and the articles listed on pp. 594-96. 15. Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HTR, 7; Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1976), p. 53. 16. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, pp. 60-61. 17. Thackeray, Josephus, p. 69. 18. E.g., Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung alsApologetik bei Flavius Josephus (TANZ, 9; Tubingen: A. Francke, 1994).

Understanding

70

Josephus 1 9

s o m e t h i n g of t h e ' G r e e k professorial circle at R o m e ' to w h i c h he b e l o n g e d . J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s not a rhetor b y any m e a n s , l a c k e d a similar audience. A G r e e k writing for Greeks about the glories of the city they had all chosen for their h o m e is m u c h m o r e intelligible than a Judean writing for Greek-speakers in R o m e about his native traditions. S o m e scholars h a v e grounded the apologetic m o t i v e in a realistic his­ torical situation b y e v o k i n g the deteriorating situation of D i a s p o r a J u d e a n s at the e n d the century: the recent w a r and p e r h a p s especially the accession of D o m i t i a n called forth J o s e p h u s ' s effort to r e m o v e the causes of Gentile hostility. Support for such a proposal c o m e s particu­ larly in the acta pro Iudaeis, w h i c h J o s e p h u s c l a i m s to cite in order to r e m o v e c a u s e s of h a t r e d . P e r h a p s the m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e effort to locate the audience of Antiquities c o m e s from Gregory Sterling, w h o attempts to s h o w that the w o r k stands within a tradition of 'apologetic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ' e s t a b l i s h e d by B e r o s u s of B a b y l o n a n d M a n e t h o of E g y p t . In this g e n r e , priests typically write in G r e e k , for outsiders, about their native history and culture. Sterling sees the Antiquities as a c o m p l e x w o r k , a d d r e s s e d first to the G r e e k cities of the D i a s p o r a , w h e r e J u d e a n s had b e c o m e m o r e vulnerable to Gentile hostilities after the accession of D o m i t i a n . Secondarily, it w a s an a p p e a l to R o m a n authorities for support, w h i c h is w h y it included the decrees in favour of J u d e a n rights and repeatedly s h o w e d that rulers w h o h a r a s s e d the J u d e a n s suffered p u n i s h m e n t , w h i l e j u s t rulers p r o s p e r e d . Finally, Sterling suggests that a Judean audience w a s also in v i e w . 20

21

22

23

24

25

T h e p r o p o s e d m o t i v e of r e m o v i n g post-war animosity n o d o u b t con­ nects us with R o m a n realities in the late first century. But as an expla­ nation of the Antiquities it defies the first principle of rhetoric: o n e ' s a r g u m e n t m u s t suit o n e ' s a u d i e n c e . W h y w o u l d t h o s e w h o h a t e d the 19. G.P. Goold, 'A Greek Professorial Circle at R o m e \ TAP A 9 2 (1961), pp. 168-92. 20. W. Rhys Roberts, T h e Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus', CR 14(1900), pp. 439-42. 21. E.g., Tessa Rajak, Josephus: the Man and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983), pp. 226-27; Mason, Pharisees, pp. 182-83. 22. See 14.186-87 and 16.174-75. 23. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, LukeActs and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 298-302. 24. Sterling, Historiography, pp. 302-306. 25. Sterling, Historiography, pp. 306-308.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

71

Judeans after the revolt or because of D o m i t i a n ' s policies b e inclined to listen to J o s e p h u s ' s intricate, m o r a l i z i n g a c c o u n t s of A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s ? Further, the acta lie buried in the later v o l u m e s of Antiquities; Josephus has said nothing earlier about post-war hatred. W h e n he does mention it there, h e speaks of r e m o v i n g causes of hatred on both sides (16.175). A n d what R o m a n e m p e r o r w o u l d b e m o v e d to reconsider his actions b y the fates of King A s a of Judah, O m r i of Israel or their ene­ m i e s ? Finally, the p r o p o s e d a p o l o g e t i c m o t i v e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n the o v e r w h e l m i n g l y positive t o n e of the Antiquities (below). T h e Jewish War a n s w e r s m u c h better to the n e e d for r e m o v i n g the g r o u n d s for p o s t - w a r hostility: refutation of slander is part of its explicit a g e n d a (War 1.1-3, 6-9), and its content matches the purpose. E v e n there, h o w ­ ever, o n e m u s t imagine a m a l l e a b l e — n o t b i g o t e d — a u d i e n c e in the first instance. Least persuasive is the often e c h o e d proposal of M o r t o n S m i t h that J o s e p h u s either wrote the Antiquities for the purpose of bringing to the attention of 'the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ' the emerging rabbinic coalition at Y a v n e h — a s a potential local a u t h o r i t y — o r that h e h o p e d such leaders would notice his advocacy for Y a v n e h while they w e r e already engaged with the b o o k for other unidentified reasons (to b e d i s a b u s e d of antiJewish s l a n d e r ? ) . This remarkably durable hypothesis is e x c l u d e d by: the inefficiency of rambling narrative as propaganda; the v a g u e n e s s and unlikelihood of the phrase ' R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ' for this period ( D o m i ­ tian or his c o w e d senators?); the necessity of crediting ignorant R o m a n readers with something approaching allegorical insight into the narrative such that, for e x a m p l e , observance of the L a w or m e n t i o n of the Pharisees under the H a s m o n e a n s a n d H e r o d are u n d e r s t o o d to b e appeals for Y a v n e a n r a b b i n i s m ; and t h e e v i d e n c e for w h a t actually h a p p e n e d at Y a v n e h (above). 26

If the various proposals for clarifying the 'apologetic for G e n t i l e s ' that Antiquities is alleged to provide c o m e to grief as soon as they are p r e s s e d — a n d I i n c l u d e m y o w n w o r k in this c r i t i c i s m — t h e related h y p o t h e s i s that J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d patrons and a u d i e n c e s b e t w e e n the

26. Morton Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', in Moshe Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York: JTSA, 1956), pp. 67-81, esp. 72. Important adoptions include Jacob Neusner, 'Josephus's Pharisees', Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), I, 224-53; Cohen, Galilee and Rome, pp. 237-38; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, p. 209.

Understanding

72

Josephus

War and his later w o r k s m u s t also b e doubted. This w i d e s p r e a d view a s s u m e s that, w h e r e a s the n a m e of Epaphroditus appears for the Antiq­ uities/Life and Against Apion, the Flavians w e r e J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n or sole patrons for the War (conceived of as c o m m i s s i o n e d propaganda). B u t there is n o c o m p e l l i n g reason w h y E p a p h r o d i t u s and his circle m i g h t not already h a v e b e e n patrons of the War. T h a t J o s e p h u s does not mention t h e m is immaterial, because the taut style of War excludes virtually all references to supporting figures, w h e t h e r sources, such as N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s , writing assistants or patrons. O n l y in his later w o r k s d o e s h e b e g i n to m e n t i o n sources and then h e also fleetingly a c k n o w l e d g e s literary assistance with War (Apion 1.50). A s w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s appears to a s s u m e his r e a d e r s ' k n o w l e d g e of War. Rather than suggesting a fall from imperial favour in later life, in the Antiquities/Life Josephus insists that Domitian, and in particular D o m i ­ t i a n ' s wife, a d d e d to his beneficia (Life 4 2 9 ) . T h i s c o n t i n u i t y from Vespasian a n d Titus to D o m i t i a n s e e m s to fit with D o m i t i a n ' s general policy: in spite of D i o ' s claim that h e 'visited disgrace and ruin u p o n the friends of his father and of his brother' (Dio 67.2.1), the advisors and senior personnel of Vespasian and Titus continued in their capaci­ ties with Domitian, m a n y even with Nerva; only the intimate domestic staff w e r e t u r n e d o v e r . A l t h o u g h it is c o n c e i v a b l e that J o s e p h u s changed his circles of friends and supporters b e t w e e n War and Antiqui­ ties, there is simply nothing in Josephus or elsewhere to suggest that h e did. 27

W e need, then, a n e w e x p l a n a t i o n of b o t h J o s e p h u s ' s m o t i v e s in c o m p o s i n g the Antiquities and those of his first audience in listening to it.

2. Josephus's Purpose

Audiences

in Rome:

General

of the War

W e need to begin our reassessment of Josephus with a consideration of his c i r c u m s t a n c e s in R o m e w h e n h e wrote the Jewish War. T h e c u s ­ tomary view of the War is that Josephus wrote it as a p a w n — ' l a c k e y ' is the c o m m o n w o r d — o f the new Flavian dynasty. According to the most e x t r e m e (but still d o m i n a n t ) theory, the r e c e n t arrival in R o m e w a s 27. So Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 59-71. Even Dio concedes, somewhat inconsistently, that Domitian continued favours bestowed by his predecessors (67.2.1).

MASON 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

73

actually commissioned b y the Flavians to write official p r o p a g a n d a , in order to quell any further h o p e s of rebellion after 7 0 C E . A s a reward for these v a l u e d services, J o s e p h u s p r o s p e r e d in the i m p e r i a l court. Scholars h a v e qualified this view in various w a y s , but the War is still typically seen as a gift to the Flavians from their favourite J u d e a n . 2 8

29

Both literary and external considerations militate against this theory. Internally, the evidence of the War demonstrates that it is not so m u c h p r o p a g a n d i s t i c as defensive. J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that h e w r i t e s to chal­ lenge the p r o - R o m a n a n d anti-Jewish histories of the revolt that h a v e already a p p e a r e d (War 1.1-3, 6-16). Of course, it is p o s s i b l e that his real and ulterior m o t i v e s vary widely, b u t that m u s t b e a r g u e d against the evidence for a consistent rhetorical position. Although those anti-Jewish histories are lost, w e can reconstruct s o m e of their m a i n lines both from w h a t other R o m a n writers say about the revolt a n d from w h a t J o s e p h u s says in response, in the War. Tacitus, Celsus, Philostratus and others assert that the J u d e a n w a r exemplified the rebellious and misanthropic nature of the J u d e a n national character, and that the R o m a n victory w a s the predictable triumph of the R o m a n g o d s and F o r t u n e . In response, J o s e p h u s dedicates his w o r k to show­ ing that, although the Judeans could rise to fight off an evil r e g i m e such as that of the Seleucids, they normally cooperate with the various world p o w e r s . T h e y d o so b e c a u s e they k n o w that their G o d is in c o m p l e t e control of world history, and gives p o w e r even n o w to the R o m a n s . T h e revolt w a s neither a characteristic expression of the J u d e a n character nor a defeat of the J u d e a n G o d . It arose, sadly, b e c a u s e a handful of w o u l d - b e tyrants took advantage of the (admitted) egregious misrule of s o m e R o m a n g o v e r n o r s to incite sedition. In spite of its p r e d i c t a b l e flattery of Titus, then, the War is aimed at defending the surviving J e w s against widespread post-war animosity, perhaps e v e n r e p r i s a l s . 30

31

This assessment of the War as a thoroughly Jewish w o r k s e e m s to be confirmed by J o s e p h u s ' s external circumstances w h i l e writing. If War w e r e the k i n d of propaganda that is often claimed, then w e should h a v e

28. Laqueur, Der judische Historiker, pp. 126-27; Thackeray, Josephus, pp. 2728. 29. E.g., Cohen, Galilee and Rome, p. 86; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, p. 10. 30. Tacitus, Hist. 5.1-13; Philostratus, Apollonius 5.33; Celsus, cited in Origen, Against Celsus 5.41; Minucius Felix, Octavius 10, 33. 31. See the works cited in n. 1.

74

Understanding

Josephus

e x p e c t e d h i m to enjoy a position of s o m e p r o m i n e n c e in the Flavian court. B u t w h e n w e e x a m i n e his social status m o r e closely, w e must conclude that he remained at best a marginal figure in R o m a n society. Josephus's Standing in Rome It is important to hold in s o m e perspective both what Josephus received and w h a t h e did not receive from the Flavians. Peter W h i t e offers a helpful s u m m a r y of s e v e n benefits that p a t r o n s , or better potentes amici, typically b e s t o w e d u p o n their poorer friends, n a m e l y : m o n e y assigned through inheritances or bequests; one-time-only gifts in cash or capital, such as those r e q u i r e d to bring a m a n ' s c e n s u s u p to the 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces required of a R o m a n equestrian; loans at m i n i m a l or n o interest; gifts in the form of land or a h o u s e ; l o d g i n g s w i t h the wealthier friend; positions of influence and i n c o m e in the a r m y or bu­ reaucracy, preferably those with few d e m a n d i n g responsibilities; and arranged m a r r i a g e s . In addition, writers such as Martial, Statius and Pliny c o u l d c o u n t on their amici to p r o v i d e a p r o m i s i n g v e n u e for recitations of their w o r k , to p r o m o t e and h e l p circulate their b o o k s a m o n g wider circles of interested friends (for the b o o k trade itself did not yet d o such things) and, most of all, to protect t h e m from the seem­ ingly constant accusations of jealous r i v a l s . 32

33

G i v e n the rhetorical context of the last paragraphs of the Life, w h e r e T i t u s ' s m e r e silence in the face of a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t J o s e p h u s is interpreted as k i n d n e s s (Life 4 2 8 ) , w e m a y b e fairly certain that our author lists m o r e or less everything h e received from the Flavians. His principal benefits were: one or t w o arranged marriages, at Caesarea and Alexandria; s o m e manuscripts of Judean holy b o o k s ; a tract of presum­ ably fertile land in the J u d e a n plain (not in the prized hinterlands of R o m e ) ; a c c o m m o d a t i o n in V e s p a s i a n ' s former private h o u s e — p r e s u m ­ ably t h e h o m e on the Q u i r i n a l hill, on P o m e g r a n a t e Street, w h i c h Domitian w o u l d later convert to a Flavian shrine (Suetonius, Domitian 1.1); R o m a n citizenship; a stipend of s o m e sort (ovvxa^iq %pr||ndTcov), t h o u g h w e d o not k n o w h o w regular this w a s ; a n d p r o t e c t i o n from J o s e p h u s ' s m a n y J u d e a n a c c u s e r s — t h o u g h the c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a i m to

32. Peter White, 'Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome', JRS 68 (1978), pp. 74-92, esp. 90-92. 33. White, 'Amicitia\ pp. 83-89. Cf. R.P. Sailer, 'Martial on Patronage and Literature', CIQ 33 (1983), pp. 246-57.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

75

h a v e m a n y j e a l o u s e n e m i e s m i g h t b e e x a g g e r a t e d in o r d e r to draw attention to o n e ' s status (Life 414-29). So far, J o s e p h u s appears privileged. B y the accident of his peculiar circumstances, he s e e m s to h a v e enjoyed a link with the princeps that the well-connected Spaniard Martial could only d r e a m of. A n d whereas Martial c o m p l a i n s of failing to receive any significant financial h e l p from the e m p e r o r (Epigrams 6.10), J o s e p h u s not only h a d a stipend of s o m e k i n d but c l a i m s that D o m i t i a n a d d e d tax relief to his other benefits. Yet in comparison to what might have been, the benefits J o s e p h u s re­ ceived are not all that impressive. Beginning with V e s p a s i a n , as Brian J o n e s h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d , the F l a v i a n e m p e r o r s a d o p t e d a p o l i c y of actively p r o m o t i n g Eastern n o b l e m e n within their administration. T o repay d e b t s a c c u m u l a t e d in his J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , V e s p a s i a n , in his capacity as censor, adlected to the senate a n u m b e r of p r o m i n e n t east­ erners in 7 3 / 7 4 . Y o u n g e r Easterners he prepared for the q u a e s t o r s h i p and senatorial careers by appointing t h e m vigintiviri. Titus a d v a n c e d this process even further, and Domitian promoted it energetically. Jones calculates that non-Italians constituted s o m e 38 p e r cent of the 6 0 0 m e m b e r senate in D o m i t i a n ' s reign o v e r against 3 3 per c e n t in V e s ­ p a s i a n ' s , a n d that Easterners h a d c o m e to represent 26 p e r cent of the non-Italian c o n t i n g e n t . 34

35

A l t h o u g h adlection to the senate with its qualification of 1,000,000 sesterces w a s admittedly an extraordinary honour, perhaps reserved for important client kings and c o m m a n d e r s , appointment to the equestrian order, w i t h its m u c h m o r e m o d e s t property r e q u i r e m e n t of 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces and its absence of such an aura, w a s still a m a n a g e a b l e reward for significant Eastern friends. Indeed, Suetonius claims that Vespasian g a v e 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces to a w o m a n after a one-night sexual e n c o u n t e r (Vespasian 22). J o s e p h u s himself allows that there w e r e a n u m b e r of Jewish equestrians in Judea before the outbreak of the w a r (War 2.308). But neither Josephus nor his sons would b e granted even equestrian sta­ tus. T h e only rank h e could claim, in spite of the w i d e s p r e a d m o d e r n perception that he sold out to the R o m a n s , w a s R o m a n c i t i z e n s h i p — s o m e t h i n g that w a s apparently enjoyed by m o s t R o m a n J e w s of his day. His assertion that the freedom from taxation granted h i m b y D o m i ­ tian r e p r e s e n t e d the 'highest possible h o n o u r ' (Life 4 2 9 ) reflects the 34. Jones, Domitian, pp. 170-72. 35. Jones, Domitian, pp. 172-73.

Understanding

76

Josephus

low level of the former p r i s o n e r ' s ambition. V e s p a s i a n h a d granted such relief to all teachers of g r a m m a r and rhetoric; it w a s not all that special. If w e want to see w h a t life might look like for Ioudaioi w h o h a d truly found favour with the Flavians, w e need only consider the influential n e t w o r k formed b y the descendants of H e r o d on the o n e h a n d and the family of A l e x a n d e r the alabarch of A l e x a n d r i a (brother of Philo) on the other. T h e s e t w o families had b e g u n to share a connection with the Flavians already in C l a u d i u s ' s court ( 4 1 - 5 4 C E ) , t h r o u g h their friend­ ship with C l a u d i u s ' s m o t h e r Antonia (Ant. 19.216-211), the daughter of M a r c Antony. S h e and her powerful friends e n c o u r a g e d the rising Fla­ vian family: Titus F l a v i u s S a b i n u s and his t w o s o n s , S a b i n u s II and Vespasian. H e r secretary A n t o n i a Caenis (d. m i d - 7 0 s ) w o u l d b e c o m e V e s p a s i a n ' s mistress, thus easing access both b e t w e e n V e s p a s i a n and the imperial court and, once he had assumed the principate, b e t w e e n her mistress's friends and V e s p a s i a n . 36

37

In the latter half of the first century, the chief representatives of this J u d e a n circle w e r e the famous equestrian Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r — n e p h e w of Philo and s o m e t i m e governor of J u d e a and Egypt, as well as special advisor to T i t u s d u r i n g the J u d e a n w a r — a n d M a r c u s Julius A g r i p p a (Agrippa II), the client king w h o also rendered invaluable as­ sistance to the R o m a n s during the J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , a n d w h o s e sister Berenice b e c a m e T i t u s ' s lover off and on for m o r e than a d e c a d e ( 6 7 7 9 C E ) before Titus r o s e to the principate ( T a c i t u s , Histories 2.2; Suetonius, Titus 7.1). Prior to that long affair, Berenice had b e e n mar­ ried to the w e a l t h y b u s i n e s s m a n son of the alabarch, M a r c u s Julius Alexander (Ant. 19.276), further connecting the t w o prominent families. T h e o u t c o m e of the c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e H e r o d i a n a n d Alexandrian Ioudaioi with the Flavians is impressive: A l e x a n d e r ' s heirs apparently w e n t on to senatorial careers in R o m e , and A g r i p p a II w a s himself granted the senatorial rank of praetor (Cassius D i o 65.15.4). T h e influence of these players has left its m a r k in the e n v y of a Juvenal, w h o dismisses A g r i p p a in hindsight as a barbarus w h i l e accusing the royal pair of incest (Satires 6.158), and in the histories of Cassius Dio, 3 8

36. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization: Selected Read­ ings (2 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 3rd edn, 1990), II, p. 207. 37. Cassius Dio 65.14.1-5; cf. Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Titus (New York: St. Martin's, 1984), pp. 34-35, 60; idem, Domitian, pp. 3-4. 38. Jones, Domitian, p. 7.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

77

w h i c h s h o w the importance of the A g r i p p a and Berenice at court (e.g. 65.15.3-5). J o s e p h u s , b y contrast, did not rise high e n o u g h to b e c o m e an object of such envy. Suetonius and D i o mention h i m in passing as a curiosity, only as a prisoner in J u d e a and only b e c a u s e of his r e m a r k a b l e predic­ tion about V e s p a s i a n ' s rise to p o w e r . H e did not even r e a c h the l o w ­ est rung of the cursus honorum in R o m e ; m u c h less w a s h e an amicus or t r u s t e d a d v i s o r of a n y F l a v i a n e m p e r o r . T o b e s u r e , E u s e b i u s (Eccles. Hist. 3.9.2) claims that a statue w a s erected in J o s e p h u s ' s hon­ our in R o m e , b u t w e h a v e only his w o r d for it, a n d w e d o not k n o w w h e n the statue might h a v e b e e n b u i l t — b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s and E u s e ­ b i u s ' s t i m e s . All of the other evidence u n a n i m o u s l y points to a career on the fringes of any real power. This is perhaps only to b e expected of a captured e n e m y soldier, b u t it needs e m p h a s i s b e c a u s e of the long scholarly tradition of v i e w i n g J o s e p h u s as a favourite of t h e F l a v i a n court. 39

G i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s lack of p r o m i n e n c e in the court of V e s p a s i a n and Titus, w e o u g h t to b e w a r y of a s s u m i n g that the imperial family w e r e his p r i m a r y literary p a t r o n s . O f c o u r s e , o n e c o u l d h a v e n u m e r o u s p a t r o n s at any given t i m e . Martial m e n t i o n s at least 6 0 p e o p l e w h o might b e patrons, and Statius, 1 8 . Peter W h i t e has s h o w n that Flavian R o m e w a s m a r k e d b y a multiplicity of possible s p o n s o r s . U n l i k e the period of A u g u s t u s (31 BCE to 14 CE), in w h i c h a tightly d r a w n literary circle w a s led by the f a m o u s p a t r o n M a e c e n a s , the e n d of the first Christian century s a w potential literary 'friends' e v e r y w h e r e . Martial, Statius a n d Pliny, a l t h o u g h they h a d c o m m o n friends a n d a c q u a i n ­ tances, s h o w a r e m a r k a b l e lack of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e in citing n a m e s of p a t r o n s . N o doubt this fragmentation w a s due in large m e a s u r e to the F l a v i a n s ' , and especially D o m i t i a n ' s , upsetting of the old order through the rapid p r o m o t i o n of freedmen, equestrians a n d foreigners. But this state of affairs m e a n s that j u s t b e c a u s e Vespasian arranged a c c o m m o ­ dation in the city for Josephus—neither in the palatium, note, nor in the gardens of Sallust (horti sallustiani) w h e r e Vespasian himself preferred to l i v e — w e c a n n o t a s s u m e that h e and Titus h a d sufficient personal interest in his w o r k to provide h i m with a place to read it to audiences, 4 0

41

39. Suetonius, Vespasian 5.6.4; Dio 65.1.4. 40. Peter White, T h e Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage', HSCP 79 (1975), pp. 265-300, esp. 265. 41. White, 'Friends', pp. 291-98.

Understanding

78

Josephus

furnish assistants to h e l p with the Greek language and m a k e his w o r k k n o w n to others. Josephus's amici in Rome Since Josephus is eager to play u p his access to the imperial family, w e cannot take his remarks at face value. For e x a m p l e , his t w o accounts of the first recipients of his War are c o n t r a d i c t o r y . It s e e m s antecedently likely, in v i e w of his a p p a r e n t social standing, that h e w o u l d h a v e required influential intermediaries e v e n to bring his w o r k to t h e sus­ tained attention of the Flavian rulers. A hint that this is so c o m e s in his claim that A g r i p p a II wrote h i m s o m e 62 letters, encouraging h i m in his project (Life 365-66). O n e of the t w o letters that h e reproduces appears to indicate that Josephus had s h o w n Agrippa a draft of an early v o l u m e , before the completion of the War, for the king asks also to see the 're­ maining v o l u m e s ' — p r e s u m a b l y , as they b e c o m e available. A l t h o u g h w e m a y o t h e r w i s e prefer to d o u b t that the k i n g actually w r o t e 6 2 letters, the n u m b e r is not unreasonable if they w e r e typically as short as those cited b y J o s e p h u s , and if A g r i p p a w a s involved with the w o r k as it progressed. Peter W h i t e ' s s u m m a r y remarks are g e r m a n e : 42

The book aborning generated a considerable society of its own, c o m ­ posed of the associates who had received early drafts, auditors who had heard the recitations, and friends and patrons who received the final 43

copy.

For reasons w e h a v e already seen, A g r i p p a II, his sister B e r e n i c e and their family a n d friends in R o m e are excellent c a n d i d a t e s for being a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s most important friends during the composition of the War: those w h o provided the necessary services for J o s e p h u s , bringing his w o r k to the serious attention of V e s p a s i a n and T i t u s as well as a larger g r o u p of interested R o m a n s . T h e s e influential b r o k e r s , w h o a p p e a r very favourably in the War, w o u l d p r o v i d e brilliant p e r s o n a l illustration of J o s e p h u s ' s repeated claims that J u d e a n s are p r o u d and faithful citizens of the world, w h o recognize G o d ' s h a n d behind R o m a n rule for the present. Since the king and his sister w e r e 'fully conversant with Greek paideid (Life 359), they w o u l d h a v e b e e n in a position to

42. Life 362-64 puts King Agrippa among the first recipients and justifies this by mentioning 62 letters written by the king to Josephus; Apion 1.50-51 puts the king last, apparently as one who bought the book. 43. White, 'Friends', p. 299.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

79

b r o k e r the w o r k so that it reached its target audiences, i m m e d i a t e l y in R o m e and eventually in provincial circles. J o s e p h u s ' s j o y at the endorse­ m e n t of his finished b o o k by Vespasian a n d Titus (Life 3 6 1 - 6 3 ) w o u l d m a k e little sense if V e s p a s i a n h a d c o m m i s s i o n e d the w o r k in the first place. 44

W e d o not k n o w w h a t other friends a n d patrons J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e attracted w h i l e h e w a s p r o d u c i n g the War. T h e p r o u d J e r u s a l e m i t e priest evidently expected s o m e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s w h o w e r e not in­ volved in the conflict to b e sufficiently interested to listen to his claims at length (War 1.3, 6), as he told t h e m about the J u d e a n G o d w h o con­ trolled h i s t o r y . W h o m i g h t t h e s e i n t e n d e d h e a r e r s h a v e b e e n ? T h a t question brings us to the Antiquities/Life.

3. The J e w i s h Antiquities: A Handbook

for Gentiles

Interested

in

Judaism? The Proem to Antiquities/Life T h e m o s t striking feature of J o s e p h u s ' s extended p r o e m to Antiquities/ Life is its confidence. J o s e p h u s claims to write, not in o r d e r to refute falsehood, w h i c h w a s his m o t i v e in the War (Ant. 1.4) b u t b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n p u r s u e d b y s o m e p e o p l e , i n c l u d i n g E p a p h r o d i t u s , w h o are c u r i o u s a b o u t J u d e a n history (1.8). T h e y see his w o r k as useful a n d beautiful (1.9), and h e regards it as the noblest (K&Xkicxa) enterprise (1.9). J o s e p h u s takes as his m o d e l the h i g h priest E l e a z a r of b y g o n e d a y s , w h o l i k e w i s e a c c e d e d t o t h e r e q u e s t of a p r o m i n e n t G e n t i l e (Ptolemy II) eager to h a v e copy of the J u d e a n laws in Greek. N o t e that the l a n g u a g e here is all positive: Eleazar did not j e a l o u s l y h o a r d (o\)K 8(|>06vr|ae; 1.11) a great benefit (c6(|>eA,£ia) b e c a u s e J u d e a n tradition required that its g o o d things (KOX6) not b e kept secret. T h u s , J o s e p h u s will imitate the m a g n a n i m i t y (\izya\oyyvy\a) of Eleazar in sharing this tradition with those w h o are eager to learn (<|>iA,0|ia6£i<;). That J o s e p h u s expects a congenial Gentile a u d i e n c e is confirmed by what c o m e s next. O n the one hand, he repeatedly appeals to t h e reader, w i t h v e r b s s u c h as rcapaicaXecD, to consider the J u d e a n constitution, w h e t h e r it is not superior to all others (1.15, 24). H e asks t h e m to test (8oKi|id£co) the J u d e a n l a w g i v e r a n d t h e constitution r e v e a l e d in his 44. For a nuanced treatment of the balance between deference to the Flavians and Jewish patriotism in the War, and of the role that Vespasian and Titus played in its authorization (after the fact), see Rajak, Josephus, pp. 185-222.

80

Understanding

Josephus

work, claiming that it is the only w a y to find happiness ( e \ ) 8 a i | i o v i a ) . O n t h e other hand, h e takes the liberty of excoriating the traditional religion of his hearers, with its u n s e e m l y tales about the g o d s (1.15), w h i c h p r o m o t e vice by setting a b a d e x a m p l e (1.22). G i v e n the tone of this prologue as well as the very d e m a n d i n g size and scope of the work, w e c a n n o t a v o i d the c o n c l u s i o n that h e w a s writing for a g r o u p of Gentiles w h o w e r e k e e n l y interested in J u d e a n culture. W h a t did h e h o p e to tell t h e m ? A brief look at t w o m a i n t h e m e s of the p r o l o g u e , w h i c h carry t h r o u g h the b o d y of the w o r k , will p o i n t t o w a r d s an answer. H e offers J u d a i s m as an alternative political constitution and as an alternative philosophical system. An Alternative Political Constitution Interpreters of Antiquities, myself included, have not paid sufficient at­ tention to the implications of this constitutional t h e m e for J o s e p h u s ' s a u d i e n c e . P e r h a p s b e c a u s e m o s t of us c o m e from b a c k g r o u n d s in religious studies, w e h a v e tended to focus on the abstract qualities of the l a w s d i s c u s s e d b y J o s e p h u s . W e talk easily a b o u t the d e u t e r o n omistic b a c k g r o u n d to J o s e p h u s ' s laws and c o m p a r e t h e m with the rab­ binic h a l a k h a h d e v e l o p i n g at Y a v n e h or with other J e w i s h literature. But it is surely a m o r e basic question: ' W h a t w o u l d J o s e p h u s ' s R o m a n readers h a v e u n d e r s t o o d by his presentation of the s u p r e m e J u d e a n constitution?' At the outset (1.5) Josephus announces as the subject of the b o o k the ancient history ( d p x c a o X o y i a ) and political constitution (Sidxa^K; xov KoXixeviiaxoq) of the Judeans. H e uses a similar p h r a s e again in 1.10, w h e r e he calls w h a t P t o l e m y II w a n t e d to learn from the J u d e a n s as a TcoAixeia, and then notes that the Judean scriptures include accounts of revolutions in the b o d y politic (noXixev\ia—1.13). In the s a m e seman­ tic field, he refers to M o s e s seven times as 'our lawgiver' (vo|io0£Tr|<;); the cognate verb appears twice, and he five times m e n t i o n s the v 6 | i o i . For t h e J u d e a n s as for other n a t i o n s , the vojioi are the basis of the national constitution. Josephus gets to the heart of the matter in Ant. 3, w h e r e M o s e s receives the s u p r e m e Judean constitution at Sinai (3.84, 213); h e closes that b o o k with the claim that ' e v e n our e n e m i e s admit that our constitution w a s established by G o d ' (3.322). T h e constitution outlined in b o o k 3 and again in b o o k 4 (4.45, 184, 1 9 1 , 193-95, esp. 196-98, 302, 310, 312) provides the basis for the subsequent narrative of Antiquities/Life, the criterion against which all characters and events

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further*

81

are j u d g e d (e.g. 5.98, 179; 15.254, 2 8 1 ; 18.9). A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s mentions the constitution several times in his closing r e m a r k s (20.229, 2 5 1 , 261). W e note further that the final quarter of the Against Apion, the sequel to Antiquities, likewise extols the J u d e a n rco^iTeia as the finest in the w o r l d (2.188, 2 2 2 , 2 2 6 , 2 7 2 - 7 3 ) , a n d o p e n to foreigners w h o wish to c o m e and live u n d e r the Judean l a w s (2.260-61). A t the e n d of the Against Apion, Josephus recalls that his p u r p o s e in writing the earlier Antiquities w a s to give 'an exact account of o u r laws and constitution' (Apion 2.287). In J o s e p h u s ' s view, the Antiquities/Life w a s from start to finish about the Judean constitution. T h e issue of preferred political constitutions, w h i c h had b e e n serious­ ly introduced into G r e e k philosophical discourse by Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Politics), w a s of course very m u c h alive in J o s e p h u s ' s R o m e . R o m e h a d e v o l v e d from an ancient m o n a r c h y to a senatorial oligarchy; to brief periods of dictatorship; to the c o m p r o m i s e u n d e r Augustus; to a situation in the late first century that closely resembled a m o n a r c h y again, e v e n t h o u g h the senatorial a n d c o n s u l a r form r e ­ m a i n e d intact. T h e conspiracy of Catiline, a senator w h o h a d intended to unite the p o o r e r classes against the aristocracy in 6 3 BCE, h a d e n e r g i z e d t h e d i s c u s s i o n a n d left its m a r k s in texts that w e r e w e l l k n o w n to J o s e p h u s ' s contemporaries. C i c e r o ' s entire literary career, but especially his On the Republic, w a s absorbed with justifying the rule of the l a n d e d w e a l t h y . H i s c o n t e m p o r a r y Sallust vividly d e s c r i b e d the potential for popular revolt and disorder because of the failings of the R o m a n nobility. Establishing t h e m e s that J o s e p h u s w o u l d e c h o fre­ quently in the War and Antiquities—whether Josephus k n e w his w o r k at first h a n d is immaterial—Sallust observes: In every community those who have no means envy the good, exalt the base, hate what is old and established, long for something new, and from disgust with their own lot desire a general upheaval (Catilinarian Conflict 37.3).

E v e n the Epicurean poet Lucretius had s o m e observations on the vari­ ous constitutions and the motives for t h e m (On the Nature of the Uni­ verse 5.1135). T h e m u c h discussed issue of the m o s t effective constitution w a s by n o m e a n s settled in D o m i t i a n ' s day, w h e n Josephus was writing. Brian J o n e s argues persuasively that m u c h of the animosity later directed at this e m p e r o r resulted s i m p l y from his u n a b a s h e d e s p o u s a l of the monarchic rule that his predecssors had also practised but h a d disguised

82

Understanding

Josephus

45

with polite overtures to the s e n a t e . Every princeps since A u g u s t u s had faced the threat of conspiracy, fueled by elements of a disaffected sen­ ate. Indeed, m a n y of the major figures k n o w n to us from first-century R o m e died p r e m a t u r e l y b e c a u s e of their political affiliations. W h e n J o s e p h u s arrived in 71 CE, the city w a s just b e g i n n i n g to recover from the devastating ' y e a r of the four e m p e r o r s ' . W h e t h e r they d a r e d to speak of it o p e n l y or not, virtually every e d u c a t e d p e r s o n m u s t h a v e b e e n thinking about issues of political constitution. A n d that is w h a t J o s e p h u s m a k e s the subject of the Antiquities, with his b o l d c l a i m that the J u d e a n s h a v e the noblest constitution in existence. 46

W h a t sort of constitution is it? T h o u g h h e admits that J u d e a n polity has u n d e r g o n e m a n y c h a n g e s (1.5), Josephus will s h o w that the proper constitutional form is a priestly aristokratia. T h e J e w s are led b y the high priest in concert with his fellow priests. E v e n before he s h o w s this in the narrative, h e implies it in the prologue b y identifying t h e high priest Eleazar as the authorized leader of the Judeans w h o agreed to the translation of the Septuagint. W h e n first describing the laws given b y M o s e s , J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s a r e m a r k a b l e a m o u n t of s p a c e to t h e high priest's clothing, the sacrificial apparatus and the c o s m i c significance of these items (3.159-87). It w a s the high priest w h o carried a r o u n d the e m b l e m of G o d ' s presence with the people in the miraculously shining stones o n his c l o t h e s ( 3 . 2 1 4 ) . M o s t significantly, w h e n M o s e s h a d finished receiving his l a w s , h e consigned t h e m to A a r o n the high priest and his subordinates for safe-keeping and proper administration in per­ petuity (4.304). That this function of preserving the n a t i o n ' s laws intact is critical to the role of the high priest is indicated in part by J o s e p h u s ' s determina­ tion to indicate w h o the serving high priest w a s in each period d o w n to his o w n t i m e and again b y his high-priestly succession list at the end of the Antiquities (20.224-51). His concern is most clearly spelled out in the Against Apion, w h i c h argues that the J u d e a n s m a n a g e d to pre­ serve their laws with scrupulous precision b e c a u s e they entrusted t h e m to an inviolable priestly line (Apion 1.29-38). N e a r the e n d of that work, explicitly entering the philosophical debate about t h e b e s t rcoAiTeia 4 7

45. Jones, Domitian, pp. 23-30. 46. See, e.g. Kenneth Wellesley, The Long Year A.D. 69 (London: Paul Elek, 1975). 47. 4.152; 5.318; 6.122, 242, passim; 10.150-52; 11.73, 90, 121, 158, 297, 300, 306, passim.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire (2.164; cf. Aristotle, Politics constitution thus:

Further*

83

3.5.1-2 [1279a]), h e celebrates the J u d e a n

Could there be one more noble or just than that which makes God the Ruler of the universe, which assigns the administration of the greatest af­ fairs to the priests in concert, and entrusts the rule of the other priests to the high priest? (2.185).

Although h e coins the term GeoKpaxia for this constitution in Against Apion (2.165), in Antiquities/Life he is content to call it an dpiaxoKpaxia. Indeed, h e has M o s e s tell the p e o p l e in a d v a n c e that 'aristocracy, and the life associated with it, is the noblest. So d o not let the desire for any other constitution snare y o u ' (4.223). This aristocracy c o m p r i s e s the high priest and a priestly senate ( y e p o v o i a ) . Josephus alters the bib­ lical n a r r a t i v e to m a k e M o s e s ' great s u c c e s s o r J o s h u a c o n s u l t his gerousia several times (5.15, 4 3 , 55). Reinterpreting the cycles of sin and r e p e n t a n c e in J u d g e s , J o s e p h u s asserts that ' t h e aristocracy w a s falling into corruption: n o l o n g e r did they appoint the senates or the leadership formerly l e g i s l a t e d ' , and this failure resulted in civil w a r (5.135). W h e n the p e o p l e i m p l o r e the p r o p h e t S a m u e l t o a p p o i n t a king, according to Josephus, S a m u e l is profoundly upset b e c a u s e h e is 'strongly c o m m i t t e d to aristocracy' (6.36). A n d sure e n o u g h , o n c e the k i n g s h i p is in p l a c e — a l r e a d y with S o l o m o n — i t quickly turns disas­ trous, until it is taken away with the Babylonian captivity. W h e n the J u d e a n s return from captivity, h o w e v e r , they o n c e again live u n d e r ' a n aristocracy, with the rule of the f e w ' (11.111). Accord­ ingly, a letter to the J e w s from Antiochus III identifies the senate as the governing b o d y of the Jews (12.138, 142) and the H a s m o n e a n Jonathan writes as high priest, on behalf of 'the senate a n d the b o d y of priests' (13.166, 169). T h e early H a s m o n e a n s u p until J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o m Josephus reveres, continue this form of government, but then with Aris­ tobulus w e see both the 'transformation of rule into m o n a r c h y ' and the rapid decline of the great dynasty (13.300-301). W h e n the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e e v e n t u a l l y fell, J o s e p h u s points out, the R o m a n G a b i n i u s re­ m o v e d m o n a r c h i c a l rule and restored aristocracy (14.91). T h a t p r o p e r state of affairs—high priestly, aristocratic r u l e — h a s b e e n the n o r m u p until J o s e p h u s ' s o w n time. T h e e x c e p t i o n s to it, especially with the m o n a r c h Herod, w e r e most regrettable. If the Jews w e r e going to h a v e a king, M o s e s m a n d a t e d that it b e one of their o w n people, as J o s e p h u s n o t e d earlier (4.223); in the case of H e r o d h e recalls that principle to claim that the I d u m e a n w a s a ' H e m i - I o u d a i o s ' (14.403). J o s e p h u s ' s

84

Understanding

Josephus

detailed portraits of H e r o d and G a i u s (Ant.

1 4 - 1 9 ) s e r v e in part to

demonstrate the inevitable effectiveness of G o d ' s l a w s ; they also serve as notorious e x a m p l e s of w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n political constitutions are corrupted. G i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s preference for aristocracy and his forthright rejec­ tion of both m o n a r c h y a n d d e m o c r a c y (2.164), it c o m e s as n o surprise that h e looks u p o n the m a s s e s (TO nkrfioc)

as a perennial threat to the

divinely constituted order. W e see this already in the rebellions u n d e r M o s e s , w h e r e t h e m u l t i t u d e are v u l n e r a b l e to any d e m a g o g u e w h o c o m e s along: h e speaks of 'the general m a s s , with its innate delight in d e c r y i n g t h o s e in authority a n d its opinion s w a y e d b y w h a t a n y o n e said' (4.37). B u t the p r o b l e m b e c o m e s m o s t pressing in the latter half of the book, w h e r e the Pharisees, on the one hand, and the rebels, o n the other, are able to lead the rudderless people into catastrophic courses of action.

48

All of t h i s — t h e question of the best form of g o v e r n m e n t , the desir­ ability of aristocracy, the constant threat of a drift t o w a r d m o n a r c h y , the p r o b l e m s of both popular rebellion and d e m a g o g u e r y — w o u l d have r e s o n a t e d d e e p l y w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s literate a u d i e n c e in D o m i t i a n ' s R o m e . T h e fragility of the c i t y ' s o w n constitutional basis w a s all too o b v i o u s : u l t i m a t e p o w e r w a s subject to arbitrary seizure b y a n y m a n w h o could muster the requisite political and military support. N o t so the J u d e a n l a w s . In spite of the recent u p h e a v a l s in J u d e a , J o s e p h u s wants to show that of all the legislative systems in the world, the ancient J u d e a n c o d e is uniquely stable, sally effective.

comprehensive

and

univer­

In the p r o e m he offers as the m a i n lesson of his w o r k

that: those who conform to the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid down, prosper in all things beyond belief, and for their reward are offered happiness (e\)8aijiovia) by God; whereas, in proportion as they depart from the strict observance of the laws... whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in irretriev­ able disasters (1.14).

Again, in 1.20: w h e n the legislator M o s e s w a s framing his laws (V6|L10I), he w a n t e d to instruct his fellow rcoAATai that ' G o d , b e i n g the father and lord of all things (rcdvxcov), oversees all things (rcdvxa ETUPA^TCCGV)' and grants h a p p i n e s s to those w h o follow h i m a life of bliss a n d p u n i s h e s

48. E.g. 13.288,401; 18.9-10, 15, 17.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further*

85

with dire calamities those w h o step outside the path of virtue. T h a t is w h y M o s e s treated the constitution of the universe before framing his laws, j u s t so that his laws alone w o u l d b e seen to b e b a s e d u p o n uni­ versal truths, the laws of nature. There is n o limitation of these laws to J u d e a n s . A s m a n y scholars h a v e shown, in the b o d y of the w o r k J o s e ­ p h u s will d o w n p l a y or omit material from his sources d e a l i n g with I s r a e l ' s special election and c o v e n a n t . Let m e take a brief survey of s o m e high points. 49

W h e n J o s e p h u s s u m m a r i z e s the M o s a i c constitution, h e e m p h a s i z e s its discipline (e.g. in dietary restrictions, 3.259), strictness (e.g. in con­ d e m n i n g illicit sexual u n i o n s , 3.274-75) and its h u m a n e n e s s (e.g. in preventing the sacrifice of a parent and offspring animal o n the s a m e day, 3.236), all of w h i c h might h a v e a strong resonance with the basic R o m a n values of austerity and philanthropy. W i t h his narrative of the Seleucid domination of Palestine (from 198 B C E ) , J o s e p h u s b e g i n s a period that h e has already dealt with in the War. N o w , h o w e v e r , h e has space to deal with t h e H a s m o n e a n s and H e r o d i a n s at length, a n d his rhetorical e m p h a s i s is different. R a t h e r than m a k i n g H e r o d a p r i m e e x a m p l e of g o o d J u d e a n citizenship, as in the War, J o s e p h u s n o w m a k e s h i m an e x a m p l e of G o d ' s ever-watchful care for h u m a n i t y . J o s e p h u s still a c k n o w l e d g e s H e r o d ' s c o u r a g e , loy­ alty to the R o m a n s and occasional acts of piety, a n d he still m a r v e l s at H e r o d ' s t e m p l e , t h o u g h the description differs in s o m e respects from that of War. B u t he n o w sprinkles his H e r o d story with searing indict­ m e n t s of the king for his transgression of those laws that are the subject of this w o r k . All of this is b a c k g r o u n d for J o s e p h u s ' s repeated claim that H e r o d ' s personal miseries and horrible death w e r e actually divine p u n i s h m e n t for his e v i l . T h e long narrative of H e r o d ' s life, w h i c h otherwise appears to b e a poorly considered a d d e n d u m to the heart of the b o o k , thus conspicuously illustrates Antiquities' major t h e m e : the effectiveness of the Judean constitution. 50

51

It m a y s e e m odd that Josephus should devote the better part of a vol­ u m e (19) of this Judean history to the death of G a i u s and the accession

49. E.g., Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, pp. 78-92; Betsy Halpern Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities', JQR 71 (1980/ 81), pp. 201-29. 50. E.g., 15.49-67, 165-182, 243-246, 267-279, 375-376. 51. 16.1-5, 150-159, 179-188, 311-312, 362-363, 395-404; 17.150-151, 168171, 180-181, 191.

Understanding

86

Josephus

of Claudius, w h i c h are purely R o m a n affairs. It has often been asserted that h e w a s a c l u m s y compiler of irrelevant data. B u t h e includes this material to substantiate his a r g u m e n t for the universal effectiveness of the J u d e a n constitution. F r o m the perspective of his R o m a n r e a d e r s , Gaius w a s a notorious emperor, the first to suffer damnatio memoriae. His character s h o w e d itself to the J e w s in his m a d p l a n to install his statue in their T e m p l e . After recounting in detail the brutal assassina­ tion of G a i u s a n d his family, therefore, J o s e p h u s d w e l l s on t h e evil nature that invited such p u n i s h m e n t (19.201-11). H e also p r o v i d e s a clear counter-example—in Petronius, the R o m a n governor of Syria w h o boldly stood u p to Gaius at the risk of his life. G o d s h o w e d Petronius that h e w a s with the Judeans, and Petronius bravely told Gaius that this G o d ' s p o w e r w a s effective. G a i u s ' s death w a s at o n c e the e m p e r o r ' s p u n i s h m e n t and the g o v e r n o r ' s r e w a r d (18.305-306). B u t b e h i n d all of this w a s the G o d w o r s h i p p e d by the Judeans: h e arranged for G a i u s ' s death. J o s e p h u s ' s claim that only the J u d e a n constitution and the G o d b e ­ hind it deal effectively with h u m a n vice is trivialized w h e n w e subli­ m a t e it to a merely abstract or purely religious 'deuteronomistic theol­ o g y ' . That Josephus w a s concerned with this issue on a m o r e m u n d a n e and c o n t e m p o r a r y level b e c o m e s clear in the Against Apion. T h e r e he boasts of the J u d e a n l a w s : ' A transgressor is rare; e v a s i o n of punish­ m e n t b y e x c u s e s , an i m p o s s i b i l i t y ' (2.178). A l t h o u g h these l a w s are most h u m a n e , h e contends, they are absolutely effective against crime (2.214-17). A t the end of that work, quite in the spirit of the prologue to Antiquities, h e m a k e s fun of the legal systems of other nations. Other legislators left n u m e r o u s l o o p h o l e s for c r i m e in their l a w s , h e says, such that, ' N o w a d a y s , indeed, violation of the l a w s h a s w i t h m o s t nations b e c o m e a fine art. N o t so with u s . . . a n d there is not a J u d e a n . . . so m u c h in a w e of a cruel despot, but has m o r e fear of the L a w than of him' (2.277). 52

W h e n w e c o n s i d e r that m a n y inhabitants of R o m e at a b o u t J o s e ­ p h u s ' s time despaired over pervasive crime and social d e t e r i o r a t i o n , w e m u s t suspect that Josephus wishes to present the J u d e a n constitution 53

52. Incidentally, it is a mistake to see Josephus's notice that the Pharisees are lenient in punishment (Ant. 13.294) as some kind of commendation. Leniency in applying laws was no more popular in his day than it is in ours. 53. Most extreme perhaps is Juvenal, Satires 3.268-314. But cf. already Cat­ ullus, Poems 64 (end); Cicero, Divination 2.2.4; Horace, Odes 3.6.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

87

as an attractive alternative. In fact, in the Against Apion h e will explic­ itly contrast the J u d e a n laws with the political constitutions of other nations, reiterating that J u d e a n s are h a p p y to w e l c o m e those w h o wish to c o m e a n d share their laws (2.258). Notice in particular that Josephus uses the s a m e language on this topic as h e used in the preface to Antiq­ uities: j u s t as h e said there that h e a n d Eleazar w o u l d n o t 'jealously h o a r d ' (o\)K e<|)06vr|a£) the g o o d t h i n g s of J u d a i s m , s i n c e it w a s a J e w i s h c u s t o m not to k e e p their benefits a secret, so n o w h e says that M o s e s instructed the Judeans that ' w e should not jealously h o a r d (|if|T£ (|)Govf|aco^ev) our c u s t o m s from those w h o c h o o s e to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e m ' (2.209). An Alternative Philosophical System Closely allied with the subject of political constitutions in the Antiq­ uities/Life, as also for J o s e p h u s ' s R o m a n readers, is that of philosophy. In R o m e , of course, the old republican opposition to the principate had long b e e n n o u r i s h e d b y Stoic p h i l o s o p h y : during J o s e p h u s ' s R o m a n career, the n a m e s of the e x e c u t e d or exiled S e n e c a , L u c a n , Rubellius Plautus, Thrasea Paetus, Helvidius Priscus, Musonius Rufus, Barea Soranus and Epictetus h u n g in the air. It is especially significant, then, that J o s e p h u s ' s p r o e m to this w o r k that presents another constitution is replete w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e . Particularly n o t e w o r t h y is his r e p e a t e d a s s e r t i o n that f o l l o w i n g the l a w s of M o s e s a l o n e b r i n g s e\)8ai|Liovia—well-being or happiness (1.14, 20). S h o w i n g the w a y to e i ) 8 a i | i o v i a w a s understood to b e the goal of philosophy in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y ; L u c i a n enjoys p o k i n g fun of the various c o m p e t i n g r e c i p e s for h a p p i n e s s a m o n g the s c h o o l s . J o s e p h u s will introduce the w o r d e\)8ai|Liovia s o m e 4 7 times into his biblical p a r a p h r a s e , t h o u g h it is missing from the G r e e k Bible. W h a t M o s e s received at Sinai p r o m i s e d ' a h a p p y life and an orderly constitution' ( p i o v . . . e \ ) 8 a i | i o v a Kai noXxxeiac; KOG|IOV 3.84). Evidently, J o s e p h u s m e a n s to present J u d a i s m as an option in the philosophical/constitutional marketplace. 5 4

55

J o s e p h u s claims that the c o d e of M o s e s reflects the very laws of the universe, and so a n y o n e wishing to enquire m o r e deeply a b o u t the rea­ sons for the laws w o u l d find the exercise rich and 'highly philosophi­ cal' (1.25). T h i s is not m e r e l y an ad h o c device for the preface, for h e will p o r t r a y s o m e of the k e y figures in J u d e a n h i s t o r y — n o t a b l y 54. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 10.6.1; Epictetus, Discourses 55. Philosophies for Sale, Hermotimus.

1.4.32.

Understanding

88

Josephus

A b r a h a m , M o s e s , S o l o m o n and D a n i e l — a s p e e r l e s s p h i l o s o p h e r s in their o w n right. A n d of c o u r s e h e presents P h a r i s e e s , S a d d u c e e s and E s s e n e s as s c h o o l s w i t h i n the n a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y (Ant.

13.171-73;

18.12-18). Conversion

in Philosophy

and in the Antiquities

At least s o m e of the philosophical themes of Antiquities/Life

are b y n o w

well k n o w n , a n d I lack the space to detail t h e m again h e r e . B u t one critical feature of philosophical discourse in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y requires e m p h a s i s in our context. N a m e l y : philosophy w a s the d o m a i n in w h i c h one s p o k e m o s t naturally of conversion (conversio),

rethinking

(\iexa-

v o i a ) and 'choosing a n e w life' (or path or w a y ) . Since philosophical schools often used the l a n g u a g e of c o n v e r s i o n , w e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r briefly the m e c h a n i c s of that c o n v e r s i o n , a n d in particular the lecture or tract designed to attract converts to philosophy: the protreptic discourse (A,6yo<; npoxpenxiKoq). t h o u g h t to h a v e b e e n A r i s t o t l e ' s Protreptikos

T h e chief e x e m p l a r is (Diogenes

Laertius

5.22.12), w h i c h is preserved only in fragments. A c c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s , p h i l o s o p h e r s of all schools w r o t e such d i s c o u r s e s , b u t n o n e of these texts h a s survived either. C i c e r o ' s fragmentary Hortensius

is f a m o u s

largely for its role in p e r s u a d i n g the y o u n g A u g u s t i n e to take u p phi­ losophy (Confessions

3.4.7). A G r e e k inscription m e n t i o n s a competi­

tion for c o m p o s i n g protreptic s p e e c h e s in the A t h e n i a n e p h e b a t e (IG 2 . 2 1 1 9 ) . T h e e v i d e n c e is thus e n o u g h to indicate that protreptic dis­ courses constituted a recognized class of philosophical writing through­ out our period. L u c i a n ' s m i d - s e c o n d century Wisdom

of Nigrinus

m a y s e r v e as a

concrete e x a m p l e of the type for our purposes. A l t h o u g h L u c i a n frames the Nigrinus

as a dialogue at beginning and end, the b u l k of it is given

to the speech of a character w h o has j u s t returned from R o m e , w h e r e he m e t t h e o t h e r w i s e u n k n o w n Platonist p h i l o s o p h e r N i g r i n u s . T h e en­ c o u n t e r has suddenly transformed h i m into a h a p p y a n d blissful m a n (e\)8ai|Licov xe

Kai naKapioq).

H e says: ' D o n ' t you think it wonderful,

by Z e u s , that instead of being a slave, I a m free; instead of being poor, I a m truly wealthy; instead of b e i n g ignorant a n d blind, I h a v e b e c o m e s o u n d ? ' (1). T h e other character in the dialogue then i m p l o r e s h i m not to j e a l o u s l y h o a r d (o\)8e (|)0oveiv—the s a m e p h r a s e u s e d b y J o s e p h u s in Ant. 1.11 and Apion

2.209) the source of such bliss from a friend. In

r e s p o n s e to the r e q u e s t , the c o n v e r t recalls in detail t h e s p e e c h of

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further*

89

Nigrinus that pierced his soul and led h i m to e m b r a c e p h i l o s o p h y ( 3 5 3 7 ) . T h a t s p e e c h is essentially a p o l e m i c a l contrast ( o u y i c p i o i q ) b e ­ t w e e n t h e d i s g u s t i n g w o r l d l y values so p r e v a l e n t in R o m e w i t h t h e philosophical life, free of luxury and s h a m , that prevails in A t h e n s . T o c h o o s e the A t h e n i a n w a y of life (rcpoaipeoiiai... (iiov) is to c h o o s e a life of toil ( 1 4 , 3 3 ) , but one w h i c h alone brings h a p p i n e s s . T h e c o n ­ v e r t ' s praise of the philosophic life does not include an explicit appeal for the c o n v e r s i o n of his friend, but w e are not surprised w h e n his friend insists at the e n d that h e m u s t j o i n h i m in a ' c h a n g e of h e a r t ' (38). S i n c e , as w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s u s e s the Antiquities

actively to

c o m m e n d J u d a i s m to his Gentile readers, w e m u s t ask w h e t h e r h e did not also intend the b o o k to serve as a k i n d of philosophical (not rhetori­ cal) protreptic, an invitation to Judean philosophy. A glance at s o m e of the philosophical connections in the text suggests that he did. F o r e x a m p l e , he claims that it w a s A b r a h a m , a radical c o n v e r t h i m ­ self, w h o first c o n c e i v e d of G o d as o n e and w h o first t a u g h t the ele­ m e n t s of science to the w o r l d - f a m o u s E g y p t i a n s ( 1 . 1 5 4 - 6 8 ) . I n d e e d , A b r a h a m w a s something of a philosophical missionary: h e visited E g y p t with the intention that, 'if h e found [what their priests said a b o u t the gods] superior, h e w o u l d subscribe to it (KaxaKoXovGeco), or, if w h a t h e h i m s e l f t h o u g h t w a s found preferable, h e w o u l d reorder their lives (|H£TaKoa|iECO amove)

according to the more excellent w a y ' (1.161).

In his synthesis of the Midianite B a l a a m ' s four p r o p h e c i e s c o n c e r n ­ ing Israel (cf. N u m . 2 2 - 2 4 ) , J o s e p h u s takes the opportunity t o reinforce his t h e m e : the J u d e a n nation is singularly h a p p y (ei)8ai|Licov), B a l a a m says, indeed h a p p i e r than all other nations (rcavxcDv e\)8ai|ioveaT8poi TC5V imb TOV rftiov) because it alone has been granted G o d ' s providence (rcpovoia) as an eternal guide (4.114). In the future, B a l a a m continues, J u d e a n s will d o m i n a t e t h e e n t i r e earth by p o p u l a t i o n a n d b y f a m e (4.115-16).

56

In a pivotal p a s s a g e half-way through the book, J o s e p h u s uses w h a t h e u n d e r s t a n d s to b e t h e s t u n n i n g fulfillment of p r e d i c t i o n s in the J u d e a n s a c r e d texts to d i s p r o v e the E p i c u r e a n v i e w t h a t n o d e i t y

56. That Josephus fails to mention proselytism here does not (pace Shaye J.D. Cohen 'Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus', HTR 80 [1987], pp. 421-22) imply his distaste for conversion. On the contrary, his continued asser­ tion before interested Gentile readers that Judeans are uniquely happy would pre­ sumably have the effect of encouraging conversion.

90

Understanding

Josephus

w a t c h e s over h u m a n affairs (10.277). A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , t h e an­ cient writings of the J u d e a n s — m o s t notably those of M o s e s , Isaiah, J e r e m i a h and D a n i e l — h a v e predicted the entire course of h u m a n his­ tory; this fact w a s , h e says, plainly r e c o g n i z e d by t h e f a m o u s k i n g s Cyrus, Artaxerxes and Alexander. Innocent of P o r p h y r y ' s later insights into D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s apparently believes w i t h all sincerity that the predictions of the J u d e a n prophets h a v e been verifiably fulfilled. H e is eager t o share this k n o w l e d g e with his Gentile r e a d e r s . E x a c t l y half­ w a y through the Antiquities, Josephus dilates on the t h e m e s of t h e pref­ ace, using D a n i e l ' s fulfilled predictions to p r o v e b e y o n d all d o u b t that the J u d e a n G o d controls h u m a n affairs (10.276-81). W h a t is t h e rhe­ torical p u r p o s e of this p a s s a g e ? If w e are right in s u p p o s i n g that his Gentile audience is well disposed from the outset, then h e is not trying to dissuade real E p i c u r e a n s from their views b u t is rather speaking of t h e m safely in the third person. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that h e wishes to e n c o u r a g e his friendly R o m a n audience t o w a r d closer asso­ ciation with Judean culture. The Adiabene Story T h e only scholarly study of the conversion t h e m e in Antiquities/Life, as far as I k n o w , is an article b y S h a y e C o h e n . A l t h o u g h a full response to C o h e n ' s study m a y s e e m desirable in such a study as this, I h a v e already attempted that in a recent a r t i c l e . H e r e I confine m y r e m a r k s to the important episode of conversion in Adiabene. 57

58

C o h e n does not seek to explain the motives of Antiquities, t h o u g h in his earlier w o r k h e h a d a c c e p t e d M o r t o n S m i t h ' s v i e w ( a b o v e ) that J o s e p h u s wrote this w o r k to throw in his lot with the rising fortunes of the P h a r i s e e s at Y a v n e h after t h e w a r . H e c o n t e n d s that, of seven instances of conversion recounted in the Antiquities, six (three forced conversions of neighboring peoples b y H a s m o n e a n s — A n t . 13.257-58, 3 1 8 - 1 9 , 3 9 7 ; t w o unfortunate c o n v e r s i o n s to facilitate m a r r i a g e of Herodian w o m e n — 2 0 . 1 3 9 , 145; a n d the conversion of Fulvia, w h o w a s d u p e d b y s o m e J u d e a n c h a r l a t a n s — 1 8 . 8 1 - 8 4 ) h a v e strongly n e g a t i v e overtones. H e concedes that J o s e p h u s does look favourably on Gentile 5 9

57. 'Respect', pp. 409-430. 58. Mason, Contra Apionem, pp. 187-228. 59. Galilee and Rome, pp. 148-51, 237-38.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

91

adherents to Judaism, as distinct from converts, w h o appear in the nar­ r a t i v e . Nevertheless, Tn his [ J o s e p h u s ' s ] view, J u d a i s m is not a mis­ sionary r e l i g i o n ' . T h e zeal for c o n v e r s i o n reflected in t h e seventh episode, concerning the royal h o u s e of A d i a b e n e , is therefore peculiar in Antiquities; it s h o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d either as J o s e p h u s ' s c a r e l e s s inclusion of an u n c o n g e n i a l source or, better, o n the g r o u n d that the story ' c o n c e r n s the propagation of J u d a i s m outside the R o m a n e m p i r e in a k i n g d o m w h i c h resisted the P a r t h i a n k i n g s , t h e e n e m i e s of R o m e ' . I d o not claim to understand this suggestion and C o h e n does not clarify it. 60

61

6 2

H a v i n g c o n c l u d e d that Antiquities (minus the A d i a b e n e episode) is o p p o s e d to c o n v e r s i o n , C o h e n m u s t also isolate the Against Apion, w h i c h w a r m l y w e l c o m e s converts, as untypical of J o s e p h u s ' s perspec­ tive. O n the basis of s o m e well k n o w n parallels with P h i l o ' s writings, h e proposes that Josephus took over that later tract m o r e or less bodily from another author, that its perspective is that of ' a n Alexandrian J e w of the first half of the first c e n t u r y ' . C o h e n is apparently willing in this case to o v e r r i d e his usual a x i o m , that ' J o s e p h u s w a s not a m i n d l e s s transcriber of s o u r c e s ' . 63

64

It s e e m s to m e that C o h e n ' s a r g u m e n t is flawed b e c a u s e h e m a k e s dubious assumptions about J o s e p h u s ' s 'negative o v e r t o n e s ' and ignores i m p o r t a n t clues in the preface and structure of t h e w h o l e w o r k . H i s excision of the A d i a b e n e e p i s o d e as u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w s is u n p e r s u a s i v e . His cavalier a s s i g n m e n t of Against Apion to a n o t h e r h a n d is an i m p r o b a b l e stratagem. T h e l a n g u a g e a n d m a j o r themes of that tractate (e.g. the contrast between G r e e k and oriental his­ toriography, the strong priestly bias and the itemization of anti-Judean slanders) are fully anticipated in J o s e p h u s ' s earlier w o r k s , so there is n o g o o d reason to assign it to other hands.

60. Cohen, 'Respect', p. 421. 61. Cohen, 'Respect', p. 423. 62. Cohen, 'Respect', p. 425. 63. Cohen, 'Respect', p. 425. 64. Cohen, 'Respect', p. 425. Seth Schwartz deals with Against Apion in a simi­ lar way, though for different reasons. His attempt to read all of Josephus's other writings as efforts to carve out a place for himself in the post-war Judean political world leads him to dismiss Against Apion as basically non-Josephan (pp. 23, 56 n. 127); that work cannot easily be reconciled with a picture of Josephus as selfserving opportunist.

92

Understanding

Josephus

T h e decisive proof that J o s e p h u s w a r m l y w e l c o m e d converts is in­ deed the only full conversion story in Antiquities, w h i c h c o n c e r n s the royal family of A d i a b e n e . This is the longest single e p i s o d e in v o l u m e 20, occupying about one quarter of that book (20.17-96). Its position in the narrative constitutes a m a s s i v e contextual rebuttal of C o h e n ' s at­ tempt to tease an anti-conversion stance out of the other, incidental ref­ erences to conversion in v o l u m e 20. T h e A d i a b e n e story p r e c e d e s and completely o v e r s h a d o w s those incidental notices. This story has been widely read for what it might reveal historically a b o u t t h e m e c h a n i c s of c o n v e r s i o n or a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e s . L a w r e n c e H. Schiffman, for e x a m p l e , argues that the unfulfilled crossreferences in the story (20.48, 5 3 , 96) indicate that J o s e p h u s 'did little, if a n y t h i n g , to m o d i f y this p a s s a g e ' from his s o u r c e s . I w o u l d respond: (a) T h e cross-references are to anticipated passages, a n d they m a y i n d e e d b e partially fulfilled within the s u b s e q u e n t narrative (e.g. 2 0 . 4 8 in 6 9 - 9 1 ) . T h e y m a y also reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n unfulfilled p l a n s , of w h i c h h e h a d m a n y ( 2 0 . 2 6 7 ) . In any c a s e , t h e s e forwardlooking references are characteristic of Ant. 2 0 (20.144, 147), in m a t e ­ rial that clearly d o e s not c o m e from the putative A d i a b e n i a n source, (b) M o r e serious p r o b l e m s in J o s e p h u s are unfulfilled references to material already (allegedly) c o v e r e d , w h i c h o c c u r fairly often in the earlier parts of Antiquities (13.36, 108). B u t e v e n in t h o s e c a s e s , o n e cannot claim that Josephus has taken over his source undigested. Even those narratives h a v e in general been shown to bear the clear m a r k s of J o s e p h u s ' s authorial h a n d . (c) E v i d e n c e of J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d in the A d i a b e n e story i n c l u d e s : the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c J o s e p h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n 65

6 6

67

65. Abraham Schalit, 'Evidence of an Aramaic Source in Josephus' "Antiq­ uities of the Jews" \ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1975), pp. 16388; Jacob Neusner, 'The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism', JBL 83 (1964), pp. 60-66; John J. Collins, 'A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century', in Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), 'To See Our­ selves as Others See Us': Christians, Jews, 'Others' in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 163-86, esp. 177-80; Lawrence H. Schiffman, 'The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources', in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), pp. 293-312. 66. 67. Gohei 1989),

Schiffman, 'The Conversion of the Royal House', p. 294. E.g., Isaiah Gafni, 'Josephus and I Maccabees', in Louis H. Feldman and Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State Press, pp. 116-31.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

93

( 2 0 . 1 7 ) ; the e m p h a s i s on G o d ' s rcpovoia—one of the m a i n t h e m e s of Antiquities?* J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic e m p h a s i s o n R o m a n invincibil­ ity and present fortune ( 2 0 . 6 9 - 7 1 ) ; his characteristic claim that success e n g e n d e r s ' e n v y and hatred' along with a corresponding evocation of his earlier Joseph story ( 2 0 . 1 9 - 2 2 ; cf. 2 . 9 - 1 0 ) ; his reprise of the notice in Ant. 1 . 9 2 - 9 3 about the story of N o a h ' s ark ( 2 0 . 2 5 ) ; his typical use of o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l a n g u a g e (e.g. d i c p i p e i a SOKEIV in 2 0 . 4 3 ; etiaePeia in 2 0 . 7 5 ) ; and the deliberate restatement of Antiquities' cen­ tral thesis within this story ( 2 0 . 4 8 ) . J o s e p h u s has d o n e m u c h to m a k e this story his own. O u r interest, then, is with the neglected literary question: W h a t does Josephus h o p e to convey to his readers b y including this lengthy con­ version story here? W h a t question does the story answer? T h e basic m e s s a g e is clear. Josephus begins: 'Helena, q u e e n of Adia­ b e n e , and her son Izates c h a n g e d their w a y of life to a c c o r d with the c u s t o m s of the J u d e a n s ' (eiq xct 'Io\)8aicov eQr\ xov piov ^exePa^ov; 2 0 . 1 7 ) . If w e h a v e rightly understood the bulk of the Antiquities, the r o y a l f a m i l y ' s action s h o u l d n o t o c c a s i o n surprise, for c o n v e r s i o n w o u l d b e the logical c o n s e q u e n c e of having discovered the noblest set of laws a n d the m o s t profound philosophy in existence. B u t a curious reader m i g h t well ask: ' H o w could such highly visible G e n t i l e rulers adopt a foreign w a y of life, w h e n I myself would face all sorts of social obstacles if I c o n v e r t e d ? ' That is the question Josephus answers, and h e does so emphatically. U n d e r the influence of his w i v e s and a Judean merchant, w e are told, the prince Izates first b e g a n to w o r s h i p G o d according to the tradition of the J u d e a n s ( 2 0 . 3 4 ) . W h e n Izates found out that his m o t h e r had also b e e n attracted to J u d e a n w a y s ( 2 0 . 3 8 ) , through a different teacher, h e b e c a m e e a g e r to c o n v e r t fully (|X8TCtTi0T||Lii). H e desired this e v e n though h e k n e w that to b e c o m e a real J u d e a n w o u l d require circumci­ sion ( 2 0 . 3 8 ) . Tension builds in the story as w e read that b o t h his mother and his J u d e a n teacher agreed that in his case c i r c u m c i s i o n w o u l d b e most dangerous because of public perceptions. T h e r e a d e r ' s question is: Will Izates d o it, and if h e does, will he survive? Josephus thus m a k e s it clear that, if any would-be convert had a reason to refrain from circum­ cision, Izates did ( 2 0 . 3 8 - 4 2 ; cf. 2 0 . 4 7 ) . In such circumstances, he could b e a s s u r e d of d i v i n e p a r d o n for omitting the rite ( 2 0 . 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s 68. 91.

Attridge, The Interpretation

of Biblical

History, pp. 66-70; cf. Ant. 20.18,

94

Understanding

Josephus

m a k e s this alternative perfectly reasonable, and allows that the pious Izates w a s content with it for a time. But w h e n another teacher, w h o s e precision in the laws Josephus respects (20.43), insisted that conversion r e q u i r e d c i r c u m c i s i o n , Izates i m m e d i a t e l y c o m p l i e d ( 2 0 . 4 6 ) . After noting that I z a t e s ' m o t h e r and former teacher b e c a m e afraid, J o s e p h u s editorializes: It was God who was to prevent their fears from being realized. For although Izates himself and his children were often threatened with destruction, God preserved them... God thus demonstrated that those who fix their eyes on Him and trust in Him alone do not lose the reward of their piety (20.48).

W e are still only half w a y t h r o u g h the story, and J o s e p h u s t a k e s the r e m a i n d e r to illustrate the beneficial effects of I z a t e s ' c o n v e r s i o n on world affairs, and the divine protection of his family. H e prospered and w a s u n i v e r s a l l y a d m i r e d ( 2 0 . 4 9 ) ; h e and his m o t h e r s u p p o r t e d the n e e d y of J e r u s a l e m during a famine (20.53); h e u s e d his influence to restore the Parthian king Artabanus to his rightful throne (20.66); Izates was himself protected b y G o d from the Parthian V a r d a n e s (20.72) and then from t w o separate plots instigated by the nobles of A d i a b e n e (20. 76-91). In these last cases, Josephus emphasizes that I z a t e s ' conversion to J u d a i s m w a s the cause of the hatred (20.77, 81), but Izates entrusted himself to G o d (20.85). Indeed, the Arab king enlisted b y the nobles to defeat Izates m a k e s the issue a contest between his o w n p o w e r and that of I z a t e s ' God, saying that 'even the G o d w h o m he w o r s h i p p e d w o u l d be unable to deliver h i m from the k i n g ' s h a n d s ' (20.88). B u t of course G o d did intervene to spare Izates. T h u s J o s e p h u s a m p l y demonstrates his assertion that G o d r e w a r d e d I z a t e s ' c o m m i t m e n t to a p r o p e r con­ v e r s i o n ( 2 0 . 4 8 ) . A n d t h e c o n v e r t H e l e n a ' s m e m o r y t o o is forever blessed, he says, because of her benefactions (20.53). T o b e sure, this lengthy story illustrates m a n y consistent t h e m e s of the narrative: G o d r e w a r d s virtue and p u n i s h e s w i c k e d n e s s , a l w a y s maintaining control of history to spare the righteous in spite of h u m a n designs. But it is fair to ask whether the Gentile reader should not have learned s o m e w h a t m o r e from this final major e p i s o d e — n a m e l y , that full c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m is a g o o d thing. It frequently arouses the hatred of o n e ' s fellow nationals, and so it m a y cause great difficulty for the convert, but G o d rewards the faithful. If this is the s t o r y ' s m e s s a g e , then the royal h o u s e of A d i a b e n e , at the end of the Antiquities narra­ tive, serve to fulfill the expectations created at the beginning. Following

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

95

in the footsteps of E p a p h r o d i t u s , they too are p e r s u a d e d of J u d a i s m ' s beauty; b u t they e m b r a c e it fully and are not disappointed. N o t e incidentally that the story assumes the ubiquity of J u d e a n s w h o are willing to g u i d e foreigners through conversion. It m e n t i o n s three such individuals: A n a n i a s , E l e a z a r and the u n n a m e d figure w h o first coached H e l e n a (20.35).

Provisional

Summary

I b e g a n w i t h an attempt to recover the question that J o s e p h u s ' s Antiq­ uities/Life answers. W e saw first that standard accounts of the work, as apologetic for Gentiles, d o not explain very m u c h . T h e n I set the stage for a fresh examination of J o s e p h u s ' s major work with s o m e antecedent reflections on J o s e p h u s ' s situation in R o m e : he n e v e r attained m u c h status there, b u t r e m a i n e d a J u d e a n writer. R e n e w e d study of Antiq­ uities then s h o w e d that from b e g i n n i n g to e n d it is a confident (not p r i m a r i l y apologetic) a n d c o h e r e n t s u m m a r y of the J u d e a n political constitution. J o s e p h u s forthrightly e n g a g e s current debates, presenting the w h o l e system of Judean law and governance as peerless. T h e q u e s ­ tion that the 2 0 - v o l u m e Antiquities answers, then, is: ' P l e a s e give us a full account of the J u d e a n TtoAixeia, its origins, philosophy, principles, history a n d effects'. A t the s a m e time, the w o r k e n c o u r a g e s closer ex­ amination of J u d a i s m and even answers the subsidiary question: ' W h a t m i g h t h a p p e n to m e if I adopt the J u d e a n constitution as m y o w n , if I convert?' W a s there a c o m m u n i t y of Gentiles in R o m e w h o w o u l d likely h a v e a s k e d s u c h q u e s t i o n s ? W e r e there, in other w o r d s , m a n y Gentiles in R o m e w h o w e r e eager to learn about J u d a i s m ? M y c o n c l u s i o n on the basis of e v i d e n c e within Antiquities/Life must n o w b e s u p p o r t e d b y a return to external considerations, so that I can satisfactorily explain text and context. Perhaps surprisingly, given the vast n u m b e r of things that G r e e k a n d Latin evidence for J u d a i s m does not tell us, it e m e r g e s with singular clarity that there w a s a noticeable g r o u p of Gentiles in R o m e with a strong interest in Judaism. General Audience: Interested Gentiles E l s e w h e r e I h a v e surveyed the evidence for R o m a n attraction to Judean culture, so there is n o need to rehearse it in detail h e r e . T h e evidence 69

69. See Mason,'Contra Apionem\

pp. 188-95.

Understanding

96

Josephus

is so varied a n d consistent that e v e n those w h o o t h e r w i s e d e n y that J u d a i s m w a s a proselytizing r e l i g i o n , along with those w h o appear to h a v e n o stake in the q u e s t i o n , r e m a r k that b o t h attraction a n d full conversion to J u d a i s m w e r e — p e r h a p s exceptionally—well k n o w n phe­ n o m e n a in late first-century R o m e . First, quite a few authors writing in R o m e m e n t i o n , even as proverbial, observable stages of attraction to J u d a i s m . S e c o n d , w e k n o w from both literature a n d inscriptions of s e v e r a l p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s of c o n v e r s i o n . Third, from t i m e to t i m e groups of J u d e a n s w e r e expelled from R o m e in part, evidently, because too m a n y R o m a n s w e r e adopting their c u s t o m s . 70

71

7 2

73

74

T h i s all raises p r o b l e m s from a sociological p e r s p e c t i v e , for h o w could a R o m a n plausibly adopt the w a y s of another ethnic g r o u p and truly forsake his or her o w n ? A n d whatever positive interest w e find a m o n g s o m e g r o u p s w a s of course balanced b y a w i d e s p r e a d disdain for J u d a i s m in the literature—not least b y those w h o m e n t i o n the a p ­ peal of J u d a i s m to others. But the evidence for attraction a n d conver­ sion seems univocal, and J o s e p h u s ' s efforts to cast J u d a i s m as a philos­ ophy m a y b e in part an effort to provide an appropriate category for this 'conversion'. 7 5

If the internal evidence of both the War and the Antiquities appears to require a first audience of willing, G r e e k - s p e a k i n g Gentiles in R o m e , the e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e m a k e s s u c h an a u d i e n c e e n t i r e l y p l a u s i b l e . J o s e p h u s w r o t e for those w h o already h a d a powerful m o t i v a t i o n to

70. Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 74; Shaye J.D. C o h e n , ' "Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not": How D o You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?' in Shaye J.D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS, 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 26-27. 71. E. Mary Small wood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in Political Relations (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), pp. 201-216; Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: JPSA, 1960), pp. 250-56. 72. Tacitus, Histories 5.5; Epictetus, Discourses 2.9.20; Juvenal, Satires 5.14.96-106; cf. Horace (Satires 1.4.139-43); Seneca (On Superstition, in Augus­ tine, City of God 6.11); and Celsus (True Word, in Origen, Against Celsus 5.41.6). 73. Veturia Paulla, Fulvia, Poppaea Sabina, Flavius Clemens and Domitilla. 74. Such disciplinary expulsions are mentioned for 139 BCE, 19 CE, and perhaps in the 40s CE. 75. Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 1-37.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

97

h e a r a b o u t J u d e a n l a w and culture. It w a s p r e s u m a b l y they, through such a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e as E p a p h r o d i t u s , w h o n e e d e d a n d requested a c o m p r e h e n s i v e manual of Judean culture. T h a t — m u c h m o r e than apolo­ getic with respect to either Judean antiquity or post-war a n t a g o n i s m s — is w h a t the Antiquities in fact provides. It is a p r i m e r in J u d e a n law and culture for interested outsiders. Specific Audience: Some Speculations J o s e p h u s ' s c o m p l e t i o n of the Antiquities/Life in 9 3 c o i n c i d e s remark­ ably with D o m i t i a n ' s reported execution of the e x - c o n s u l s T. Flavius C l e m e n s and M . Acilius Glabrio, and his b a n i s h m e n t of C l e m e n s ' wife Flavia D o m i t i l l a — a l l on charges of judaizing, according to D i o (67.23). C o u l d it b e that these p r o m i n e n t figures w e r e a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s intended audience? If not, D o m i t i a n ' s actions against the consuls are quite a puzzle, b e ­ cause both Glabrio and C l e m e n s had enjoyed the high h o n o u r of serv­ ing as c o n s u l — G l a b r i o w i t h the future e m p e r o r Trajan in 9 1 , a n d C l e m e n s w a s still consul in 9 5 w h e n h e w a s executed. C l e m e n s w a s a cousin of the princeps, and Domitian favoured h i m so m u c h that he had d e s i g n a t e d his sons as heirs, c h a n g i n g their n a m e s to V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s ( S u e t o n i u s , Domitian 15.1) and a p p o i n t i n g Q u i n t i l i a n as their tutor. P r e s u m a b l y , s o m e t h i n g f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e d in h i s v i e w of C l e m e n s and Domitilla precisely in the period following the completion of J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities. M u c h has been written about C l e m e n s and Domitilla, partly b e c a u s e of the later b u t apparently confused tradition that a F l a v i a D o m i t i l l a w h o w a s a n i e c e of C l e m e n s a d o p t e d Christianity ( E u s e b i u s , Hist. Eccles 3.18.4). M a n y scholars s e e m u n w i l l i n g to b e l i e v e that t h e s e p e o p l e actually e m b r a c e d J u d a i s m , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e S u e t o n i u s cites only s o m e 'trivial pretext' as the charge and b e c a u s e of the antecedent implausibility of a h i g h l y p l a c e d R o m a n a d o p t i n g a foreign w a y of living. Y e t it is hard to u n d e r s t a n d w h y D i o w o u l d h a v e invented the c h a r g e of j u d a i z i n g if an early tradition had not s u g g e s t e d it. A n d h e goes on to say that N e r v a rescinded D o m i t i a n ' s acceptance of j u d a i z i n g charges (68.1.2). Further, Brian Jones argues persuasively that D o m i t i a n a i m e d at a return to A u g u s t a n standards of finance, religion a n d m o r a l i t y : w i t n e s s his e l a b o r a t e efforts to h o n o u r M i n e r v a , his scrupulous attention to the century g a m e s and to the rigid enforcement of penalties against the Vestal V i r g i n s , and his tight discipline over

98

Understanding

Josephus

76

provincial officials. All of this w o u l d fit well with an effort to curb judaizing tendencies. W e m u s t r e m e m b e r that conversion to Judaism, in the perception of the equally conservative Tacitus, m e a n t the c o m p l e t e a b a n d o n m e n t of o n e ' s native traditions: T h e earliest lesson [converts] receive is to de­ spise the g o d s , to d i s o w n their country, a n d to r e g a r d their p a r e n t s , children, and parents as of little a c c o u n t ' (Histories 5.5). C o n v e r t s to both J u d a i s m and philosophy w e r e in m u c h the s a m e boat h e r e , inas­ m u c h as they w e r e b o t h reluctant to hold public office energetically. T h u s , D o m i t i a n executed Herrenius Senecio in 9 3 — t h e year in which Josephus completed his Antiquities/Life—both because h e had written a biography of the famous Helvidius Priscus, executed under Vespasian, and b e c a u s e h e h a d d e c l i n e d to h o l d p u b l i c office after s e r v i n g as quaestor (Dio 67.13.2). R e l u c t a n c e to hold public office, w h i c h had a variety of motives, w a s a growing p r o b l e m in the e m p i r e ; philosophers a n d c o n v e r t s to J u d a i s m only a d d e d to t h o s e m o t i v e s . In v i e w of D o m i t i a n ' s traditionalist p r o g r a m m e , w e are led to c o n c u r w i t h J o n e s that, N o d o u b t the J e w i s h p o l i c y of a c t i v e p r o s e l y t i z i n g a r o u s e d D o m i t i a n ' s a n g e r ' . It s e e m s entirely likely that a highly p l a c e d con­ vert to Jewish politeia and philosophia, and o n e so important to D o m i ­ t i a n ' s vision for the empire, w o u l d face his wrath. 4

77

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s appears confirmed by the fact that b o t h S u e t o n i u s and D i o m e n t i o n the death of o n e E p a p h r o d i t u s — N e r o ' s freedman and former c o r r e s p o n d e n c e secretary (a libellis), the former m a s t e r of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus w h o w o u l d b e exiled b y D o m i t i a n — a l o n g ­ side the death of Flavius C l e m e n s in the year 95 (Suetonius, Domitian 14-15; D i o 67.14.4). Benedictus N i e s e ' s student H a n s L u t h e r long ago m a d e a g o o d case for identifying this m a n as the patron of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s . F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s ' s description of h i m as o n e w h o w a s familiar with large affairs and m a n y twists of fortune (Ant. 1.8) seems perfectly suited to the o n c e influential freedman w h o h a d assisted his imperial m a s t e r in t a k i n g his o w n life, then s u b s e q u e n t l y fallen into ignominy until h e s o m e h o w attracted the attention of D o m i t i a n near the end of his reign. 78

76. Jones, Domitian, pp. 99-110. 77. Jones, Domitian, p. 118. 78. Hans Luther, Josephus und Justus von Tiberias: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des judischen Aufstandes (Halle: Wischan & Burkhardt, 1910), pp. 61-63.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

99

T h e notorious p r o b l e m with this identification is that the Life, w h i c h is dedicated to Epaphroditus, also presupposes the death of A g r i p p a II (359). A n d yet the best explanation of A g r i p p a ' s Flavian coin series is that they generally date t h e m s e l v e s according to an era b e g i n n i n g in 61 CE; this is clear from the alignment of his regnal years with D o m i ­ t i a n ' s consulships and adoption of the n a m e G e r m a n i c u s in 8 4 . T h u s the last of the Flavian coins, w h i c h c o m e s from year 35 of A g r i p p a ' s reign, s e e m s to require that h e w a s still alive in 9 5 . If w e accepted this s c h e m e , w e w o u l d b e forced to c o n c l u d e : (a) that the Life, n o matter h o w closely connected to the Antiquities of 9 3 , w a s written s o m e years later, and (b) that the famous Epaphroditus, former secretary to N e r o , w h o died in 9 5 at D o m i t i a n ' s c o m m a n d , could not h a v e b e e n J o s e ­ p h u s ' s patron. 7 9

Space does not permit a detailed discussion of this problem, so I shall briefly indicate that the a r g u m e n t s of the revised Schurer, to the effect that A g r i p p a died in 9 2 or p e r h a p s 9 3 , s e e m w o r k a b l e . T h e m o s t i m ­ portant points are t w o . First, A g r i p p a ' s coins and inscriptions d e m o n ­ strate a dual dating system: t w o of his coins and o n e inscription bear t w o dates side by side, one s y s t e m calculated from 56 a n d the other calculated from 61 CE. Second, while it is true that only the Life explic­ itly refers to A g r i p p a ' s death, the last v o l u m e of Antiquities s e e m to a s s u m e it as well. M u c h of w h a t J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s of t h e k i n g a n d Berenice there, in sharp contrast to the War, is gossipy to t h e point of slander: A g r i p p a ' s sister D r u s i l l a ' s m a r r i a g e to the G e n t i l e g o v e r n o r Felix transgressed the national laws (20.143); she w a s driven to d o this by the steady abuse of her j e a l o u s sister Berenice (20.143), w h o in turn w a s r e p o r t e d to h a v e b e e n h a v i n g incestuous relations w i t h A g r i p p a (20.145); after persuading the king of Cilicia to m a r r y h e r in order to scotch this r u m o u r , B e r e n i c e quickly deserted h i m b e c a u s e of her li­ centiousness (20.146); Agrippa himself continually violated Jewish law and c u s t o m (20.189-196, 2 0 2 - 2 1 8 ) . A l t h o u g h it is barely possible that 80

79. E.g., Ya'akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage (New York: Amphora, 1982), 2.65-73; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, pp. 19-21. 80. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (eds.) (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, revised edn, 1973-86 [1890]), III, 471-83. Those scholars mentioned in n. 79 reject the new Schurer, but I do not find their arguments (e.g. that the consistency of the dating system for the Flavian coins should override other considerations) com­ pelling.

100

Understanding

Josephus

Josephus wrote these things while the king and his sister w e r e still alive (but contrast, e.g., War 2 . 3 3 6 - 4 0 7 ) , his c o u p l i n g of A g r i p p a I and A g r i p p a II in the aorist tense at Ant. 17.28, w h e r e h e describes their t r e a t m e n t of T r a c h o n i t i s , m i g h t suggest that b o t h rulers h a v e n o w passed from the scene. If that guess is correct, then A g r i p p a ' s latest Flavian coins ('year 3 5 ' ) should b e dated according to the era b e g i n n i n g in 5 6 , with t h e result that t h e y c o m e from t h e y e a r 9 2 / 9 3 . I n s c r i p t i o n a l e v i d e n c e from Batanea, Auranitis and Trachonitis confirms that A g r i p p a ' s reign there had e n d e d — s o presumably h e had d i e d — s o m e w h a t before 9 6 . O n the hypothesis that A g r i p p a II died in 9 2 / 9 3 , so that b o t h Antiquities and Life could h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d in 93/94 and the Against Apion in 9 5 , N e r o ' s famous secretary w h o died in 95 w o u l d b e a plausible candidate for the role of J o s e p h u s ' s senior amicus. 8 1

If h e w a s J o s e p h u s ' s Epaphroditus, his n a m e m a y h a v e b e e n r e m e m ­ bered alongside the putative j u d a i z e r s Flavius C l e m e n s , F l a v i a D o m i ­ tilla and Acilius Glabrio in part because it w a s h e w h o introduced them to J o s e p h u s ' s m a n u a l of J u d e a n culture. W e m i g h t e v e n conjecture, wildly, that this Epaphroditus d e v e l o p e d an initial interest in J u d a i s m from N e r o ' s consort and wife P o p p a e a Sabina, w h o s e o w n interest in J u d a i s m w a s widely reported. W h i l e I a m speculating, I w o u l d note the oddity that at the e n d of Antiquities/Life J o s e p h u s expresses particular gratitude to D o m i t i a n ' s wife D o m i t i a L o n g i n a (Life 4 2 9 ) . H e does not need to d o so for literary reasons; he fails to mention any of the w o m e n in V e s p a s i a n ' s or T i t u s ' s lives. T h e reference to D o m i t i a is fascinating, further, b e c a u s e of her allegedly troubled relationship with the emperor. T h i s d a u g h t e r of the famous C o r b u l o reportedly had close ties with the so-called Stoic o p ­ position to the principate, which m a y be in part w h y D o m i t i a n married h e r — t h a t is, to help m a k e peace with the republican forces. H e enticed her a w a y from her h u s b a n d , L. Aelius L a m i a , but then after m a r r y i n g her exiled her for a time. B y the 90s she w a s back in the palatium, al­ though Dio claims that she stood in terror of her life, 'ever the object of D o m i t i a n ' s h a t r e d ' (67.15.2) and that she even aided the conspirators w h o w o u l d eventually kill her h u s b a n d in 9 6 . J o n e s p r e s e n t s a g o o d case that D i o ' s characterization is largely slander, since an inscription 81. Schurer, History, III, pp. 82-83, esp. notes 47.7 and 8. The latest surviving inscription from the period of Agrippa's reign (IGR 3.1127) has the years 32 and 37—thus 92/3 CE, calculated from 61 and 56.

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further'

101

suggests that in the thirty y e a r s that D o m i t i a lived b e y o n d her h u s ­ b a n d ' s d e a t h , she w a s h a p p y to b e k n o w n as D o m i t i a n ' s wife, e v e n though h e had suffered damnatio. Nevertheless, J o s e p h u s ' s pointed ref­ e r e n c e to h e r g o o d offices is tantalizing, and it m a y b e that she w a s m o r e sympathetic to the Judean priest's efforts than her h u s b a n d w a s .

Conclusion:

Aim and Audience

of the Antiquities

W e m a y c o n c l u d e with s o m e confidence, then, that J o s e p h u s ' s a i m in Antiquities/Life is to p r o v i d e a h a n d b o o k of J u d e a n l a w , history a n d culture for a Gentile audience in R o m e that is keenly interested in J e w ­ ish matters. In spite of its ramblings and changes in style, the b o o k has a coherent and powerful m e s s a g e . It is not primarily a defensive work; it is not directed at Diaspora J e w s ; it does not target either the Y a v n e a n rabbis or the ' R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ' on their behalf; it is n o t a v a g u e ' a p o l o g e t i c for G e n t i l e s ' ; it is not e v e n simply a w o r k of theological history. J o s e p h u s has an i m m e d i a t e and serious purpose in m i n d , a need to meet, a question to answer. His audience desires a c o m p r e h e n s i v e but readable s u m m a r y of the J u d e a n constitution and p h i l o s o p h y : ori­ gins, history, laws and culture. A l t h o u g h w e cannot b e nearly so confident about this, it s e e m s plau­ sible that J o s e p h u s ' s aim w a s realized with the consul Flavius C l e m e n s and his wife Domitilla, p e r h a p s also w i t h Acilius G l a b r i o a n d N e r o ' s former secretary E p a p h r o d i t u s . Still less certain, but intriguing n o n e ­ theless, is the role of Domitia L o n g i n a in his life.

Postscript:

Aim of the Life in the Context of the Antiquities

Reinterpreting the Antiquities in this w a y also calls for a n e w account of the Life, since Josephus apparently wrote the shorter w o r k as an a p ­ pendix to the major treatise. C o m m e n t a t o r s u p o n the Life (myself in­ cluded) h a v e not usually s h o w n m u c h interest in c o n n e c t i n g the t w o w o r k s thematically, and the standard accounts of the Life—as a r e ­ s p o n s e to J u s t u s of T i b e r i a s — m a k e its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Antiquities almost accidental. Perhaps the most reflective effort to c o n n e c t the t w o c o m e s from S h a y e C o h e n , w h o argues that the Life is not primarily a r e s p o n s e to J u s t u s a n d that it p r o v i d e s the k e y to i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Antiquities w h e n it divulges J o s e p h u s ' s claim to Pharisaic allegiance (Life 12, 189): the t w o works in combination show J o s e p h u s ' s desire to

102

Understanding

Josephus

82

ally himself with Y a v n e h . Although C o h e n ' s a r g u m e n t does not work either for the Life p a s s a g e s in question or for the Antiquities, h e has clearly recognized the n e e d for explaining the Life in the context of the Antiquities. In view of m y proposals on the Antiquities, I a m obligated to d o the same. B e c a u s e I a m publishing an essay on the Life elsewhere, I offer a pre­ cis of that study here. 1.

E v i d e n c e from within the texts, from the manuscript tradition, and from early citations confirms that J o s e p h u s intended the Life as a conclusion to, so in s o m e sense a part of, the Antiq­ uities. W e n e e d an explanation of the Life that b o t h h o n o u r s this connection and also explains the evidence that it responds to Justus of T i b e r i a s ' s account of J o s e p h u s ' s role in the war.

2.

W e need to avoid at the outset s o m e false assumptions, for ex­ a m p l e : that the Life is essentially a m a i n l y defensive work; that t h e youthful c h a n g e s of a l l e g i a n c e w i t h w h i c h Justus charges J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e required earnest defence before the m u c h later a n d friendly a u d i e n c e of Antiquities (since c h a n g e of allegiance w a s an indispensable political talent in R o m a n life); that J o s e p h u s w o u l d write a n y t h i n g that might obviously incriminate h i m (so that apparently incriminating e v i d e n c e m u s t b e r e - e x a m i n e d , to see w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s ac­ tually m e a n t it as a b o a s t ) ; that J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d his tune b e t w e e n War and Life b e c a u s e of the p r o v o c a t i o n of Justus (since Josephus almost always changes his tune w h e n retelling the s a m e story, without external p r o v o c a t i o n , in a c c o r d with c o m m o n rhetorical tradition).

3.

A b a n d o n i n g t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s , w e m u s t ask t w o questions: ' W o u l d J o s e p h u s h a v e written the Life w i t h o u t the p r o v o c a ­ tion b y J u s t u s ? ' and ' D o the opening and closing sections of the Life serve merely to dress u p the response to Justus or are they m o r e integral parts of the w o r k ? '

4.

Josephus introduces the Life in Ant. 20.259-67 as a function of his rejoicing that n o o n e else w o u l d h a v e b e e n able to write the Antiquities. Therefore, the Life is first and foremost a con­ fident rehearsal of his credentials. C o n s e q u e n t l y , its sections on his blood line and education (Life 1-12) are fundamental.

82. Cohen, Galilee and Rome, p. 145

M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire

Further*

5.

In ancient rhetoric, a critical c o m p o n e n t of p r o o f (nicxic/ probatio) w a s a presentation of the s p e a k e r ' s trustworthy char­ acter (f|6oq). J o s e p h u s tells us that h e writes the Life in order to provide proof of his character (430).

6.

Proof of character w a s a d d u c e d primarily t h r o u g h o n e ' s a c ­ tions in public life, a point on which Josephus directly attacks Justus (344). T h e Life is m a i n l y about J o s e p h u s ' s public ca­ reer, the b e g i n n i n g of w h i c h is signaled b y the w o r d s nokxc^ and noXxxEvecQai in Life 12.

7.

A c c o r d i n g l y , the c o n t e n t of the Life is all a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s (alleged) high status in his o w n society, honours received from prominent R o m a n s , triumphs, virtuous exercise of power, gen­ erosity t o w a r d amici, mastery over e n e m i e s ' p l o t s — e v e n in the face of impossible o d d s — a n d above all piety.

8.

H e develops these conventional themes, h o w e v e r , in terms of the categories already established in the Antiquities: h e is a liv­ ing, breathing representative of the TCoAaxeia a n d <|>iA,oao<|>ia that h e has offered to his readers.

9.

T h e Life focuses on J o s e p h u s ' s career in Galilee n o t b e c a u s e h e is responding to Justus but because that w a s the only period in w h i c h h e could d e m o n s t r a t e his military p r o w e s s , social standing and high h o n o u r within J u d e a n culture. Before that, h e w a s not c o n s p i c u o u s in J u d e a n society: h e w a s not of the chief-priestly circles and not e v e n a R o m a n citizen. After the G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d h e w a s a prisoner r e d u c e d to i g n o m i n y and, a l t h o u g h h e m a k e s the m o s t of his s u b s e q u e n t R o m a n honours, they w e r e rather meagre. So his claim to b e s o m e o n e special within the culture so elaborately d e s c r i b e d in Antiq­ uities depended upon on his birth, education, and a b o v e all his public military career—the very things described in the Life.

10.

R a t h e r than responding defensively to J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t of the war, Josephus uses it to provide him with additional material. H e turns to Justus only after his main presentation, and then in order to m a k e fun of h i m , to ridicule his attempts to m i s l e a d the p e o p l e t h r o u g h m e r e oratory. J u s t u s p r o v i d e d J o s e p h u s with further opportunity to boast about his character: to s h o w his virtue, the treachery of his o p p o n e n t s , and a b o v e all his preservation by G o d from very serious d a n g e r o n a c c o u n t of his virtue.

T H E INVISIBLE PRESENCE: JOSEPHUS'S RETELLING OF R U T H

G r e g o r y E . Sterling

T h e practice of rewriting texts a n d offering the retelling as a n a u t h o ­ rial c o m p o s i t i o n w a s c o m m o n in antiquity. Historians of e v e n t s situ­ ated in t h e distant p a s t often m a d e a v i r t u e out of a n e c e s s i t y b y rewriting existing literary sources. O n e n e e d only think of D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s ' s PipA,io9f|KTi or L i v y ' s ab urbe condita libri to recall famous e x a m p l e s of authors w h o s e d e p e n d e n c e o n their p r e d e c e s s o r s is un­ a m b i g u o u s and uncontested. Pliny the Y o u n g e r e x p r e s s e d the thought 1

succinctly w h e n h e a s k e d Titinius Capito to select the t i m e period for his history: Ts it ancient history w h i c h has already b e e n written b y others? M y investigation is prepared, but collecting [it] is o n e r o u s . ' T h e r e w e r e , h o w e v e r , limits to the extent of the b o r r o w i n g , especially if the sources r e m a i n e d a n o n y m o u s , w h i c h they g e n e r a l l y d i d unless 2

the a u t h o r attacked his or her p r e d e c e s s o r . A n c i e n t s d e v e l o p e d this sensitivity in conjunction with their c o m m e n d a t i o n of ni|j,r|ci<; as a rhetorical a n d literary s t r a t e g y . Imitations of a past a u t h o r ' s style or 3

spirit w a s acceptable; slavish reproductions w e r e o p e n to the c h a r g e of KXOTCTI, that is p l a g i a r i s m . S o , for e x a m p l e , P o r p h y r y p r e s e r v e s a 4

1.

There has been a shift in the general assessment of Diodorus from a mere

collector to an author. See K. Sacks, Diodorus

Siculus

and the First

Century

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). For a consensus statement about Livy see P.G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical

Aims and Methods

(Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1961), esp. pp. 110-90. 2.

Pliny the Younger, Ep. 5.8.12. All translations are my own. I have used the

Loeb Classical Library editions for classical authors unless otherwise noted. 3.

For commendations of alginate, see Isocrates, Paneg.

Halicarnassus, On Imitation;

7 - 1 0 ; Dionysius of

Pseudo-Longinus, Subl. 13.1-14.3; and Quintilian

10.1-2. 4.

See the distinction drawn between uiuiiai<; and

e.g., Pseudo-Longinus, Subl. 13.1-14.3, esp. 13.4.

KXOKT\

in ancient discussions,

STERLING The Invisible

105

Presence

5

tradition that L y s i m a c h u s w r o t e a t w o treatise e x p o s e of E p h o r u s . Secondary versions therefore should b e creative. Eastern peoples also rewrote texts although not always for the s a m e reasons as their counterparts in the W e s t . F o l l o w i n g the c o n q u e s t s of A l e x a n d e r the Great, s o m e E a s t e r n e r s b e g a n r e w r i t i n g their sacred texts as a m e a n s of c o u n t e r i n g Hellenistic m i s p e r c e p t i o n s t h r o u g h alternative self-definitions. T h e s e apologetic historians w r o t e their his­ tories u n d e r the fiction of 'translations.' While they did r e n d e r cunei­ form, hieroglyphic, and other eastern texts into Greek, they also recast the literary forms in Hellenistic m o l d s . In S e c o n d T e m p l e J u d a i s m a different literary tradition of r e w r i t i n g I s r a e l ' s sacred story d e v e l ­ oped, w h i c h w e k n o w t o d a y as rewritten scripture. In this tradition there is n o fiction of translation nor is there a n y effort to hellenize Semitic texts. Rather, the aim of these w o r k s w a s to restate the biblical text in t e r m s that w e r e acceptable to the particular audience addressed. T h e b e s t e x a m p l e s i n c l u d e Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon and P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities? 6

T h e s e traditions converge in the Jewish Antiquities of J o s e p h u s . T h e Jewish historian stands in the historiographical tradition of his apolo­ getic counterparts b y offering his retelling as a t r a n s l a t i o n . H e also 8

5. Handed down to us in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10.3.12, where an entire catalogue of offenders is given. 6. E.g., Berossos (FGrH 680 F 1; cf. also TT 3 and 4) and Manethon (FGrH 609 T 7a = Josephus, Apion. 1.73); and Philo of Byblos (FGrH 790 T 3 and F 1). I have used the edition of F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (3 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1923-69) which I have abbreviated FGrH. On the deve­ lopment of this historiographical tradition see G.E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup, 64; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), esp. pp. 104-36. 7. On rewritten scripture see G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2nd edn, 1978); G.W.E. Nickelsburg, T h e Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 89-156; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; rev. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) , III, pp. 308-41. I have intentionally used the phrase rewritten scripture rather than midrash. 8. Josephus claims that he is translating from Hebrew (Ant. 1.5; 10.218; Apion. 1.1).

Understanding

106

Josephus

k n o w s Hellenistic c o n v e n t i o n s a n d t h e J e w i s h l i t e r a r y p r a c t i c e of rewriting s c r i p t u r e . Recent research has explored Josephus's own t e c h n i q u e a n d a g e n d a s as h e appropriated these p r a c t i c e s in several w a y s . L o u i s F e l d m a n has capitalized on the b i o g r a p h i c a l orientation of J o s e p h u s ' s m a g n u m o p u s b y writing a large n u m b e r of articles exploring individual characters in the Antiquities? Harold Attridge 9

0

9. For details see Sterling, Historiography and Self-definition, pp. 226-310, esp. pp. 257-58, 284-90. 10. L. Feldman, Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus', TAP A 99 (1968), pp. 143-56; idem, 'Hellenizations in Josephus' Account of Man's Decline', in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 336-53; idem, 'Hellenizations in Jose­ phus' Version of Esther', TAPA 101 (1970), pp. 143-70; idem, 'Josephus as an Apologist to the Graeco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon', in E. Schiissler Fiorenza (ed.), Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1976), pp. 69-98; idem, 'Josephus' Com­ mentary on Genesis', JQR 7 2 (1981-82), pp. 121-31; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Saul', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 45-99; idem, 'Josephus' Version of the Binding of Isaac', in Kent Harold Richards (ed.), SBLSP 21 (1982), pp. 113-28; idem, 'Abra­ ham the General in Josephus', in F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert and B.L. Mack (eds.), Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 43-49; idem, 'Josephus as a Bib­ lical Interpreter: The 'Aqedah', JQR 75 (1984-85), pp. 212-52; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Deborah', in A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), pp. 11528; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Noah and its Parallels in Philo, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim', PAAJR 55 (1988), pp. 31-57; idem, 'Josephus' Version of Samson', JSJ 19 (1989), pp. 171-214; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Jacob', JQR 79 ( 1 9 8 8 - 8 9 ) , pp. 101-51; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of David', HUCA 60 (1989), pp. 129-74; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joshua', HTR 82 (1989), pp. 351-76; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses', JQR 82 ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) , pp. 285-328; 83 (1992-93), pp. 7-50, 301-30; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Ahab', £ 7 L 6 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , p p . 368-84; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Daniel', Henoch 14 (1992), pp. 37-96; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Hezekiah', JBL 111 (1992), pp. 597-610; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joseph', RB 99 (1992), pp. 379-417, 504-28; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah', JJS 43 (1992), pp. 187-202; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Balaam', SPhA 5 (1993), pp. 48-83; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Ezra', VT 43 (1993), pp. 190-214; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Gedaliah', Shofar 12 (1993), pp. 1-10; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Gideon', REJ 152 (1993), pp. 5-28; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Isaac', RSLR 29 (1993), pp. 3-33; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Jehoshaphat', SCI 12 (1993), pp. 159-75; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Jereboam', AUSS 31 (1993), pp. 29-51; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joab', EB 51 (1993), pp. 323-51; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Josiah', LS 18 (1993), pp. 110-30; 4

STERLING The Invisible

107

Presence

d e m o n s t r a t e d the c o n t r o l l i n g h e r m e n e u t i c of p r o v i d e n c e .

11

Others have

w o r k e d o n m u c h smaller t h e m e s , for e x a m p l e , B e t s y H a l p e r n A m a r u ' s w e l l k n o w n article on t h e l a n d . texts.

1 2

Still o t h e r s h a v e s e l e c t e d d i s c r e t e

13

In this article I will follow the last m e n t i o n e d strategy b y a n a l y s i n g a specific text, t h e r e t e l l i n g of R u t h in Ant.

5.318-37. I want to

a d v a n c e the d i s c u s s i o n b y a d d r e s s i n g three issues. First, I will e x p l o r e the t e c h n i q u e s a n d rationales for J o s e p h u s ' s ' r e w r i t t e n ' edition of R u t h b y m e a n s of a t h o r o u g h r e d a c t i o n critical a n a l y s i s . In c o n t r a s t to p r e ­ v i o u s e x p o s i t i o n s of J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n of R u t h , w h i c h h a v e f o c u s e d on his l a r g e r a g e n d a , I will p r o v i d e a s y s t e m a t i c a n a l y s i s of b o t h his t e c h n i q u e and his a g e n d a .

14

In order to a c c o m p l i s h this, I h a v e w o r k e d

t h r o u g h h i s v e r s i o n in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the p r e s e n t a t i o n of R u t h in a b

a

b

B

MT, DSS ( = 4 Q R u t h ; 2QRuth « ), L X X , and the Aramaic Targum (see the a p p e n d i x ) . T h i s format p e r m i t s u s to see h o w s e v e r a l a n c i e n t

idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Korah', OTE 6 (1993), pp. 399-426; idem, 'Josephus' Portraits of the Pharaohs', SC 4 (1993), pp. 49-63; idem, 'II ritratto di Assalonne in Giuseppe Flavio', RivB 41 (1993), pp. 3-30; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Ahasuerus', ABR 4 2 (1994), pp. 17-39; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Jehoram, King of Israel', NovT 36 (1994), pp. 1-28; idem, 'Josephus' Portrait of Rehoboam', SPhA 9 (1997), pp. 264-86. 11. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). 12. B.H. Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities,' JQR 71 (1980), pp. 201-29. 13. There are two monographs which have dealt with a biblical text: T.W. Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus (BibOr, 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979) and C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8, 212-420): Rewriting the Bible (BETL, 108; Leuven: Leuven University/Peeters, 1993). For a non-biblical text see A. Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee (Etudes et commentaires, 45; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962). Other major relevant works include: H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archdologie (Leipzig, 1879); S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: Kohut, 1930). 14. There are several previous unpublished and published studies on Josephus's retelling of Ruth: G.E. Sterling, 'The Retelling of Ruth in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Josephus', paper read at the Pacific Coast Section of the Society of Biblical Literature (1986); M. Bernstein, 'Josephus as Biblical Exegete: The Ruth Narrative' (quod non vidi); J.R. Levison, 'Josephus' Version of Ruth', JSP 8 (1991), pp. 3 1 44; and L.H. Feldman, 'Reflections on John R. Levison's "Josephus's Version of Ruth'", JSP 8 (1991), pp. 45-52.

Understanding

108

Josephus

authors told the s a m e story. T h e value of this a p p r o a c h is that c o m ­ m o n c o n c e r n s a m o n g the texts often illuminate J o s e p h u s ' s retelling. M y s e c o n d p u r p o s e is directly related. W h a t can w e learn a b o u t the care with w h i c h J o s e p h u s read a n d h a n d l e d the biblical text? W a s he h a p h a z a r d or did h e carefully read the text and offer a consistent and reflective interpretation? This in turn leads to m y third concern. If w e d i s c o v e r that J o s e p h u s h a s carefully s h a p e d his story, w e o u g h t to consider his reading of Ruth as a viable reading of the text. Reception history or Wirkungsgeschichte has taught us to v i e w later interpreta­ tions as d i a l o g u e p a r t n e r s in o u r efforts to u n d e r s t a n d the original t e x t . A l t h o u g h it might s e e m implausible at first b l u s h to take Jose­ p h u s ' s interpretation so seriously, I will argue that h e offers a careful and e v e n profound understanding of R u t h . 15

16

T h e r e are a c o u p l e of introductory matters that I n e e d to a d d r e s s . First, a redaction critical approach requires us to ask about J o s e p h u s ' s Vorlage(n) or the ' p r i m a r y v e r s i o n ' as I will call it. Unfortunately, it has p r o v e n problematic to c o m e to a firm resolution w h e t h e r his pri­ m a r y v e r s i o n w a s in H e b r e w , G r e e k , A r a m a i c or a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e s e . Several factors c o m p l i c a t e the process: the creative nature of J o s e p h u s ' s 'secondary version' often m a k e s it impossible to k n o w if he read a different text or s i m p l y recast i t ; t h e text r e p r e s e n t e d b y 17

18

15. I have formed my views of this hermeneutic through one of its initial applica­ tions to New Testament studies: U. Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Min­ neapolis: Augsburg, 1989 [German 1985]) esp., pp. 95-99. 16. For recent work on Ruth see M. M. Caspi, The Book of Ruth: An Annotated Bibliography (Books of the Bible, 7; London: Garland, 1994). 17. Years ago H. St John Thackeray concluded: T h e broad result revealed by a careful study of his use of Scripture is that he employed at least two texts, one in a Semitic language, the other in Greek. Sometimes one was used almost to the exclu­ sion of the other; sometimes both were consulted and amalgamated' (Josephus: The Man and the Historian [intro. S. Sandmel; New York: Ktav, 1967 [1929], p. 81. More specifically, he suggested that Josephus primarily used a Semitic text for the Pentateuch, a Semitic text for Joshua, Judges and Ruth (with a targum for Judges), and a Greek text of the Lucianic type from 1 Sam. on (pp. 81-83). For a more recent assessment see L.H. Feldman, 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus', in M. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 456-60 and 462, where he suggests Josephus may have known a targum for Ruth. 18. E.g. Josephus in common with LXX and the Syriac omit the numeral 'two' B

STERLING The Invisible MT, D S S a n d L X X

B

Presence

109

is relatively u n i f o r m ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g the

Hebrew text-types and Greek manuscript tradition are complex; points.

2 0

1 9

extremely

a n d J o s e p h u s a g r e e s with all three t r a d i t i o n s at different

W i t h o u t a t h o r o u g h analysis of all of the major textual tradi­

t i o n s — a task that lies b e y o n d the scope of this a r t i c l e — I h a v e found it i m p o s s i b l e to m a k e a firm c a s e for a specific t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n . M y w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n is that J o s e p h u s k n e w both a H e b r e w a n d a G r e e k in the phrase 'two sons' in Ruth 1. l//§318. Is this due to a variant reading or did he drop it in favor of his added xovq e £ avtriq aincp yeyevriij.evo'uq? 19. The central issue is whether there was a fawge-Theodotion revision including Ruth which was translated in Palestine (D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila: Premiere publication integrate du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton [VTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963]) or whether we should look for evidence of a proto-Lucianic form of the text (F.M. Cross, T h e History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert', HTR 54 [1964], pp. 281-99; reprinted in F.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1975], pp. 177-95; E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus [HSM, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978]). There is some evidence for a proto-Lucianic text here, but it is too minimal to make a convinc­ ing case. Two examples will illustrate some of the difficulties. First, the name Boaz is Booq in B and is represented in MSS of all groups except the Lucianic where it in common with other LXX MSS, the Old Latin, and Theodotion, reads Boo£ which is closer to, but not identical with, Josephus's Boc6£r|<; or Bod£oq. The difficulty of the case is further compounded by the fact that the form in Josephus MSS vary. Secondly, B adds Kai ((xxyexai to Boaz's instructions to leave some of the pulled grain stalks out for Ruth (2:16). Three minor Lucianic MSS follow suit. Josephus takes this section 2.15-16 and moves it up so that instead of Boaz first feeding Ruth and then issuing these instructions to his harvesters, he simply orders his steward to carry out both: a point which could spring from the reading of LXX and the three Lucianic witnesses, but does not require them. On the whole issue of the protoLucianic and Lucianic text see the critique of E. Tov, 'Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Towards a N e w Solution of the Problem', RB 7 9 (1972), pp. 101-13 and his sum­ mary in T h e Septuagint', in M. Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 186-87. For a helpful overview of the question sympathetic to Cross see E.F. Campbell, Jr, Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), pp. 36-41. B

2 0 . There are several places where Josephus concurs with MT: envvQavexo (1.6//§ 320, nun® vs. fiKOwav [except for 56 and 129]) and Mapdv (1.20//§323, fcOQ vs. IliKpdv). On the other hand, the spelling of 'Api|ieA,£%o<; in Josephus is closer to the LXX ('A|3ei^e^e%) than MT ("j^Q^K). Josephus also follows the same order of books as is common in the LXX but not in MT. This, however, is not con­ clusive since Josephus and the LXX could have both independently situated Ruth after Judges to group the writings traditionally ascribed to Samuel (cf. B.B. 14b) or to preserve a chronological scheme.

Understanding

110

Josephus

edition of R u t h as w e l l as earlier interpretations of t h e text. I will therefore w e i g h J o s e p h u s against the c o m b i n e d t e s t i m o n y of M T , DSS and L X X a n d a s s u m e that h e k n o w s s o m e earlier retellings of Ruth w h e t h e r they w e r e written or oral. T h e fact that t h e s e w i t n e s s e s in­ c l u d i n g the e v i d e n c e from Q u m r a n are in such a g r e e m e n t s u g g e s t s that the majority of the c h a n g e s in J o s e p h u s are editorial and not the result of a variant textual b a s e . I will m e a s u r e his editorial w o r k by the p r e s e n c e of t e c h n i q u e s and patterns that a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t the Antiquities. B

S e c o n d l y , I h a v e elected to structure m y analysis in t e r m s of m o d ­ ifications r a t h e r t h a n f o l l o w i n g t h e n a r r a t i v e s e q u e n c e . T h e r e are several r e a s o n s for this: it is a m o r e e c o n o m i c a l m o d e of d i s c o u r s e and m a k e s it easier to consider m e t h o d o l o g y . This is not to say that such a d e c i s i o n is free from difficulties: the c a t e g o r i e s ( o m i s s i o n s , alterations and expansions/additions) are s o m e t i m e s difficult to distin­ guish. Yet, it d o e s permit us to c o m p a r e features of the text systemati­ cally, an essential step since w e d o not k n o w the specific p r i m a r y ver­ sion. I h a v e occasionally b l e n d e d categories to a v o i d r e d u n d a n c i e s . With these stipulations in mind, w e are n o w ready to e x a m i n e the his­ t o r i a n ' s version.

Omissions T h e first i m p r e s s i o n left b y a c o m p a r i s o n of J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n of Ruth with its possible sources is the brevity of the h i s t o r i a n ' s account. A c c o r d i n g to F e l d m a n there are 1296 w o r d s in M T , 2 1 4 7 in the L X X , but only 7 7 6 in J o s e p h u s . T h e t a r g u m is fuller than any of the oth­ ers. H o w and w h y does the historian abbreviate his version? T h e r e are five different types of material that J o s e p h u s omits or reduces: redun­ dant or nonessential material, textual difficulties, direct speech, refer­ ences to G o d and the genealogical appendix. 21

Editorial Compressions of Redundant or Nonessential Material T h e first category that e m e r g e s is fully predictable. S e c o n d a r y authors regularly abbreviate their sources b y r e m o v i n g d u p l i c a t e m a t e r i a l .

22

2 1 . Feldman, 'Reflections on John R. Levison's "Josephus's Version of Ruth'", p. 47. 2 2 . Cf. the Lucan redaction of Mark. For a summary of this material see J.A.

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

111

So, for e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s gives us the n a m e s of the family m e m b e r s as h e i n t r o d u c e s us to t h e m , rather than introducing u s to t h e m and then telling us their n a m e s as w e find in the biblical text ( 1 . l - 2 / / § 3 1 8 ) . This not only allows h i m to e c o n o m i z e , but to utilize g o o d hypotactic G r e e k syntax. In a similar m o v e , h e eliminates the e x p l a n a t o r y s u m ­ m a r y of t h e levirate law since it is r e p l i c a t e d b y n a r r a t i v e a c t i o n (4.7//§§334-35). Other material apparently struck J o s e p h u s as nonessential. S o m e of these instances are straightforward, others are surprising. S o , for e x ­ a m p l e , the fact that h e does not tell us that R u t h got u p to gather the harvest after lunch is not particularly striking ( 2 . 1 5 / / § 3 2 6 ) . O n the other hand, his decision to elide a n u m b e r of actions expressing strong emotions is s o m e w h a t surprising given his p e n c h a n t for dramatization. H e omits the kissing and w e e p i n g of N a o m i and h e r daughters-in-law w h e n they are about to part c o m p a n y ( 1 . 9 / / § § 3 2 1 - 2 2 ; cf. also 1.14// § 3 2 2 ) a n d t h e d i s t u r b a n c e of the city c r e a t e d b y N a o m i ' s r e t u r n (1.19//§323). 23

Textual Difficulties A n o t h e r rather c o m m o n practice in retellings is the o m i s s i o n of p r o b ­ lematic s t a t e m e n t s . In s o m e c a s e s , the s e c o n d a r y author m a y find a reference o b s c u r e . F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s does n o t tell us t h e family w e r e ' E p h r a t h i t e s ' (D nnSK//E<|>paeaioi [1.2//§318]). W h i l e the histo­ rian m a y h a v e c o n s i d e r e d this otiose, I a m inclined to t h i n k that h e h a d trouble with it j u s t as the t a r g u m did. ,

A s e c o n d type of difficulty consists of elements that u n d e r m i n e the orientation of the secondary author. O n e of the best e x a m p l e s of this is J o s e p h u s ' s concern to eliminate any suggestion of m o r a l i m p r o p r i ­ ety. A striking illustration o c c u r s in J o s e p h u s ' s o m i s s i o n of 3.7 in §329. T h e r e m o v a l of this section of text solves several difficulties. First, it helps r e m o v e the suggestion that anything took p l a c e at night (see b e l o w ) . B o a z is n o w sound asleep w h e n R u t h arrives, apparently

Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; AB, 28-28a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85), I, pp. 93-94. 2 3 . He also drops Boaz's reaction when he discovers Ruth beside him at the threshing floor (3.9//§329). This, however, is due to his reworking of the entire scene.

Understanding

112

Josephus

exhausted from a hard d a y ' s labor. Secondly, there is n o hint of intox­ ication as in M T : ' a n d h e drank and his heart w a s m e r r y ' nttTl "Q ?). T h e p r o b l e m a t i c nature of the phrase is evident b y the consis­ tent c o n c e r n to mitigate the tantalizing suggestiveness of the primary version. L X X a n d the p r o t o - L u c i a n i c M S S o m i t ' a n d h e d r a n k ' . T h e Syro-Hexapla m a r k s it with an asterisk. Yet the phrase m u s t h a v e been part of the k n o w n text, since 2 Q R u t h and the t a r g u m maintain it, al­ t h o u g h the latter interprets ' a n d his heart w a s m e r r y ' to refer to say­ ing grace after a m e a l ! This evidence suggests that later J e w i s h read­ ers w e r e troubled b y the a m b i g u o u s possibilities latent in the text. A s o m e w h a t m o r e a m b i g u o u s e x a m p l e occurs later w h e n the historian c h o o s e s not to include the b o w i n g of Ruth before B o a z (2.10//§§32425). P e r h a p s , like s o m e early Christians, h e considered such an act to b e an affront to G o d . 4

24

B

a

25

2 6

Speeches W i t h o u t any d o u b t , the m o s t effective tool J o s e p h u s w i e l d e d in his c o n d e n s a t i o n of the biblical narrative w a s the r e m o v a l of t h e direct s p e e c h that d o m i n a t e s the p r i m a r y version. T h e r e are only three or possibly four e x a m p l e s of oratio recta in J o s e p h u s versus 4 5 in 19 c o n v e r s a t i o n s in the M T . T h e chart illustrates w h a t J o s e p h u s does with the biblical speeches. I h a v e used the following sigla: D D = direct discourse; I D = direct speech collapsed into indirect discourse; N = di­ rect speech o m i t t e d b u t implied in the narrative; O = omitted; and a line indicates the termination of a conversation. 2 7

24. The phrase certainly leaves the question of intoxication open. See Campbell, Ruth, pp. 121-22; J.M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Com­ mentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (JHNES; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), p. 73. 25. Note the fine comments by E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth (AnBib, 58; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973), p. 88. 26. It appears to have been considered such by New Testament writers, e.g., Acts 10.25; Rev. 19.10; 22.8-9. 27. §323 contains a textual problem and may not be direct speech. Feldman, 'Reflections on John R. Levison's "Josephus's Version of Ruth"', p. 45, offers the following word counts: 753 of the 1296 words in MT are in direct speech; while only 72 of the 776 in Josephus are in oratio recta.

STERLING The Invisible

113

Presence

Antiquities 5

Redaction

Biblical Text

Participants

1.8-9 1.10 1.11-13 1.15 1.16-17

Naomi to daughters-in-law Daughters-in law to Naomi Naomi to daughters-in-law Naomi to Ruth Ruth to Naomi

321 321 322

N N N O O

1.19 1.20-21

Townswomen to Naomi Naomi to townswomen

323 323

N DD

2.2 2.2

Ruth to Naomi Naomi to Ruth

324 324

N N

2.4 2.4

Boaz to young men Young men to Boaz

2.5 2.6-7

Boaz to steward Steward to Boaz

2.8-9 2.10 2.11-12 2.13

Boaz to Ruth Ruth to Boaz Boaz to Ruth Ruth to Boaz

O O 324 324

325

N N O O N O

2.14

Boaz to Ruth

325

ID

2.15-16

Boaz to young men

325

N

2.19 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22

Naomi to Ruth Ruth to Naomi Naomi to Ruth Ruth to Naomi Naomi to Ruth

3.1-4 3.5

Naomi to Ruth Ruth to Naomi

328 329

N N

3.9 3.9 3.10-13

Boaz to Ruth Ruth to Boaz Boaz to Ruth

329 330 331

ID N IX)

3.14 3.15

Boaz to Ruth Boaz to Ruth

330 330

ID ID

3.16 3.17 3.18

Naomi to Ruth Ruth to Naomi Naomi to Ruth

332

O N O

4.1

Boaz to redeemer

332

N

4.2

Boaz to elders

332

N

4.3-4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8

Boaz to redeemer Redeemer to Boaz Boaz to redeemer Redeemer to Boaz Redeemer to Boaz

333 333 333 334 334

IX) N ED N ID

326 327

O N N O O

Understanding

114

Josephus

4.9-10 4.11-12

Boaz to elders and people People and elders to Boaz

335

N O

4.14-15

Women to Naomi

336

ID

4.17

Women name Obed

336

ID

Of the 4 5 e x a m p l e s in MT, Josephus has eliminated 21 (47%) b y drop­ ping t h e s p e e c h a n d referring to it in s o m e w a y in the n a r r a t i v e . Thirteen ( 2 9 % ) h a v e entirely vanished, while seven ( 1 5 % ) h a v e been r e d u c e d to indirect s p e e c h . O n l y four (9%) are a l l o w e d to r e m a i n in direct speech. 28

T h e fact that J o s e p h u s ' s sophisticated G r e e k version contains m o r e oratio obliqua and less oratio recta than the S e m i t i c texts a n d the rather literal L X X is hardly surprising. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , m o r e than stylistic preference at stake. J o s e p h u s consistently r e m o v e s c o n v e r ­ sations that raise m o r a l issues. F o r e x a m p l e , h e q u i e t l y d r o p s the possibility of s o m e o n e a b u s i n g R u t h as she w o r k s . S o h e e x c l u d e s B o a z ' s speech to Ruth, w h i c h includes his c h a r g e to his y o u n g m e n ' n o t to t o u c h ' h e r ( 2 . 8 - 9 / / § § 3 2 4 - 2 5 ) . A g a i n , h e tactfully sidesteps N a o m i ' s w a r n i n g to R u t h a b o u t b e i n g a c c o s t e d in a n o t h e r field ( 2 . 2 2 / / § 3 2 7 ) . His anxieties about sexual improprieties are transpar­ ent as well. H e refuses to touch R u t h ' s request to B o a z at the threshing floor: ' a n d cast y o u r w i n g over your servant' (3.9//§330). T h e t a r g u m is also sensitive about this request; it replaces the phrase with 'let your n a m e b e called over y o u r m a i d s e r v a n t by taking m e to w i f e ' . A n en­ tirely different matter is at stake w h e n J o s e p h u s e x c l u d e s R u t h ' s re­ quest that B o a z consider her as o n e of his h a n d m a i d s ; p r e s u m a b l y he wants to exalt R u t h (2.13//§325). B

29

30

T h e r e are thus reasons for eliminating s o m e speech. W e must, h o w e v e r , ask w h y Josephus the direct speech. T h e only character w h o s e stand in direct speech at any length is B o a z

of the material in direct eliminated almost all of w o r d s are p e r m i t t e d to (§§331 and 333). This

28. There are only two examples of oratio obliqua in MT (2.19 and 3.16). In two other cases there is the implication of indirect speech within direct speech (2.11; 4.4). 29. This could have sexual overtones if he is working with a Greek text since d y o u m can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse (e.g., 1 Cor. 7.1) as well as to touch in the sense of to harm. 30. Note Levine's explanation of the targum which interprets the field to be Israel (Ruth, p. 85).

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

115

m e a n s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s effectively m u t e d N a o m i a n d R u t h .

3 1

Amaru

h a s p o i n t e d o u t that J o s e p h u s presents w o m e n in stereotypical patterns. In t h e c a s e of N a o m i a n d R u t h , h e h a s cast t h e m i n t o w h a t she c o n ­ siders R e b e k a h t y p o l o g y , that is a strong w o m a n w h o s e a s s e r t i v e n e s s must be limited.

32

T h i s is fully in k e e p i n g with t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s g e n e r a l

a s s e s s m e n t of w o m e n .

The Names

of

3 3

God

T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o m i s s i o n from a t h e o l o g i c a l s t a n d p o i n t is J o s e ­ p h u s ' s c o m p l e t e r e m o v a l of r e f e r e n c e s to G o d w i t h i n t h e story p r o p ­ er. In M T t h e following n a m e s are u s e d for the D e i t y : mr? DVTttt "IQi

3 4

Yahweh

1.6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 21 (twice); 2:4 (twice), 12 (twice),

Elohim Shaddai

20; 3.11, 13; 4.11, 12, 13, 14 (18 times) 1.15, 16; 2.12 (3 times) 1.20, 21 (2 times)

A s w e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e L X X t r a n s l a t e s IT)IT b y K i i p i o q , DTn^K b y Geoq, a n d Httf b y I k c c v o c ; . T h e o n l y d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e to G o d in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s v e r s i o n is in his editorial postscript w h e r e Qeoq a p p e a r s ( § 3 3 7 ) . T h i s is all t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e t e n d e n c y to increase references to G o d in L X X

B

a n d the t a r g u m .

3 5

3 1 . Naomi does have one example of direct discourse, but this is to ask the women to recognize her as cursed by God (1.20-21//§323). 32. B. Halpern Amaru, 'Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus* Antiquities', JJS 38-39 (1987-88), pp. 163-64, as well as p. 151 (where she points out the limi­ tations imposed on Sarah and Rachel) and p. 154 (where villainesses are permitted direct speech). I should point out that Naomi's character is not as subdued as Ruth's in Josephus. She can still scheme (3.1, 4//§328). 33. E.g., Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Deborah', pp. 116-20. On Josephus's assessment of women see B. Mayer-Schartel, Das Frauenbild des Josephus: Eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995). 34. These statistics are based on G. Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum hebrdischen Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981). For an analysis of ref­ erences to God in Ruth see R.M. Hals, The Theology of Ruth (Facet Books: Biblical Series, 23; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969). 35. L X X adds two references to Kvpioc,: 3.10 adds TOO Kvpico (some minor Lucianic MSS add GOV) and 3.13 has an additional cm e i Ktipioq which may be due to a error of hearing since cru ex sounds like the preceding For a summary of the data from the targum see Levine, Ruth, pp. 10-12. B

Understanding

116

Josephus

W h y does J o s e p h u s m o v e in the opposite direction? It is possible to isolate s o m e specific r e a s o n s for a n u m b e r of references. F o r e x a m ­ ple, s o m e a p p e a r to b e u n n e c e s s a r y : 2.4 (a d i s p o s e d s p e e c h ) , 2.20; 4 . 1 4 (ascriptions of p r a i s e ) , 3.10 (status before G o d ) , a n d 3.13 (an oath f o r m u l a ) . In other cases there are potential p r o b l e m s : N a o m i ' s request that G o d r e w a r d t w o n o n - J e w e s s e s (1.8-9), h e r a b r a s i v e c o m ­ plaints against G o d ( 1 . 1 3 , 2 0 - 2 1 ) , a n d the implication that other gods m i g h t exist (1.15). O n a m u c h larger scale, J o s e p h u s d r o p s the p r o s e ­ lyte m o t i f that the t a r g u m is so a n x i o u s to exploit, ( 1 . 1 6 , 17; 2.12). T h i s m a k e s perfectly g o o d s e n s e g i v e n the a p o l o g e t i c n a t u r e of t h e w o r k , w h i c h is d e s i g n e d to deflect p a g a n criticism r a t h e r t h a n fuel it.

36

Y e t t h e s e r e a s o n s d o not suffice to e x p l a i n the w h o l e s a l e a b r o ­

g a t i o n of references to the Deity within the story proper. It d o e s not a p p e a r to b e a scruple a b o u t u s i n g G o d ' s n a m e s i n c e h e offers n o p e r i p h r a s t i c c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s as s u b s t i t u t e s .

37

R a t h e r , it a p p e a r s to

reflect a v i e w of history that G o d controls, but that h a s b e e n relieved of t o o m u c h or t o o s p e c t a c u l a r d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n ( 1 . 6 ; 4 . 1 1 , 12, 13).

38

This is a pattern in J o s e p h u s .

39

36. So also Feldman, 'Reflections on John R. Levison's "Josephus's Version of Ruth'", pp. 49-52. Greek and Roman authors commented on the spread of Judaism fairly frequently and often with disgust, e.g., Horace, Sat. 1.4.139-43 (= GLAJJ 127); Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 1.3.3 (= GLAJJ 147); Seneca, De superstitione in Augustine, CD 6.11 (= GLAJJ 186); Epictetus in Arrian, Epict. Diss. 2.9.19-21 (= GLAJJ 254); Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2-3 (= GLAJJ 281); Juvenal, Sat. 14.96-106 (= GLAJJ 301); Cassius Dio 37.17.1 (= GLAJJ 406); 57.18.5a (= GLAJJ 419); 67.14.2 (= GLAJJ 435); S.H.A., Sev. 17.1 (= GLAJJ 515); Car. 1.6 (= GLAJJ 517). All references are from M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1974-84) which I have abbreviated to GLAJJ. 37. For an analysis of Jewish practice see G.F. Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era (The Age of the Tannaim) (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), I, pp. 423-42. 38. Josephus also employs a disclaimer of sorts on occasion as did Dionysius of Halicarnassus, e.g., Kpivexco 8e coc, SKaoxoq xcov (XKOVOVTCGV PoMexai (Ant. 1.48). 39. See L.H. Feldman, 'Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther', pp. 16870; idem, 'Josephus' Version of Samson', pp. 204-10; and idem, 'Reflections on John R. Levison's "Josephus's Version of Ruth'", pp. 47-49.

STERLING The Invisible The Genealogical

Presence

117

Appendix

T h e final elision r e m o v e s the concluding c o l o p h o n . J o s e p h u s does not exclude it because h e is o p p o s e d to genealogies, since h e includes t h e m w h e n they suit his p u r p o s e s .

40

T h i s genealogy apparently d i d not or he

m a y h a v e c o n s i d e r e d it u n n e c e s s a r y . O n the other hand, t h e a p p e n d i x functions as an interpretative frame for the original story. Since J o s e ­ p h u s h a s a different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the story, I s u g g e s t that h e d r o p p e d it b e c a u s e it ran counter to his o w n reading of R u t h .

Alterations Alterations are the detectable shifts in the story as it m o v e s from the p r i m a r y v e r s i o n to the s e c o n d a r y version. T h e r e are at least four sig­ nificant alterations in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling of R u t h : stylistic i m p r o v e ­ m e n t s , c h a n g e s in sequence, changes in actor and c h a n g e s in actions. Stylistic

Improvements

T h e m o s t o b v i o u s alteration is J o s e p h u s ' s polished p a r a p h r a s e , w h i c h recasts the Semitic story in vocabulary and syntax m o r e appropriate to a Hellenistic a u d i e n c e . W e c a n see this easily b y a few c o m p a r i o n s B

with the quite acceptable Greek of L X X . S o , for e x a m p l e , L X X

B

never

uses a genitive absolute, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the construction 17 times.

41

While LXX

B

d o e s n o t e x p r e s s p u r p o s e b y m e a n s of a future

participal, J o s e p h u s d o e s so five t i m e s . LXX

B

4 2

E v e n in t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e

a p p r o a c h e s Atticistic s t a n d a r d s , the difference is a p p a r e n t . F o r B

e x a m p l e , L X X uses the optative six times, yet they are all optatives of wish.

4 3

J o s e p h u s also uses it six t i m e s , but in four different w a y s .

4 4

40. E.g., Am. 1.83-88, 120-53, 220-21, 238-39; 2.4-6, 176-83. 4 1 . §318, xf\q xcopaq KaKO7ca0o\)OT|<; airccov; §319, Kai 7cpo%0)po\)VTC0v a\)xcp Korea vofiv xcdv rcpay|idxcov; §319, 8ieA,66vxcov 8 e 8eKa excov; § 3 2 1 , eyKei|ievcov; §323, Tcpoaayopevovxcov avzr\v 6vou.aaxi; §324, a\ir\%ov 8e yivouivoi); §327, 8T|A,coadoT|<; 8' £KeivT|<;; §328, X\§T\ xfjc, KpiGfiq teA,iKuiiu£vr|c,; §330, xf]<; 8' eiTco-uanq xo\3vo|ia; § 330, Kai au£vn.q. . . ; §331, Ttapaixovu.evo'u 8e; §332, xatixa xfj e K v p q Sri^coadcrnq; §332, fi8ri |ieao\)<m.<; xf|<; f^epac,; §332 Kai rcapayevoiievov; §333, ouoXoYriaavxoc, 8e; §333, a\)y%copo\)vxcov x6v vo^icov Kaxd dyxiaxeiav; §335, yevo|ievo\) 8e xotixoi). 4 2 . §322, yevriaou.evrtv; §324, KaXau/nao^evri; §328, imvcoao|ievriv; §331, cruvoiKticouaav; §336, xpacjmao^evov. 4 3 . Ruth 1.9, 17; 2.12, 13, 19; 4.12. 4 4 . §§325, 330, past general condition relatives; §325, indefinite temporal clause;

Understanding

118

Josephus

B

LXX k n o w s the optative in m u c h the s a m e w a y as a writer like Paul; Josephus k n o w s the full range of syntactical possibilities. Style m a y affect factors other than the aesthetic ring of the w o r d s in the ear; it is also a question of being contemporary. This concern leads J o s e p h u s to replace the statement about the g r o u p B o a z collected and addressed at the gate: ' t e n m e n from the elders of the c i t y ' (4.2) b e ­ c o m e s the y e p o - u a i a Qmrno in the t a r g u m [(4.1-2//§332]) a n d 'the elders and all the p e o p l e ' are n o w the y e p o v o i c t ( 4 . 9 / / § 3 3 5 ) . T h i s anachronistic transporting of c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish political structures into the past h a s the effect of g r o u n d i n g current structures in I s r a e l ' s story. 45

Sequential Alterations J o s e p h u s has rearranged the sequence of a n u m b e r of events in various scenes. O n several occasions he manipulates the text in order to m a k e it pyschologically m o r e credible. W e see this at the outset w h e n N a o m i departs from her daughters-in-law. In M T , 4 Q R u t h « and the L X X it is o n l y after the w o m e n h a v e set out t o g e t h e r (1.7) that N a o m i at­ tempts to dissuade t h e m (1.8-9). W h e n they refuse (1.10), she m a k e s a s e c o n d and partially m o r e successful attempt ( 1 . 1 1 - 1 3 ) . J o s e p h u s is apparently not entirely satisfied with the fact that N a o m i w a i t s until they h a v e set out to urge t h e m to turn back. H e solves this tension by mentioning the intention of the daughters-in-law to set out, but not the actual fact ( 1 . 7 / / § 3 2 1 ) . H e then r e a r r a n g e s the s e q u e n c e in the e x ­ c h a n g e to accentuate their determination. H e accomplishes this b y pre­ facing N a o m i ' s t w o efforts to dissuade t h e m with statements affirming their resolution to r e m a i n with h e r (§321). A similar but distinct shift occurs in N a o m i ' s instructions to Ruth to visit the threshing floor. In the p r i m a r y version N a o m i explains to Ruth that B o a z is sleeping at the threshing floor w h e n she sends her on her m i s s i o n (3.1-4). Jose­ phus d o e s not like statements that require unnarrated presuppositions. H e thus worries about N a o m i ' s apparent omniscience. T o solve this he m o v e s the statement about B o a z ' s sleeping quarters u p in the narrative a

b

B

§§ 324 and 327, purpose clauses (the later in indirect discourse in past time); § 329, indirect question in past time. 45. It was a common targumic tendency to antedate the Sanhedrin. Cf. PseudoJonathan Deut. 27.5; 32.9; 35.7 and the targum to 2 Chron. 23.5; Est. 2.21; Lam. 5.14.

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

119

and informs us that after N a o m i learned about t h e m she instructed her daughter-in-law (§328). Shifts in other scenes h a v e different m o t i v a t i o n s . O n e of the m o s t heavily edited scenes in J o s e p h u s ' s secondary version is the threshing floor s c e n e that the historian h a s painstakingly r e w o r k e d to p r e s e r v e the m o r a l purity of the major a c t o r s . O n e of the w a y s b y w h i c h h e a c c o m p l i s h e s this is b y m i n i m i z i n g all nocturnal activity. H e thus m o v e s w h a t w e r e originally m i d n i g h t c o m m e n t s to e a r l y m o r n i n g resolutions ( 3 . 1 0 - 1 3 ; vv. 10-11 are d r o p p e d and vv. 12-13 are m o v e d to the m o r n i n g / / § 3 3 0 ) . T h e only nocturnal e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n B o a z and R u t h that J o s e p h u s permits to stand is B o a z ' s question about her identity. After Ruth identifies herself, the historian says: ' t h e n he kept silent' (§330). H e does not w a n t anything to h a p p e n at night! 46

Actor Alterations T h e h i s t o r i a n ' s sense of appropriate activities for each character cre­ ates a n u m b e r of actor shifts. A n excellent e x a m p l e takes p l a c e in the b e g i n n i n g w h e n h e casts A b i m e l e c h into the leading role. In contrast to the p r i m a r y version w h e r e Abimelech, his wife and sons g o to M o a b , J o s e p h u s h a s A b i m e l e c h lead his family on their m i g r a t i o n (1.1-2// §318). T h e focus b e c o m e s e v e n clearer w h e n A b i m e l e c h m a k e s ar­ r a n g e m e n t s for his s o n s ' m a r r i a g e s before h e d i e s rather than b o t h s o n s m a r r y i n g after his d e a t h ( 1 . 3 - 4 / / § 3 1 9 ) . T h e r a t i o n a l e for this alteration is not entirely transparent. O n the o n e hand, it m a y b e that the aristocratic Jerusalemite felt that it w a s appropriate for the pater familias to lead the family in all major decisions. This w o u l d not b e the only o c c a s i o n w h e n h e recast the father from a s u p p o r t i n g to a l e a d i n g r o l e . O n the other h a n d , the e x p a n s i o n in the t a r g u m sug­ gests the possibility that s o m e ancient readers s a w a form of retribu­ tion in the deaths not only of the sons, b u t of A b i m e l e c h as well. T h e difficulty with this interpretation for J o s e p h u s is that h e d o e s not p r o ­ vide any textual signals for it. 4 7

T h e historian again c o n c e n t r a t e s actions a r o u n d a single figure in the initial e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n B o a z and Ruth. In this i n s t a n c e it is 4 6 . The targum also feels compelled to make explicit what is left tantalizingly vague in MT. (See 3.8) In my view both have missed the genius of the original story­ teller who deliberately titillated the audience. Levison, 'Josephus* Version of Ruth\ pp. 36-37, has a fine analysis of this scene. 4 7 . Cf. the role of Amaran, the father of Moses (Exod. 2.1-3 vs. Ant. 2.210-21).

Understanding

120

Josephus

B o a z ' s steward w h o a s s u m e s a greater role. It is the steward w h o tells B o a z a b o u t R u t h , not an indefinite i n f o r m e r — a n alteration that also solves the issue of an unnarrated presupposition ( 2 . 1 1 / / § 3 2 4 ) . Boaz orders his s t e w a r d to feed Ruth rather than inviting h e r to the m e a l h i m s e l f ( 2 . 1 4 / / § 3 2 5 ) . B o a z also gives his orders a b o u t R u t h to his steward rather than to all of his y o u n g m e n (2.15-16//§325). S i n c e the steward plays only a m i n o r role in the story, I p r e s u m e that this is a strategy that permits J o s e p h u s to portray B o a z as a great m a n w h o acts t h r o u g h his intermediary. 48

O t h e r s e x a m p l e s also represent efforts to call the r e a d e r ' s attention to the m a i n characters, only in m o r e direct w a y s . In the p r i m a r y ver­ sion N a o m i and Ruth c o m e to Bethlehem; in J o s e p h u s B o a z w e l c o m e s R u t h a l o n g w i t h h e r m o t h e r - i n - l a w ( 1 . 1 9 / / § 3 2 3 ) . T h i s s u b t l e shift permits the historian to set u p the end of the story a n d to concentrate the r e a d e r ' s attention on Ruth. S h e can not, h o w e v e r , displace B o a z . In the m o r n i n g after the m i d n i g h t e n c o u n t e r at t h e t h r e s h i n g floor Ruth gets herself u p according to the primary version, w h e r e a s J o s e ­ phus has B o a z get her u p (3.14//§330). This relative hierarchy a m o n g the characters resurfaces at the e n d of the story w h e n N a o m i n a m e s the child rather than the n e i g h b o r i n g w o m e n ( 4 . 1 6 - 1 7 / / § 3 3 6 ) . Major characters d o m i n a t e the story within an established hierarchy. T h e r e is at least o n e other major feature that e m e r g e s in character alterations in Ruth: J o s e p h u s c h a n g e s the story of R u t h to c o i n c i d e with his earlier interpretation of the law. T h e e p i s o d e at the gate pre­ sents J o s e p h u s with a major opportunity to display his concern for the l a w . T h e basic p r o b l e m posed b y the text of Ruth is that it conflates t w o separate l a w s : the levirate law of marriage that requires a person to maintain the lineage of his brother (Deut. 25.5-10) and the law of the r e d e m p t i o n of p r o p e r t y (Lev. 2 5 . 2 3 - 5 5 ) . J o s e p h u s offers a neat solution by d r a w i n g o n his earlier retelling of Deut. 2 5 . 5 - 1 0 w h e r e he includes r e d e m p t i o n w i t h i n his interpretation of the l a w of levi­ rate m a r r i a g e b y stating that the offspring of the n e w u n i o n is to b e the h e i r . H e w o r k s this interpretation of halakha into his narrative 4 9

50

4 8 . We should also remember that in the Josephan version Ruth and Naomi are staying with Boaz (§ 323). 4 9 . Levison, 'Josephus' Version of Ruth', pp. 38-41, has an excellent discus­ sion. 50. Ant. 4.254-56, esp. 254.

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

121

through b o t h alterations and additions (see b e l o w ) . T h e m o s t i m p o r ­ tant actor alterations that take place are the actions of Ruth. A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s B o a z s u m m o n s Ruth to the gate (4.1//§332). H e does this so that s h e c a n carry out h e r legal r e q u i r e m e n t s in the s u c c e e d i n g narrative. T h e n h e replaces the notoriously o b s c u r e ' a n d h e took off his s a n d a l ' (V?U3 ^ t t T I ) with an order from B o a z to R u t h to u n s a n d a l the near k i n s m a n (4.8//§335). T h e r e a s o n for this c h a n g e is the n e e d to m a k e the story consistent with his retelling of Deut. 2 5 . 5 - 1 0 w h e r e he states that the wife is to u n s a n d a l the m a n w h o refuses to take her (4.256). J o s e p h u s thus permits his understanding of the l a w to govern his s t o r y l i n e . 51

Action Alterations J o s e p h u s can also alter the actions within the story in order to height­ en the v i r t u e of the m a i n c h a r a c t e r s . S o , for e x a m p l e , i n s t e a d of h a v i n g B o a z speak of R u t h ' s piety in terms of h e r loyalty to N a o m i after the death of her h u s b a n d and her willingness to leave h e r h o m e ­ land, J o s e p h u s stresses R u t h ' s loyalty to N a o m i and the m e m o r y of her h u s b a n d (2.11//§325). T h e transformation of a s i m p l e t e m p o r a l refer­ e n c e into a c o m m e n t about h e r loyalty to her h u s b a n d ' s m e m o r y un­ derscores R u t h ' s fidelity as a wife, a virtue c o m m o n to b o t h J e w i s h a n d G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d s . N o r is such t a m p e r i n g m e r e h a p p e n ­ stance. T h e biblical text suggests that Ruth g a v e N a o m i h e r leftovers after she h a d eaten herself, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s has Ruth save the m e a l the f o r e m a n g a v e h e r ( 2 . 1 4 , 18//§326). A p p a r e n t l y R u t h c a n w o r k w i t h o u t e a t i n g ! J o s e p h u s a l s o protects R u t h ' s purity. T h e S e c o n d T e m p l e J e w i s h author is b o t h e r e d by N a o m i ' s instructions to R u t h , w h i c h order her to u n c o v e r B o a z ' s feet and lie d o w n b e s i d e h i m - t h e ambiguities are too great. H e rewrites it prosaically to read: ' s h e sent 5 2

53

5 1 . Compare Josephus's rewriting of Judg. 20.1-14. He states that the elders are reluctant to declare a pre-emptive strike against the Benjamites thereby bringing their actions into conformity with the law (Judg. 20.8-1 XII Ant. 5.151-52 and Deut. 20.12MIAnt. 4.296-97). 52. Thackeray pointed out (in loco) that the Greek is ambiguous and could refer to either Ruth's memory of her husband or Boaz's own reflections on his deceased relative. 53. This is in disagreement with Thackeray's translation which assumes a pro­ noun not in the text.

122

Understanding

Josephus

the m a i d e n to sleep at his feet' (3.4//§328). T h i s fits into his larger pattern of protecting feminine v i r t u e . T h e final alteration occurs in the gate scene. B o a z d o e s not chal­ lenge the near k i n s m a n to r e d e e m the property since the r e d e e m e r is already in possession of it, a right h e has b y law ( 4 . 3 - 4 / / § 3 3 3 ) . This appears to b e another e x a m p l e of h o w Josephus can modify the text in order to bring it into conformity with his understanding of the law. 54

Expansions/Additions T h e final c a t e g o r y of modification consists of the areas w h e r e J o s e ­ p h u s h a s enlarged the text. T h e s e m a y either e x p a n d the existing text or add entirely n e w material. T h e y include temporal m a r k e r s , explana­ tory g l o s s e s , filling in narrative l a c u n a e , d r a m a t i c e x p a n s i o n s , m o r ­ alizing additions and an interpretative colophon. Temporal

Markers

The m o s t obvious enlargement Josephus m a k e s is the supplying of tem­ poral m a r k e r s . T h e s e fall into t w o separate s u b g r o u p s . T h e first is J o s e p h u s ' s expansion of the initial time-frame (1.1//§318). R a t h e r than following the lead of the v a g u e reference in the p r i m a r y version, h e offers a specific setting: 'After the death of Samson, Eli the high priest led the Israelites.' T h e reference to the death of S a m s o n is to the last m e n t i o n e d e v e n t in his narrative ( § § 3 1 4 - 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s h a s r e v e r s e d the sequence of the t w o appendices to Judges and m o v e d t h e m u p from their c u s t o m a r y p o s i t i o n at the e n d of t h e w o r k ( 1 7 . 1 - 2 1 . 2 5 ) and p l a c e d t h e m in the p r e f a c e i m m e d i a t e l y after 2 . 1 1 - 1 5 ( 5 . 1 3 6 - 7 8 ) . S a m s o n ' s death is thus the final event in J u d g e s as J o s e p h u s relates it. T h e reference to Eli m a y in part rely on an alternate text. T h e V u l ­ gate version of Ruth begins: 'In the days of one j u d g e w h e n the j u d g e s r u l e d . . . ' W h e t h e r J o s e p h u s h a d a different text or not, the specific reference to Eli is d u e to the fact that h e is the h i g h priest at the o p e n i n g of 1-2 S a m u e l , the book(s) that i m m e d i a t e l y follow R u t h in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling ( 5 . 3 3 8 ) . T h e o p e n i n g r e f e r e n c e t h u s ties Ruth back to J u d g e s and forward to 1 S a m u e l . T h e frame thus takes inde­ pendent threads and w e a v e s t h e m into a single piece of cloth. 54. Compare his rewritings of Sarah in Pharaoh's harem (Gen. 12.10-20//Anf. 1.161-65, esp. 164-65) and in Abimelech's harem (Gen. 20.1 -1 S//Ant. 1.207-12, esp. 207-208). In both cases Josephus makes it clear that nothing took place.

STERLING The Invisible

123

Presence

T h e s e c o n d s u b g r o u p consists of the additional t i m e - m a r k e r s J o s e ­ p h u s regularly inserts into t h e narrative: ' i n a short t i m e ' (8i' oAlyoi) [1.5//§319]), ' a little later' ( | i £ T oJtiyov [2.4//§324]), 'shortly b e f o r e ' ( j i i K p o v e|Li7cpoa6ev [2.5//§324]), ' i n t h e following d a y s ' (xaiq E%O[iEvaiq fi|i8pai<; [2.23//§327]), 'not m a n y days later' (\IEX OV NOXXAC, filiepaq [ 2 . 2 3 / / § 3 2 8 ] ) , ' i t w a s already m i d d a y ' (F\dr\ \LEGOVGr\C, IF\C, WEPAQ [4.1//§332]), 'after a y e a r ' (jiex' e v i a v x o v [ 4 . 1 3 / / § 3 3 5 ] ) . For all of this, J o s e p h u s is inconsistent: h e omits t h e time e l e m e n t indi­ cating R u t h h a d only b e e n in B e t h l e h e m three d a y s ( 2 . 1 1 / / § 3 2 5 ) . A s w a s t h e c a s e w i t h t h e initial editorial frame, t h e t e m p o r a l m a r k e r s tighten u p t h e n a r r a t i v e . 55

56

Explanatory Glosses E x p l a n a t o r y glosses a r e e x p a n s i o n s that attempt t o i l l u m i n a t e o p a c i ­ ties. T h e r e a r e four e x a m p l e s in this material. T h e first is J o s e p h u s ' s explanation of ' B e t h l e h e m of J u d a h ' (1.2//§318). T h e s e c o n d and third are e t y m o l o g i c a l explanations that are designed t o help t h e readers of J o s e p h u s ' s G r e e k narrative u n d e r s t a n d w o r d p l a y s in t h e H e b r e w . S o , J o s e p h u s offers correct etymological clarifications for b o t h N a o m i and M a r a in o r d e r t o h e l p t h e r e a d e r g r a s p t h e significance of N a o m i ' s OQItt) c o m p l a i n t that h e r n a m e should b e ' M a r a ' ( m o [ 1 . 2 0 / / § 3 2 3 ] ) . Later h e explains that N a o m i ' s future sustainer, ' O b e d ' ("D")!?), c o m e s from ' o b e d ' ( p r e s u m i n g " D I D ) w h i c h h e accurately defines a s SOVA£t>CGV ( 4 . 1 7 / / § 3 3 6 ) . T h e fourth e x a m p l e is the h i s t o r i a n ' s qualifying expansion of D a v i d ' s identity and successors (4.17//§336). 57

T h e s a m e t e c h n i q u e allows J o s e p h u s t o solve textual c o n u n d r u m s . B o t h t h e historian a n d t h e t a r g u m found t h e r e d e e m e r ' s refusal t o 5 5 . Cf. also 'after him' (\LEX amov [1.5//§319]) and 'for the time' ( r c a p a v T i K a [3.7//§329]). 56. Compare the use of such markers in the gospels of the New Testament where they serve a similar function. For example, \iE%a xama in Luke-Acts (Lk. 5.27; 10.1; 12.4; 17.8; 18.4; Acts 7.7; 13.20; 15.16; 18.1 [cf. also the use of

\LET&

in

connection with an expression involving an accusative form of ruiepa, Lk. 1.24; 2.46; 15.13; Acts 15.36; 20.6; 21.15; 24.1, 24; 25.1; 28.11, 13, 17]) or K a i evQvc, in Mark (1.10, 12, 18, 2 0 , 2 1 , 23, 2 9 , 30, 42; 2.8, 12; 4.5; 5.29, 30, 42; 6.27, 45; [7.35]; 8.10; 9.15; 10.52; 11.2, 3; 14.43, 72; 15.1). 57. Thackeray argued that Josephus did not know Hebrew on the basis of the et­ ymologies he offers for names (Josephus,

pp. 77-78). Such an assessment is no

longer tenable. Cf. the discussion in T. Rajak, Josephus: Society (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 230-32.

The Historian

and His

124

Understanding

Josephus

m a r r y R u t h unsatisfactory. J o s e p h u s clarified the situation w i t h the expansion: ' h e already h a d both a wife and children' ( § 3 3 4 ) . T h i s is his w a y of clarifying the m y s t e r i o u s p h r a s e , 'lest I j e o p a r d i z e m y inher­ itance' (RBM [4.6]).

nK irnitfR ]S//|u,f|7r,0T£ 8iac()Geipco xfiv KA,r|povo|Liiav \IOV

58

Narrative

Lacunae

J o s e p h u s also adds material w h e n h e senses a lacuna in the flow of the narrative. H e a c c o m p l i s h e s this b y m a k i n g explicit w h a t h e finds im­ plicit in the text. T h e r e are a significant n u m b e r of e x a m p l e s of this t e c h n i q u e . T h e first o c c u r s w i t h t h e a r r i v a l of R u t h a n d N a o m i . A l t h o u g h the p r i m a r y version n e v e r addresses the q u e s t i o n , an atten­ tive r e a d e r m i g h t ask h o w t h e y m a n a g e d to e x i s t until R u t h h a d g l e a n e d . J o s e p h u s s u p p l i e s an a n s w e r : B o a z r e c e i v e d t h e m ( 1 . 1 9 / / §323)! It is intriguing to note that the A r m e n i a n tradition has the s a m e addition.

5 9

T h e m o t i v e m a y b e m u l t i p l e h e r e : it not only s o l v e s the

q u e s t i o n of h o w N a o m i a n d R u t h s u r v i v e after t h e i r r e t u r n ,

6 0

but

e n h a n c e s the c h a r a c t e r of B o a z . P r e s u m a b l y , w e are n o t to i m a g i n e that h e m e t t h e m personally. T h e other side of the coin, h o w e v e r , is that it p l a c e s N a o m i a n d R u t h in the care of a m a l e rather t h a n as i n d e p e n d e n t w o m e n . A second e x a m p l e occurs d u r i n g the r o u g h tran­ B

sition in MT and L X X , w h i c h h a s B o a z ask his f o r e m a n a b o u t Ruth w i t h o u t any e x p l a i n i n g h o w h e k n o w s a b o u t her. J o s e p h u s therefore adds ' a n d w h e n h e saw the y o u n g w o m a n ' (2.4//§324). H e also senses a lapse in the n e x t few lines w h e n the foreman informs B o a z of Ruth. J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that the f o r e m a n himself ' h a d j u s t l e a r n e d e v e r y ­ thing from h e r ' ( 2 . 6 / / § 3 2 4 ) . T h e r e is a third e x a m p l e of t h e s a m e technique in N a o m i ' s sending of R u t h to the threshing floor. J o s e p h u s clarifies her rationale b y a d d i n g that she t h o u g h t ' h e w o u l d b e gra­ cious to t h e m after he h a d spent t i m e with the m a i d , ' a rather surpris­ ing m o t i v e in light of his c o n c e r n to d o w n p l a y sexual allusions ( 3 . 1 / / §328). In all of these cases J o s e p h u s m a k e s the narrative s m o o t h e r by filling in missing circumstances or motives.

58. Cf., however, the explanation offered by Cambell, Ruth, p. 159. 59. The Armenian version appends (in the Latin translation supplied by Thack­ eray cited in loco): 'et dedit Noomin domum viduitatis habitare in e a \ 60.

So Campbell, Ruth, p. 85.

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

125

Dramatic Expansions J o s e p h u s frequently h e i g h t e n s the dramatic d i m e n s i o n of t h e biblical text t h r o u g h insertions. T h e first c o m e s at the outset of t h e story w h e n J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s the reference to the famine to include 'their country w a s suffering terribly' (1.1//§318). H e u n d e r s c o r e s this b y telling u s that the r e a s o n A b i m e l e c h left his patria w a s that ' h e w a s u n a b l e to hold out against t h e s c o u r g e ' (1.1//§318). L i k e t h e t a r g u m that a d d s the adjective ' s e v e r e ' (^pn) to qualify the famine, J o s e p h u s insists on the h a r s h n e s s of t h e famine. T h e historian r e v e r s e s t h e s e dire straits w h e n A b i m e l e c h a n d family reach the land of M o a b . T h e n e w prospe­ rity e x p l a i n s w h y A b i m e l e c h selected w i v e s for his sons: ' w h e n m a t ­ ters w e r e p r o g r e s s i n g as h e h a d p l a n n e d , h e s e c u r e d M o a b i t e w i v e s for his s o n s ' (1.2-4//§319). In a similar w a y J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s N a o m i ' s p r e d i c a m e n t . H e sets the reader u p for her losses w h e n h e tells us that A b i m e l e c h ' s t w o sons came from her ( l . l - 2 / / § 3 1 8 ) . Perhaps Josephus's o w n checkered marital history led h i m t o state w h a t m o s t readers of R u t h a s s u m e . T h e s t a t e m e n t d o e s i n f o r m u s that N a o m i is t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r . 61

F o l l o w i n g t h e death of A b i m e l e c h and t h e t w o sons, J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s N a o m i ' s loss b y stressing its bitterness t o h e r p e r s o n a l l y rather than confirming h e r loss through t h e repetition of a k e y verb as t h e biblical text does ( 1 . 3 , 5 / / § 3 2 0 ) . 62

H e also increases the risks R u t h faces b y setting o u t w i t h N a o m i . R a t h e r t h a n e m p h a s i z i n g h e r inability t o p r o v i d e future h u s b a n d s for h e r d a u g h t e r s - i n - l a w , J o s e p h u s a d d s a n e w factor. H e s u m m a r i z e s N a o m i ' s speech with 'since c i r c u m s t a n c e s are w h a t they are with h e r ' and then underscores the real issue: N a o m i urges t h e m n o t t o j o i n h e r in facing ' u n k n o w n e v e n t s . ' A l t h o u g h this dissuaded O r p h a , it did not R u t h w h o m N a o m i ' l e d her t o b e a partner in e v e r y t h i n g that w o u l d befall [ h e r ] ' (1.12-14//§322). 6 1 . Josephus had at least four wives: the first was in Jerusalem during the siege (War 5.419), the second was a Caesarean whom he married while a prisoner but who left him when he went to Alexandria (Life 414), the third came from Alexandria and bore him three sons (Life 415, 5, 426), and the fourth was an aristocrat from Crete who bore him two sons (Life 5, 427). 6 2 . There is a textual problem in the final clause of this section. The MSS read: Kai fj NaduiqrciKpcSqerci xotc, avjipePTiKoai <j>epo\)aa Kai xx\\ vn 6\|/iv TGDV tyiXx&xw epriuiav O\)K \mou£vovaa, 8i* iiv Kai xn.<; rcaxpiSoc, e^ekrjMOei. The Latin reads propter quos instead of 8i' r\\. Niese follows the Greek MSS in both of his editions while Naber and Thackeray print 8i' otic,.

126

Understanding

Josephus

T h e bulk of these e x a m p l e s c o m e from the first part of t h e story w h e n J o s e p h u s builds the pathos. H e does, h o w e v e r , u s e the technique in other situations. T h e d e v i c e resurfaces w h e n h e r e p l a c e s N a o m i ' s instructions to R u t h to wait for B o a z to settle matters with the nearest relative with the statement 'cheerfulness k e p t t h e m in the h o p e that B o a z w o u l d take care of t h e m ' (3.18//§332). S u c h statements m o v e us from the straightforward description of events to the internal p y s c h o logical world of the characters. J o s e p h u s is also adept at minor insertions w h i c h a d d to the d r a m a of the scene. S o , for e x a m p l e , N a o m i is not j u s t disheartened at t h e loss of her h u s b a n d and sons, but 'bears w h a t has h a p p e n e d bitterly' (1.5// § 3 2 0 ) . Similarly, h e h a s N a o m i tell the residents of B e t h l e h e m that they w o u l d ' m o r e correctly' call her M a r a (1.1.20//§323). B o a z is not j u s t sleeping w h e n R u t h arrives at the threshing floor, h e is sleeping ' d e e p l y ' (3.7//§329). Moralizing Additions T h e r e are t w o w a y s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s his m o r a l i z i n g and theologizing of the text through additions. First, he presents the major characters in e x c e p t i o n a l l y positive w a y s w h i c h e x t e n d b e y o n d the p r i m a r y version. T h u s not only d o e s Ruth give N a o m i the food she h a s b e e n g i v e n , b u t N a o m i h a s also set s o m e food a s i d e for R u t h w h i c h she received from s o m e k i n d n e i g h b o u r s ( 2 . 1 8 / / § 3 2 6 ) . E v e r y ­ one shares! Similarly Josephus explains that the reason w h y R u t h went to the t h r e s h i n g floor w a s that ' s h e c o n s i d e r e d it p i o u s not to argue against any of the things her mother-in-law c o m m a n d e d ' (3.5//§329). H e reserves the highest accolades for B o a z . T h r e e t i m e s h e suggests that B o a z ' w o u l d take care of t h e m out of a sense of p i e t y ' (2.22// §327; cf. also 3.4//§328 and 3.18//§332). T h e second w a y J o s e p h u s attempts to inculcate piety is t h r o u g h the storyline. U n s u r p r i s i n g l y this is m o s t evident in t h e t h r e s h i n g floor and the gate scenes. In the former J o s e p h u s is at great pains to let the reader k n o w that all h a v e acted with proper d e c o r u m . H e is n o t con­ tent to say that B o a z gets Ruth u p before there is e n o u g h light to rec­ o g n i z e another, b u t u n d e r s c o r e s the secrecy b y r e p e a t i n g t h e early h o u r in w h i c h they arise. T h u s B o a z rouses h e r ' b e f o r e the servants b e g i n to m o v e to their w o r k ' . T h e n he c o m m a n d s h e r to return to her mother-in-law (an addition [3.15//§330]) before she ' w a s seen by a n y o n e ' since 'it w a s w i s e to g u a r d against slander in such matters,

STERLING The Invisible

127

Presence

e s p e c i a l l y since n o t h i n g h a d h a p p e n e d ' ( 3 . 1 4 / / § 3 3 0 ) . T h e t a r g u m shares the s a m e anxieties: nothing can b e left to the imagination! T h e latter scene interpolates J o s e p h u s ' s understanding of the law. H e sets u p the framework for his treatment of the scene in B o a z ' s early m o r n i n g (vs. nocturnal in the p r i m a r y version) instructions to R u t h . T h e p r i m a r y version contains his p r o m i s e to m a r r y R u t h if the near k i n s m a n d o e s not. J o s e p h u s qualifies this by a small b u t i m p o r t a n t addition: T will take you to b e m y wife by l a w ' (v6|Licp [3.13//§331]). H e maintains this emphasis on the keeping of the law in the gate scene by a d d i n g a detail that aligns the story with his earlier retelling of Deut. 2 5 . 5 - 1 0 in Antiquities 4 : Ruth spits in the face of the near kins­ m a n w h o refuses to marry her (§335). H e explicitly states that B o a z ' s order for R u t h to spit in his face was ' a c c o r d i n g to the l a w ' (§335). This probably also explains w h y he adds a reference to the sons w h e n he asks the redeemer if he possesses the inheritance of ' A b i m e l e c h and his s o n s ' (4.3//§333); he has inheritance laws in mind. J o s e p h u s m a k e s certain that there is n o ambiguity in the thrust of the represented scene by mentioning the law three times (§333). Interpretative Colophon T h e last addition is also the m o s t important theologically. In his edi­ torial postscript Josephus explains w h y h e has retold Ruth. H e affirms that he ' w a n t s to d e m o n s t r a t e G o d ' s p o w e r (Suvafiiq), that it is easy for h i m to lead e v e n c o m m o n p e o p l e to an illustrious station, to the type to w h i c h he raised David w h o c a m e from such ancestors' ( § 3 3 7 ) . Ruth is thus a prime example of G o d ' s p o w e r that could also b e called Kpovoia. This 8-6va|ii<; is characteristically e x p r e s s e d in a rcepucax e i a , in this case of raising the noble from the i g n o b l e . J o s e p h a n theology c a n not b e expressed m u c h m o r e forthrightly. 63

64

Conclusions I a m n o w r e a d y to return to m y initial queries. First, w h a t is J o s e ­ p h u s ' s methodology and agenda? Let m e begin by pointing out the cor­ relations b e t w e e n techniques a n d agenda. Omissions point to aspects of 6 3 . It is interesting to note that this same conclusion is also voiced by Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth, p. 6. 6 4 . Cf. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae' of Flavius Josephus, pp. 92-104, for an extended treatment of this motif.

128

Understanding

Josephus

the story that w e r e important for the primary version b u t not for the s e c o n d a r y v e r s i o n . A l t e r a t i o n s a n d a d d i t i o n s w o r k in r e v e r s e : the secondary version imports values into the primary version. W i t h these correspondences in m i n d the findings can b e s u m m a r i z e d . J o s e p h u s found several aspects of the p r i m a r y v e r s i o n u n n e c e s s a r y on stylistic g r o u n d s : duplications, nonessential o b s e r v a t i o n s , inexpli­ cable details a n d the extensive u s e of direct speech. O t h e r aspects of the p r i m a r y version w e r e r e m o v e d b e c a u s e they conflicted w i t h the h i s t o r i a n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e : the s p e e c h e s of N a o m i a n d R u t h , t h e refer­ e n c e s to G o d a n d the c o n c l u d i n g editorial frame. H e also r e d u c e s the story b y attributing activities originally involving several characters to a single figure. T h e result is a significant a b r i d g e m e n t of the origi­ nal story. T h i s suggests that it is not a particularly significant episode within the Antiquities. J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , did far m o r e than curtail the story. H e shaped it a c c o r d i n g to his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of an acceptable narrative. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s difference b e t w e e n his understanding of narrative a n d that of the primary version is his sense of unity. Although J o s e p h u s read Ruth as a distinct story (presumably in the form of a scroll), h e s u b s u m e d it into the larger f r a m e w o r k of the Antiquities. H e a c c o m p l i s h e d this b o t h b y his introductory frame a n d b y his r e w o r k i n g of the story to bring it into conformity with his earlier presentation of the law. T h e former d e m o n s t r a t e s J o s e p h u s ' s effort to i n t e r w e a v e originally inde­ p e n d e n t scrolls into a single story. T h e latter illustrates h o w halakha determines haggada in the Antiquities. H e also created a greater sense of unity within the story itself t h r o u g h t e m p o r a l m a r k e r s a n d by re­ m o v i n g unnarrated presuppositions. H i s c h a n g e s to the narrative, h o w e v e r , extend b e y o n d c o n c e r n s for unity to i n c l u d e several other fundamental features of the narrative. Characters are expected to b e h a v e appropriately to their station in the story. Yet they are not entirely plastic: J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s his charac­ ters m o r e than the original story b y introducing p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i ­ vations which, in turn, create m o r e drama. H e polishes the entire pre­ sentation b y recasting it in a far m o r e eloquent style. H e even helps his readers with potentially opaque references through explanatory glosses. H i s c o n c e r n for his r e a d e r is d e v e l o p e d in a m o r e p r o f o u n d w a y t h r o u g h his m o r a l i z i n g and theologizing of the text. W e see this in

STERLING The Invisible

129

Presence

three major areas. T h e first is his c o m m e n d a t i o n of virtue. T h e histo­ rian is scrupulously careful to present the main characters in morally p u r e roles. All of the tantalizing hints that raise our e y e b r o w s in the original story are r e m o v e d . A t the s a m e time, acts of hospitality and generosity sire accentuated. T h e s e c o n d is his a s s i g n m e n t of g e n d e r roles: B o a z is elevated and N a o m i a n d R u t h are l o w e r e d . W h i l e w e m a y find such m o v e s frustratingly patriarchal, it is a consistent pattern within the Antiquities. W e s h o u l d also realize that our frustrations w o u l d not h a v e occurred to m o s t ancient readers. T h e silence of the w o m e n s e r v e s to p r e s e n t J u d a i s m as a r e l i g i o n in w h i c h w o m e n observe the n o r m s of the larger society. T h e third and m o s t important concern is the w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses the story to illustrate the thesis of the Antiquities: G o d r e w a r d s the r i g h t e o u s in s p e c t a c u l a r w a y s (1.20). A s w e h a v e seen, h e m a k e s this explicit in his s u m m a r y (5.337). W h i l e the reversal of fortunes m a y b e astonishing, the w a y in w h i c h G o d w o r k s in this story is not. G o d controls history invisibly. J o s e p h u s ' s careful elision of specific references to G o d d o e s not elimi­ nate G o d from the story but r e m o v e s t h e divine p r e s e n c e from i m ­ mediate intervention. I m a y n o w a n s w e r the s e c o n d question: D o e s J o s e p h u s ' s narrative reflect a superficial or reflective reading and rewriting of t h e biblical story? W h i l e the narrative is hardly a straightforward retelling of the biblical text, I d o n o t think t h e r e is a n y d o u b t a b o u t t h e care w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s read the text a n d presented it. It w o u l d b e a mistake to g e n e r a l i z e from this s a m p l e a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s m e t h o d o l o g y in the Antiquities as a w h o l e and an e v e n greater mistake to speculate about his other w o r k s . H o w e v e r , it is j u s t as great a m i s t a k e to a s s u m e that Josephus is a sloppy historian b a s e d on a sample of another t e x t . T h e fact that h e retells a relatively u n i m p o r t a n t w o r k as carefully as h e does leads m e to p r e s u m e that h e is careful until the evidence indicates the contrary. 65

This leads us to our third and final question: C a n w e learn anything about the story of R u t h from this retelling or does J o s e p h u s ' s version only illuminate his w o r l d ? I think that J o s e p h u s ' s version h a s captured 65. Perhaps the most formidable critic of Josephus is S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 233-34, who has correctly pointed out the difficulties in the overlapping material in the War and Life. We should not, however, assume that Josephus is always inconsistent.

Understanding

130

Josephus

and u n d e r s c o r e d in a provocative w a y the central ' t h e o l o g y ' of Ruth: the invisible presence of God. T h e issue is w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s i m p o s e d his basic theology o n the story a n d mirabile dictu found that it w o r k e d or w h e t h e r h e derived it from a careful reading of t h e story. Virtually all m o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e n o t e d that G o d w o r k s in t h e b a c k ­ g r o u n d within this story. T h e story d e v e l o p s G o d ' s role t h r o u g h set­ ting u p a series of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e D e i t y a n d t h e m a i n p r o t a g o n i s t s . T w o e x a m p l e s will suffice. First, there is a direct cor­ relation b e t w e e n the actions of B o a z and G o d : R u t h h a s c o m e to take refuge u n d e r t h e w i n g s of Y a h w e h (VSD nnn morfr ntO [2.12]); yet she finds that protection w h e n s h e persuades B o a z t o t h r o w h i s w i n g over h e r (-[nOK bv nfeTID [ 3 . 9 ] ) . S e c o n d l y , there is a similar correlation b e t w e e n N a o m i a n d G o d : N a o m i prays that Y a h w e h will grant h e r daughters-in-law security (nm3D UDb miT ]n» [1.9]); h o w e v e r , later she tells R u t h that she m u s t p r o v i d e security for h e r (ni3D ~\b ltfp3N tibn [3.1]). In both instances a protagonist a s s u m e s the function of the Deity signaling that the G o d of Israel is acting through the h u m a n character. 66

67

D i d Josephus pick u p o n this? H e does not r e p r o d u c e the w o r d p l a y s w e h a v e mentioned. H o w e v e r , h e creates o n e of his o w n : h e h a s B o a z exercise Tcpovoia o n behalf of N a o m i a n d Ruth. T h u s h e paraphrases N a o m i ' s s p e e c h to R u t h after s h e h a s returned from t h e first d a y of harvest b y h a v i n g N a o m i explain that B o a z is related ' a n d w o u l d per­ h a p s o n a c c o u n t of piety take care of (rcpovoeco) t h e m ' (2.21//§327). Similarly, w h e n R u t h returns from the threshing floor, the w o m e n are hopeful that ' B o a z will have rcpovoia for t h e m ' (3.18//§332). Josephus thus attributes the major function of G o d in the Antiquities to a human agent. A s s o m e o n e w h o lives in a world w h e r e m a n n a d o e s n o t rain d o w n like d e w from h e a v e n , I find this a satisfying r e a d i n g . G o d is present as t h e extraordinary result attests; yet G o d is only present in ordinary w a y s .

66. Campbell, Ruth, pp. 28-29. 67. Compare also Boaz's relationship to Naomi: Naomi complains that Yahweh has sent her home empty; Boaz will not permit Ruth to return to her mother-in-law empty (1.21; 3.17).

STERLING The Invisible

131

Presence

APPENDIX: A PENTAPLA I have arranged five texts in synoptic fashion. The first contains the Masoretic text as it is represented by the Leningrad Codex B 1 9 and edited in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. * The second consists of the four fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran: 4 Q R u t h , and 2QRuth . Five fragments of two different manuscripts of Ruth have been identified among the fragments in cave four and eight fragments of two different manuscripts from cave two. The latter were published in DJD 3 . The former have not yet been published. I am grateful to my colleague, Eugene Ulrich, and his assistant, Katherine Murphy, for providing me with a copy of their preliminary edition and photographs of the fragments. There is only one instance of overlap among these fragments: 4QRuth FF 1-3 overlap 4QRuth . I have used 4QRuth which is a far more secure text than the problematic fragments of 4QRuth . There may be instances where the final edition of the fragments from cave four will vary; however, I do not expect any major shifts. I have not printed to mark doubtful readings of letters since my purposes did not require this precision. The text of the Septuagint which appears in the third position is that of Vaticanus as printed in the Cambridge edition of the Septuagint. The fourth position is the text of Josephus edited by Benedictus Niese in his editio major. The fifth and final position contains the text of an Aramaic targum, Codex Urbinas Ebr. 1 (AD 1294) as A

6

ab

a,b

6 9

b

a

a

b

0

70

71

6 8 . K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977). Because of the well-known limitations of the apparatus criticus of BHS, I have consulted the older BHK. 69. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux, Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumran (DJD, 3.1-2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 1.71-75; 2: pi. XIV-XV. 7 0 . A.E. Brooke and N. McLean (eds.), The Old Testament in Greek. I. Joshua, Judges and Ruth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906). I have also con­ sulted H.B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek (3 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4th edn, 1909) and A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935). Rahlfs has done the most extensive research on the LXX text of Ruth in Studie iiber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth (Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse; Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 47-164. 7 1 . B. Niese, Flavii Iosephi opera (7 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1887-89). Cf. also the editio minor: idem, Flavii Iosephi opera (6 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1888— 95) and S.A. Naber, Flavii Iosephi opera omnia (6 vols.; Teubner Series; Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1888-96); H. St John Thackeray, R. Marcus, and L. Feldman, Jose­ phus (10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1 9 2 6 - 6 5 ) ; F. Blatt, The Latin Josephus: Introduction and Text (The 'Antiquities': Books I - V ) (Acta Jutlandica, 44; Kopenhagen: Universitetsforlaget I Aarhus, 1958). The new edition of E. Nodet, et al, (eds.), Flavius Josephe, Les antiquites juives (Paris: Cerf, 1990-) has not yet reached book five.

Understanding

132

Josephus

it appears in the edition of Etan Levine. Levine argued for 'a pre-Mishnaic, and perhaps pre-Christian dating of the basic elements incorporated within the targum to R u t h / It is no secret that there are problems with the specifics of his argumentation; however, a strong case can be made for a Tannaitic d a t e . At this point our presupposition and purpose are modest enough that the dating should not matter: we are interested in comparing both the methodology of Josephus with that of the targum and exploring the possibility of shared exegetical concerns whether the targum preor postdates Josephus. 7 3

74

7 2 . Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth. The other major edition is that of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. IVA. The Hagiographa (4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959-73), Sperber prints MS. Or. 2375 of the British Museum, which is a fifteenth-century MS. D.R.G. Beattie has recently argued that all printed editions ultimately stem from Solger 6.2, a thirteenth-century MS of the Stadtbibliothek, Nurnberg ( T h e Textual Tradition of Targum Ruth', in The Aramaic Bible: Tar gums in Their Historical Context [ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M. McNamara; Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Conference on the Aramaic Bible; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994]). For an English translation see Beattie, T h e Targum of Ruth: Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes', M. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible 19 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994). For the later midrash Ruth Rabbah see L. Rabinowitz (ed.), Midrash Rabbah (10 vols; London: Soncino, 1939), VIII, pp. 1-94 for Ruth Rabbah and J. Neusner, Ruth Rabbah: An Analytical Translation (BJS, 183; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). For summaries of Jewish exegesis of Ruth see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Pub­ lication Society of America, 1913), IV, pp. 30-34; D.R.G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977). 7 3 . Levine, Ruth, p. vi. He summarizes his position in these words: T h e ines­ capable conclusion from the aforementioned is that the halakic material incorporated by the targum is of sectarian origin. If one proceeds from the hypothesis that what­ ever is anti-mishnaic is pre-mishnaic, and if one observes that such halakot as the cutting of the 'omer, administration of death penalties, and symbolic transfer were of importance primarily in Palestine, before the destruction of the Temple, the further conclusion emerges that these halakot derive from an early, Palestinian sect' (p. 7). The haggadah, on the other hand, 'became expanded with evolving folklore and homilies' (p. 8). 7 4 . The most important work has been done by D.R.G. Beattie, T h e Targum of Ruth—A Sectarian Composition?', JJS 36 (1985), pp. 222-29; idem, T o w a r d s Dating the Targum of Ruth', in J.D. Martin and P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Sea­ son: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOTSup 42; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), pp. 205-21; and idem, 'Ancient Elements in the Targum to Ruth', in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985), Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), pp. 159-65.

STERLING The Invisible

133

Presence

A PENT APLA OF RUTH MT NAN

itf? rmrr NNB rrao # K -PN

PAA

am vm D-CDSOT CDSE 'ira TTJ 1.1 :RN -3B7nnzJk«WNAKTQ

DSS

[•rf? rrab CFK " f n PAA am D'CDSOT DEXB M L.L (4QRuth ) M 'xh RM\ KIN AWD nifcn itf? rrnrr a

LXX 1.1 Kai eyevexo ev xcp Kpiveiv xovq Kpixdc, Kai eyevexo Xi\ibq ev xfj yfj- Kai £7Cope\)9T| dvf)p and BaiG^eep. xn.c, 'Io\)8a xov rcapoiKfiaai ev dypcp Mcodp, avxdq Kai f| ymm avxou Kai o i m o i avxoi). Josephus 318 Mexd 8e xnv ZauAjfcdvoc, xetewrnv rcpoeaxn. xcov lopaiikixcdv HAiq 6 apxiepevq. e m x o w o v A,iuxp xfjc, xcopac, KaKorca9o\>cm.c, avxcbv 'APin,ete%oc, EK BtiGXe^icov, eaxi 8e TJ noXiq avxr\ xf\q 'Io\)8a ^vXfiq, dvxe%eiv xcp Seivcp |if| 8vvdu.£vo<; xnv xe yvvaiKa N a a ^ e i v Kai xovc, 7tai8aq xovq e£ avxf\q Targum NUNA ]*rpn ]TSD RRTOV BURTON 'maa *)PN PA MM ^TDD W A MM 1.1 1 'NAITF? WTOD tcto T T N PR ir NANA N HOT P «of?« -TO ? tratf P

•niaa m w b n PA "PFR WA P N PA DTR m -DIP PA tuna

pro

PA» NPRAN TINA W A w r t PA APIR W A w o n PA pnr m w a n PA IRR ^ W A WON PA "ANTON TOTE MI M W H PA ORB RRA P I KPNA WAN? BA-Q? PA AT? nrof? TTO ^Tfcw PA JNAZB jrcrba W A wean PA ARAI *Tpn AM wsa MN iai " DIP P NANI cure RATIO? JTFRR io ro±> ARRRA WITI 1

1

1

1

amok ntf?pnanib biro rrnrr orf? rra P aai tnaa psn btafcri 'maa INPNINTRAOTON

MT

rrao crmst* jrtoi pbra raa Tti

'DM ITOK OKTI •f?D » ttfw ncch 1.2 INTI RRM AWO NTO I«AI RRNRR ORF? ,L

DSS OTTTSK IRTOI ]BM RN ^ OTFI 'DIN I N * NM [-FICRB* 0Jw DCTI 1 2 •tf LACRI A«IQ RNTO I«AI RRFIRV UNB N-AFC

LXX 1.2 Kai ovouxx xcp dvSpi 'APeiuetex, Kai ovo^a xoiq 8\)aiv vioiq a\>xo\) MaaA.cbv Kai KeXaicov, 'Ec()pa0aioi EK BaiG^ee^i xf|q Io\)8a' Kai TftGoaav eig dypov Mcodp Kai fjaav eKei.

134

Understanding

Josephus

Josephus avxcp yeyevrpevoix; XeX^icova Kai MaXacbva ercayonevog eiq xnv Mcoapixiv u.exoiKi£exai. 319

Kai rcpoxcopo-uvxcov avxco Kaxd v o w xcov rcpayumcov dyexat xoig violq

yvvaiKaq McoapixiSaq XeMacdvi p,ev 'Opdv 'Po\>9riv 8e MaX,acbvi. 8ieA,06vxcov 8e 5eKa excov Targum

NRB rra p pan jrtoi jftrra ra p n ontfTODrrm» aitfi i^crt* traa cran 12 f*TOn pn Tim aroo bpn IDTOTrrnrr MT :rra Ttfi OTI ran eft* - ^ D ^ K RM 1 3 DSS 1

rra ^tfi VM TW*D -nm izrkrfay * non 1 3

LXX 1.3 Kai drceGavev ' A p e i u i t e x

0

6vf|p xfjq Ncoe^ieiv, Kai Kaxeteic^Ori a\)xrj Kai

oi Svo m o i a\)xfj<;. Josephus 6 xe 'Afhuitexoq Targum

par arm p m '^OIKOTTrnwitiw Tarn rfrya -farta rra 1 3 MT •tfHD erf iatfn rm rnzin atfi nsnx? nnan arc nraaQ m a orf? w i 1.4

DSS

•ti laeih nn n-rfn AM

NSRW

n]nan arc r r a » UVH NRB *

1.4 -itoa

LXX 1.4 Kai e^dpoaav eavxoiq yovaiKag Mcoapeixi8aq. 6vo|ia xfj a i d 'Opd, Kai ovo^ia xfj 8e\)xepa TovO' Kai KaxcpKtiaav £Kei cbq 8eKa exq. Josephus No text

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

135

Targum nsm> tnn AW AIRA n n p p n a i ] pzft cnrfr "tai " I M R A rrra ^ rojn 1 4 pti I t o ]DTD ]Qn T3TTI UNTO"! Kite FTQ mi

MT :rrcrKQi rr-fr Ttib neton -iw*n jrtoi p^no orrcti m m o i 1 5 DSS

neftwn RRFR Tizfa RRCFAN TW*TI jrtoi PBNADNW M

VCN

15

LXX 1.5 Kai drceGavov Kai ye duxt>6xepoi, MaaXcbv Kai XeXaioov Kai KaxeXei<|>0T| TJ ywf| drco toi) dvSpoq avxnq Kai and xcbv 8\)0 \)icbv awfjq. Josephus Kai nex' avxdv oi rcaiSeq 8i' 6Aiyo\) xetewcbai, 3 2 0 Kai fi Nadu-iq TUKpcog eni xoiq GDnPePTiKoai epo\)oa Kai xnv 6\|/iv xcov (|>iA,xdxcov eprpiav oi)K vrconevovaa, 8i' rjv Kai xf\qrcaxpiSoqe^eXxfavQex, Targum *)R irrai cnrrar iMpr* p r o u poDin XMM KID^D rrra BV r a m bin 1 5 KFRMRO ra p r o « t e r e anna MARATO KTOKOD W T K p t o i ] t r a cnrrnn

MT n» mrr i p a o naiQ mfcn rax> o awo nfon artn rrrtoi opm 1.6 :DrfrDrfrnrf?TD» DSS mrr i p s ^ awo rnftfo raatf o amo rnto atom rrrfoi \VN opm] 1.6 [orfrorfrnrf? lorna]

LXX 1.6 Kai dveaxn a\)tfi Kai ai 8TJO v\>uoa aijxfiq Kai d7teaxpe\|/av e£ dypov Mcodp, o n TiKovaav ev dypcp Mcodp 6xi 'ErceoKercxai Kvpioq xov A,adv auxov, 8owai avcoiq dpxotx;. Josephus 7idA.iv eiq avxfjv dTrnXXdxxexo* Kai yap Ti8t| KaXcoq xd Kax' avxrjv eTcvvGdvexo %copeiv.

Understanding

136

Josephus

Targum

toato dtd to ^prn nionriK dttr skid ^prararnannton WN nopi 1.6 t o i mrfacn «T33]2om tot n warf? PT* BVRBR rra maR rr " 101 o r * KTon uracil" Dip s

s

MT zntf? -pro motoi mai> rrnto ntfi noti nrm IM UPON p HOT 1.7 :rmr? p a DSS

[yra moton] no:; rrrnto Tfen nati nrra IM UPON p HOT] 1.7 [rrnrr pK^rrrcfr] LXX 1.7 Kai e£nA,6ev EK XOV XOKOV OV fjv eKei, Kai ai Svo \v\ityai aim\q \iex aiyxf\qKai ercopevovio ev xr\ 65cp xov emaxpe\j/ai eiq xnv yr\v Io\)5a. Josephus 3 2 1 ov% £KapT8po\)v 8e 8ia^e\)YV\)|ievai aim\q ai vuu.<|>ai, Targum

m*6 mnafr wrmo totoDi no» armto frnrn pn mrr n tonn p npsxn 1.7 rrnrr MT ion ddqp mm ntar NON RRAF?TONratfrtob rrnto rrcfr law MAWN 1.8

DSS

•Dos? mm rrtar [noa MH

rati

1

mo ? [rrrnto RAH lain Tawn] 1.8 main ortian op onto itfto] ion

LXX 1.8 Kai eircev Ncoe^eiv xdiq vu^aiq awfjq UopeveoQe 8r|, d7coarpa<|mT£ eKdarn eiq OIKOV uiyrpog avxr]q- rcoifiaai Kupioq \ie& v\i(bv eteoq, Ka0dx; e7coif|aaie |iexd xcbv T£0VTIK6TCOV Kai \IEX e\ioxr Josephus o\)5e Tcapaixov^ievTi Targum

•otD foai) " T3jr non rr±> annarcon'frra annto yrnrf? iaw mow 1.8 prun Tain prrrma inn PNA norf? p m o i t^rroti p-ton di> prrran kodti n» pmioi ,

,

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

137

MT 4

mraam pp natom yb pern rrcra rra TO nrraa jwmi Da ? mrr p 1.9 DSS [nraanh l^p rnrtom

pram nccr« ma TO n m » j h o t oab mm p ] 1.9

LXX 1.9 5C6T| Kvpioq vuiv Kai etipoite dvarcavaiv eKdcxri ev OIKCO dvSpdq avxr\q. Kai Kaxecovfiv avxcbv Kai eKtomaav. Josephus pov^ouevac; auve^opjidv rceiOeiv e 8 w a x o , Targum pnatfn n » wnrm TO i m a m antra to crto ao - i » ]ch " arr 1.9 p a a i prfrp rr fam in ? rptin ntoa ma ? aim a m 1

1

MT •pifr ara -|n» 0 rf? nno»m 1.10 DSS [•ptf? anz& -[n» o rf? nrown] 1.10

LXX 1.10 Kai eircav avxr\ Mexd GOV emoxpe(|>ou.ev eiq xov A,a6v GOV. Josephus dM,' eyKei(ievcov Targum 1

1

trrantf? "ptf? aim -pa ]nto* dttr ronton^ kto ? aim a ? rf? poro 1.10

MT 4

inwxb aa ? rm

1

m a b man TO mato na ? Tin rrnotod- o v n 1.11

DSS 1

h i m ra-run TO raato] na ? mma [mara tod naam] 1.11 [mtiafcDafrrm]

LXX 1.11 Kai eircev Ncoeueiv 'Erciaxpdclmxe 8f|, Gvyaxepeq jiov Kai 'iva xi 7copei>ea0e iiex' c a w , u/n exi uxn vioi ev xf\ KoiAia \iov, Kai eaovxai VUAV eiq dvSpag;

Understanding

138

Josephus

Josephus ei)£au.evr| yduov euxuxeaxepov avxalc, ov 8uinapxr|Keaav rcaioi xoiq avxfjq yaur|0eiaai Kai xcbv dAAxov dyaGcbv Kxfjaiv, oxe xd npoc, avxi\v ovxcoq eaxi, 322 uiveiv avxoQx rcapeKdtei Targum ism a-fri b ma ] » ™ TO fm ]ina p nrf? TTO a n nTO]m o w 1.11

MT rfrto TTH m m p n B T TTTOR O cftfc nrno Topr o pb TO nnti 1.12 :mn rrfrnn&vb DSS ["nip] o [pfr ™ nnti] 1.12 mn Trfr [cm] (4QRuth ) b

LXX 1.12 emaxpd
avu^exa^au-pdveiv avxr\ po\)tea0ai

Targum m o a -nt? "fra tfanD inaba r r a o o n a TDDI/? a f t r a " - r a n m a n n 1.12 pn a-fr TTH Dim - o f t a ^ n ntonD Tnn e r a * a o ^ m a a r m asa MT 10 o T i n *?a ora*? rrrn Tfa*? ram ph>n t>ir im iv nrofon ]rrbn 1.13 :mrr T "a nrcr o DDD iaa ^ DSS [TO ^a

nvn T\b±> ntm?n into htor ntia iu nrafon into] 1.13 nrr T -n nrcr o [mo l a a I D O]

LXX 1.13 avxovq rcpoo8e£ea0e eox; ov dv8p\)v0coaiv; TI avxoiq Kaxaoxe0T|oeo0e xov \ir\ yevea0ai dv8pi; uri 8f| 0\yyaxepeq uov, 6x1 £7ciKpdv0r| uxn vnep v\iac„ 6x1 e£f]A,0ev ev ejioi %eip Kvpiou Josephus 7cpay|idxcov dSrjXcov xfjv rcdxpiov yfjv KaxaXuto'uaag.

STERLING

The Invisible

Presence

139

Targum •MH rnori? BBP jmon ab TO

anas p m N IV j w c ]Tna ]rfr arfrr 1.13 p o r a nnob ato * m p o ^ prr pna prfr-nn

NAB VNSN

raft

" D-rp p ana *a nps] a n a p n T I T T - I Q a n « TOD

MT : m npin mm nmarf? nsro> pram TO nronm f?ip nafoni 1.14 DSS [rn n p m m]m nnnarf? HSTO [pram TO rroam i^ip n:iranji 1.14

LXX 1.14 Kai ETrnpav xfjv ^covfjv avxdw Kai eKAxxvaav e x r Kai Kaxe<|>iA,T|G£v 'Op(|)d xnv 7cev6epdv avxr\q Kai erceaxpeyev eiq xov Xaov a\)xfiq, Toi>9 8 e fiKoXovGrjoev a\>xfi. Josephus ri jiev o\iv 'Opd jievet, xfjv 8e 'Po\>9riv u.f| TteiaSeiaav drcriYaYS KOIVCOVOV Ttavxoq xov rcpoaxvxovxoq yevr|ao|ievr|v. Targum mm VRWB rf?mi nmorf? nsro> npitfn anna a m TO laom p*?p ]to3i 1.14 ranpma

MT i r a a ' n n a ^mra rrtfa* *?ai noi? *?a -fnon*' nnrarann&am 1.15 DSS [RRRBJFB) [NTI\YB -jrrar [nnra ran noam] 1.15

LXX 1.15 Kai eircev Ncoejieiv rcpoq To\>9 'I8ov dveoxpexj/ev a-uvvv^oq GOV rcpog Xaov a\)xf|g KaircpoqTOVC, Qeovq ai>rn<;- erciaxpaclmxi 8f| Kai ov orciaco xfjg
nra -inn anrfrnn NB NNV NB YNZR ran an moai 1.15 -JTIITYTI

Understanding

140

Josephus

MT -[to n t o -RBR to n -pnRQ avb "prtf? n ^aan to n nroRm1.16 :vrto y n t o i TO "]Q» p t o T t o n e t o DSS No text extant LXX 1.16 eutev 5 e To\)9 Mfj drcavxfiaai e u m xov KaxaX-iTceiv a e f\ drcoaTp£\|/ai omaBev GOV, oxi ov onov e d v rcope-uBfiq rcope\iao|iai, Kai ov e d v a\)kia8fj<; a\)A,io9r|aoum* 6 Xaoq

GOV TWLOC, [LOV,

Kai 6 Geoq ao\) 0e6<; \iov

Josephus N o text Targum 1

R T T I R ? RJR » n w a ™ "pnn p mra ? JPIWZB 4

n w p n VB nn mow 1.16

p t o p r o nn RDto*? Rto ton n e w i tratf notf? Tipsr*TODnroRi RTODU

1

1

R-OTD ran ? Rto wiper*TO]nnoR ton n t o n ]RDto ?rm nnoR 1

1

i t o nton I R Q fro neon ? wipsnRTODmo* miPR mmm mR to ? rrn rna« ma* RDI raip p TO mn l t o o RTCM RITR ITCMR "pa peon no nn nroR «mpa 1

^nto Rin -pnto nn nnoR roraa RDIYTB nton ? Rto RnpanR TOD

MT mEr man n ^cr nm ^ mrr nter na -npR nz*i n o * Tnon TO 1.17

DSS No text extant LXX 1.17 Kai ov e d v drcoGdvn/; drcoGavo'up.ai, KOKCI xar|aoum. t d 5 e 7coif|om \ioi Kvpioq Kai xd5e rcpooGeir), OTI Gdvaxog 8iaoTeAei dvd ueaov E[iov Kai GOV. Josephus No text Targum 4

ntoapi t<m] rrrpn poR REM R^rrrf? R T O T Q I O T R RD? mR TO: T O R 1.17 Rmrap n n i ? mRTODniQR moR 'mom no to nn MM VAP rmtoi RETO 'to*pv ] r m ? " T3JT | m TO Rtotf? TOI R ?*) RinpTO*pm n n rnoR "[Dm tfnsr nmn O H R 1

,l

1

STERLING The Invisible

141

Presence

MT mto -URB tonm nn« n s t o

maaRna n tnrn 1.18

DSS No text extant

LXX 1.18 i 5 o v a a 8e Ncoeueiv oxi Kpaxaiovxai avxf) xov rcopeveaSai jief avxriq, eKOTcaoev xov A,aA,fiaaircpdqavxnv exi. Josephus N o text Targum rro 'toato nposi NNV totf? VCN watoo DTTR mm 1.18

MT TOT

to m m nrf? n n

TOOD

*m NRB n n n a a orrnS nnton 1.19 :TO] nam rcnaRrn p t o

DSS No text extant

LXX 1.19 eKOpevGnaav 5e d ^ o x e p a i ecoq xov rcapayeveaGai avxdq eiq Bai0^ee|i. Kai r\%r\GEvrcdaarj noXiq en avxfjq, Kai elrcov Avxri eaxiv Ncoe^ieiv; Josephus 3 2 3 'EA,0ovaav 5e TovGnv uexd xf|q nevGepdq eiq xf|v Bn0te£|icov Boca£r|S 'ApiusAexov avyyevfn; ©v 5e%exai £evia. Kai ft Nadu.iQ, rcpooayopevovxcov avxnv ovojiaaxi, Targum 4

m p n m to -i&rrw orf? nn ? ]to ID mm NRB n n ] t o i i a jrrmn f?TW 1.19 TOD RTT p a w yirrto

MT ,L

,l

:"iwa B ntf "nan n RID ? p n p TO] ? rranpn to p t o -o*m 1 JO DSS No text extant

142

Understanding

Josephus

LXX 1.20 Kai eircev npoq ai)xd<; Mi\ 8f| KaXeixe p,e Ncoe|ieiv, KaA^aaxe ue IliKpdv, oxi eTctKpdvGri ev eu.oi 6 iKavoq a<|>68pa. Josephus SiKaioxepov elrce Mapdv KaXeixe ae* Targum Kivb b

ntf

T O * OTTRras:rrmo

b rp TOD b pp

4

pirm a ? prfr mow 1.20

MT n my mm TOD mtnpn nob mrr -rarti opm TOto nato •»» 121

DSS

No text extant LXX 1.21 eycb 7iA,f|pTi<; ercopevOnv, Kai KEVTJV drceaxpexj/ev ue 6 K-upiog* Kai iva xi KaXeixe ue Ncoejieiv, Kai Kvpioq exarceivcoaev ue, Kai 6 iKavoq eKdKcooev ue; Josephus orjiiaivei 8e Ka0' 'Eppaicov yA,cdxxav vad|ii<; uev evxvxiav, fiapd 8e 6 8 w n v . Targum M

1

+> pp p a p no ? ] r a "

wpm " H D I ^ J O D m^m ^ t o

rat121

b cr«n« -TO rain a mom " Dip pi MT rra ira ron

DKTQ

n t o raftr rro nrfo maroon mm TOD arcrn 122 tonOT -rop ntona orf?

DSS

No text extant LXX 1.22 Kai erceaxpeyev Ncoeueiv Kai 'Poi>6 fj McoaPeixiq i\ vupxtm a\)xfi<; emaxpe^ovaa e£ dypov Mcodp* avxai 8ercapeyevrjOnaaveiq BaiOXeeji ev dp%f| 6epia|iov KpiOcov. Josephus 324 d|xf|xo\) 8e yevouevoi)

STERLING The Invisible

143

Presence

Targum

NRB MH nto pro nroo BPM RAM rro nnto w o r n mmTODm m 122 p mm « n m n m a w m IXNTI? BVRWR *N Timtf war ronrai wioEn war 'toon

MT ,,

:TOT TQBJI - [ t o t o n n s r a a tor Tna tin ntfnf? irro TO^I 2.1 DSS No text extant LXX 2.1 Kai ifi Ncoeueiv dvf|p yvcopiuxx; xcp dv8pi avx^q- 6 8 e dvfip bvvaxoq ia%\>i K

a

i

6K rnq avyY^viaq 'A|3eiuetex, ovojia avxcp Booq. Targum urn rratfi - [ t o ' t o o i r r p NSRM ^ p n naa *na nton ? jrnianztoTO] ?!2.1 4

4

MT "ina c r t o r a n o p t o i rntonrarotoTO]tonnroon rm T O O T 2 2 rrn n b n? mawn rrm p rosoK 4

DSS No text extant LXX 2 2 Kai eircev To\)6fj Mcoapeixiq npoq Ncoejieiv nopevGcd 8f| eiq dypov Kai avvd^co ev xoiq axaxvaiv Kax6ma9ev o\> e d v evpco xdpiv ev 6c|>0aAjioi<; a\)xo\). elrcev 8e o.vxr\ nope\>o\), 6vydxr|p. Josephus e^fiei KaA.a^Tiao^evn Kaxd a\)yxc6pT|aiv xnq 7tev0epd<; fj 'Poi>8r|, drccoq xpo<|>f|<; evrcopoiev, Targum rartn

n m r t o r c n fcrnro rf^prf? JOT ton TOD nt> w i m n o n n m o w 2 2 Ti-n +RR* rb m a w W O T fiarn

MT 1

TOT? rnton n p t o mpia i p i m s p n n m m t o o p t o i roam "[toi 2 3 q t o r t o nnsctoa

144

Understanding

Josephus

DSS No text extant LXX 2.3 Kai ercopev0ri Kai avvete^ev ev xcp dypcp Kax6ma0ev xcbv 0epi£6vxcov Kai rcepierceoev 7ceputxc6|iaxi xfi uepiSi xov dypov Booq, xov C K avyyeveiaq 'Apeijietex. Josephus Kai eiq xo Boco^ov xv^aiax; d(|>iKveixai %copiov. Targum W±> mm VBPN ROOM TOTTR jmro VRMSN "inn Kfrpro ntoi ntoi rf?TW 2 3

" f a ^ a i m pn MT 1

:mrr -PRO? T> r o n UXD mrr UMSPB "ran on ? rrao t o TOT mm 2 4 DSS No text extant LXX 2.4 Kai i8ov Booq f|A,0ev eK Bai0Aee|i Kai elrcev xoiq 0epi£ovaiv Kvpioq ue0' vficov Kai eucov avxcp EuAoyrjaai a e Kvpioq. Josephus rcapayevouevog

8e Boa^oq |iex' oAiyov Kai 0eaaduevo<; xnv Kopnv

Targum 1

rr? rra* i I D I O T D m troyo T Promurf?TOW orf? rra p «n» una «m 2 4

MT man rnOTT 'rf? onsnpn to 32m rurf? TOT -ran 2 5 DSS No text extant LXX 2.5 Kai eircev Booq xcp 7cai8apicp avxov xcp e^eaxcbxi e m xovq 0epi^ovxaq Tivoq r| vedviq avxn;

STERLING

The Invisible

Presence

145

Josephus dveicpive xov dypOKOuov rcepi xnq rcaiSog. 6 8 e |iiKpov euTtpoaGev nap a\)xn.<; drcavxa nponenvGiievoq Targum ranranran«YRVB roTisn to an ^"i 'miytofr TOT - m i 1 5

MT TOD nv rnctfnronrraKia ra " o r a onsipn to rrcn -man j m 2.6 :3KTDrnft)D DSS N o text extant LXX 2 . 6 Kai drceKpiOn xo rcai5dpiov xo e ^ a x o q e m xovq 0epi£ovxa<; Kai elrcev H nalq rj McoaPeixiq eaxiv, f) drcoaxpa<|>eiaa uexd Ncoeueiv e £ dypov Mcodp. Josephus e8r|Xov xcp 8eo7i6xn. Targum ramronnromrayp a n TDKI H-TOT to m ranra wrto? m 2.6 nron ^pnoTO]DJ> rrranro MT npan mo nTOrn tram onsipn nn» o n o m T©oro rapto Town 2.7 :CDOT nan nratf nr nra TO

DSS No text extant LXX 2 . 7 Kai eircev ZvAAe^co 8f\ Kai ovvd^co ev xoiq Spdy^aaiv OTCIOOEV xcbv 0epi£6vxcov Kai fjA,9ev Kai eaxn and rcpcoiGev Kai ecoq ecmepaq, o v Kaxercauaev e v xcp dypcp uiKpov. Josephus No text Targum t m s n nnn rant* to IMTIAI

noroiatoaptoititoraviJOT -TO»* maw 2.7

Trcra wrra ran p T J K p ]OT TI?I rass mpo ]raraDJjnwnopi nnro

146

Understanding

Josephus

MT

VB D3i in» mftn copto n t o to -ra nOTtirotorrn to TOT -nan 2.8 DSS No text extant LXX 2.8 Kai eircev BooqrcpoqTo\)0 OTJK TiKovoaq, 9\)ydxnp; |IT)rcope-uBfjqev dypcp cruMe^ai exepcp, Kai cru ovrcopevcrrjevxevGev co6e KoAArj&nri uexd xcbv Kopaaicov \IOV.

Josephus No text Targum pm« ^pnn ptoM -iamb p n n VB RM ^ rfrnp «to rrn NB TOT TORI 2.8 moto; UV pcnnnramrnna MVB YIEH rao nn^n tf?

MT

"pa nto ? onwn M RM wto pnn» rcton p a p - TIZJR nita j r u 2.9 terror pawtf -itfra mntfi D'ton to roton ran 1

1

DSS No text extant LXX 2.9 oi 6<|>6aA4ioi aov ei<; xov dypov o\> edv 6epi£coaiv, KaircopevarjKaxomaGev avtwv iSov evexeiXd^riv xoiq 7tai5apioi<; xov |if| dyaaGai a o v Kai 6 xi 8i\|/f|aei<;, Kaircopev&ncTrjetq xd aKevn. Kai meaai 60ev dv v8pevcovxai xd 7cai5dpia. Josephus No text Targum ton VENBW m rrrpa «to prnra innm pn parr n VBPRN «tonoo 'nrn 2.9 pto' n *io p raro Tim rara ? Tab K T K nra pirn tin ? -p p - p «to 1

1

MT

Trorf? "[TOT ]n Tirao imo r t o Town mna inn#n rrs to torn 2.10 :rr-D3naro

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

147

DSS No text extant LXX 2.10 Kai erceaev erixrcpoacorcovavxfjq Kai rcpoaeKwriaev eni xnv yf\v, Kai eutev Ttpoq avxov Ti oxi evpov %dpiv ev 6<|>6aA,u.oi<; GOV xov emyvcovai ue, Kai eyco eiu.i £evri; Josephus No text Targum Trurnoreitf? YVN porn nrazte p o maro wn» to rrracn «ns« to ntoai 2.10 "-i a r a t o i to'tf? m& «to awon prran ntroia KQOT too

MT - p a mo nraqmon m rrto im to ^ nan nan rfrrat pro -jaw - p a nwm DSS No text extant LXX 2.11 Kai dTteKpiOri Booq Kai euiev avxfi 'ArcayyeAAa d7m.yyeA,Ti |ioi oaa TteKoiriKaq |iexd xn<; rcevGepdq aov uexd t o drcoGaveiv xov dv8pa aov, Kai rccbq KOLieXineq xov rcaxepa aov Kai xf|v u^xepa aov Kai xfjv ynv yeveaecoq aov, Kai ejcopevGriqrcpoqAxxov ov OVK fl8ei<; e%6eq Kai xpixriq. Josephus 325 6 8e xfjc; jcepi xrjvrcevGepdvevvoiaq d^ia Kai |ivf|^q xov rcaiSoq avxfiq cp avvcpKnaev darcaad^ievoq Targum "iTa \TB p^to " ma nnn NYAtoB MM nronna RB now TOT YRM 2.11 VANV pan ytraai p t o -pa psatf? p r o n nrorin •'to raarKi anma to ]nto* • p a TOI "[TOi -pton npntin -ptora man nro nm noansn -jrran to rrnjn ^mopiDi ^tontw -p ?fcrnoroto«to *wtf? nbrai jnrYr jnw -pro 1

MT n

im tonfcr nto mrr DOT nato - p r o t a T O -|tos mmtfyfr2.12 :vsaaDnnnmon^n«n

148

Understanding

Josephus

DSS No text extant

LXX 2.12 drcoxiaai Kvpioq xfrv e p y a a i a v a o v yevoixo 6 |iio06<; a o v nX^p^q rcapd Kvpiov 6 e o v 'Iapaf|A,, npoq ov f\XQeq rcercoiGevai imo xdq rcxepvyaq avxov. Josephus Kai ev^duevoq avxfi neipav dyaOcbv KaA,au<xa0ai uev avxfjv OVK T|£icoaev, 8epi£eiv 5e rcdv 6 xi Kai Svvaixo Kai A,a|i|3dveiv emxpercei Targum

Tira 'CHUBra^to-paa no -paw to p nratoraatD ton YB "toar2.12 ra -si m p ' nrsizjtocomnn ntan™f?i '"rantf? nnra tonftn rato" Dip p ntfn ton npm mto or - p t o inrf? n a m p o p r n * WTOI

MT 1

^aw "prati n ? to rran m 'anana O 'aia -pa\OT p raoa naran 2.13

DSS a

[mm m 'anora "D ^ana - p m p raoa noam] 2.13 (2QRuth ) 4

-prfera nnra rm» «f? oaro "pristi n ? to] LXX 2.13 f| 5e eircev Evpoiju %dpiv ev 6<|)6aAjioi<; aov, Kvpie, oxi rcapeKdAeadq ue, Kai oxi eA,dAj|aaq e m Kap8iav xf|<; 5auA.r)£ aov, Kai i8ov eyco eaojiai cbq | i i a xcbv 7tai8ioKcbv a o v . Josephus No text Targum ^I±> 'annzbtf? "rona ottk toi "[Dip 'Tarn nroi* maw 2.13 ran amp-ran 7T w i rato pm ? ^arrozara ^Haa ±> to m r m rafrto NRM

"n « t o p n

1

YM

p ran dj> Ytsk

rato?

p t o intf? idt m*?

MT p n n Y® ntocan onto p ntoro ntoTOtorantf? TOT rb nara 2.14 :inrnOT&mtownbp rb enan nn^pn tsa acrn

STERLING The Invisible

149

Presence

DSS [onto] p [ntoro Dto TO to«n n±> TOT rb -nam] 2.14 hnfrnOT[tornto]rcnbp rb e o n nmspn ratim p r a -pa ntooi]

LXX 2 . 1 4 Kai elrcev avxfi Booq "H5r| cbpa xov <|>ayeiv, rcpoaeMte a>5e Kai <|>dyeom xcbv dpxcov, Kai pdyeiq xov ycoudv aov ev xcp 6£et. Kai eKd0iaev Tov0 EK rcAayicov xcbv 0epi£6vxcov Kai epovviaev avxfj Booq dX^ixov, Kai e<|>ayev Kai eve7cA,T|a0Ti ^ai KaxeAarcev, Josephus rcpooxd^aq xcp dypoKouxp \LT\$EV avxnv 5iaKcoMeiv A,au$dveiv, dpiaxov xe rcape%eiv avxfj Kaircoxov,orcoxe aixi^oi xovq 0epi£ovxa<;. 3 2 6 TO\)0TI 8e atyixa AxxPovaa nap' avxov e<|>vXa£e xr\ eKvpqi Targum

vbrntobntrra t o n m jnvo TODOI t o n n n p WTTOO pxb TOT rb -IDNI 2 . 1 4 n r t i rmtfi riOTOi ntoro ^ p i noprf?o m iro-nsnT D D ram

MT 1

.mryton vb\ o p t o amain p oa TDK? v-ua n« TOT

o p t o oprn 2.15

DSS mcrton vb o p t o [nnDOT p ] Da hiatf?] r u n n» TOT "en [o]pto op[rn] 2 . 1 5 LXX 2 . 1 5 Kai dveaxn xov avAAeyeiv. Kai evexeikaxo Booq xoiq 7cai8apioiq avxov Xeycov K a i ye dvd ueaov xcbv Spayuxxxcov avMeyexco, Kai \IR\ Kaxaia^vvrixe avxnvJosephus No text Targum ,

KITI t m s Tm trato* Tn *]« -o'laf? *iiato> rr OT T p s i ptoitf -aaaf? napi 2 . 1 5

naiDDm

MT ,

:rn raan tfa nopbi oraun • ro^n p tf? ito'n to Dai 2.16

Understanding

150

Josephus

DSS 4

[nn riOT] »f?h njop ?! drawn [crrasn p tf? i]ton [to mi] 2.16

LXX 2.16 Kai Paaxd£ovxe<; Paoxd^axe avxfj Kai yercapapdAAovxeqrcapaPateixe avxfi £K xcbv Pepo-uviauevcov Kai ^dyexai Kai cruAAe^ei, Kai OVK emxiuriaexe avxfj. Josephus No text Targum

nn psrcntf?iterns VSND? ppntfm tmra p if? ]*nnn irra

2.16

MT 1

rontfo nsrra 'rn nop ? TO n» onnm nnan nu nnto opto") 2.17

DSS 1

•nato n s n o vih] [nop ? TO n» on]nm nnun ny niton ofpton] 2,17 LXX 2.17 Kai o v v e t e ^ e v ev xeb dypcb ecoq ecmepaq* Kai epdp5iaev a cruvete^ev, Kai eyevf|0ri cix; oi(|)i KpiGcbv. Josephus Kai Ttapfiv 6\j/e Targum

nton prrrurti mm nnns H ^tow m ntfri w a nTOt^pnn YBIW rrmn 2.17

MT 1

TO n» rf? |nm ram nop ? TO n» nman ram TOT tram atom 2.18 mOTtoQnnmn DSS 1

TO [m rf?] ]nm term nop ? TO n» nnnan [ram TOT] tram atom 2.18 nOTtannmn

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

151

LXX 2.18 Kai f|pev Kai eiaf|A,6ev eiq xfjv noXiv, Kai ei8ev f| rcevGepd a\)xfj<; d croveXe^ev Kai e^eveyKaaa Po\)9 e8coKev a i m j d KaxeXircev e £ cov eveftArjaBr). Josephus Koui^ovoa u£xd xcov axa%\)cov £X£xrpf|K£i 8' ai)xfj Kai i\ Nad|ii<; drcouxnpaq ppco|idxcov xivcbv, olq a\)xfjv e7co^\)c6po\)v o i y£ixov£i>ovx£<;Targum

ram Ktoarm p npwi nton no rr nnuan mom wrpb rbxn mmoi 2.18 nw&a rf? mwrtn wra rr rf?

MT 4

nrrnf? -rarn "[nn -p-aa w rrto naro tarnrap ?nsn* nnuanrf?noam 2.19 :un earn iqj; -rrtoTO&ran az? noam id*? nntoTOn» DSS

[703 "[TDD *rr] rrto natfi] nrnrap ?[nsra nrnfen rf? hfewn 2.19 •ray ftrlto [aran] Dto [noam idjj] rrntoTOn» [nmorf?] nam 4

LXX 2.19 Kai eucev avxfi fj TievGepd avxfiq riov oruveAe^aq ofj^epov Kai nov £7coir|aa<;; eir| 6 eniyvovq a e evhoymievoc,. Kai dvfiyyeiX^v To\)0 xr\ nevSep^i awiiq Tcov eTcoinaev, Kai euiev To ovo^ia xov dvSpoq u£0' ov £7coir)oa af|U£pov Booq. Josephus N o text Targum 4

jrTmftn anna «rr -DOT ? ntontfa yt7\ p roar rra* ]«f? nman rf? rnaro 2.19 rrtotwr ton troa outf m a n nro nnytf? ntorron rr nmiarf? r*nm y o o -j? wn npra p war maa nnitfa? 4

4

MT 4

1

4

nw crnn n» non nw a ?TOmrr? wn "[nn nnto ? -law noam 2 2 0 :ott latoao i^an 1a? nnp iaw rf? -0*11 d t o t 4

DSS 4

4

4

•"nn n» non [nia a ?TOmm]? wn "pn nnMn? -dm inwTi] 2 2 0 N n [tfawa] aran 1a? nnpfrauan? noam Domain [n]ro 4

4

Understanding

152

Josephus

LXX 2.20 Kai eircev Ncoejieiv xfj vuu<|m avxf\q E\)ta>yr|x6<; eaxiv xcp Kvpico, oxi OVK evKaxeXtTcev xo eXeoq avxov jiexd xcbv ^covxcov Kai jiexd xcbv xe6vT|Koxcov. Kai eijcev avxr\ Ncoejieiv 'Eyyi^ei rijiiv 6 dvf|p, C K xcbv dy%iaxei)6vxcov r\\iaq eaxiv. Josephus No text Targum Din *m w TTCTD p3D vb n "n trcrnp DTSD Kin -pin rmW? 'DM mow 220 Kin w p n u o D tnnarcfrn n pTODnb mow OTTO

MT DM ni> p p m n T O DHOTI DI?

TDR O Da mnran nn -IDWTI 221

:b IM -rcspn tana t o DSS ,l

D[« ny ]pnnn ? IM] DHOTI NU b IM *o Da rf nran nn -OOT] 221

LXX 2.21 Kai eircev 'Po\>0rcpoqxf|vrcevGepdvavxfjq Kai ye oxi eircevrcpoqjie Mexd xcbvrcaiSapicov\LOV KOAATJOTVCI ecoq dv xeXeacoaiv 6A,ov xov durixov 6q \)rcdp%ei urn. Josephus 5vn.yeixai 8e avxfj Kai xdrcapdxov Bodrov Tcpoq avxi\v eiprpeva. 327 8r|A,coodoTi<; 8' eKeivr|<; cog auyyevfiQ eaxi Kai xd%a dv 8i' evaePeiav 7ipovof|aeiev avxcbv, Targum

]"crcr on ]DT ID paomn bn ran DJ> ^ -IDK ana rcrnra nn mow 221 ^ n traitor?

MT -p wasr tfn vnraa DJJTOPo nn DID nnto nn TOE noam 222 nna nnto DSS

[wasr] «f7i T O T [NV

VAN

o -nn mD nrf?fc> nn

*OSN MM\]

[IM mfen -p

2.22

STERLING The Invisible

153

Presence

LXX 2.22 Kai eutev Ncoejieiv npoq To\)0 xfjv vv\ityr\v ai)xfj<; 'Aya06v, 0-uydxn.p, oxi e7cope\)0r|(; uexd xcbv Kopaoicov a\)xo\), Kai OVK drcavxriaovxai aoi ev dypcp exepcp. Josephus No text Targum •pr p n j r VB) nmfrto) W jpan a n a nnn TSH? nnto n n NB -QW m o w 222 pma^pm

MT :nmon na ntim a w n -ropi o m t f n Tap mto -u> o p t o w a n n r a pnnrn 223 DSS mm

h ] ^ p i crhi&n -rsp m]to ny copito u n n r o n pfcnm] 223 [nmQnn*otB]m

LXX 2.23 Kai 7ipoaeKoM,f|0ri TovQ xoiq Kopaaioiq Booq cruAXeyeiv ecoq o\i cruvexeXeaev xov 0epiaji6v xcbv Kpi0cbv Kai xcbvrcupcbv.Kai eKd0iaev uexd %r\<; 7cev0epdq avxr\<;. Josephus e^fiei n&Xiv xaiq e%o|ievai<; T|uepai<; em KaA,d|ir|<; ovXX6yT\v oi)v xaiq Bodrov 0eparcaiviaiv. 328 'E^0c6v xe jiex ov noXXcu; rijiepaq Kai Boac^oq fi8r| xfjq Kpi0n.<; teA,iK|LiT|jievTi<; erci xfj<; dAxoog eKd0e\)8e. xovxo 7ru0ouevr| rj Nadjiiq Targum 4

w mm pan i s m p » nsn win

iv opto ? unn *mybw2 npmnro 223 nrrcn

MT 4

4

rf? nco" nzto man "i ? tipna a t oTOnmon 'oia n ? - m m 3.1

DSS [P nfcr - H * rrao P ttfpna a t oTO]nrnon

4

n ? - o w n 3.1

Understanding

154

Josephus

LXX 3.1 elrcev 8e awfi Ncoejieiv fj rcevGepd avxf\q ©uydxrip, ov UTJ £nxf|aco aoi dvarcavaiv 'iva ev yevrixai aoi; Josephus xe%vdxai Targum 1

1

H w r a -j? jnntn pr is T T »raarr ? nimra T T O nran 'owrf?n o w 3.1

MT tantfon pa n» m ironnan rnrwa n» n"n TO larunD u n a t o nnin 3 2 :»17vn DSS

p[a r« mr] KIT? rian rnraa] n» n"n TO [mlmo u o [ato nron] 3 2

[rfrto]Dnj&n LXX 3.2 Kai vvv ov%i Booq yvcopiuxx; f^icbv, ov f)q uexd xcbv Kopaoicov avxov; avxoq XiK\iq xov dAxova xcbv KpiGcbv xavxrj xfj VVKXI.

ibov

Josephus No text Targum T T R rr "iino

«n T r a ^ nv vbprn rrn Hrcfri r n a r o i n o a t o ]JDI 3 2

vcbbi ma*

anrn psoi

MT

nto ii> ert^ 'imn

pan T r m j t o -ptoto nofcnraoir w r n 33 rrmzfritotf?

DSS

[tftf? 'jmn

pan 'nrm] j t o -prftoe? nofin nHoi rwm] 33 [nnrfeitorf? intone]

LXX 3.3 oi) 8e AX)\>OT| Kai dtei\|m Kaircepi0r|aei<;xov ijiaxioudv aov em ae, Kai dvapriarj em xov dXco* \ir\ yvcopia0f|<; xcb dv8pi ecoq ov ovvxeT&oai avxov meiv Kai <|>ayeiv

STERLING The Invisible

155

Presence

Josephus No text Targum VNSH W O T I VB VRMB p r i m j c r a b n m i YAAN "D"iom traa ^tonrn 33 Ttocb) bych rrnwti pr -TO

MT Toatfi

rnfrno mto nam AN nrrcr TO mpon n» m m "nato vm 3.4 :ywvr\TOm "p TT torn

DSS

[rrfaho mto nMm [ntf 3r>crr TO mpan n» rurrji m a n vm 3.4 1

l^oun [TO n» -j? T r wm]

RATT

LXX 3.4 Kai eaxai ev xcp KOi|iT|9f|vai avxov Kai yvcoofl xov xorcov orcoi) Koiuxxxai EKei, Kai eXevarj Kai a7COKaX,\)\j/ei<; xd npoqrcoScbvavxov Kai Koiur|0f|arj, Kai avxbq drcayyeXei aoi a 7coif|aeiq. Josephus TtapaKaxaKXivai xf]v 'PovSrrv ai>xcb* Kai yap eaeaGai xpriaxov avxalq ouiknaavxa xfircaiSi*Kai ne\INEI xrjv Koprrv imvcoaop.evr|v avxov napa xoiq rcoaiv. Targum "DTQim *BN

rr ^ t o n 'torn pn - p m n ina rr pnrn rrrm pm vn 3 4 paijn n rr rrnoDra -f? nrr wm WTJ? rratfrwtfvim

MT 1

:nto» nowi TO to rr ** lawn 3 5 DSS

[nta» nowi TO to m*?» -iaa]m 3 5 LXX 3.5 eircev 8e Poi)6rcpoqai)xr|v ndvxa oaa edv eurrjq rcoiriaco. Josephus 329 ri 8e npoq ovbev yap dvxikeyeiv xcbv vno xfjq eKvpdq Ketevo^evcov oaiov Tyyeixo,

156

Understanding

Josephus

Targum

T a » b pnDTi T to rb mow 3 5 MT inrnon nrrc* im toa torn pan m m 3.6

DSS [nrnan nrra TO ton tonh pan [Tim] 3.6

LXX 3.6 Kai Kaxe|3ii eiq xov dXco, Kai ercoiTiaev Kaxd rcdvxa oaa evexeikaxo ai>xfj f| rcevGepd avxng. Josephus rcapayivexai Targum nrnon nrrrpB n to rrnyi VRNEB nnnai 3.6

MT 4

ton coto t o n manun n*pa aactf? a n la ? aeon ntin u n to*n 3.7 :aa&rn rnfano DSS 4

ton o t o torn [norwr nspa aattf? «ah ha ? 3km ran u n [torn] 3.7

aamvntoiQ LXX 3.7 Kai ec|>ayev Booq Kai T)ya0\)v6T| i\ Kap8ia avxoi), Kai rjA,0ev Koi|ir|0fivai ev |iepi8i xfjq oxoipfiq* f| 8e fjA,0ev Kpi)(|>fj Kai drceKdA/u\|/ev xdrcpdqrco8cbvavtou Josephus Kai xcapavxiKa uev XavBdvei xov Boac^ov PaGecoq KaOvitvcoKoxa, rcepieyep9ei<; 8e Targum 1

wnfcw aasa niwi mmto ^apn "n NOB "p-iai ma ? a^oiw arari u n tow 3.7 room *fan nwto n a rrn ntoi m r a * ncooa toon*? WKI *»n&m

MT rvntoiD naat& r\m nam nsto tiro T i m rbbn ^na n n 3.8

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

157

DSS YRBRIN RAX] mzte nam

i

re 7h] aran [-nn]fi] nPTto ^nn 'rrji 3.8

LXX 3.8 eyevexo 8E ev xcp ^eaovDKxicp Kai e^eaxn. 6 dvf|p Kai exapd%6R|, Kai I8O\) yuvTj KoiumaircpoqrcoScbvavxov. Josephus rcepi |ieanv VVKXO Kai aiaGouevoq rpq DV9PCIMOV rcapaKaxaKeiuivTiq Targum «m «om wrrn p w r s t o nnora "pnnNi nrm tona mm wto? matora mm 3.8 Kpns *pr taan KOOT nrnf? nnp a h m t r rani «BN tonp to toon anna p m « T o n or ? "Q wtDto t u n HODTTI mam nna wrtaa rrf? nnptf? m e n nnt> nipof? zanon m i nnatorc?rato'Dp i rmoa p «3"o 1

MT

:nna ^to o -jnD« to -pas rtnsi -pra* n n oa« t « m na

- o n 3.9

DSS

No text extant LXX 3.9 eutev 8E Tiq el ov; TJ 8E eutev 'Eyco eiui TovG rj Sovtoi G O V , Kai rcepipateiq xo rcxepvyiov aov em xnv 8OVA,nv aov, 6X1 dy%iaxev<; el av. Josephus dveKpive xiq eir|. 330 xfjq 8' ei7co\)OT|<; xovvo^a Kai auevn.<; coq avxfjq 8EA7C6XR|v avy%copeiv Targum •™

NIB AA±> ~[MT to -pea npnm "]ro< n n aaa m o w

Tina na p now 3.9 na p n s

MT 1

1

Tfa ? prtnn p finnan "[ion raern -ra mm ? na nm-Q n a n 3,10

.-rate oro to DK omnnn nna rob DSS

No text extant

Understanding

158

Josephus

LXX 3.10 Kai eircev Boog EvtoyTinevri av xcp Kvpico 0ecp, Gvyaxep, oxi frydOvvaq to eteoq aov to ea%axov vrcep torcpcoxov,to \ir\ rcopevSfivai ae orciaco veavicbv, e'ixoircxcoxogeixoi rikovGioc,. Josephus xoxe |iev fjavxiav dyei, Targum w i p 'HDTp p ^mrn jrra'tD r a w 'rra " m p p roa t a r a toi 3.10 inn -[no ? «fn -nnn pr u> mem w * o jq-u rram mrm n r « n 1

,

MT -o

1

- T O ?toinr o "j? nto» ram TO to 'ton TO nnin 3.11 :n« tor TO

DSS

No text extant LXX 3.11 Kai vvv, Gvyaxep, §o$ox>' rcdvxa oaa edv eiTcrjqrcoifiacoaoi* oi8ev yap rcdaa vX,f|taxov|iov oxi yvvfj Swd^ieax; ei av. Josephus No text Targum snn -or? to Dip +n um yb T n » b p ^ n n to f^mn «f? Trn jidi 3.11 *h mnps T3 mmcfr «frn 7 3 n w n» mp'-K wina otir ten p i r o

MT r r o n*np *ao cr oai odk ^

-o a m *o nrun 3.12

DSS

No text extant LXX 3.12 Kai oxi dtoiGcoq dyxiaxeix; eyco eiur Kai ye eaxiv dyxiaxevq eyyicov vrcep e(ie. Josephus No text

STERLING The Invisible

159

Presence

Targum

mm pisxb nb m

p n s ma *]wranpna DTTK twnpa OVTR p m 3.12

MT 1

1

Trfacn -fao ? p r r vb oro -TOT mo "fw OK npnn rrm rfrtn T ? 3.13 npnnTO-oatf mm n *o» DSS

Pawr DICD •FIW hpnn

DK

TO

"ipnn rrmrfrbnT ?] 3.13 (2QRuth ) 1

b

mm n -oa* jr-fabi "f^fr parr «f? aw]

LXX 3.13 a\)A,ia8r|xi XTJV vuKxa, Kai eaxai xorcpcoiedv dyxiaxevan. ae, dya06v, dy%iaxeuexco- edv 8e UT) $ovXr\xai dy%iaxe\)aai ae, dyxiaxevaco a e eyco, £fj Kvpioq, ai) el Kvpioq* KOIUT|6T|XI ecoq rcpcoi. Josephus No text Targum

aa n n KTPTIK p - p - o ^ m mto iDpnED** m a n n n xbbi m 3.13 p rfrton KQD " nip rwazb maR tat Tp-sro "p-erf? ^ «f? arc "rf? pnsn anas pjnirsiDT-raw*

MT

mr

1

- o n in^n n» # R TO* a n m apm npnn is rbrm rotim 3.14 .ppnetonnta-o

DSS

[run n» art* TIT onen apm np]nn ny rrbkiD [natim] 3.14 pan nta o jrrr P» Tan] LXX 3.14 Kai eKoiuT|9r| npoqrcoScdvavxov ecoqrcpcoi*ft 8e dveaxri npb xov emyvcdvai dv8pa xov rc^riaiov avroir Kai eircev Booq Mfj yvcoa0f|xco oxi fjA,0ev yvvfi eiq xfjv dAxova.

Understanding

160

Josephus

Josephus opGpioq 5ercpivft xovq oiKexag dp^aaGai KiveiaGai npoq xo epyov rcepieyeipaq a\)xf|v KeXevei xcov KpiGcbv A.apo'Gaav 6 xi Kai 8\>vaixorcope'ueaGainpoq xfjv eKvpdv rcpiv 69fjvai xiaiv ai)x69i KeKOi|irrvevr|V, (jmAmxeaGai aco<|>pov xnv em XOIOWOK; 8iapoA,frv Kai \xaXiGx em \n\ yeyovoai. 331 rcepi uevxoi xov navxoq ovxco, (Imaiv, eaxai, [epcoxdv] xov eyyiaxd \iov xcp yevei xi)y%dvovxa, ei GOV xpeia ya^exfiq eaxiv avxcp, Kai Xeyovxi nev dKoXovGf|aei<; eKeivcp, rcapaixovuevoi) be vouxp ae auvoiKriaovaav d^ojiai. Targum nnnn m -aa OTIQTO tf? TO aranpn nopi n s s TO ntoi -rap to ram 3.14 tontf? anna m n to a n a more**rf?niyto/? now tanzfrr cnp p

MT RAH RNXTO W NY\ nn mam nn w i j t o TO nnsmn nn i o n 3 . 1 5 :TOT

ran mto

DSS

nti non nn [mwn nn ™

"['to TO rracDQn nn -io]tm 3.15 [ T O T ten] mto nzft [ D ] m *

LXX 3 . 1 5 Kai eiTtev avxf) 3>epe xorcepi^couxxxo ercdvco aov. Kai eKpdxnaev a\)xo, Kai eiiexpriaev e£ KpiGcbv Kai erceGriKev en avxr\v Kai eiarj^Gev eiq xfjv noA.iv. Josephus No text Targum nato ntfi p a o n p
MT n

:er»nrf?n t o TO to nt*rf?nam n n n» Q "own nnuan *?K tram 3.16 DSS

teranrf?n t o TO to rf? na]m n n nt* 'o nQ«n[i nmon *?K tram] 3.16

LXX 3 . 1 6 Kai Toi)G eianAGevTCpoqxfjvrcevGepdvavxr\c,- fj be einev avxr\ 0\>yaxep* Kai eiTcev avxfj rcdvxa oaa ercoinaev avxr\ 6 dvfjp.

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

161

Josephus 3 3 2 Tavxa xfj eKvpcjt 8TiAcoadan.<; Targum 1

tnaa rf? ins n a ? rr rb narim TTQ na p m o w w m p a 'nan nf? m w 3.16

rf? 12s nb nbrvn nroaa UB bs MT

qnuan

o p n w a n *?K noa n ^ parf?Knontfon ccte -lawn 3.17

DSS , J

[-prcan *?K o p n w a n *?K maa n ? ]]na rf?an oni*[n] titf hawn] 3.17

LXX 3 . 1 7 Kai eircev ai)xfj Td e£ xcbv KpiGcbv xavxa e8coKev uxn, oxi eircev npoq ue Mi] eiaeMfr^ Kevfi rcpdq xnvrcevGepdvGOD. Josephus No text Targum ,l

nf? wapn nnnrf?b in* o n a tnaa ? arr f^an p a o n p » rrtf m a w 3.17 •pen

MT

rf?n OK n ccran tDpcrrrf?n nan ^ -pa p n n im is TO ntf Town 3.18 :nrn nam DSS [ill *?sr "pa ]]^"in nttfKTOTOnti "Town] 3.18

LXX 3.18 rj 8e eircev Kd0o\), Svyaxep, ecoq xoi) emyvcbvai aerccbqoi) rceaeixai pfj^a* o\) yap jLiii fiai)xdar| 6 dvfjp ecoq dv xeAeafl xo prpa af|uepov. Josephus

ei)6vuia Kaxei%ev avxac, ev eAjii8i xovrcpovoiave^eiv avxcbv Boac^ov yevo^evaq. KaKeivog T|5T| u£aovan<; xf\c, rpepaq Targum

ehsrr p a w trati p mann p r r » p n n nTOwrnaTOnna n n m o w 3.18 p war waana atf? ]rfr« o n a maa mrrf?nans

Understanding

162

Josephus

MT "fts ns TOD rmo i o n TOT -im TO -QJ> "non nam nti YAH n^n nto TOTI 4.1

DSS No text extant LXX 4.1 Kai Booq dvepri e m xfjv nvXr\v Kai eKdGiaev eKei, Kai i8oi) 6 dy%iaxevxfi<; 7cape7tope\)exo ov eircev Booq. Kai eircev rcpoq avxov Booq 'EKKAivaq KdGiaov co8e, Kp\)(|)ie* Kai e£eKA,ivev Kai EKdGiaev. Josephus KaxeXGcbv eiq xnv xcoAiv xnv xe yepovaiav avvfiye Kai uexarceuAj/duevoc; TovGnv eKdXei Kai xov avyyevf|, Kai rcapayevouevov Targum ,l

y » H *PN «pnsi am wno DJ> p n YM p - i r o n « n nOTrfrp ?o TOTI 4.1 m KCDOI rrnrma j r a n nn: ton YR\ w TOW rnrf? TOT

MT .•nzft n sratiiDtn TOT ^pra mftR m t o npn 4.2 DSS No text extant LXX 4.2 Kai etaxftev Booq 8eKa dv8pa<; drco xcbv 7ipea(3vxepcov xfjqrcoAecoQKai eiTtev KaGiaaxe co8e* Kai eKdGiaav. Josephus No text extant Targum t r m ton NYN now amp n o o p m a T n t o -DTI 4.2

MT

.aroo m e n nntinTODHIDQ -PABUB

XRWB TO nnton

npto ^rcfr man 4 3

DSS [TO] n]-iDQ [PABVB

XM»B TO

nnfon npto

nan] 4 3 [atmmfonrnizn]

STERLING The Invisible

163

Presence

LXX 4.3 Kai elrcev Boog xcp dyxiaxei Tf)v |iepi8a xov dypov r\ eaxiv xov abeXtyov rpcbv xov 'Apei^ietex, TI 8e8oxai Ncoeueiv xfj enioxpstyovoT] e£ dypov Mcodp, Josephus <|maiv 333 'ApineA£%oi) Kai xcbv i)i(bv arnov KA,f|pcov Kpaxeiq; Targum ratoo ^prra raniTODnnr -psbvb

aainrf? n bpn naona vp'-®b maro 4 3

MT bvc bttr\ DKTO••apt nan cra^n naa nap norf? "jamrf?a«'mat* nro 4A ibnx oaa - o n "pna oaw bmb -jrfriT p *o srm b rrran ^ rf? nro DSS h » f t [13T» rf?» TTIDK '3W] 4.4 LXX 4.4 Kdycb eirca 'ArcoKaMyco xo ovq oov Xeycov Kxfjaai evavxiov xcbv Ka9r|u£vcov Kai evavxiov xcbvrcpeaPwepcovxov Xaov \iov e i dy%iaxei)ei<;, dy%iaxeve' e i 8 e UT) dyxiaxeveiq, dvdyyeiAov jioi, Kai yvcoaoum oxi OVK eaxiv rcape£ oov xov dy%iaxei)aai, Kayco e i u i ^exd a e . 6 8e eircev 'Eyco eiua dy%iaxei)aco. Josephus o^io^oyriaavxoq 8e avy%copo\)vxcov xcbv vo^icov Kaxd dy%iaxeiav, Targum ,l

?

« n a *arr bap bo p r iwnb -\rm rr ^aw p trim ana m o aram4 4 preafr -pron r\b DKI pins pnssab f r o n cat*TOn o rap 7i p n n p n pns» aaa mro -j-ira «pna «n« pvsxb -pa nn rr ? am inato l

l

1

MT 4

1

••pn ? Trap nan TO rraKnan rm nwaiTOaTO nnton "[map ora TOT TO 4 5 .Yfrm^mnoD DSS No text extant

Understanding

164

Josephus

LXX 4.5 Kai eircev Boog 'Ev rjiiepg xov Kxnaaa8ai a e xov dypov CK %eipoq Ncoeueiv Kai rcapd Toi)0 xfjq Mcoapeixi8o<; ywaiKoq xov xeSvnKoxoc;, Kai avxnv KTT|aaa6ai a e 8ei, cbaxe dvaaxfiaai to ovouxx xov xeGvnKoxoq eni xfjq K^rjpovouiaq a w o u Josephus OVKOW, (|)r|aiv 6 B6a£o<;, OVK e£ riuaaeiaQ 8ei ueuvfjaGai xcbv vouxov. aXXa Tcdvxa rcoieiv Kax' atrcauq. Ma&Xov yap Sevp' rjKei yvvaiov, orcep ei QeXeiq xcbv dypcbv Kpaxeiv yaueiv a e 8et Kaxd xoix; vouovq. Targum WTQ nna t r a r a rrm K T p iTOHK T p tf?pn rr - p r a ora TOT TOW 4 5 n r o n a *?# wra AN cnpn p a nrr nor ? np ann 1

MT

Tibra n» rro -f? *?ra 'rf?ra n» mitt* p ? ^ra ? *?3iR vb B\*N -iatri 4.6 bvdbbyMvbv ,l

1

DSS

No text extant

LXX 4.6 Kai einev 6 dy%iaxe\)q ov 8wnao|iai dyxiaxevaai euxxvxcb, \ir\ noxe 8ia<|>0eipco xf|v K^rpovouiav \iov dy%iaxe\)aov aeawcb xfjv dy%iaxeiav \iov, oxi oi) 5wrjaoum dy%iaxevaai. Josephus 334 6 8e Bodc^co Kai xov KAiipou Kai xfjq yvvaiKoq 7tape%c6pei avyyevei |iev ovxi Kai ai)xcb xcbv xexetevxriKoxcov, eivai 8e Kai yvvaiKa A^ycov ai)xcb Kai rcdiSaq f|8n.. Targum oh b nb anna b MN BY b pnDrf? BY raa nb rana w A a p n a nara 4.6 n» "f? p n a TO™ rr BYNN anraTODWNB b rain *DN tf?a KronrnK notf? pristf? *r D*rat*rr ?um TOna rr 1

1

MT

art* rpui ill bD ypb nmonn bsr\ ibmi by *?mira crasf?ran4.7 :*?fcrifra niiOTn ran mvib pai fa» DSS

No text extant

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

165

LXX 4.7 Kai xovxo to SiKaico^a euitpoo0ev ev xcp 'IapafjX erci xf)v dyxiaxeiav Kai erci to avxaXXay^a, xov arrjaai rcdvxa Xoyov Kai vrcekvexo 6 dvfjp xo V7t68r||ia avxov Kai e8i8ov xcp nXr\aiov avxov xcp dyxiaxevovxi xf|v dy%iaxeiav avxov* Kai xovxo nv jiapxvpiov ev 'Iapar|A,. Josephus No text Targum YSHMN

pnsi pen YBPUN p n *»n&ra terma YCNPBCNranOTIOTQ annDi 4.7 rrru T prro rr iaa I^TCD rrran DI> nn t m o u p rrnnnQ nn "anfer rra

"IPTI? prm o m nnnrf? pap rra ertfiw

MT 1

.•bin

4

"J ? nap TOT? *»on n a n 4.8

DSS

No text extant LXX 4.8 Kai eiTtev 6 dyxiaxevq xcp Booq Kxfjaai aeavxcp xf^v dy%taxeiav |iov Kai vmXvoaxo xo \M68RPA avxov Kai eScoKev avxcp. Josephus No text Targum

rrru T prro rr TOT ifan P np*) TMPB

JV

rr utf» TOT? apr© now 4.8 1

MT 1

TO to PR Trap o orn or* unv DOTtonmpi ? TOT no*n 4.9

TO ]tra-i p t o b TO to nra -firfxb DSS

No text extant LXX 4.9 Kai eiTtev Booq xoiq 7tpeopvxepoi<; Kaircavxixcp A,acp Mdpxvpeq vueiq af)(iepov oxi KeKxrpai rcdvxa xd xov 'A|3eiu£kex Kaircdvxaoaa V7tdp%ei xcp XeAmcbv Kai xcp MaaAxbv EK %eipo<; Ncoeueiv

Understanding

166

Josephus

Josephus 335 p,apxvpd|ievo<; ovv 6 B6a£o<; xf-v yepovaiav Targum m m no to rr Trap crna p trar 'to p » p n o nn tcj) tofr rancfr TOT now 4 9 *WN « T p jitooi ptofr m m no to m •PSBVB

MT to ran erf oprf? rmb b Trap i t r o TO rroKon rm

torn ar» a n y Toipa -Mztoi rna DOT

ran

oai 4.10

vb\ into]

DSS No text extant

LXX 4.10 Kai y e T o v 6 xfrv Mcoapeixiv xrjv yvvatKa Maatabv KeKxnum eu.avxcb eiq y v v a i x a xov dvaaxfiaai xo ovouxx xov xeSvnKoxoq e m xf\<; KA,n.povouia<; avxov, Kai OVK e£o^e6pev8f|aexai xo 6vo|ia xov xeSvnKoxoq EK xcbv d5eA,c|>(bv avxov Kai £K xf\qtyv\r\<;Xaov avxov* iidpxvpeq vueiq af|uepov. Josephus No text Targum

rrvsxmtoi a o t f upch p a nxb b rvp ]t>nn nna KTONID n n rr 4.10 p war pn» p n o rmrsa n p i r n o inniai -mn» mto arrrw nw wnfr vb\ MT tons - p n man ntfan na mm p a n y crapm n ^ n TO DOT to ITO'I 4.11 :nt> rran topi n m s t a 'TTT nton "anfer TO n» camntf i n TO naton

DSS No text extant

LXX 4.11 Kai eucoaav rcdq 6 A,a6q o i ev xfi nvXr\ Mdpxvpeq. Kai o i rcpeapvxepoi eircoaav Aam Kvpioq xnv yvvaiKd a o v xf^v eia7copevo(ievr|v eiq xov OIKOV OOV cbq 'Paxnk Kai cbq Aeiav, ai cpKo86|ir|aav d|i(t>6xepai xov OIKOV XOV 'Iopaf)A, Kai ercoiriaav 5vvauiv ev 'Epd6a* Kai eaxai 6vo|ia ev BaieXeeji. Josephus No text

STERLING The Invisible

Presence

167

Targum a n n ann anna rr " p wn» pnno traoi p r r o OTTOT aaa to nnw 4.11 «frn Tajn ]toz! nop nnn p » arftr TO rr pmnn i n n natoitonDVBTCN NRB mm nob n p "nm nnsKD l

MT 1

p "1*7 mrr p TO OTTn p rrnrr ? non rrfr TO p s tod - j t o t d 4.12 -.nan rrarr DSS No text extant LXX 4.12 Kai yevovco 6 OIKO<; aov dx; 6 OIKOQ Odpeq, ov £X£KEV 0a|idp xcp 'Iov8a, EK xov arc&pumoq ov 8c6aei Kvpioq aoi EK xnqrcai8iaKn.<;xavxnq. Josephus £K£X£VE xfi yvvaiKi vrcokvaai avxov 7cpoa£^0ovaav Kaxd xov vouov Kai 7txv£iv £ig xo Tcpoaawcov. y£vou£vov 8E XOVXOV Targum 1

«TO"i p p " p n 'OTT p rrnrr ? non nrb* n p s rraD " p n ntoo t t i 4.12 ann MT 1

: p rf?m pnn rf? mm p n m * ran ^

B *nm n n n» TOT npn 4.13

DSS No text extant LXX 4.13 Kai £^aP£v Boog xnv Tov8, Kai ESCOKEV avxfj Kvpioq Kimaiv, Kai £X£K£v viov. Josephus Boac^oq yaji£i xf^v 'PovGriv Kai yiv£xai rcaiSiov avxoiq u£x' £viavxov dpp£v. Targum ,

nn nmto nni>rf?•- nnn nnt> toi VSXB RRB mm n n rr TOT d-OJI 4.13 MT

mo tnpn orn

p

TO&CT

vb im

mm -pnn TO» *?K mtfn nrown 4.14 .•antra

Understanding

168

Josephus

DSS N o text extant

LXX 4.14 Kai elrcav a i yDvaiKeq npoq Ncoeueiv EvXoyryzbq Kvpioq oq ov Kaxe^vae a o i af|uepov tov dyxiaxea, Kai Ka^eaai t o ovouxx oov ev lapaf|A/ Josephus No text Targum

p

TTOD

1

n p m p royr apns -p ? pos «f? n *n aotf -p-Q "Ditf? wtfi paw 4.14

MT rrfr -pana TO -pto *o -pert? m totofa
LXX 4.15 Kai e a x a i a o i eiq emaTpe^ovta \(/D%fjv Kai xov 8ia8pe\|/ai xfjv rcoAadv aoi), oxi ii vi)(i
1 w r n n "pnto OTIR p i a r a "pro rr Ktotofri t&u crpo ? -f? 4.15 pn pinoD "pntaTR p m toco a n «rn rrrn^r MT 1

: n o 6 i ? Tim npTQ inram -frn na m i npm 4.16 DSS No text extant

LXX 4.16 Kai eA,a|3ev Ncoeueiv to rcai5iov Kai eOnKev ei<; T O V eyevrjOn. avxcp eiq

TIGTJVOV.

KOAJCOV

airrfjq, Kai

STERLING The Invisible

169

Presence

Josephus 336 xovxo f| Nad^iq xixGevouivm Kaxd av^Pov^iav xcbv yvvaiKcbv Targum

arrmrb RXB mm TTSCMQ mm MNM trai m 'Din reran 4.16 MT inn "mi? TDKJ naoprnTOrf?p -fr natf?

nrazfrrf? nanprn 4.17

rrn ^tv^r

^

DSS No text extant LXX 4.17 Kai e K d t e a a v avxov a i yeixoveq ovo^a A i y o v o m 'Exe^On. vidq rfj Ncoeueiv Kai e K d t e a a v xo ovona avxov 'Q(3ii5' ovxoq rcaxf|p I e a a a i rcaxpdq AaveiS. Josephus 'QPrj5nv e K d t e a e v e m yrjpOKOuia xfj avxfiq xpa^naou^vov a>pf|5r|q y a p Kaxd 8idteKxov xfjv 'Eppaicov drcooruiiaivei 8ovtevcov. 'Qpf|8ov 8e yivexai nalq Ieoaaioq, xovxov AapiSrjq 6 P a o i t e v a a q Kai rcaiai xoig avxov KaxaXirccbv xf|v riyeux)viav e n i uiav Kai eiKoai yevedq dv8pcbv. Targum

Kin -HW mora m pnp rim WZH

T^ITK

1

irrf? UW anrnrrra rr ? jtnpi 4.17 TITT "Wttrr TOR

MT

:]Tcsn n» T^rn p i s p s mibintfan4.18 DSS No text extant LXX 4.18 Kai a v x a i a i yeveaeiq Odpeq* Odpeq eyevvnaev xov 'Eopcov, Josephus No text Targum

prsn m -rtnK p © p s nn^n

4.18

Understanding

170

Josephus

MT rmray n» Ttor cm on na T^in pnsm 4.19 DSS No text extant LXX 4.19 'Eapcbv 5 e eyevvnaev xov 'Appdv, Kai 'Appdv eyevvnaev xov 'Ajieiva8d(3, Josephus No text Targum ,,

mroD rr Tto* rrn cn rr to< pnsm 4.19

MT :nato n« T^in ptimi pitfra n» T^n mrain 420 DSS N o text LXX 4.20 K a i 'Au£iva8dp eyevvrjaev xov Naaaacov, Kai Naaaacov eyevvriaev xov laAjidv, Josephus No text Targum 1

Kpns a o t o rr Tto* ptfrro rrnrrTO ?t o *TOnn pom rr Tto* m r o m 420 pim TTTIR to ta^n warr n w i pwrna itoorrr ram orf?TOOKQto ron HBTED ] w pm n« nm»

MT n n w na T^in urn rra na -rtnn potoi 4.21 DSS No text extant LXX 4.21a Kai ZaAjidv eyevvriaev xov Booq, Kai Booq eyevvrjaev xov 'Q|3f|5,

STERLING

The Invisible

171

Presence

Josephus No text extant Targum

*n n r n * rrnoTtonapns u n an KTH p a » urn u n rr Tto* pton 421 rr Tto* Tim *»nfcm Kintw awa mi? rrrnto pai p - a a n ^toa p BURTCR crto aato Koto nrf? ntoi

raw

MT

n n na T^n

'eh

v n« T V Hram422

DSS No text extant

LXX 421b Kai 'Qpf|8 eyevvnaev t o v 'Ieaaai, Kai 'Ieaaai eyevvriaev xov AaveiS. Josephus 337 xd jiev o\iv Kaxd 'PotiBrjv dvayKaiax; SirrynaduJiv erciSei^ai PovXouevoq xf|v xov Qeov 8\)vauiv, oxi xovxcp rcapdyeiv e(|>iKx6v eaxiv eiq d^ico^ia Xapjipov Kai xoix; emxDxovxaq, eiq oiov dvfiyaye Kai AafHSnv eK xoiovxcov yevouevov. Targum tnoontV? wrntfi VBW rra narro a t o *maramn p r m ^ rr T t o * ™ 1

WD"!? IT " np -D"»n "TO pTOD p r tflTI i T » mftfl IT aotf?

422

t O R t o l TTn

TID? ao p p a n T T S p t o m wfr» n*> p to^fr RM r r o mrf? anrn arm ron « p n x ^ a^ara VTRS annai j n » n m to w r o la^nna m a n n toi btoton t o t o n n rr T t o n ,

G O D A N D ISRAEL IN JOSEPHUS: A P A T R O N - C L I E N T RELATIONSHIP

b y Paul Spilsbury*

H o w did J o s e p h u s v i e w his n a t i o n ' s r e l a t e d n e s s to G o d ? T h i s is a question that is raised, at least in part, by the absence from J o s e p h u s ' s writings of any explicit reference to the notion of an eternal covenant b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. This fact is noteworthy, not only b e c a u s e of the i m p o r t a n c e of the covenant in the H e b r e w Bible for describing the relationship between G o d and Israel, but also because of the importance of the concept of c o v e n a n t in m a n y forms of Hellenistic J u d a i s m . E.P. Sanders has argued, for instance, that covenant w a s the d o m i n a n t par­ a d i g m under which J e w s of the S e c o n d T e m p l e period understood their relationship with G o d . Significantly, though, Sanders has to a c k n o w l ­ e d g e that the t e r m ' c o v e n a n t ' d o e s not appear frequently in the litera­ ture h e surveys. This is particularly true, h e points out, in the case of 4 Ezra and the Rabbinic literature. Sanders responds to this difficulty by 1

2

3

*

The author would like to thank Dr John M.G. Barclay, Dr Steve Mason and

Dr Robert L. Webb for their very helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. All quotations from Josephus are taken from H.St.J. Thackeray, et ai

(eds.) Josephus

Heinemann, 1.

(10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MS and London: Harvard and

1926-1965).

Cf., e.g. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation

uitates Judaicae of Flavius

Josephus

of Biblical

History

in the Antiq­

(HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,

1976), pp. 79-91; B. Halpern Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish uities',

JQRm

71 (1980-81), pp. 201-29; A. Paul, 'Flavius Josephus'

Antiq­

Antiquities

of the Jews: an Anti-Christian Manifesto', NTS 31 (1985), pp. 473-80. 2. Religion 3. Jewish

E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian

Judaism:

A Comparison

of Patterns

of

(London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 426-28. See further, W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity Territorial

Doctrine

and

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp.

107-108 and n. 80 with the literature cited there.

SPILSBURY God and Israel

in

Josephus

173

a r g u i n g that m e r e w o r d study is d e c e p t i v e in this c a s e . T h e ' f u n d a m e n ­ tal n a t u r e ' of the n o t i o n of c o v e n a n t a c c o u n t s for t h e relative scarcity of the t e r m itself. In his w o r d s : The covenant was presupposed, and the Rabbinic discussions were largely directed toward the question of how to fulfil the covenantal obligations. The very arguments and the way in which the questions are worded show the conviction that the covenant was in force—that God was being true to his covenantal promises.

4

' S i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n s , ' h e c o n t i n u e s , ' c o u l d b e m a d e a b o u t m o s t of t h e rest of t h e l i t e r a t u r e . '

5

T h e i s s u e s t o u c h e d o n h e r e h e l p t o set u p the p r o b l e m u n d e r d i s c u s ­ sion in this study of J o s e p h u s . For, as I h a v e n o t e d already, this a u t h o r ' s w r i t i n g s a r e a m o n g t h o s e in w h i c h t h e t e r m ' c o v e n a n t ' is c o n s p i c u o u s b y its a b s e n c e .

6

M o r e t h a n t h i s , J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g of t h e b i b l i c a l

n a r r a t i v e s e e m s t o e v i n c e a d e l i b e r a t e a n d s y s t e m a t i c a v o i d a n c e of r e f e r e n c e s t o a c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s . T h e c o n c e r n of this e s s a y , therefore, is t o s u g g e s t a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for this p h e ­ n o m e n o n . I will a r g u e that J o s e p h u s h a s r e t a i n e d t h e b a s i c m e a n i n g of t h e c o v e n a n t (i.e. a special c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d 7

Israel), but has replaced covenant language with terminology drawn

4.

Sanders, Paul and Palestinian

5.

Sanders, Paul and Palestinian

Judaism, p. 421. Judaism,

p. 4 2 1 . Sanders makes a similar

point elsewhere in regard to the writings of Philo; see his T h e Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism', in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Chris­ tians: Religious

Cultures

in Late Antiquity.

Essays

in Honour of William

David

Davies (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 11-44. Here Sanders contends, against Heinemann (Philons griechische

und judische

Bildung [Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1 9 2 9 -

32]), that for Philo too the covenant was a foundational concept even though it is not explicitly expressed. While Heinemann based his negative conclusion on a search for the term 8ia6r|Kr|, Sanders argues that, 'Had he observed the importance for Philo of being a member of the right "commonwealth" (politeia,

see Wirt. 219)

or the significance of being initiated into the "mystery" of Moses (Virt.

178), he

would have come to a different conclusion' (pp. 31-32). 6.

Sanders does not discuss Josephus at all in Paul and Palestinian

7.

Cf. Sanders's 'covenantal nomism' which he defines as, 'the view that one's

Judaism.

place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments...' (Paul and Palestinian

Judaism, p. 75).

174

Understanding

Josephus

from the p a t r o n - c l i e n t m o d e l of social relations in the ancient Mediter­ r a n e a n world. It is not m y intention to suggest that this m o d e l is the only influence on J o s e p h u s ' s description of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. T h e biblical narrative itself, as well as other aspects of J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e x p e r i e n c e ( s u c h as his priestly status), h a v e also p l a y e d a substantial formative role in this regard. N e v e r t h e l e s s , I will try to demonstrate that the system of p a t r o n - c l i e n t relations provides us w i t h a v e r y useful k e y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e n a t u r e of J o s e p h u s ' s transformation of the biblical l a n g u a g e of c o v e n a n t into l a n g u a g e that w a s m o r e readily understandable to his audience. M y focus in this article will b e on J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e in Antiquities

of the Jews (Ant),

b o o k s 1 - 1 1 . W h i l e it m i g h t b e p o i n t e d

out that this is not the entire corpus of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , this material has the particular advantage of affording the possibility of direct c o m ­ parison b e t w e e n the classic covenant passages of the H e b r e w Bible and J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of those passages. It will not b e necessary for m e to carry out a systematic description of J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t of these passages, though, since this task has already b e e n performed adequately in the studies cited a b o v e (n. 1). A few general c o m m e n t s on this schol­ arship, however, are in order at the outset.

Previous

Scholarship

N u m e r o u s attempts h a v e been m a d e to explain J o s e p h u s ' s avoidance of the l a n g u a g e of covenant. T. F r a n x m a n does little m o r e than assert the v i e w that ' t h e n o t i o n of e t e r n a l c o v e n a n t h a s little m e a n i n g

for

J o s [ e p h u s ] ' ; and, ' G o d ' s c o v e n a n t with A b r a h a m and with his descen­ dants to b e their G o d is not part of J o s [ e p h u s ] ' r e l i g i o u s p u r v i e w ' .

8

T h e s e c o m m e n t s , h o w e v e r , d o not m o v e us closer to an understanding of J o s e p h u s ' s m o t i v e s for treating the biblical c o v e n a n t p a s s a g e s as he does. A . P a u l a t t e m p t s to e x p l a i n the a b s e n c e of c o v e n a n t t e r m i n o l o g y (especially 8ia9f|KT|) b y m e a n s of w h a t h e calls 'the anti-Christianity of 9

J o s e p h u s in his A n t i q u i t i e s ' . 8iaGr|KTi is one k e y t e r m a m o n g several w h i c h J o s e p h u s has allegedly avoided b e c a u s e of its i m p o r t a n c e to the early Christian m o v e m e n t . In r e s p o n s e to this s u g g e s t i o n it m i g h t b e 8. T.W. Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' (BO, 35; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), pp. 140-41. 9. Paul, 'Anti-Christian Manifesto', p. 473.

of Flavius

Josephus

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

175

argued that while it is certainly true that the t e r m 8 i a 0 f | K r | w a s i m p o r ­ tant in certain early Christian texts, it is difficult to see w h a t relevance this w o u l d h a v e h a d for J o s e p h u s w h o n o w h e r e d i s p l a y s significant k n o w l e d g e of Christianity or its writings. T h e suggestion that J o s e p h u s h a d a discernible anti-Christian bias is thus not susceptible to proof. Betsy H a l p e r n A m a r u has contributed m o r e significantly to this sub­ ject. A l t h o u g h her c o n c e r n is primarily to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' s atti­ tude to t h e land of Israel, she m a k e s n u m e r o u s c o m m e n t s relevant to the t h e m e of c o v e n a n t as well. In particular, she d e m o n s t r a t e s that the biblical c o n c e p t of a land-covenant, that is, ' a gift uniting G o d with a particular p e o p l e t h r o u g h a particular l a n d ' , is lacking in J o s e p h u s . S h e argues that the ' l a n d ' aspect of classical c o v e n a n t t h e o l o g y is re­ 10

p u g n a n t to J o s e p h u s . Closely connected to this, she c o n t i n u e s , is J o s e ­ p h u s ' s opposition to the kind of m e s s i a n i s m that apparently fuelled the religious fanaticism of the Zealots, a g r o u p for w h o m J o s e p h u s betrays little sympathy. T h u s , she concludes: [Josephus] deleted the theology of covenanted land because he did not want the land to be a focal point, as it was for Davidic messianism, with all its revolutionary implications in Josephus's day.

' J o s e p h u s feared a n d despised the m e s s i a n i s m of the Z e a l o t s , ' she con­ tinues, ' a n d h e structured his account of the J e w i s h origins a n d beliefs in such a w a y as to r e m o v e the theological basis for that m e s s i a n i s m ' . H a l p e r n A m a r u ' s insights are very helpful in that they m a k e g o o d sense of the c o m p l e x evidence of Ant. A m o n g other things they h e l p us 11

to understand J o s e p h u s ' s difficulty with the classical notion of covenant as it w a s found in t h e H e b r e w B i b l e . O f further significance is h e r a r g u m e n t that, for J o s e p h u s , the land is not at the heart of J e w i s h n e s s per se. 'Instead, J u d a i s m for J o s e p h u s is a religion of law, or virtue, of obedience to G o d ' s s t a t u t e s . ' H e r point here, w h i c h is firmly rooted in 12

t h e e v i d e n c e J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s , is t h a t ' J o s e p h u s . . . c o n s t r u c t s , or r e c o n s t r u c t s from t h e Biblical text, a c o n t e x t for d i a s p o r a l i v i n g ' . 13

J o s e p h u s l e g i t i m a t e s , e v e n celebrates, the e x p e r i e n c e of J e w s living outside the land of Israel. His c o m m i t m e n t , Halpern A m a r u asserts, 'is to a diaspora coexisting with a h o m e l a n d ' . 14

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru,

'Land Theology', p. 205. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 211.

Understanding

176

Josephus

H . W . Attridge has also m a d e a significant contribution to our under­ standing of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d I s r a e l . H e points out that J o s e p h u s often h a s recourse, in explaining G o d ' s relationship to Israel, to the language of benefaction and alliance. H e argues, however, that this l a n g u a g e is not simply a translation of the biblical notion of covenant, but is rather a replacement of i t . 15

16

T h e significance of this replacement is two-fold. First, benefactor ter­ m i n o l o g y has potential universal application, as o p p o s e d to the exclu­ sivity implied b y c o v e n a n t (cf. Ant. 8.116-17; also 2 . 3 3 2 ) . S e c o n d l y , alliance terminology does not imply any necessary, formal, long-term or automatic commitment on the part of God to act on behalf of the Israelites. Terms such as c\)[i[icxxoq refer primarily to God's role in times of need, and not to a fundamental agreement which determines the relationship between God and Israel} 1

A t t r i d g e ' s m a i n point here is that G o d ' s relationship w i t h Israel is o n e e x a m p l e of G o d ' s perfect justice. 'His special concern for Israel is ulti­ mately due to the special virtue of the people or its l e a d e r s . ' Later he asserts again, ' T h e belief of a special p r o v i d e n c e for Israel is s u b ­ ordinated t o . . . [the] general principle [of proper retribution for g o o d and evil] a n d is seen to b e a particular instance of i t . ' W h a t is not entirely clear a b o u t A t t r i d g e ' s a r g u m e n t is h o w this final p o i n t con­ stitutes a r e p l a c e m e n t of the n o t i o n of c o v e n a n t in t h e B i b l e , since G o d ' s retribution is already an important part of the t h e o l o g y of the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c historian, w h o is t h o r o u g h l y c o v e n a n t a l . Indeed, Attridge himself points out, 'It is o b v i o u s . . . t h a t in the Antiquities the t h e o l o g y of t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c history has b e e n a d o p t e d a n d often reinforced.' 18

1 9

20

21

Nevertheless, A t t r i d g e ' s identification of the language of benefaction and alliance in J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel contributes significantly to our a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s has

15. Attridge, Interpretation, pp. 79-91. 16. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 79. 17. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 82. Emphasis Attridge's. 18. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 83. 19. Attridge, Interpretation, pp. 86-87. 20. Cf., e.g. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, J. Barton et air, JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 89-99. 21. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 88.

SPILSBURY God and Israel

in

177

Josephus

recast t h e biblical c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p in t e r m s of p a t r o n - c l i e n t rela­ tions. Benefaction a n d alliance are, of c o u r s e , k e y aspects of p a t r o n a g e in R o m a n society. It is that subject that I n o w consider.

Patron-Client

Relations

in Roman

Society

E . B a d i a n h a s stated, ' T h e r e l a t i o n of p a t r o n a n d client is o n e of the m o s t characteristic features of R o m a n life lasting, in s o m e form, from t h e o r i g i n s to t h e d o w n f a l l of t h e city a n d b e y o n d ' .

2 2

I n definition of

this relationship, h e states, The client may be described as an inferior entrusted, by custom or by himself, to the protection of a stranger more powerful than he, and ren­ dering certain services and observances in return for this protection. 23

R . P . Sailer defines p a t r o n a g e a s , ' a n e x c h a n g e relationship b e t w e e n m e n of u n e q u a l social s t a t u s ' .

24

T h i s definition implies t w o sets of i m p o r t a n t

t e r m i n o l o g y : t h e first set p e r t a i n s to t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d in the rela­ tionship, a n d t h e s e c o n d pertains to the g o o d s a n d services that p a s s e d

22. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 BC) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 1. On the importance of patronage in Roman society, see further G.E.M. de Ste Croix, 'Suffragium: from Vote to Patronage', The British Journal of Sociol­ ogy 5 (1954), pp. 33-48. This study includes a discussion of the evils of patronage such as the perversion of justice. See also R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939), pp. 369-86; A . N . Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage in Ancient Society (New York: Routledge, 1989); J.H. Elliot, 'Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading Guide', Forum 3-4 (1987), pp. 39-48; S.C. Mott, 'The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence', in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honour of Merril C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 60-72; and B.W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Chris­ tians as Benefactors and Citizens (First Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994). On the subject of patronage generally throughout history and in different cultures, see the impor­ tant collection of essays in E. Gellner and J. Waterbury (eds.), Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1977), and S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 23. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 1. 24. R.P. Sailer, Personal Patronage Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 4.

under the Early Empire

(Cambridge-

Understanding

178 between them. a n d amicus', meritum

2 5

Josephus 26

In t h e first set are t e r m s s u c h as: patronus

a n d in t h e s e c o n d set are the t e r m s : officium,

a n d gratia.

21

cliens

beneficium,

S a i l e r a l s o p o i n t s out that, ' S i n c e p a t r o n - c l i e n t

relations w e r e essentially i n s t r u m e n t a l — t h a t is, b a s e d o n the e x c h a n g e of g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s — t h e w o r d s w h i c h d e s c r i b e d t h e e x c h a n g e are p e r h a p s the b e s t pointers to p a t r o n a g e . '

28

T h e l a n g u a g e of e x c h a n g e u s e d to characterize p e r s o n a l relations w a s also u s e d to describe the relationship b e t w e e n nations. B a d i a n describes c l i e n t states as t h o s e ' d e p e n d e n t states t h a t . . . s t o o d t o R o m e in t h e r e l a t i o n of a client t o a p a t r o n , o w i n g t h e R o m a n P e o p l e ojficia, return for beneficia

received'.

29

in

Further, this k i n d of t e r m i n o l o g y w a s

also c o m m o n in s p e a k i n g of h u m a n - g o d relations. T h e c o n t r a c t u a l na­ ture of R o m a n religion is reflected in the u s e of w o r d s such as beneficium

30

a n d gratia.

referred to as beneficia

ojficium,

F o r e x a m p l e , p r o s p e r i t y a n d g o o d l u c k are of the g o d s (cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat.

1 2 . 1 ; Quintilian,

25. Sailer, Personal Patronage, p. 4 26. Several types of patroni existed in Roman society, including Roman generals who assumed patronage over whole peoples conquered by them. The patronage of Pompey, for example, extended widely over the empire. A. Momig­ liano, 'Patronus', in N.G.L. Hammond and H.H. Scullard (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1970), p. 791. 27. 'The ordinary client might receive daily food...or assistance in courts. In return he helped his patron in his political and private life, and showed him respect, especially by greeting him in the morning. Client and Patron could not bear witness against one another... \ Momigliano, 'Cliens,'in Hammond and Scullard (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 252. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.9-10. 28. Sailer, Personal Patronage, p. 15. J. Scott ('Patronage or Exploitation?', in Gellner and Waterbury [eds.], Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, pp. 21-39) outlines the 'elements of exchange' in agrarian patronal situations. Patron to client: basic means of subsistence, subsistence crisis insurance ('a friend in need'), protection (from bandits, personal enemies, soldiers, outside officials, courts, tax collection), brokerage and influence (patron uses his/her power for the benefit of the client/s). Client to patron: basic labour service, supplementary labour and goods (e.g. supplying water and firewood, personal domestic services, food offerings— often symbolic as expressions of deference), promoting the patron's interests (sig­ nifies the client's membership in his patron's faction, protects patron's reputation, advances patron's interests in business and politics). 29. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 154. See also idem, 'Client Kings', in Hammond and Scullard (eds.) The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 253. 30. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 23.

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

179

DecL 2 6 8 ; Seneca, Ep. ad Luc. 8.3), a n d the g o d s d e s e r v e d gratia in return (cf. Seneca, Ep. ad Luc. 119.16; Tacitus, Ann. 11.15). G.E.M. de Ste Croix points out that the concept of 'intercession' in religious lan­ g u a g e is closely c o n n e c t e d to the b r o a d e r n o t i o n of p a t r o n a g e . T h e 'patron saint', for e x a m p l e , intercedes with G o d (the ultimate patron) for his c l i e n t . 31

Josephus

and

Patronage

It has often b e e n p o i n t e d out that in rewriting a n d e x p o u n d i n g the biblical story of his people, J o s e p h u s introduced m a n y e l e m e n t s from the G r a e c o - R o m a n world, especially in his description of the various biblical characters. I a m arguing here that this practice also applies to his portrayal of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. T h u s , J o s e ­ phus presents this relationship in terms of the d o m i n a n t form of social relations in the R o m a n w o r l d in w h i c h h e w a s living at the t i m e of writing: the p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationship. G o d is I s r a e l ' s patron. Israel is G o d ' s favoured client. Before I try to demonstrate the influence of this p a r a d i g m of relations on Antiquities, it w o u l d b e well to point out the basic fact that Josephus had significant personal experience of p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationships. T h e following items from his autobiography are relevant h e r e . In Life 16, J o s e p h u s appealed to N e r o ' s consort P o p p a e a for aid; h e reports the receipt of the benefaction (e-uepyeoia) h e sought and large gifts besides. This episode reveals J o s e p h u s ' s understanding, already at a y o u n g age, of the operation of R o m a n p a t r o n a g e a n d its potential for obtaining services in R o m e . O n his return to Palestine, J o s e p h u s b e c a m e the c o m m a n d e r of the rebel forces in Galilee (Life 29). During this time he attempted to operate as a patron of local l a n d o w n e r s a n d the city elite to secure their loyalty and support. T h i s point is m a d e v e r y well b y S. S c h w a r t z w h o argues, against M . G o o d m a n , that G a l i l e e during 32

33

31. De Ste Croix notes, further, that Theologians who have discussed the origin of the practice of asking for the prayers of the dead have not sufficiently taken into account consideration of the influence of everyday experience of Roman judicial corruption and patronage' ('Suffragium', p. 46). 32. See also the parallel discussion in J.H. Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model of Personality', JSJ 25 (1994), pp. 196-97. 33. S. Schwartz, 'Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman

180

Understanding

Josephus

this e r a w a s o r g a n i z e d a l o n g the n o r m a l lines associated w i t h p a t r o n a g e in ancient M e d i t e r r a n e a n s o c i e t i e s .

34

J.H. N e y r e y also a r g u e s that 'Pa­

tron-client relations a r e a k e y lens t h r o u g h w h i c h t o v i e w J o s e p h u s ' s relationship to the cities of G a l i l e e ' .

35

J o s e p h u s relates that in a n u m b e r

of t o w n s in G a l i l e e h e w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d as ' b e n e f a c t o r a n d s a v i o u r ' (Life 2 4 4 , 2 5 9 ) in r e c o g n i t i o n of his services on their behalf. L a t e r , in the aftermath of the destruction of J e r u s a l e m a n d t h e t e m p l e J o s e p h u s a g a i n p o r t r a y e d h i m s e l f as a k i n d of b e n e f a c t o r as h e w e n t a b o u t the ruins dispensing liberty to various family m e m b e r s , f r i e n d s

3 6

and

a c q u a i n t a n c e s (Life 4 1 9 - 2 1 ) . After this h e b e c a m e a f a v o u r e d client of the Flavian h o u s e . H e describes t h e p a t r o n a g e h e received thus: When Titus had quelled the disturbances in Judaea...he gave me another parcel of ground in the plain. On his departure for Rome, he took me with him on board, treating me with every mark of respect. On our arrival in Rome I met with great consideration from Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the house which he had occupied before he became Emperor; he honoured me with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and he assigned me a pension. He continued to honour me up to the time of his departure from this life, without abatement in his kindness towards m e . . . Vespasian also presented me with a considerable tract of land in Period: Essays in Honour of Morton Smith, (SPB, 4 1 ; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 292-93. 34. Goodman's argument is concerned mainly with Judaea which, he argues, was an exception to the general rule of patronal societies. 'In towns in Italy... spending by the state was matched by massive public spending by rich aristocrats, competing to win the favour of the populace. This "evergitism" did not appeal to the Jerusalem rich...' (The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], p. 65). Goodman attributes this to the Torah's emphasis on the egalitarian ideals embodied in the Jubilee, and the prohibition against the priesthood owning land: 'In recognition of the unimportance of wealth as a status criterion, evergitism in the form common to both Greek and Roman society was never practised by the Judaean ruling class' (p. 126). Goodman does allow the possibility that some inhabitants of Judaea adopted Graeco-Roman values on this matter (p. 128). He suggests that Josephus's description of certain individuals (cf. War 4.414, 416) implies that he himself may have been one such individual (p. 129). Goodman then goes on to argue, 'But the kind of Jews likely to pick up such Greek ideas were of course precisely, like Josephus, the ruling class whose status was in question (p. 129). 35. Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium', p. 195. 36. On the importance of the term 'friend' here as it relates to patron-client relations, see Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium', pp. 196-97.

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

181

Judaea... The treatment I received from the Emperors continued unal­ tered. On Vespasian's decease Titus, who succeeded to the empire, showed the same esteem for me as did his father, and never credited the accusations to which I was constantly subjected. Domitian succeeded Titus and added to my honours. He punished my Jewish accusers... He also exempted my property in Judaea from taxation—a mark of the high­ est honour to the privileged individual. Moreover, Domitia, Caesar's wife, never ceased conferring favours upon me (e'uepYeto'uod (ie) (Life 422-29).

B y the time of writing Antiquities, Life and Apion J o s e p h u s w a s appar­ ently d e p e n d e n t u p o n a patron outside the Flavian h o u s e . This w a s a certain E p a p h r o d i t u s to w h o m J o s e p h u s refers in o n e place as, ' a m a n d e v o t e d t o e v e r y form of l e a r n i n g , b u t especially i n t e r e s t e d in the experiences of history' (Ant. 1.8). In Apion 2.296 h e praises h i m as ' a devoted lover of truth'. T h e dedication of J o s e p h u s ' s works dating from the 90s to this individual m a y indicate that his Flavian p a t r o n a g e h a d c o m e to an end. E v e n so, J o s e p h u s clearly continued to benefit from, and no d o u b t appreciate, the R o m a n p a t r o n - c l i e n t structure of society. T h e very w o r k s under review in this essay o w e their existence, in large m e a s u r e , to the R o m a n patronal system. Finally, M . G o o d m a n ' s sug­ gestion m a y b e noted that during the latter part of J o s e p h u s ' s life h e acted as a patron to the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in R o m e . T h i s w a s p r o b ­ ably true, despite the e v i d e n c e in t h e Life of hostility from certain Jewish quarters during this time (Life 4 2 4 , 428). 3 7

God and Israel in the Josephus's

Biblical

Paraphrase

I c o m e n o w to a consideration of h o w this m o d e l of relationships has affected J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel in the biblical paraphrase part of Antiquities. I will start b y isolating instances in which a relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel is asserted by Josephus in o n e w a y or another. Then I will itemize the benefits of this relationship for Israel. Finally, I will attempt to establish the basis and terms of the relationship that is in view.

37. M. Goodman, 'Josephus as a Roman Citizen' in Parente and Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period: Essays in Honour of Morton Smith, pp. 332-33.

Understanding

182 The Relationship

between

Josephus

God and Israel and its

T h e r e are n u m e r o u s p a s s a g e s in the Antiquities

Benefits that m a k e it clear that

J o s e p h u s did believe there to be a special relationship b e t w e e n G o d and the H e b r e w s . F o r e x a m p l e , in Ant. 4.114 in w h i c h J o s e p h u s relates and embellishes the oracles of B a l a a m , it is asserted by the p a g a n seer that G o d h a s ' r e g a r d for n o n e a m o n g m e n b u t y o u ' (Qeoq iiovovq dv6pco7co\)(; eop
v\ia<; and

rebellion on the b o r d e r of C a n a a n , the Israelites are a race w h o m G o d ' e s t e e m e d a b o v e all p e o p l e ' (6 TCCXVTCOV [i&Xkov dvOpcurccDv eo%e 8 i a xi|nfj<;). In D a v i d ' s prayer for S o l o m o n , he addresses G o d as ' t h e pro­ tector (rcpoaxdTriq) (7.380).

38

a n d g u a r d i a n (KTi8e|Lid)v) of t h e H e b r e w r a c e '

39

T h e s e statements are supported b y m a n y others in w h i c h a special relationship is implied b y the kinds of benefits that attend G o d ' s regard for the Israelites. M a n y of these benefits m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d u n d e r the h e a d i n g of G o d ' s alliance with the Israelites. G o d as their ally

(cv\i-

p,a%o<;) and helper (($or|96<;) guarantees t h e m , for e x a m p l e , b o t h free­ d o m from slavery and the possession of a favoured land (cf. Ant. 2.26869 a n d 3.300; also 3.19, 4 4 - 4 6 , 6 4 ; 4 . 2 9 4 ) . In the e p i s o d e of B a l a a m and Balak w e find an e m p h a s i s on G o d ' s assistance against the n a t i o n ' s e n e m i e s . B a l a a m ' s attempt to sour the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and the H e b r e w s r e m i n d s us of the fact that one the m o s t useful aspects of Flavian p a t r o n a g e for J o s e p h u s himself w a s the protection it afforded h i m against the accusations of people w h o apparently h o p e d to ruin his standing with the imperial h o u s e . J o s e p h u s w a s very p r o u d of t h e fact, and n o d o u b t deeply gratified as well, that in n o c a s e h a d his patrons a c c e p t e d any of the c h a r g e s b r o u g h t against h i m . In the B a l a a m epi­ sode, B a l a a m is forced to admit to his o w n patron that h e is u n a b l e to overturn the D i v i n i t y ' s 'gracious favour' (e-ujievfy;... (5v) t o w a r d them, or his 'zeal to confer on t h e m a life of felicity and everlasting r e n o w n ' (a7t£\)8cDV avxolq

e\)8ai|Liova p i o v K a i KXEO<; a i c o v i o v 7capaa%eiv)

( 4 . 1 2 2 ) . R a t h e r than g a i n i n g t h e desired c u r s e , B a l a a m r e c e i v e s an oracle foretelling the calamities that w e r e in store for other k i n g s and cities. T h e implication is that those w h o attempt to destroy the Israelites will themselves face destruction (4.125).

38. This term may also be translated as 'patron'. See also Ant. 7.340. 39. In Ant. 3.98 Moses is spoken of as the protector/patron and guardian of the people.

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

183

In his parting advice to Balak, B a l a a m again asserts, in a p a s s a g e with n o biblical precedent: Doubtless this race of Hebrews will never be overwhelmed by utter destruction, neither through war, nor through pestilence and dearth of the fruits of the earth, neither shall any other unlooked-for cause exterminate it. For God is watching over them to preserve them from all ill and to suffer no such calamity to come upon them as would destroy them all (4.127-28).

W h i l e B a l a a m allows that misfortunes m a y befall t h e m from time to t i m e , t h e s e will b e only t e m p o r a r y setbacks, after w h i c h they will 'flourish o n c e m o r e to the terror of those w h o inflicted t h e s e injuries upon t h e m ' (4.128). N u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s of the benefactions of G o d and t h e gratitude they should inspire arise also in J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y of the laws in Ant. 4 . 1 9 9 - 3 0 8 . In 4 . 2 1 2 , w h e n l a y i n g d o w n the r e g u l a t i o n s for daily prayers, M o s e s states, Twice each day...let all acknowledge before God the bounties (8copeai) which He has bestowed on them through their deliverance from the land of Egypt: thanksgiving ( e ^ x a p i o x i a ) is a natural duty, and is rendered alike in gratitude (ZRI d|ioi(5f0 for past mercies and to incline the giver to others yet to come.

This is a classic statement of the w o r k i n g s of a p a t r o n - c l i e n t relation­ ship. Displays of gratitude for benefactions received are m e a n t , in part, to secure further benefactions. A similar construction appears in 4.203 w h e r e the H e b r e w s are exhorted to thank G o d for benefits received and to intercede for future mercies. W h e n w r i t i n g o n the l a w s g o v e r n i n g the h a r v e s t i n g of c r o p s , h e argues that generosity both to o n e ' s o w n people a n d to strangers and aliens is required of the H e b r e w s b e c a u s e all that they h a v e is a gift from G o d i n t e n d e d not only for t h e m s e l v e s b u t for all h u m a n k i n d . M o r e than that, he continues, [God] is desirous that by these means the special favour ( e v v o i a ) that He bears to the people of Israel and the bounty of his gifts (xoprryia tfiq e\)8ai|iovia<;) may be manifested to others also, when out of all that superabundance of ours they too receive their share from us (4.237).

It is only appropriate, he continues, in view of their o w n experience of deliverance from slavery in E g y p t 'through the m e r c y and p r o v i d e n c e of G o d ' (E£ EHEOV Kai rcpovoiac;), to extend kindness and generosity to others also (4.239).

184

Understanding

Josephus

In J o s e p h u s ' s rendition of the regulations g o v e r n i n g the tithes and offerings (cf. D e u t . 2 6 ) , M o s e s instructs Israelites w h o are a b o u t to depart from the t e m p l e for h o m e to offer thanks (e\>%apiaxT|odxco) to G o d for h a v i n g delivered their race from the hubris

of the E g y p t i a n s

and for h a v i n g given t h e m a g o o d a n d spacious l a n d to enjoy. T h e n , after affirming that he has paid his tithes, the Israelite is to ask G o d ever to be favourable and gracious (aixnadoGco xov 6e6v evuevn * a i 'iXecov avxcp 5id rcavxoQ e i v a i ) to himself and to continue such favour towards all the Hebrews in common, preserving to them the good things (dycxGd) that He had given (5e8coKev) them and adding thereto all else that He could bestow (xapi£ea0ai) (4.243).

In Ant. 4.266, on usury, M o s e s urges the H e b r e w s not to seek to gain from the m i s f o r t u n e of other H e b r e w s , c o u n t i n g as sufficient p a y ­ m e n t 'the gratitude ( e \ ) % a p i a x i a ) of such persons a n d the r e c o m p e n s e ( d | i o i p f | ) w h i c h G o d h a s in store for an act of g e n e r o s i t y ' . B o t h in the h u m a n relations and the d i v i n e - h u m a n relations represented h e r e , there is a compatibility with G r a e c o - R o m a n ideas connected with the p a t r o n client relationship: gratitude w a s an essential aspect of the r e c i p i e n t ' s r e s p o n s e to benefactions received, a n d the desire for r e c o m p e n s e for services rendered w a s entirely appropriate. A n o t h e r aspect of G o d ' s goodwill (ei)]XEvr\q) t o w a r d the H e b r e w s is the fact that he will k e e p their constitution from b e i n g m a r r e d b y civil strife (4.292). In time of i m m i n e n t war, they are to seek to resolve the conflict by diplomatic m e a n s first, even t h o u g h they are p o s s e s s o r s of ' a large a r m y , horses a n d m u n i t i o n s , and a b o v e all blest w i t h G o d ' s g r a c i o u s favour and support (e%ovT£<;...e\>|ii£vii xov 0 e 6 v K a i

at>n-

|ia%ov)' (4.296). In the c a s e of u n a v o i d a b l e war, G o d himself is their supreme c o m m a n d e r (oxpaxryyoc; a w o K p d x c o p ) (4.297). In M o s e s ' climactic c o n c l u s i o n to this speech h e r e n d e r s t h a n k s to G o d for all that he has bestowed. This passage is rich with terminology d e n o t i n g a p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationship b e t w e e n h i m s e l f (with the H e ­ brews) and G o d : Seeing...that I am going to our forefathers and that this is the day that God hath appointed for my departure to them, while yet alive and among you I render thanks to Him, alike for the care (rcpovoicx) which He has bestowed on you, not only in delivering you from your distress, but in presenting you with the best of boons (Scoped xcbv Kpeixxovcov), and then for that, while I was toiling and with utmost endeavour taking thought for the amelioration of your lot, He aided (avvriYcoviacxxo) me in those

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

185

struggles and showed Himself ever gracious (e\)nevf|<^ towards me. Nay rather it was He who both gave the lead in those endeavours and granted me the gracious issues (xd xeXr) xapi^o^evoc;), employing me but as his subaltern and subordinate minister of his benefactions which He was fain to confer ( e v e p y e x e i v ) upon our people. Wherefore I thought it right, ere departing, to bless (npoe\)Xoyr\Ga\) the power of God, who will still care for you for the time to come, myself rendering this return that is His due (duxn|3f|), and leaving in your memory the thought that it behoves you to revere and honour Him, and to observe his laws—that choicest boon (5c6pt||ia KdMiaxov) of all that He has given you or, con­ tinuing to be gracious (e\)U€vf|<^, will give you hereafter. For if even a human legislator is a formidable foe when his laws are outraged and laid down to none effect, then beware of experiencing the wrath of God for laws neglected—laws which He, the begetter of them, presented to you Himself (4.315-19).

T h e e m p h a s i s in this p a s s a g e on the law as a benefaction of G o d is echoed in other places in Antiquities as well. In 3.223 J o s e p h u s asserts that the l a w s , which are 'excellent b e y o n d h u m a n w i s d o m ' are regarded by J e w s as a gift of G o d (Scoped xov Qeov). In 4 . 2 1 3 they are referred to as t h e greatest of all G o d ' s benefactions (xd j i e y i a x a a>v evepye x r | a e v a\>xo\)<; 6 Oeoq). W h e n M o s e s is absent on M o u n t Sinai the p e o p l e o b e y their instructions to ask G o d 'to b e g r a c i o u s in His c o n ­ verse with M o s e s and to grant h i m a gift (Scoped) w h i c h w o u l d p r o m o t e their h a p p i n e s s ' (3.78). O n his return to the c a m p M o s e s reports that has b e e n received graciously and has b e e n granted, by the dictation of G o d , 'rules for a blissful life and an ordered g o v e r n m e n t ' (3.84). T h e b e n e f a c t i o n of the l a w is also i m p l i e d in Ant. 4 . 1 1 4 w h e n B a l a a m asserts that G o d ' s h i g h e s t e e m for the Israelites h a s c a u s e d h i m to lavish o n t h e m 'the m e a n s w h e r e b y y e m a y b e t h e happiest of all p e o ­ ples b e n e a t h the s u n ' . In this context B a l a a m also asserts that G o d 4 0

h a s not o n l y given t h e m the p o s s e s s i o n of i n n u m e r a b l e g o o d things (dyaGd), but also his o w n providence (7cp6voia) to be their ally (<x6|i[ia%o<;) a n d leader (fyye^cov). A m o r e o b l i q u e reference to the l a w as a b e n e f a c t i o n from G o d c o m e s in Ant. 4 . 2 1 3 . H e r e , M o s e s instructs t h e Israelites to r e n d e r thanks to G o d for his bounties twice each day, and then h e continues:

40. See P. Spilsbury, T h e Image of the Jew in Josephus' Biblical Paraphrase' (PhD dissertation; The University of Cambridge, 1994), p. 115. See also Ant. 4.211 in which the law is described as 'most beautiful of lessons and a source of felicity (e\)8ai|iovia)'.

Understanding

186

Josephus

They shall inscribe on their doors the greatest of the benefits which God gave (Evepyexnoev) them and each shall display them on his arms; and all that can show forth the power of God and His goodwill (evvoia) to­ wards them, let them bear a record thereof written on the head and on the arm, so that men may see on every side the loving care (rcpoOuuov) with which God surrounds them.

A glance at J o s e p h u s ' s source in Deut. 6.8-9 reveals that w h a t J o s e p h u s has in m i n d h e r e as 'the greatest of the benefits' is o n c e again the laws of M o s e s . It is clear from all these passages that Josephus conceives of a special relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel. This is a relationship in w h i c h Israel is the beneficiary of G o d ' s g o o d will w h i c h is e x p r e s s e d in the form of benefactions of v a r i o u s k i n d s . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t of these gifts is, as w e h a v e seen, the law. The Basis of the

Relationship

Discussion of the law as G o d ' s primary benefaction to the H e b r e w s is a g o o d place to begin a consideration of the basis of the relationship that is clearly in v i e w in t h e p a s s a g e s cited a b o v e . T h i s is b e c a u s e piety, w h i c h for J o s e p h u s m e a n s o b e d i e n c e to the law, is at the h e a r t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d and the J e w s . J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l of the piety of A b r a h a m provides a helpful starting point for discussion here. A b r a h a m is portrayed b y J o s e p h u s as the e p i t o m e of w i s d o m , hospi­ tality and p i e t y .

41

H e is also one w h o enjoys the goodwill of the deity. It

is important to note the connection b e t w e e n A b r a h a m ' s piety a n d this g o o d will. In Ant. 1.183, for e x a m p l e , the latter is d e p e n d e n t u p o n the former: ' G o d c o m m e n d e d his virtue and said, " N a y thou shalt not lose the rewards that are thy d u e ( | i i c 9 o i ovq d ^ i o v e a x i v 8 e ) for such good d e e d s " . ' In the ' B i n d i n g of I s a a c ' episode the connection b e t w e e n piety or virtue and G o d ' s favour is again to the fore. In fact, the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d A b r a h a m is r e p r e s e n t e d as distinctly c o n t r a c t u a l . W h e r e a s in G e n . 2 2 . 1 - 2 G o d simply c o m m a n d s A b r a h a m to offer u p his son as a burnt offering, J o s e p h u s has G o d first e n u m e r a t e to Abra­ h a m the benefits he has b e s t o w e d on him in the past (Ant. 1.224). Abra­ h a m ' s response (something that is not spelled out in G e n e s i s , except for

41. On Josephus's portrayal of Abraham, see, for example, L.H. Feldman, 'Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 133-53; Spilsbury, 'The Image of the Jew', pp. 35-58.

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

187

the fact that he obeys the c o m m a n d ) , w h i c h at first is c o u c h e d in terms of absolute obedience to G o d (Ant. 1.225), is later e x p r e s s e d specifi­ cally as a repayment for G o d ' s benefits. A b r a h a m explains to Isaac: 'It is to G o d that I yield t h e e . . . w h o n o w claims from us this h o m a g e (xi\xr\) in return for (dvO' cSv) the gracious favour (E\)\xevr\q) H e h a s shown m e as m y supporter (TcapaoTdxris) and ally (av|i|ia%o<;)' ( 1 . 2 2 9 ) . Yet, as H . W . Attridge has astutely noted, that 'gracious favour' is itself a re­ sponse to A b r a h a m ' s v i r t u e . W h e n G o d finally interposes to stop A b r a h a m from actually carrying out the deed, h e again e m p h a s i z e s the point that piety is properly a response to the bounty of G o d (1.233, 234). Josephus informs us: ' N o w that [God] k n e w the ardour and depth of his piety, H e took pleasure in w h a t H e h a d given h i m and w o u l d n e v e r fail to regard w i t h the tenderest care ( e m i i e t e i a ) both h i m and his r a c e ' (1.234). In other w o r d s , G o d does not m i n d continuing to b e A b r a h a m ' s helper since A b r a h a m has s h o w n himself suitably grateful for the b o u n t i e s h e h a s already received. A s W . C . van U n n i k has pointed out, this is a formulation of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and h u m a n i t y with w h i c h a hellenistic a u d i e n c e w o u l d h a v e b e e n quite f a m i l i a r . Piety is r e w a r d e d w i t h divine favour w h i c h elicits a response of gratitude and further acts of piety, w h i c h in turn secure G o d ' s continuing services as supporter and ally. 42

43

44

45

A similar situation obtains in regard to the terms of G o d ' s enduring care for the subsequent generations of Hebrews. W h i l e the substance of G o d ' s care is set out clearly (namely, a long and felicitous life for Isaac and a large dominion for his 'virtuous and lawfully begotten offspring' 42. See also Ant. 2.172; 276. 43. T.W. Franxman seems to miss this point (Genesis, p. 158), when he sug­ gests: That God should have to remind Abraham of His benefits.. .does not exactly compliment Abraham's faith'. He does point out though that Josephus has a biblical precedent in such passages as Exod. 20.2-3 where God prefaces his com­ mandments with the reminder 'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage'. In this context, however, we are again dealing with a kind of contractual relationship. 44. Attridge, Interpretation, pp. 88-89. 45. W.C. van Unnik, 'Eine merkwiirdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jos Ant 8, 111-113)', in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (eds.), Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 364-65.

188

Understanding

Josephus

[1.234], to w h o m also is promised increasing wealth, illustrious leaders, victory over their enemies the Canaanites, and the envy of all [1.235]), G o d n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n t i n u e s to m a k e piety t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e for this favour. A b r a h a m and his descendants are, thus, those w h o acknowledge and appropriately r e s p o n d to G o d ' s oversight of his creation. If the Jews enjoy a particular providence it is because they exhibit a particular piety. T h e s a m e basic p a r a d i g m m a y b e discerned t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s biblical paraphrase. A few e x a m p l e s will suffice to d e m o n s t r a t e this. T h e first is the story of M o s e s ' father A m r a m w h o , according t o Jose­ phus, w a s c o n c e r n e d that the devices of the Egyptians w o u l d result in the destruction of the w h o l e H e b r e w race (Ant 2.210). B e c a u s e of his anxiety he w e n t to G o d in prayer and beseeched h i m to 'take s o m e pity on m e n w h o h a d in n o w i s e transgressed in their w o r s h i p of H i m ' (2.211). T h e basis of the appeal is clearly the piety of the H e b r e w s . God, w e are told, h a d compassion on h i m and exhorted h i m in a dream not to despair because ' H e h a d their piety in r e m e m b r a n c e (8i& |nvfi|LiT|q e%eiv) and w o u l d ever give them its due recompense (cxjLioipf|)* (2.212). G o d then turns the tables b y recounting his o w n faithfulness to the H e b r e w forebears and warns A m r a m that h e would b e impious to for­ get (jifi 8 i d |ivf||iTi<; 8%ovxe<;) all these benefits (2.214). G o d assures A m r a m , further, ' A n d n o w b e it k n o w n to you that I a m watching over the c o m m o n welfare (o\)|a,<|>epov) of you all a n d thine o w n r e n o w n ' (2.215). T h e notion of ' r e c o m p e n s e ' appears also in Ant 2 . 1 9 6 w h e n Jose­ p h u s says of J a c o b , ' S o h e d i e d . . . h a v i n g c o m e b e h i n d n o n e of his forefathers in piety (evoefieia) towards G o d and h a v i n g m e t with the r e c o m p e n s e (d|noiPr|) w h i c h such virtue d e s e r v e d . ' A g a i n , in S o l o ­ m o n ' s prayer at the completion of the Temple, w e read, Not by deeds is it possible for men to return thanks (drcoSouvai xapiv) to God for the benefits they have received (e\> TtercdvGaaiv), for the Deity stands in need of nothing and is above any such recompense (d|IOIPR|). B u t . . . w e cannot but praise (evXoyeiv) Thy greatness and give thanks (e\)%apiaxeiv) for Thy kindness to our house and the Hebrew people (8.111).

Here, ' r e c o m p e n s e ' is cast in a p o o r light only in order to affirm that G o d is above the need for any ' t h i n g ' . However, praise and thanksgiv­ ing are still regarded as the appropriate return d u e to G o d .

SPILSBURY God and Israel in Josephus

189

A n o t h e r important e x a m p l e of this k i n d of transactional relationship is J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g of M o s e s ' s p e e c h e s in t h e b o o k of D e u t e r ­ o n o m y . In Ant. 4 . 1 8 0 - 9 0 t h e f o l l o w i n g i m p o r t a n t features e m e r g e . M o s e s r e m i n d s the Israelites that they o w e their happiness to a gracious G o d (6 6e6<; e\)|iEvf|<;) w h o dispenses h i s favours on t h o s e w h o merit t h e m (TOIC; ct^ioic;). S o long as they o b e y G o d ' s c o m m a n d they m a y count o n h i s aid (por|96<;)

46

a n d m a y expect great r e w a r d s

41

(enaQXa)

for their virtue. T h e passage is brought to a close with the assurance: And God who heretofore has governed you, and by whose will I too have been of service to you, will not at this point set a term to his provi­ dence (rcpovoict), but so long as ye yourselves desire to have His protec­ tion (7CpoatdTnq), by continuing in the paths of virtue, so long will ye enjoy His watchful care (Kpo^r|0eia)...[But] should ye be carried away...into a contempt and disdain of virtue, ye will lose even that favour (e-uvoia) which ye have found of God (4.190).

T h e conditional, t w o - s i d e d nature of t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d and the H e b r e w s is clearly exemplified in this speech. O n c e again, the p a t r o n - c l i e n t m o d e l of relationships accounts well for t h e terminology and ethos of the relationship. Further, M o s e s ' warning here is e c h o e d in the w o r d s of the seer B a l a a m w h o h a d advised B a l a k o n t h e attempted o v e r t h r o w of the Israelites. W h i l e direct curses against t h e m w e r e i m ­ possible b e c a u s e of their special standing with G o d , it w a s nevertheless still possible t o corrupt their g o o d fortune b y souring their relationship with their patron. This could b e achieved b y causing the Israelites them­ selves to anger G o d b y renouncing ' t h e laws of their fathers a n d G o d to w h o m they o w e t h e m ' . ' F o r t h u s , ' says B a l a a m , 'will G o d b e m o v e d to indignation against t h e m ' (Ant. 4.130). A g a i n , in M o s e s ' farewell s p e e c h t o t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 4 . 3 1 5 - 1 9 , quoted above), h e states that G o d ' s continued care of t h e m is dependent both o n M o s e s ' o w n rendering of w h a t is d u e (d|ioipf|) to G o d , a n d on the H e b r e w s ' continued reverence (aePeiv) and honour (xi|iav) for G o d d i s p l a y e d in t h e o b s e r v a n c e of t h e l a w s . A similar n o t e is struck b y Joshua in his farewell speech t o the people. Josephus writes: [Joshua] recalled to them all the benefactions (evepyeciai) of God... and exhorted them to keep God's goodwill (rcpoaipeoK;) unchanged

46. See also Ant. 1.272; 2.172. 47. See also Ant. 6.160.

Understanding

190

Josephus

towards them, for by piety (evaePeia) alone could they retain the friend­ ship (tyiXoq) * of the Deity (Ant. 5.115-116). 4

M u c h later in the biblical story D a v i d counsels S o l o m o n to ' e n d e a v ­ our to b e w o r t h y of [ G o d ' s ] providence by being p i o u s j u s t a n d brave; k e e p the c o m m a n d m e n t s and the laws which H e gave us through M o s e s , and d o not p e r m i t others to transgress t h e m ' ( 7 . 3 3 8 ) . L a t e r still, the p r o p h e t Azariah tells k i n g A s a that he is the beneficiary of the b e n e v ­ 49

olence (ev\ievexa)

of G o d b e c a u s e the p e o p l e ' h a d s h o w n themselves

righteous and p u r e a n d h a d always acted in a c c o r d a n c e with the will of G o d ' (8.295).

Summary

and

Conclusion

I a m n o w in a position to s u m m a r i z e the findings of this study. At the m o s t basic level it m a y b e said with certainty that J o s e p h u s w a s con­ v i n c e d that a special r e l a t i o n s h i p existed b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. T e r m s relevant to the description of this relationship m a y b e divided into separate categories. G o d is described b y m e a n s of the following t e r m s , all of w h i c h suit G o d ' s role as patron of the H e b r e w s : Tdxriq, tyiXoq, GV\i\iaZ,o<;, POT)96<;, cxpaTTyyoc;, fjyeiicbv and

npoc-

napacmxr\<;.

G o d ' s disposition toward the Hebrews, which m a y be summarized u n d e r the t e r m ev\isvr\<;, c a u s e s h i m to e x e r c i s e

rcpovoice

o n their

behalf. Other important terms that are closely related h e r e are: e w o i a , eopcov, xi\ir\, eXeoq,

i^ecoq, TcpoOuiiov, eniiieXeia,

7cpo|LiT|6eia and

£\)|H£veia. T h e ' s e r v i c e s ' that G o d provides are described by m e a n s of t e r m s s u c h a s : 8cop£d, 8c6pr||Lia, % o p £ y t a , eXeoq, (evepyexelv).

and

evepyecia

Often the term d | i o i p f | emphasizes the contractual nature

of the service (as, to a lesser degree, d o the terms |nio9oi and EKOLQXOL). d p , o i p f | is also used to describe the appropriate h u m a n r e s p o n s e to the benefactions of G o d . O t h e r t e r m s e x p r e s s i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e h u m a n response to the graciousness of G o d include £\)%api
and £ \ ) G £ p £ i a .

T h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel is o n e in w h i c h G o d p r o ­ vides the Israelites with n u m e r o u s benefactions. T h e greatest of these is the l a w , w h i c h is the m e a n s by w h i c h the J e w s m a y live a life of c o m ­ plete h a p p i n e s s . Their response to the benefactions they h a v e received

48. See also Ant. 4.199; 5.95, 213; 6.20; 294. 49. See also 2.346; 8.119

SPILSBURY God and Israel in

Josephus

191

is to b e o n e of wholehearted gratitude. In the case of the benefaction of the law, this gratitude is d e m o n s t r a t e d m o s t of all b y o b e d i e n c e and loyalty. T h e basis of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel is ultimately G o d ' s generosity in providing the law. In order for there to b e a rela­ tionship, however, G o d ' s generosity m u s t b e reciprocated b y the piety of the Israelites e x p r e s s e d in o b e d i e n c e to G o d ' s laws. Piety e v o k e s G o d ' s blessings w h i c h in turn e v o k e gratitude from the p e o p l e . Grat­ itude ensures G o d ' s continued favour on a people w h o continue to live by the law. I have suggested that the best model of relationships for understand­ ing the e v i d e n c e h e r e is the p a t r o n - c l i e n t m o d e l so p r e v a l e n t in the G r a e c o - R o m a n society in w h i c h Josephus himself w a s thoroughly im­ mersed. In his paraphrase of the Bible, G o d is portrayed as the ultimate p a t r o n w h o s e g o o d w i l l a n d p r o v i d e n c e ensure t h e J e w s ' c o n t i n u e d existence and welfare. A s a favoured client of this patron, the J e w s are r e q u i r e d to live u n d e r the constitution G o d p r o v i d e s . T h e i r w h o l e ­ hearted c o m m i t m e n t to the law, a feature of the national character that J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s , is a s u r e g u a r a n t e e , u n d e r the t e r m s of the patron-client system, of the J e w s ' ultimate prosperity. I w o u l d c o n c l u d e further that E.P. S a n d e r s ' s i n s i s t e n c e u p o n the c o v e n a n t as the d o m i n a n t p a r a d i g m u n d e r w h i c h J e w s of the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d u n d e r s t o o d their relationship to G o d is, in principle, supported b y the evidence of J o s e p h u s . For, although J o s e p h u s s e e m s deliberately to avoid using covenantal language, for reasons suggested by Halpern A m a r u and Attridge, h e has not abandoned the basic notion of a special relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel. N o r has h e a b a n d o n e d the n o t i o n that this r e l a t i o n s h i p carried certain specific d u t i e s a n d obligations for the J e w s . As part of his general p r o g r a m of hellenizing the biblical a c c o u n t of the origins of his p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s has also hellenized this aspect of the Bible. R a t h e r than u s i n g the l a n g u a g e of covenant h e uses the language of patron and client, with the attendant implications of that language, to c o m m u n i c a t e the biblical c o n c e p t in R o m a n society.

Part HI AGAINST APION

JOSEPHUS V. APION: A N A L Y S I S OF A N A R G U M E N T

John M . G . Barclay

Jan W i l l e m v a n H e n t e n and R a ' a n a n A b u s c h h a v e recently issued ' a plea for a c o m p r e h e n s i v e investigation of J o s e p h u s ' rhetorical strate­ gies against the background of G r a e c o - R o m a n r h e t o r i c s ' . A s they note, analysis of J o s e p h u s ' s m e t h o d of argumentation is a striking lacuna in J o s e p h a n s c h o l a r s h i p to d a t e , e v e n in relation to J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t obviously rhetorical w o r k , Against Apion: ' A detailed and systematic analysis of J o s e p h u s ' m e t h o d of refutation e m p l o y e d in Contra Api­ onem is still a desideratum' (p. 2 9 5 ) . H e r e w e c a n w a t c h J o s e p h u s citing and refuting a r a n g e of o p p o n e n t s , a n d his a p o l o g e t i c efforts invite attention as m u c h for their method as for their content. Of course, J o s e p h u s cites only selectively and reflects only those e l e m e n t s of his o p p o n e n t s ' case w h i c h he chooses to refute, but e v e n such a one-sided contest is worth observing for the strategic options and tactical m a n o e u ­ vres of the apologist. 1

A s v a n H e n t e n a n d A b u s c h suggestively d e m o n s t r a t e , t h e ancient rhetorical h a n d b o o k s provide a valuable tool for analyzing J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric. S u c h h a n d b o o k s , w e m u s t recall, w e r e d e s i g n e d to reflect u p o n and distil the 'art' of rhetoric as actually practised; their citations from speeches indicate that practice generally preceded systematization (Quintilian 5.10.119-25). T h u s to assess J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric b y m e a n s 2

1. J.W. van Henten and R. Abusch, T h e Jews as Typhonians and Josephus' Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem , in L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 271-309 (309). 1

2. I am grateful below to follow in their footsteps at several points, while fur­ ther developing this method of analysis. R.G. Hall, 'Josephus' Contra Apionem and Historical Inquiry in the Roman Rhetorical Schools', in Feldman and Levison, Josephus' Contra Apionem (see n. 1), pp. 229-49, analyzes Josephus's treatment of historical narrative in Against Apion with reference to the rhetorical handbooks.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

195

of the h a n d b o o k s need not imply that h e had read any of t h e m ; indeed, it is not clear what, if any, formal training he h a d acquired in rhetoric. E x p e r i e n c e , observation and reflection w e r e often sufficient guides to effective speech, while the handbooks attempted to codify the best tech­ niques. Naturally, such codification tends to create 'pure t y p e s ' to w h i c h real rhetorical e v e n t s m i g h t only r o u g h l y c o r r e s p o n d . Aristotle a n d Quintilian did not i m a g i n e that orators w o u l d follow their h a n d b o o k s slavishly: indeed, the art in rhetoric is precisely the adaptation of stan­ dard forms to the particular case in h a n d . T h u s , it w o u l d b e mistaken to force a n y textbook t e m p l a t e onto J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric, b u t w e m a y u s e the h a n d b o o k s to alert o u r s e l v e s to the c o n t e m p o r a r y a r s e n a l available for J o s e p h u s ' s verbal warfare. In such an exercise the m e r e a p p o r t i o n i n g of labels ('this is genre x, a r r a n g e m e n t y, or a r g u m e n t type z ' ) is of limited value unless it helps us to assess J o s e p h u s ' s strate­ gies; our goal here is to press towards at least a preliminary assessment of what J o s e p h u s achieves with the w e a p o n s at his disposal. 3

4

J o s e p h u s ' s Against Apion is his most effective piece of rhetoric and invites such analysis from a variety of angles. L e a v i n g aside questions of structure and style, I will here (1) attempt to identify the rhetorical genre of the treatise, before (2) outlining J o s e p h u s ' s m e t h o d of e n g a g e ­ m e n t with his chief foe, Apion. T h e n (3) I will assess in detail j u s t o n e p a s s a g e of a r g u m e n t a t i o n (Against Apion 2.20-27) w h i c h illustrates J o s e p h u s ' s r h e t o r i c at w o r k . E v e n from this s m a l l s a m p l e I w i l l (4) suggest s o m e preliminary conclusions concerning J o s e p h u s ' s rhetor­ ical effectiveness.

3. On Josephus's education in Palestine, see T. Rajak, Josephus: The Histo­ rian and His Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983), pp. 46-64. Neither in Palestine nor in Rome is there any direct evidence for rhetorical training, and Hall's suggestion that Josephus 'pursued a standard Roman rhetorical education', which he employed in 'school-boyish' fashion is not convincing ('Josephus' Contra Api­ onem and Historical Inquiry', pp. 248-49): the case rests only on the parallels dis­ covered between Josephus's practice and handbook recommendations. But one did not need a formal training in declamation to be able to do what the handbooks rec­ ommended. 4. Quintilian 5.13.59-60 warns that text-books can be dangerously removed from actual practice; cf. 5.13.42-50. on the limitations of school-training in declamation. He cites Domitius Afer's rule that the first duty of an orator is to familiarize himself with the particularities of the case itself (5.7.7).

196

Understanding

1. The Rhetorical

Josephus

Genre of Against A p i o n

J o s e p h u s ' s Against Apion stands in succession to h i s Antiquities', it r e ­ sponds to t h e disappointing reception of t h e earlier w o r k a n d attempts to quash remaining doubts about the antiquity of t h e Jewish people a n d to refute reports of their Egyptian origins a n d other slanders (Against Apion 1.1-5, 5 7 - 5 9 ) . In r e c e n t years a n i m p o r t a n t d i s c u s s i o n h a s o p e n e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e g e n r e a n d a i m s of t h e w o r k as a w h o l e , for w h i c h it is natural to refer to the three rhetorical genres identified b y the h a n d b o o k s : forensic, deliberative a n d epideictic (or demonstrative; see Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.3). Such genres w e r e originally defined with refer­ e n c e t o typical oral p e r f o r m a n c e s . Forensic rhetoric w a s for t h e l a w court, w h e r e an accused w a s to b e defended or c o n d e m n e d ; deliberative rhetoric related to public assemblies w h e r e a political decision w a s rec­ o m m e n d e d or w a r n e d against; a n d epideictic w a s e m p l o y e d o n those occasions w h e r e p e r s o n s or a c h i e v e m e n t s received praise o r censure. Naturally, relevant aspects of such oral skills spread across into litera­ ture, w h i l e t h e three genres p r o v e d adaptable for c o m p l e x o c c a s i o n s ; indeed, e v e n in their original contexts, a n d certainly in their literary adaptations, these genres w e r e easily mixed, with elements of o n e e m ­ ployed in the context of a n o t h e r . T h e r e is therefore n o a priori reason to expect that Against Apion m u s t fit o n e , a n d only o n e , of these 'pure types'. 5

6

J o s e p h u s declares at t h e outset that his primary c o n c e r n is to p r o v e the antiquity of the J e w s in t h e face of persistent d o u b t s arising from the lack of reference to J e w s in G r e e k literature (1.1-5). T h e tone in which h e introduces this topic indicates that the apparent novelty of the J e w s is a topic of ' s l a n d e r ' (PAxxc<|>T||da), perpetrated b y those w h o m J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s m o t i v a t e d b y m a l i c e ( S v a j L i e v e i a , 1.2). In other w o r d s , the reputation of the J e w s is at stake (if they are recent, they are insignificant a n d culturally derivative), a n d it is natural for J o s e p h u s to 5. On the close relationship between Antiquities and Against Apion see P. Spilsbury, 'Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact', in Feldman and Levison, Josephus' Contra Apionem (see n. 1), pp. 348-68, providing a powerful argument against those who doubt that Josephus himself was responsi­ ble for the contents of the latter work. Against Apion must date from the last years of the first century (after 93/94 CE) or the first years of the second. 6. See, e.g., Ad Herennium 3.8.15: epideictic is seldom employed by itself in­ dependently, but is useful in deliberative or judicial contexts.

B A R C L A Y Josephus

v. Apion

197

c o m b i n e this topic with his refutation of other ' s l a n d e r e r s ' (pA,aa<|)T|jiowcec;, 1.59) in subsequent parts of the treatise. This suggests that the primary g e n r e of the w o r k is epideictic: Josephus is c o n c e r n e d to praise w h a t o t h e r p e o p l e c e n s u r e . S i n c e an i m p o r t a n t part of h i s task is to r e m o v e t h e o p p r o b r i u m w h i c h h a s b e e n h e a p e d o n the J e w s , a g o o d deal of J o s e p h u s ' s epideictic m u s t b e taken u p w i t h defensive a p o l o ­ getic, but the transition from the defensive posture in 1.1-2.144 to the positive e n c o m i u m in 2.145-96 is only a shift in tactic w i t h i n the s a m e epideictic genre, not a c h a n g e of genre itself. T h e necessity to deflect censure requires that J o s e p h u s e n g a g e in d e ­ tailed refutation of his o p p o n e n t s and h e chooses to d o this b y creating the fiction of a l a w - c o u r t s c e n e , a p p e a l i n g to ' w i t n e s s e s ' , refuting ' a c c u s a t i o n s ' and demolishing his o p p o n e n t s ' ' c h a r g e s ' p i e c e by piece. H e calls attention to this device in his opening c o m m e n t s about A p i o n , w h e r e h e suggests that ' A p i o n has c o m p o s e d a c h a r g e against us quite as t h o u g h h e w e r e c o n d u c t i n g a l a w s u i t ' (KaTriyopiav f ^ a w dvxiKpix; cix; e v 8iiq) yeypa^oTa, 2.4). Of course A p i o n did o n c e c o m p o s e a law­ suit against the Alexandrian J e w s concerning their failure to offer wor­ ship to G a i u s (Josephus, Ant

18.257-59) and it is possible that s o m e of

A p i o n ' s ' c h a r g e s ' reflected h e r e spring from that legal c o n t e x t (e.g. in 2 . 3 3 - 7 8 ) . B u t J o s e p h u s is not literally writes Against

Apion,

conducting a lawsuit when he

and the forensic elements of his w o r k are a liter­

ary fiction; t h e J e w s are ' o n trial' only in a m e t a p h o r i c a l sense a n d J o s e p h u s is clearing t h e m not so m u c h of guilt as of opprobrium.

Thus,

w e m a y a c k n o w l e d g e the p r e s e n c e of forensic-type r h e t o r i c in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s refutation of his o p p o n e n t s w i t h o u t altering our overall assess­ 7

m e n t of the treatise as e p i d e i c t i c . T h e shift in tactic at 2 . 1 4 5 is not, therefore, a complication: it indicates only that J o s e p h u s ' s epideictic is free at last from its forensic-style refutation of b l a m e t o e n g a g e in 8

straightforward p r o n o u n c e m e n t of p r a i s e . A s S c h a u b l i n c o m m e n t s : 7. Reacting against the proliferation of 'divisions' within a speech, Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.13 insists that, logically, accusation and defence do not belong to delib­ erative speech qua deliberative; but in actuality they are often to be found there (see 3.17.10 on Isocrates' practice). The same may presumably be said of epideictic. 8. I thus differ from van Henten and Abusch, who, after noting the presence of both refutation and praise, conclude that 'Contra Apionem is a work in which a section of epideictic discourse is embedded in a largely forensic argument' ( T h e Jews as Typhonians', p. 297). I would argue, rather, that the forensic-type argu­ ments serve the larger epideictic purpose. The relative proportion of the two parts is explained by Josephus's reluctance to engage in a full-blown encomium (2.4,

Understanding

198

Josephus

' J o s e p h u s , to b e sure, presents his eyKCOjiiov of J e w s in the form of a fictitious " t r i a l " — l i k e Isocrates, w h o creates a fictitious trial-situation in his "Antidosis-Speeches", to enable h i m to praise h i m s e l f . ' If ' f o r e n s i c ' e l e m e n t s are p r e s e n t within this epideictic w o r k , are there also aspects of deliberative rhetoric? S u c h h a s b e e n a r g u e d re­ cently by Steve M a s o n , w h o finds in Contra Apionem a subtle appeal for p r o s e l y t i s m , like the species of d e l i b e r a t i v e r h e t o r i c k n o w n as 'protreptic s p e e c h ' (appeals for c o n v e r s i o n ) . T h e r e is n o reason w h y epideictic and deliberative should not b e m i x e d in this w a y (or the one shade off into the other, Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.9.35-37), and the social context in w h i c h J o s e p h u s wrote (a R o m e in which there w a s m u c h talk about, and s o m e cases of, proselytism) renders this thesis possible. For three reasons, however, I find the case unpersuasive. 9

10

In the first p l a c e , M a s o n ' s a r g u m e n t implies an e q u a t i o n b e t w e e n 'defensive' and 'apologetic' speech on the one hand, and between 'positive' and 'protreptic' on the other (e.g. p p . 196-97, 199-200, 210): if Against Apion contains both 'defensive' and ' p o s i t i v e ' portrayals of Judaism, it thus contains at least an element of 'protreptic'. T h e first of these equations is problematic only in the ambiguity of the t e r m 'apolo­ g e t i c ' , but the second m a y mislead without the recognition that 'posi­ t i v e ' presentations of J u d a i s m c o u l d h a v e m a n y p u r p o s e s other than protreptic: t h e y m i g h t play a crucial role in w i n n i n g s y m p a t h i z e r s , patrons, protectors and benefactors, without necessarily a i m i n g to gain converts/proselytes. T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' s 'positive a d v o c a c y ' of J u d a i s m (p. 199) d o e s not necessarily represent a conversionist strategy, since m a n y other types of people could usefully b e assured of its fine quali­ ties. 11

147); on the greater popularity of refutation in argument see Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.30 and 3.17.13. However, this difference is perhaps more one of emphasis than substance, and I would concur with their conclusion that 'More needs to be done on this overlapping of category and the relationship between panegyric and refutation... It is clear at least that these elements cannot be simply distilled from each other along Aristotelian lines of reasoning' (p. 303). 9. Ch. Schaublin, 'Josephus und die Griechen', Hermes 110 (1982), pp. 31641 (323), with reference to Isocrates, Antidosis 1-13. 10. S. Mason, 'The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Invi­ tation to Judean Philosophy', in Feldman and Levison, Josephus' Contra Apionem ( s e e n . l ) , p p . 187-228. 11. As Mason notes (pp. 197-98), Josephus presents as an example of the response he expects to the Antiquities the positive appreciation of Judaism by

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

199

Secondly, M a s o n argues that J o s e p h u s expects an a u d i e n c e w h i c h is already b e n e v o l e n t and ready to hear his criticisms of G e n t i l e culture: thus, he is not trying to win Gentile benevolence, but presupposes it and wishes to take his readers further (pp. 2 1 1 - 1 2 ) . B u t J o s e p h u s does not contrast J u d a i s m with all 'Gentile c u l t u r e s ' : his critique of ' G e n t i l e s ' is actually very carefully targeted against Greeks and Egyptians, w h i l e he seems to g o out of his w a y to avoid criticism of R o m a n s , w h o s e values he supports at every t u r n . J o s e p h u s can afford to say w h a t h e likes about the absurdities of E g y p t i a n zoolatry, the scandalous character of 12

G r e e k m y t h o l o g y and the inadequacies of Greek constitutions, so long as h e d o e s n o t offend his real target, w h i c h I t a k e to b e influential R o m a n figures w h o s e lingering prejudices against the J e w s h e h o p e s to dispel and w h o s e support for J e w i s h rights he attempts to secure. T h e r e is thus n o g o o d reason to posit the further goal of w i n n i n g proselytes. Thirdly, M a s o n a c k n o w l e d g e s that the protreptic h e detects is ' s u b t l e ' (p. 207) since there are n o explicit appeals for conversion: the m o s t w e find are s o m e references to c o n v e r s i o n s to J u d a i s m (Against Apion 2 . 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 6 1 ; M a s o n , p p . 2 1 2 - 1 6 ) . B u t these e x a m p l e s are h a r d l y given m u c h p r o m i n e n c e in the treatise, and their presence is a m p l y ex­ plained b y J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e r n to refute suggestions that t h e J e w s are anti-social: s u c h is clearly t h e c o n t e x t of 2 . 2 0 9 - 1 0 (in r e s p o n s e to 2.148) a n d is m a d e explicit in 2.261 (acceptance of proselytes is proof of J e w i s h c|)i^av9pco7cia and ^eyaXoxiruxia). A l t h o u g h M a s o n c l a i m s s o m e support for his thesis from the w i d e r literary context of the p r e ­ 13

cursor, Antiquities, from Against Apion itself o n e could c l a i m n o m o r e t h a n that J o s e p h u s might h a v e h o p e d for s o m e conversions as an

Ptolemy II (Ant. 1.10-17): but Ptolemy II was (purportedly) a valuable 'sym­ pathizer' with Judaism, hardly a convert. 12. Note, for example the cautious omission of reference to the Romans in 2.7475, 175 and the calculated flattery of Roman (|>iA,av6pGmio: in 2.40, 7 3 . The proRoman stance of Against Apion is noted by M. Goodman, 'Josephus as a Roman Citizen', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: E.J. Brill 1994), pp. 329-38 (334-35). 13. Thus the acceptance of proselytes is used to illustrate the Jews' perfect com­ bination of cultural protection and openness, while proselytism itself is nowhere directly commended. When Josephus enumerates the multiple ways in which 'the masses' have adopted or imitated Jewish customs (2.281-86), his range is ex­ tremely wide; it does not illustrate that 'his consistent position...is to prefer full conversion' (pace Mason, 'The Contra Apionem\ p. 216).

Understanding

200

Josephus

indirect and subsidiary result of his work. B u t the e v i d e n c e suggests that his p r i m a r y goal w a s epideictic: he w i s h e d to present J e w s and Judaism in the best possible light to readers w h o w e r e e x p o s e d to m a n y contrary i m p r e s s i o n s b u t w h o m h e h o p e d to i m p r e s s . T h e r e w e r e , of course, g o o d social, political and financial reasons for seeking to turn interest into sympathy, or sympathy into support.

2. Josephus's

Treatment

of Apion

A l t h o u g h t h e original title of the w o r k w a s p r o b a b l y n o t Against Apion, and although A p i o n does not figure until b o o k 2, J o s e p h u s ' s e n g a g e m e n t with A p i o n (2.1-144) provides a g o o d illustration of his rhetorical t e c h n i q u e s . J o s e p h u s give m o r e space to his refutation of A p i o n than to any other anti-Jewish author, and gives h i m s o m e p r o m i ­ n e n c e by m a k i n g h i m the last object of direct refutation at the start of a n e w b o o k . S u c h p r o m i n e n c e m a y signify J o s e p h u s ' s recognition that A p i o n ' s slanders of J e w s w e r e particularly influential in R o m e even at the e n d of the first century. J o s e p h u s k n e w that A p i o n h a d p l a y e d a significant role in the A l e x a n d r i a n delegation w h i c h h a d b e e n sent to R o m e in 38 CE (Ant. 18.257-60), and other evidence suggests that Apion w a s internationally recognized as a learned y p a i i i i a x i K o q and w a s influ­ ential in R o m e in the reigns of Tiberius, G a i u s a n d C l a u d i u s . T o b e sure, his fame w a s s o m e w h a t double-edged: his reputation for learning w a s tinged with a m u s e m e n t at his quarrelsome character and penchant for self-advertisement. But self-publicists get themselves k n o w n , and there is reason to believe that, alongside his other w o r k s , A p i o n ' s fivev o l u m e AiyuTmciKa w a s influential in literary c i r c l e s . If graffiti written after his death indicate r e m e m b r a n c e of his belligerent oratory 14

15

16

17

14. See E. Schurer, G. Vermes and F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (3 vols.; rev. edn; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), I, p. 55; the present title was first used by Jerome. 15. His international reputation is evidenced in Seneca, Epistulae Morales 88.40; Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 5.14.1-2; 6.8.4; 7.8.1. Pliny (Natural History, preface 25) indicates his fame in Rome; cf. Suda s.v. Apion. See, in general, L. Cohn in PW I, pp. 2803-2806 and the collection of references in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin: Weidmann, 1958), vol. 3c, pp. 122-45. 16. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 5.14.3; Pliny records that Tiberius called him 'cymbalum mundi' and agrees with the verdict (Natural History, preface 25). 17. See M. Wellmann, 'Aegyptisches', Hermes 31 (1896), pp. 249-53.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

201

1 8

( O G I S 6 6 2 ) , w e c a n i m a g i n e the continuing potency of h i s influence in R o m e at t h e e n d of the first century. It w a s important, therefore, for J o s e p h u s to d e m o l i s h this powerful detractor of the J e w s . M a n y derogatory versions of the e x o d u s still cir­ culated in R o m e (cf. T a c i t u s , Hist. 5.4) a n d A p i o n ' s criticism of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s raised larger q u e s t i o n s a b o u t J e w i s h rights w h i c h w e r e still at issue in J o s e p h u s ' s day. T h u s J o s e p h u s a p p r o a c h e s h i s e n ­ g a g e m e n t with A p i o n with special relish a n d lets loose h e r e the m o s t virulent vituperation of t h e w h o l e treatise. G i v e n t h e b r e a d t h of topics on w h i c h A p i o n wrote, it w a s easy for Josephus to select those o n w h i c h h e could l a u n c h t h e m o s t effective response. Since A p i o n w a s d e p e n ­ dent on earlier sources, J o s e p h u s could present h i m as unoriginal ( 2 . 3 , 20) or u s e h i s response to A p i o n as a convenient vehicle for t h e refu­ tation of o t h e r s ( e . g . P o s i d o n i u s a n d A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , 2 . 7 9 , a n d Mnaseas, 2.112, whose slanders are charged to A p i o n ' s account). Moreover, Josephus k n e w e n o u g h about A p i o n ' s life-history (his birth, his citizenship, his role in Alexandria a n d his death) to b e able to w e a v e those details into a ferocious character assassination. A n d b y treating A p i o n last in the sequence, J o s e p h u s w a s able to bring h i s refutation t o a rhetorical climax, e m p l o y i n g all the w e a p o n r y at his disposal t o an­ nihilate this final opponent. In a n a l y z i n g t h e m e a n s of p e r s u a s i o n , Aristotle f a m o u s l y distin­ g u i s h e d t h r e e forms of i n v e n t e d (i.e. n o t self-evident) proof: t h o s e which rely on the fjBoq (character or moral impression) of t h e speaker, those w h i c h influence t h e disposition (7cd0o<;) of t h e hearer, a n d those w h i c h u s e a r g u m e n t or demonstration (A,6yo<;, Rhetoric 1.2.3-5). In his treatment of A p i o n , J o s e p h u s relies heavily o n (i) d e n i g r a t i o n of his o p p o n e n t ' s fjOoq, sometimes rousing t h e anger or outrage of his readers (TcdOoq); b u t h e also engages in (ii) varied forms of argumentation. W e m a y survey each in turn. (i) J o s e p h u s ' s fjOoq attacks o n A p i o n take various f o r m s , b u t b e g i n by questioning his intellectual competence. A t the outset h e pretends to uncertainty whether even to bother refuting Apion: ... it occurs to me to wonder if it is necessary to make the effort. Some of what he writes is similar to what has been said by others, some things he has added with excessive artificiality, but most is simply low buffoonery

18. H. Jacobson, 'Apion's Nickname', AJP 98 (1977), pp. 413-15.

202

Understanding

Josephus

displaying, if the truth be told, profound ignorance, as if composed by a man who is both worthless in character and a lifelong rabble-rouser (2.2-3). 19

Attacks on A p i o n ' s rhetorical and intellectual c o m p e t e n c e recur throughout the following sections. Apion is unable to organize his work properly (2.6), h e is gullible (2.13-14), a n d spouts p u r e n o n s e n s e (2.22, 116), displaying his profound i g n o r a n c e (2.26, 3 8 ) . Indeed, J o s e p h u s repeatedly m a k e s sarcastic reference to A p i o n ' s title as YpawiaxiKoq (2.2, 12, 14, 15, 109) t o belittle h i s reputation a n d r e n d e r h i s state­ ments, in advance, of n o account. M o r e highly charged are J o s e p h u s ' s attacks on A p i o n ' s moral char­ acter, a n d h e r e h e clearly i n t e n d s t o a r o u s e h i s r e a d e r s ' e m o t i o n s (7id0r|). H e presents A p i o n as being motivated only b y hatred (30), a trait h e shared with t h e A l e x a n d r i a n p o p u l a c e (2.32, 7 0 ) ; t h u s all h e says about t h e J e w s c o m e s into t h e category of m o c k e r y (2.49, 112, 137), defamation (2.5, 3 2 , 7 9 , 88) or abuse (2.30, 3 2 , 3 4 , 4 9 , 142, 144). I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s s u g g e s t s , this is A p i o n ' s typical stance ( ' o m n i u m c a l u m n i a t o r ' , 2.56). Josephus c a n thus claim the m o r a l high-ground, as the victim of unjustified abuse. B u t the moral attack is also broader than this, since A p i o n is presented as a 'rabble-rouser' (2.3) a n d a braggart (2.135-36), a n d accused o n several occasions of rank impiety (2.79, 89, 1 1 1 , 112). T h u s , n o t only is A p i o n an unreliable w i t n e s s against the J e w s ; h e is also so morally reprehensible that his testimony should b e rejected out of hand. H o w e v e r , t h e m o s t w o u n d i n g aspect of J o s e p h u s ' s attack is his d e ­ piction of A p i o n as Egyptian. F r o m J o s e p h u s ' s point of view there are several delicious aspects of this ethnic slur. In t h e first p l a c e , h e can 20

19. All translations are my own and remain preliminary; I am preparing a new translation of, and commentary upon, the whole treatise. 20. As we can see from Philo's writings, 'Egyptian* was a label with potent so­ cial (and fiscal) implications, which was readily used by both sides in the conflict between Jews and their neighbours in Alexandria. As to Apion's actual status, it is possible that he was, in fact, a native Alexandrian citizen (so H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabdischen Erhebung [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895], pp. 172-76). But it is more likely that he was a 'Greek' from out­ side Alexandria who was given Alexandrian citizenship (as Josephus claims) but would have vigorously refused the epithet 'Egyptian'; see I. Levy, 'Notes d'histoire et d'epigraphie', REJ A\ (1900), pp. 174-95 (188-95).

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

203

load onto A p i o n all the prejudices against Egyptian culture that circu­ lated in the R o m a n world, highlighting the E g y p t i a n s ' political i m p o ­ tence (2.125-33), their social inferiority (2.72) and, m o s t of all, their notorious theriomorphic cults, w h i c h w e r e the object of general scorn outside E g y p t (2.65-57, 85-86, 1 3 9 ) . Secondly, h e can present A p i o n as an outsider (from the Oasis, 2.28-29) w h o acquired b u t did not in­ herit Alexandrian citizenship, and w h o is thus in n o position to d e n y to J e w s the right to b e k n o w n as Alexandrians t h e m s e l v e s ( 2 . 2 8 - 3 2 , 4 1 , 49). This not only turns against Apion an accusation he levelled at oth­ ers (a tactic w h i c h J o s e p h u s r e p e a t e d l y e m p l o y s ) , b u t a l s o e n a b l e s J o s e p h u s to claim that A p i o n d i s s e m b l e d his real (Egyptian) identity, thus indicating in w h a t low e s t e e m it should be held (2.29-32). W h a t is m o r e , A p i o n can b e represented as a traitor to his o w n p e o p l e and c u s ­ t o m s (2.29, 137-42), so that w h e n J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e s his assault on A p i o n w i t h his vicious depiction of A p i o n ' s death ( 2 . 1 4 3 - 4 4 ) , h e can justify his gloating b y reference to the ' a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y ' for o n e w h o maligned his native laws (2.143). 21

A l t h o u g h this parting shot is apt to turn our m o r e sensitive stomachs, J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric is b y no m e a n s excessive in c o m p a r i s o n with that of his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . M u c h as w e might prefer a r g u m e n t s to b e purely 'rational', Josephus k n e w that to destroy the credibility and character of o n e ' s o p p o n e n t w a s m o r e than half the battle in a rhetorical contest. H e had the advantage, of course, that his opponent w a s dead a n d unable to respond in kind, b u t the portrait h e has painted of a sloppy, malicious and despicable Apion is carefully and effectively drawn. T h i s has to b e j u d g e d o n e of J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t impressive rhetorical a c h i e v e m e n t s and A p i o n ' s reputation has never recovered since. (ii) A s regards J o s e p h u s ' s argumentative (Xoyoq) r e s p o n s e to Apion, it is striking to observe the variety of techniques h e e m p l o y s . In Rhetoric 3.15, Aristotle describes a selection of w a y s in w h i c h o n e m i g h t re­ spond to attack, including d e n y i n g the c h a r g e , d e n y i n g that the c o n ­ tested act w a s harmful, demonstrating that the charge is of n o account, and various forms of counter-attack. Josephus uses a variety of tactics 22

21. For a full survey see K.A.D. Smelik and E.A. Hemelrijk, * "Who Knows not what Monsters Demented Egypt Worships?" Opinions on Egyptian Animal Wor­ ship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient Conception of Egypt', ANRW, II. 17.4, pp. 1852-2000. 22. See also, on techniques of refutation, Cicero, De Inventione 1.78-96; Quin­ tilian 5.13.

204

Understanding

in his response to A p i o n , Denying

23

Josephus

of w h i c h the following is a partial survey:

the charge as factually

untrue

J o s e p h u s straightforwardly denies A p i o n ' s stories about M o s e s ' sundi­ als (2.8-14), A p i o n ' s dating of the e x o d u s (2.15-19), his derivation of the t e r m ' S a b b a t h ' from E g y p t i a n ' s a b b o ' ( 2 . 2 0 - 2 7 ) , his c h a r g e that J e w s w e r e troublemakers in Alexandria (2.68-70), his claim that there w a s the h e a d of an ass in the t e m p l e (2.80-88), his a c c o u n t of the an­ nual sacrifice of a Greek (2.89-111), his account of Z a b i d u s of I d u m a e a (2.112-20) and his claim that J e w s produced n o figure of genius (2.13536). T h u s all the material on the e x o d u s (2.8-32) a n d o n the t e m p l e (2.79-124) c o m e s into this category, but little of the material o n Alexan­ dria (2.33-78); the difference in tactic in that m i d d l e section m i g h t b e one reason w h y , for v a r i e t y ' s sake, Josephus orders his material in this w a y . Of c o u r s e e a c h denial requires s o m e a r g u m e n t a t i o n , w h i c h in J o s e p h u s ' s c a s e is of varied quality. W e will study o n e e x a m p l e in detail b e l o w (3). 14

Admitting the fact but denying the significance given to it J o s e p h u s admits that the J e w s might h a v e held their part of Alexandria by force, but considers this to their credit (2.35). H e admits that, under O n i a s and D o s i t h e o s , they o p p o s e d P t o l e m y P h y s c o n , b u t a r g u e s that this w a s a c o m m e n d a b l e sign of their loyalty to the r e g i m e (2.49-56). H e c o n c e d e s that neither Cleopatra nor G e r m a n i c u s g a v e out corn-pro­ visions to the J e w s , b u t cleverly turns the first to his a d v a n t a g e b y vili­ fying Cleopatra (with an e y e to his R o m a n audience), while offering an alternative explanation for the second (2.56-60, 6 3 - 6 4 ) . H e also con­ cedes that the J e w s d o not w o r s h i p the s a m e G o d s as others, b u t rein­ terprets this as signifying their fidelity to their o w n c u s t o m s (2.65-67). Further e x a m p l e s of the s a m e tactic are found in relation to A p i o n ' s charge that the J e w s d o not h o n o u r R o m a n s in w o r s h i p (2.73-78), that they are politically subservient (2.125-34, at least partially admitted) and that they eat domestic animals (2.137-42). Clearly, this sort of tac­ tic requires s o m e rhetorical skill, first in j u d g i n g w h a t it is necessary or

23. As Cicero comments (De Inventione 1.76), 'omnibus in rebus similitudo mater est satietatis'. 24. As Quintilian notes (5.13.7), there are two ways in which a fact can be denied: 'aut non esse factum aut non hoc esse, quod factum est'.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

205

expedient to admit, then in turning the admission around to o n e ' s o w n a d v a n t a g e . In general, J o s e p h u s performs this task with s o m e astute­ ness. Demonstrating that the charge is of no account T o A p i o n ' s accusation that the J e w s d o not worship the R o m a n emper­ ors, Josephus replies that that h a s long b e e n k n o w n and accepted by the R o m a n s w h o h a v e willingly accepted h o n o u r in other forms (2.73-78). Similarly, to A p i o n ' s general charge of Jewish sedition and political in­ subordination, Josephus replies with a battery of ' e v i d e n c e ' concerning the respect in w h i c h J e w s h a v e b e e n held by Alexander, b y successive Ptolemaic kings and b y the R o m a n s themselves (2.42-64). A l t h o u g h the e x a m p l e s Josephus accumulates are not all persuasive to a m o d e r n his­ torian, he clearly w o r k s hard here to o v e r c o m e A p i o n ' s criticism by in­ dicating that other, and m o r e significant, authorities w o u l d d i s m i s s it out of hand. 25

Counter-Attaclc Josephus clearly k n e w that the m o s t effective form of defence is attack and a g o o d deal of his effort in 2.1-144 is spent l a u n c h i n g counter­ blasts against Apion. W e noted a b o v e his multiple attempts to discredit A p i o n ' s fjOoq and w e m a y a d d h e r e that, b e y o n d plain a c c u s a t i o n s against A p i o n , J o s e p h u s often strives to demonstrate the unreliability and inconsistency of his opponent; w e will e x a m i n e b e l o w J o s e p h u s ' s attempts to e x p o s e A p i o n ' s inconsistency in 2.20-27. H o w e v e r , J o s e ­ p h u s ' s favourite w e a p o n in counter-attack is to turn against his o p p o ­ nent the v e r y c h a r g e h e levelled against the J e w s . In fact, J o s e p h u s p a r a d e s this tactic at the outset: 'I notice that it is also the case that most p e o p l e are particularly delighted w h e n e v e r s o m e o n e w h o has b e ­ g u n to s l a n d e r a n o t h e r is c o n v i c t e d of vices p e r t a i n i n g t o h i m s e l f ( 2 . 5 ) . T h e r e are at least nine e x a m p l e s of this tactic in the material on A p i o n , s o m e representing major points in J o s e p h u s ' s a r g u m e n t a t i o n , 26

25. Aristotle lists among the techniques in dealing with 6ia|3oA,f| the method of to dvti5iapdAA£iv xov 5iapdAAovta, Rhetoric 3.15.7. See van Henten and Abusch, T h e Jews as Typhonians\ pp. 299-301. 26. Similarly, Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.7 notes the excellence of the method which turns against the opponent the charge that has been made against oneself.

206

Understanding

Josephus

others only subsidiary issues w h i c h n o n e t h e l e s s s t r e n g t h e n his case. T h u s , as w e h a v e noted, J o s e p h u s turns b a c k on A p i o n the c h a r g e that the J e w s are of Egyptian origin, with the added pleasure of thereby re­ vealing something w h i c h A p i o n had attempted to hide (2.28-32). Allied to this is the point that in d e n y i n g the J e w s ' right to receive grants of Alexandrian citizenship, Apion is effectively denying his o w n (2.41-42; cf. 7 1 - 7 2 ) . If A p i o n b l a m e s the J e w s for their p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e in Alexandria, the fault belongs not to them, but to his o w n city (2.34). If the J e w s d o not w o r s h i p t h e s a m e G o d s as o t h e r s , w h a t a b o u t the Egyptians w h o cannot even agree among themselves (2.65-66)?! An ' E g y p t i a n ' like A p i o n is the last person to accuse J e w s of w o r s h i p p i n g an a s s ' s head, considering all the animal deities in E g y p t (2.81), nor can he disdain the J e w s for political subservience, considering E g y p t ' s ig­ n o m i n i o u s history (2.125-29). N o r is h e in a position to suggest that J e w i s h dietary habits are harmful to h u m a n k i n d : w h a t about all those d a n g e r o u s beasts preserved b y the Egyptians (2.138-39)? Finally, it is odd that h e should criticize J e w s for refraining from pork a n d for prac­ tising circumcision: h e thereby accuses himself a n d his o w n country­ m e n w h o h o n o u r E g y p t i a n priests, although they d o exactly the s a m e (2.137-42). T h u s J o s e p h u s finishes on the note w h i c h has c h i m e d re­ peatedly, t h o u g h at intervals, throughout his r e s p o n s e to A p i o n . E v e n the final j i b e at A p i o n ' s m a n n e r of death (2.143-44) has an e l e m e n t of the s a m e tactic, since A p i o n h a d derided circumcision and concocted a story about the J e w s suffering from groin tumours ( 2 . 2 1 , 137). Josephus w a s surely right that an a u d i e n c e likes to hear a slanderer slandered, and such efforts play an important role in winning his readers' assent.

3. Analysis

of an Argument:

2.20-27

T h u s far w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric o n a m a c r o - l e v e l , regarding the genre of the treatise as a w h o l e and his overall deploy­ m e n t of rhetoric in c o m b a t t i n g A p i o n . I p r o p o s e n o w to e x a m i n e in detail just o n e sample of J o s e p h u s ' s argumentation against A p i o n . T h e first section of J o s e p h u s ' s response concerns the e x o d u s (2.8-32) and is comparatively small, perhaps b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s felt h e had sufficiently refuted c o m m o n Egyptian slanders on this topic in b o o k 1. H e can thus afford to single out only those features of A p i o n ' s account w h i c h w e r e distinctive (and w h i c h h e can thus represent as A p i o n ' s individual fan­ tasies, 2.9, 28). His first e x a m p l e of A p i o n ' s e x o d u s material concerns

B A R C L A Y Josephus

v. Apion

207

M o s e s ' life in Heliopolis a n d his erection of p r a y e r - h o u s e s a n d sundials (2.8-14); t h e s e c o n d c o n c e r n s t h e date of the e x o d u s ( 2 . 1 5 - 1 9 ) ; a n d the third, o u r focus h e r e , is A p i o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e t e r m ' S a b b a t h ' in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h g r o i n t u m o u r s i n d u c e d b y t h e c r o s s i n g of t h e d e s e r t ( 2 . 2 0 - 2 7 ) . T h e s e c t i o n is r o u n d e d off w i t h c o m m e n t s a b o u t A p i o n ' s general c l a i m that the J e w s w e r e of E g y p t i a n origin ( 2 . 2 8 - 3 2 ) . C l e a r l y J o s e p h u s h a s given u s only fragments of A p i o n ' s a c c o u n t of the e x o d u s . O n e m a y p r e s u m e that h e h a s c h o s e n h i s t a r g e t s carefully to c o n t r o l w h a t his r e a d e r s hear, to a v o i d features w h i c h it w o u l d b e difficult t o refute, a n d to display to the full his o w n a r g u m e n t a t i v e

fire-power.

It is w o r t h citing the w h o l e p a s s a g e before studying it in detail: 20. A s to the number of those expelled, he guesses the same figure as Lysimachus (he says there were one hundred and ten thousand), and he offers an extraordinary and persuasive explanation, which he says ac­ counts for the origin of the term 'Sabbath.' 2 1 . When they had travelled for six days, he says, they contracted swellings in the groin and for that reason rested on the seventh day, after arriving safely in the land which is now called Judaea; and they called that day 'sabbaton' preserving the Egyptian language, for the Egyptians call inflammation of the groin 'sabbo.' 22. How can one not laugh at such nonsense, or alternatively detest the effrontery displayed by such statements? Obviously all one hundred and ten thousand contracted such inflammation of the groin! 23. But if they were blind and lame and generally sick such as Apion describes, they would not have been able to make even one day's jour­ ney! And if they were able to cross an extensive desert and, moreover, defeat those who opposed them, all taking part in the fight, they were clearly not afflicted en masse with groin-swellings after six days! 24. For it is not natural for such a thing to happen to those on a forced march; many thousands in army units march at a steady pace continuously for many days. Nor is it likely that such a thing should happen by chance— that would be the most absurd notion of all. 25. This extraordinary 27

27. The Greek text (L) reads caPPdxcooK; (ed. pr. aappdxcoaiv) and this is fol­ lowed by Niese and Naber (B. Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera (7 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1885-99); S.A. Naber, Flavii Iosephi Opera Omnia (6 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1888-96). But most Latin texts have 'sabbo' (CRV; P has 'sabbato'; cf. Greek aappco, as well as Latin 'sabbo', in 2.27) and it is hard to see how Josephus could hope to make his case if he altered Apion's oaPPaxcooiq in 2.21 to his own aaPPco in 2.27. Thus Reinach (followed by Thackeray) is probably right to read aaPPco here at 2.21 (T. Reinach and L. Blum, Flavius Josephe Contre Apion [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2nd edn, 1972); H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, 1 [LCL, Cam­ bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926]). 'Sabbato' and aappdxcoaiq may be scribal alterations designed to make Apion's etymology look plausible.

208

Understanding

Josephus

Apion, having stated that they arrived in Judaea after six days, relates elsewhere that Moses ascended the mountain between Egypt and Arabia called Sinai, where he was hidden for forty days, and descended from there to give the Jews their laws. But how was it possible for the same people both to remain for forty days in the desert, a waterless place, and to cross all the intervening distance in six days? 26. The linguistic transposition regarding the name 'sabbaton' reflects either gross effron­ tery or terrible ignorance. 27. For 'sabbo' and 'sabbaton' are very differ­ ent from each other. In the language of the Jews 'sabbaton' means rest from all work, but 'sabbo', as he says, is the Egyptian term for swellings in the groin.

W e m a y d e d u c e from this passage that A p i o n h a d claimed (a) that the J e w s h a d c o n t r a c t e d g r o i n t u m o u r s from their j o u r n e y t h r o u g h t h e desert and, since they rested on the seventh day, t h e y called it ' s a b ­ b a t o n ' after the E g y p t i a n n a m e for their t u m o u r s , ' s a b b o ' ; (b) that they h a d crossed the desert to reach J u d a e a in six d a y s ; a n d (c) that M o s e s h a d h i d d e n himself o n M o u n t Sinai for forty d a y s a n d then d e s c e n d e d to give the J e w s their l a w s . T h i s last point is not cited b y J o s e p h u s but alluded to in 2 . 2 5 , w h e r e a s the first t w o are c o n t a i n e d in w h a t l o o k s m o r e like a citation in 2 . 2 1 . T h i s raises an i m m e d i a t e p r o b l e m : c a n w e trust J o s e p h u s ' s r e p o r t of his o p p o n e n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s or h a s h e edited t h e m to m a k e t h e m appear u n c o n v i n c i n g or even ridiculous? W e m i g h t h o p e that w h e r e h e q u o t e s A p i o n h e w o u l d r e m a i n true to his w o r d s , b u t it is n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r , in fact, t h e §T\GIV verbatim

in 2.21 r e p r e s e n t s a

quotation. O t h e r translators p l a c e the relevant w o r d s in 2.21

in quotation m a r k s , T h a c k e r a y w i t h an indentation w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s the status of the text as a citation. B u t c o m p a r i s o n with J o s e p h u s ' s technique e l s e w h e r e in Against

Apion leaves this m a t t e r rather unclear.

Normally, Josephus signals his quotations clearly enough with an introductory c o m m e n t , such as c|>r|ai 8 e oiixcoc; (1.93), Xeyei

8' oiixcoq

(1.201), or (|)Tioi...xd8£ (2.10; cf. 1.74, 112, 117, 134, 146, 165). S o m e ­ times he paraphrases his sources using §y]Gi (or equivalent) with obliqua

oratio

(in our passage at 2 . 2 5 ; also 1.232, 2 8 9 , 3 0 5 ; 2 . 9 1 , 112). In this

c a s e (2.21), J o s e p h u s u s e s direct speech, n o t indirect, b u t h e p l a c e s tyrysiv within

the ' c i t e d ' w o r d s , n o t before t h e m , a n d d o e s n o t u s e an

introductory formula. T h e r e are a few other p a s s a g e s in Against

Apion

w h e r e the s a m e p h e n o m e n o n o c c u r s , but there it is s o m e t i m e s unclear w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s is p a r a p h r a s i n g or citing v e r b a t i m .

28.

28

It t h u s r e m a i n s

In 1.168-69 <|>r|ai within the citation is preceded by <|>T|oiv OUICOQ before it

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

209

uncertain w h e t h e r 2.21 represents A p i o n ' s p r e c i s e w o r d s and, as w e shall see, there are s o m e features of J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e w h i c h m i g h t s u g g e s t that h e h a s m a n i p u l a t e d A p i o n ' s e x p r e s s i o n s for his o w n purposes. G r a n t e d this uncertainty a b o u t our access to A p i o n ' s o w n w o r d s , what can w e say about his purpose in m a k i n g this statement? Of course, even if Josephus has given us A p i o n ' s ipsissima verba, h e h a s r e m o v e d t h e m from their context and m a d e it hard for us to discern their original import. T h u s w e c a n n o t tell h o w this snippet of A p i o n ' s w o r k m i g h t h a v e fitted into his overall narrative and h o w , for instance, the six d a y s ' crossing of the desert related to M o s e s ' forty d a y s on Sinai (noted in 2.25 only as A p i o n ' s story ' e l s e w h e r e ' , rcdAiv). It is easy for J o s e p h u s to suggest the inconsistency of these t w o statements since h e h a s re­ fused us access to A p i o n ' s version of e v e n t s . 29

W e m a y , h o w e v e r , discern s o m e elements of A p i o n ' s strategy even from t h e tiny g l i m p s e that J o s e p h u s allows. T h e reference to M o s e s ' h i d i n g ' (Kp/o|)f|vai) on Sinai for forty days (2.25) suggests that A p i o n h a d g o o d access to J e w i s h tradition about the e x o d u s (even, p e r h a p s , the S e p t u a g i n t a c c o u n t ) b u t substituted for the ' c l o u d ' a n d ' s m o k e ' covering the mountain (Exod. 19.16-25) a strategy of subterfuge o n the part of the lawgiver. This is perhaps related to the c o m m o n charge that M o s e s w a s a 'charlatan' (yotiq and dTcorecov 2 . 1 4 5 , 161), w i t h the spe­ cial twist that the Sinai event w a s M o s e s ' ruse t o m a k e it a p p e a r that his laws w e r e of divine o r i g i n . T h e notion that the J e w s crossed the desert in six d a y s s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a c o m m o n feature in e x o d u s a c c o u n t s (cf. P o m p e i u s T r o g u s , apud Ps.-Justin 3 6 . 2 . 1 4 a n d Tacitus, Hist. 5.4.3), connected, as here, with the observance of t h e S a b b a t h . 30

31

and thus probably signals a precise quotation. The matter remains uncertain (despite the use of quotation marks by translators) in 1.187, 188, 189, 191, 195; 2.33, 65. Introductory formulae are, one might think, more necessary in relation to long quotations, but 1.165 and 1.185 show that even short citations can be properly introduced and rendered free of an interrupting ((moi. 29. As Quintilian notes (5.13.27-28), how one cites one's opponent's case could crucially affect one's success in defeating it: one should never repeat his proofs to­ gether with his charge (unless to mock them) but should take care whether to cite the whole charge or edited aspects of it. 30. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), I, p. 397. 31. It is curious that Ezekiel's Exagoge also suggests a seven-day crossing to

210

Understanding

Josephus

Apion, however, has given the motif a distinctive n u a n c e in connecting the t e r m ' S a b b a t h ' w i t h p u r p o r t e d groin s w e l l i n g s i n d u c e d b y the journey. It is clear that the J e w s ' special term for their seventh-day rest w a s w e l l - k n o w n t h r o u g h o u t the G r a e c o - R o m a n world, b o t h in literary cir­ cles and at a p o p u l a r l e v e l . T h u s it is natural that there s h o u l d b e speculation b y n o n - J e w s on the origins of this peculiar w o r d . Plutarch records o n e such speculation, linking the term to the deity Sabazius (= B a c c h u s or D i o n y s u s ) , since the drinking of w i n e o n the S a b b a t h asso­ ciated the J e w s with that god, and the B a c c h i c cry, ' S a b i ' , p r o v i d e d a v a g u e etymological link (Quaest. Conviv. 4.6.2). A p i o n ' s is a similar attempt at e t y m o l o g y , linked to a different activity (rest) associated with the Sabbath. H e is r e c o r d e d e l s e w h e r e as offering e t y m o l o g i c a l explanations of unusual words (Athenaeus 14.642e; 15.680d) and, as an expert on Egyptian matters, it is not surprising that h e finds the roots of the t e r m there. In fact, to claim that the term ' p r e s e r v e d the E g y p t i a n l a n g u a g e ' (2.21) w a s a subtle support for his general thesis that the J e w s w e r e of E g y p t i a n origin (2.28): this distinctive Jewish t e r m w a s , he could claim, a further m a r k of their Egyptian roots! His anti-Jewish a n i m u s w a s n o d o u b t gratified b y his association b e t w e e n ' s a b b a t o n ' and ' s a b b o ' , an ignominious form of illness which h e could relate to the r i g o u r s of t h e d e s e r t c r o s s i n g . Precisely h o w A p i o n ' s e t y m o l o g y w o r k e d is h a r d to discern, g i v e n the textual uncertainty at 2.21 (see n. 27) and the strong possibility that A p i o n m a n i p u l a t e d the E g y p t i a n vocabulary to his o w n advantage or that Josephus distorts A p i o n ' s case to reduce its plausibility. It is possible, h o w e v e r , that A p i o n connected 32

33

the homeland, in his case as justification for the seven-day Passover festival (11. 167-71). 32. In Greek literature a d ppaxa occurs as early as Meleager (Anthologia Graeca 5.160) while several Latin authors use 'sabbata' (e.g. Ovid, Remedia Amoris 220; Horace, Satire 1.69; Suetonius, Augustus 76.2; Tibullus 32.2). At a sub-literary level, we find the term in a papyrus contract (CPJ 10) and incorporated, in various forms, in Greek and Roman names, which were adopted even, it seems, by non-Jews. On versions of the name 'Sambathion' found in Egypt, and Roman equivalents like Junia Sabatis and Aurelia Sabbatia, see V. Tcherikover in CP J HI, pp. 43-56; cf. my comments on the identity of the bearers of such names, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edin­ burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), pp. 123-24. 33. Such malicious etymologizing is paralleled in his mockery of Onias's name (2.49) and in Lysimachus's explanation of the name 'Jerusalem' (1.311).

BARCLAY Josephus

211

v. Apion

the E g y p t i a n term for circumcision with the notion of groin infection, constructing thereby a maliciously funny, but semi-plausible, derivation for the J e w s ' peculiar ' s a b b a t o n ' . It is n o t h a r d t o g u e s s w h y J o s e p h u s h a s c h o s e n this p o r t i o n of A p i o n ' s a c c o u n t of t h e e x o d u s to refute. H e clearly t h i n k s h e is o n strong g r o u n d in d i s m i s s i n g a n e t y m o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n w h i c h h e k n o w s is erroneous a n d w h i c h is (as h e h a s cited it) patently strained. A p i o n ' s case is also s o m e w h a t gross in its imputation of groin t u m o u r s to t h e J e w s , thus confirming J o s e p h u s ' s portrait of A p i o n as a s h a m e ­ less bigot (note d v a i 8 e i a at both 2.22 a n d 2.26). A t t h e s a m e time, as w e h a v e n o t e d , this story lays t h e f o u n d a t i o n for J o s e p h u s ' s o w n counter-attack in his account of A p i o n ' s death from a g a n g r e n o u s geni­ tal ulcer ( 2 . 1 4 3 - 4 4 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s apparently t h o u g h t it s i m p l e e n o u g h to dismiss A p i o n ' s tale of t u m o u r s as inconsistent a n d wildly implausible, thus reinforcing t h e sense that A p i o n w a s t o o stupid to b e worthy of serious consideration. 34

W e m a y n o w a n a l y z e J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e t o A p i o n , n o t i n g eight e l e m e n t s in its rhetorical strategy as w e w o r k t h r o u g h o u r p a s s a g e in sequence. Representing Apion's 'facts' as guesses T h e section begins with a subordinate clause that m e n t i o n s in passing t h e figure that A p i o n g a v e t o t h e n u m b e r of J e w s in t h e e x o d u s ( 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) . T h i s figure is important t o J o s e p h u s only b e c a u s e h e will subsequently deride the notion that all 110,000 suffered groin t u m o u r s (2.22), b u t h e takes care to introduce it dismissively as a ' g u e s s ' (c%eSidaac;, 2.20) w h i c h h a p p e n s to agree with L y s i m a c h u s . It is striking 35

34. S e e P.E. Jablonski, Opuscula quibus lingua et antiquitas aegyptiorum difficilia librorum sacrorum loca et historiae ecclesiasticae capita illustrantur (ed. J.G. TeWater; Leiden: Honkoop, 1804), I, pp. 235-42, with reference to the Coptic and Sahidic terms for circumcision, suggesting that Apion may have exploited some ambiguous expressions and that Josephus, in response, may have misrepre­ sented Apion's argument. M. Scheller, 'oappto and aappdxcoaig', Glotta 34 (1955), pp. 298-300, suggested that oappdicooK; was coined from the Jewish term 'sab­ baton' and meant a groin inflammation requiring rest from sexual intercourse; but his thesis depends on an uncertain reading (see n. 27) and has no relation to specifically Egyptian vocabulary. 35. In fact, in reporting on Lysimachus's account of the exodus (1.304-20), Josephus had not mentioned his estimate of numbers. The reference to Apion's agreement with Lysimachus may thus indicate that Josephus knew more of

212

Understanding

Josephus

that J o s e p h u s can allow himself to a c k n o w l e d g e this a g r e e m e n t , since his n o r m a l tactic is to exploit the discrepancies

a m o n g the anti-Jewish

a u t h o r s (e.g. j u s t p r e v i o u s l y o n the d a t e of the e x o d u s , 2 . 1 5 - 1 7 ) .

36

Indeed, o n e of his o p e n i n g historiographical a x i o m s in 1.15-27 is that differences a m o n g a u t h o r s indicate that they are all u n r e l i a b l e (each m a k i n g conjectures, e K a a x o i Tcepi xc5v 7ipay|idTcov e i K a £ o v , 1.15).

37

H e r e , h o w e v e r , he c a n n o t allow the converse, that a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n sources indicates accuracy: h e m u s t dismiss both authors as offering a ' g u e s s ' (cf. 1.45 on G r e e k historians in general). O n e gets t h e i m p r e s ­ sion that J o s e p h u s is d e t e r m i n e d to h a v e it both w a y s , since h e cannot accept that E g y p t i a n authors m i g h t h a v e access to any reliable source on this matter. His o w n source, the Bible, records 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 m e n (Exod. 12.37), a figure w h i c h J o s e p h u s elsewhere endorses (Ant. 2.317) while noting that the total n u m b e r of emigrants (that is, including w o m e n and children) is difficult to estimate. H e also, then, w o u l d h a v e to ' g u e s s ' the total n u m b e r , though, since h e considers the Bible incontrovertible, it is clear t h a t his figure w o u l d b e m u c h h i g h e r t h a n t h a t a g r e e d by A p i o n a n d L y s i m a c h u s . B u t it is easier to d e r i d e other p e o p l e ' s ' g u e s s e s ' than to provide o n e ' s o w n and b e forced to defend the biblical source on w h i c h it is based. J o s e p h u s ' s slur on A p i o n ' s ' g u e s s ' is effec­ tive only b e c a u s e it is e m p l o y e d en Offering

ironic

passant.

appreciation

In 2.20 J o s e p h u s p r e p a r e s the reader for his citation of A p i o n by d e ­ scribing his e t y m o l o g i c a l explanation as ' e x t r a o r d i n a r y '

(Qav\iaovi\v)

and ' p e r s u a s i v e ' (7ci0avf|v). S u c h irony is a tactic J o s e p h u s u s e s often in his r e s p o n s e to A p i o n . T h e adjective Qav\xacxo<; a n d c o g n a t e verb

Lysimachus's work than he cares to cite, or that Apion himself had drawn attention to his agreement with (or dependence on) Lysimachus in this matter; see L. Troiani, Commento storico al 'Contro Apione' di Giuseppe (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1977), p. 145. 36. On this tactic, exploiting contradictions within or between the testimonies of his opponents, see van Henten and Abusch, T h e Jews as Typhonians', pp. 299, 301. 37. See the analysis of Josephus's historiographical axioms by S.J.D. Cohen, 'History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus', in A. RapoportAlbert (ed.), Essays in Jewish Historiography (History and Theory Beiheft, 27; Wesleyan University, 1988), pp. 1-11, who notes that this one would have appeared 'absurd to a Greek reader' (p. 8).

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

213

0a\)|Lid^eiv are favourites in this regard, the former used within the p a s ­ sage of A p i o n himself (2.25) and elsewhere of his statements (2.12; cf. 2.135: TO 9a\)|iaaicoxaTOv; 1.302), the latter used later in relation to his 'great sagacity' (2.135; cf. 1.6). A p i o n ' s ' p e r s u a s i v e n e s s ' is elsewhere expressed in other terms (6 rcdvxcov 7tiaxoxaxo<;, 2.17). T h e repetition of such irony serves to erode the credibility of the opponent, enticing the reader into the a u t h o r ' s ' k n o w i n g ' and superior stance. It is a valuable a c c o m p a n i m e n t to straightforward accusations of 'falsehood' and 'in­ v e n t i o n ' , with w h i c h J o s e p h u s peppers his reply to A p i o n (2.6, 12, 14, 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 2 , 7 9 , 82, 8 5 , 8 8 , 9 8 , 115, 120, 122, 124, 144). Irony sweetens such bitter charges, and its d e p l o y m e n t before the citation of A p i o n ' s a c c o u n t a l r e a d y prejudices r e a d e r s a g a i n s t w h a t they a r e a b o u t to encounter. Offering alternative assessments, both damaging A s soon as h e has cited (or paraphrased) A p i o n in 2 . 2 1 , J o s e p h u s e m ­ ploys a favourite rhetorical device, proffering t w o possible assessments, both devastating to A p i o n ' s reputation: ' H o w can o n e not laugh at such nonsense, or alternatively detest the effrontery displayed b y such state­ m e n t s ? ' (2.22). T h e rhetorical question invites the reader into o n e or other of these options, and b y posing t w o J o s e p h u s suggests that these are the only possibilities on offer. T h e s a m e tactic recurs in his c o m ­ m e n t on A p i o n ' s e t y m o l o g y in 2.26: it displays either gross effrontery or terrible ignorance (tertium non datur). These t w o statements are also closely related in content. O n e alternative is 'effrontery' ( d v a i 8 e i a ) , the other is sheer stupidity ((t>A,\)apia, 2.22 or 8 e i v n d | i a 6 i a , 2.26). This is the c h o i c e to w h i c h J o s e p h u s constantly m o v e s his readers: A p i o n m u s t b e either m o r a l l y reprehensible or extraordinarily i g n o r a n t (the pattern r e c u r s in 2.37 and 2 . 1 0 9 - 1 1 , with a variant at 2 . 8 8 ) . E i t h e r Apion k n e w the facts w h i c h h e misrepresents or contradicts, in w h i c h case h e is m a l i c i o u s (37), with a ' b r a z e n ' , ' s h a m e l e s s ' or ' i m p u d e n t ' disregard for the truth (2.32, 80, 89, 9 7 ; impudentia canis, 85). Or, despite his reputation as a learned m a n , A p i o n w a s woefully ignorant (2.26, 3 7 , 3 8 , 62, 88). J o s e p h u s thus represents himself t h r o u g h o u t as the s p o k e s m a n for self-evident truth, so any a l t e r n a t i v e v e r s i o n of events m u s t fall into o n e or other of these categories. Since either ver­ dict destroys his o p p o n e n t ' s fjGoq, J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric forces his reader to d i s m i s s A p i o n ' s c l a i m s b e f o r e they are d e b a t e d t h r o u g h logical argumentation.

214

Understanding

Josephus 3

Exaggerating the argument in order to refute it * After posing the alternatives discussed a b o v e , J o s e p h u s offers the first of his e n t h y m e m e s (rhetorical arguments) in the form of an expostula­ tion: ' O b v i o u s l y , all o n e h u n d r e d and ten t h o u s a n d c o n t r a c t e d such inflammation of the groin!' (2.22). T h e ' o b v i o u s l y ' (8fjA,ov yap) indi­ cates the sarcasm in J o s e p h u s ' statement, a technique e m p l o y e d earlier at 2.13 (cf. 2.12, 14 w h e r e it is ' o b v i o u s ' that A p i o n is lying). Josephus implies that it is u n i m a g i n a b l e that so m a n y tens of t h o u s a n d s should all suffer from the s a m e disease, but a glance back at 2.21 indicates that A p i o n n e v e r apparently m a d e such a c l a i m . N o t h i n g is said in 2.21 about the proportion of exodus travellers w h o contracted these tumours: A p i o n ' s narrative requires only that the n u m b e r struck d o w n w a s sig­ nificant e n o u g h to b e r e m e m b e r e d thereafter as the reason for the sev­ enth-day rest. If A p i o n h a d said specifically that all w e r e afflicted by the m a l a d y , J o s e p h u s w o u l d surely h a v e q u o t e d h i m in s u c h t e r m s . Instead h e cites a statement from Apion that leaves the n u m b e r impre­ cise, and then exaggerates its i m p o r t to m a k e it l o o k absurd. B y thus refuting the exaggeration of A p i o n ' s claim, h e gives the appearance of refuting the c l a i m itself and scores a point against a m i s r e p r e s e n t e d opponent. 39

Identifying an inconsistency 2.23 offers the first real argument against A p i o n ' s story of the crossing of the desert: ' B u t if they w e r e blind and l a m e and generally sick such as A p i o n describes, they w o u l d not h a v e b e e n able to m a k e e v e n one d a y ' s j o u r n e y ! ' T h u s J o s e p h u s attempts to s k e w e r his o p p o n e n t with evidence of flagrant inconsistency: they c a n n o t h a v e b e e n both blind, l a m e and generally sick and able to m a k e a difficult j o u r n e y across the desert. If A p i o n really m a d e both these claims, J o s e p h u s w a s right to high­ light this i n c o h e r e n c e in his story; at least, if they w e r e all blind and l a m e , such a j o u r n e y is extremely implausible. But did A p i o n describe those expelled from E g y p t in such terms? Josephus h a d attributed such a depiction to A p i o n a little earlier in 2 . 1 5 , in d i s c u s s i n g the date at 38. Aristotle notes this tactic as a fallacious form of enthymeme, Rhetoric 2.24.4. 39. As the rhetorical handbooks make clear, this is an obvious method of refuta­ tion; see, e.g., Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.23; Ps.-Aristotle, To Alexander 5; Quintilian 5.13.30, the latter noting that such inconsistencies might be real or apparent.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

215

w h i c h A p i o n said ' M o s e s led out the lepers, the blind a n d those w h o were incapable of walking.' B u t the fact that Josephus slips in this para­ phrase of A p i o n ' s story in passing, in terms which prepare for the argu­ m e n t of 2 . 2 3 , raises s o m e suspicions, particularly w h e n w e consider his t r e a t m e n t of his s o u r c e s o n this t o p i c in b o o k 1. W h e n refuting M a n e t h o , C h a e r e m o n and L y s i m a c h u s in 1.227-320, J o s e p h u s cites all three as referring to the exiles simply as ' l e p e r s ' and 'polluted p e r s o n s ' (e.g. M a n e t h o , 1.233, 2 3 5 ; C h a e r e m o n , 1.289, 2 9 0 , 2 9 8 ; L y s i m a c h u s , 1.305-306); only L y s i m a c h u s ' s story has further detail in the depiction of three categories: lepers, t h o s e with scabs (\|/copoi) a n d ' t h o s e with other d i s e a s e s ' (1.305-308). In n o n e of these c a s e s , w h e n citing his sources, d o e s J o s e p h u s indicate any illness that m i g h t i m p e d e ' o n e d a y ' s j o u r n e y ' (Josephus considered lepers capable of the military life, Ant. 3 . 2 6 6 ) . H o w e v e r , w h e n paraphrasing or commenting on h i s sources, J o s e p h u s sometimes generalizes the matter and has the stories refer to p e o p l e w h o w e r e ' m u t i l a t e d ' or ' c r i p p l e d ' (A£A,coPr||Lievoi, 1.253, 2 5 7 , 2 6 0 ) , or generally 'in a p o o r c o n d i t i o n ' (1.257) or ' s i c k ' (1.278). H e can subsequently u s e his o w n p a r a p h r a s e to suggest the implausibility of the story h e is refuting, q u e s t i o n i n g h o w such sick people c o u l d h a v e achieved half of w h a t is attributed to t h e m ( 1 . 2 7 8 , 315). G i v e n this pattern of u s a g e , one m a y suspect that it is J o s e p h u s , rather than Apion, w h o added to the traditional 'leper' the t e r m s 'blind' and ' l a m e ' in 2.15 and 2.23 a n d w h o is then a b l e to find an i n c o n ­ sistency b e t w e e n his paraphrase of A p i o n and w h a t A p i o n himself says. But if A p i o n did not describe the J e w s as blind and l a m e , there is n o r e a s o n to find his story of the desert c r o s s i n g i n c o h e r e n t at this point. In other w o r d s , the inconsistency which J o s e p h u s identifies here m a y be entirely his o w n c r e a t i o n ! 40

Showing the claim to be implausible J o s e p h u s ' s next a r g u m e n t c o v e r s 2.23b-24, c o m b i n i n g t h r e e lines of attack against the plausibility of A p i o n ' s story: (a) T h e first s e e m s to 40. Even if we were to grant Josephus's claim that Apion was inconsistent on this matter, Josephus's method of argumentation is a little clumsy: he uses a claim he would wish to dispute (that the exiles were blind and lame) to disqualify a claim he would grant (that they could make a day's journey). Thus the form of argument is back-to-front even if the general challenge to the reliability of his opponent is effective. By contrast, the inconsistency argument in 2.25 is put the proper way around: Josephus there grants the first item (40 days at Sinai) but disputes the sec­ ond (six days across the desert).

Understanding

216

Josephus

represent a claim that people fit e n o u g h to cross the desert and defeat their o p p o n e n t s w e r e unlikely to g o d o w n sick en masse w i t h groin tumours (2.23b). Josephus launches this attack on the basis of t w o addi­ tions to A p i o n ' s desert story w h i c h A p i o n might well h a v e refused to grant. First, J o s e p h u s m a k e s reference to battles in the desert, a motif derived from his biblical source but perhaps n o part of A p i o n ' s account. Secondly, h e claims that all the travellers in the desert took part in the battles (thus all w e r e equally fit and n o n e likely to s u c c u m b to A p i o n ' s purported t u m o u r s ) . In fact, however, w h e n h e reports such battles in his o w n narrative of the desert crossing, Josephus o n occasion indicates that only s o m e of the desert travellers w e r e involved in the battles (Ant. 3.49-50: w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n left in the c a m p ; 4 . 1 5 9 : o n l y 12,000 J e w i s h c o m b a t a n t s ) . T h u s his suggestion of universal i n v o l v e m e n t in the desert battles is hardly supported b y his o w n narrative (or by the biblical a c c o u n t on w h i c h it d r a w s ) . A n d , even if granted, the point is not watertight: A p i o n ' s s u p p o r t e r s c o u l d surely retort that the v e r y exertion of the m a r c h a n d the battles w a s w h a t c a u s e d the t u m o u r s . J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to h a v e s e n s e d this difficulty a n d thus a d d e d t w o m o r e arguments against the plausibility of A p i o n ' s claim. 41

(b) T h e next argument is that A p i o n ' s story is unnatural: ' F o r it is not natural for such a thing to h a p p e n to those on a forced m a r c h ; m a n y thousands in a r m y units m a r c h at a steady p a c e continuously for m a n y d a y s ' (2.24a). This constitutes an a r g u m e n t from analogy, but, like all such, d e p e n d s on the validity of the analogy p r o p o s e d . If trained sol­ diers can m a r c h for m a n y days without general ill-effects, can the s a m e claim b e m a d e of the J e w s expelled from Egypt, w h o h a d neither the physique nor the experience of soldiers? T h e analogy hardly s e e m s per­ suasive and gains only a little force from the fact that J o s e p h u s repre­ sents A p i o n as c l a i m i n g that the J e w s s u c c u m b e d to the t u m o u r s en masse (dOpooi): if e v e n s o m e w e r e soldiers, capable of fighting in the desert, at least the a n a l o g y w o u l d hold for t h e m . Y e t the d O p o o i is a l m o s t certainly an e x a g g e r a t i o n of A p i o n ' s c l a i m , p a r a l l e l to t h e notion that all 110,000 contracted the tumours (2.22). J o s e p h u s is trying to p r o v e it unlikely that they all fought battles a n d that they all got

41. The placement of n&vxeq at the end of its clause serves this important argu­ mentative role with its emphatic force. Reinach's questioning of its place in the text is supported by G. Giangrande, 'Emendations to Josephus Flavius' Contra Api­ onem", CQ NS 12 (1962), pp. 108-17 (115), who emends to rcavTCDc;; but that sug­ gests a failure to appreciate this rhetorical trick.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

111

g r o i n - t u m o u r s . B u t if A p i o n in reality claimed neither of these things, J o s e p h u s ' s military analogy cannot b e j u d g e d to h a v e any force at all. (c) T h i r d l y , J o s e p h u s rules out another possibility: ' N o r is it likely that such a thing s h o u l d h a p p e n b y c h a n c e ( K a r a xai)x6|LiaTOv)—that w o u l d b e the m o s t a b s u r d n o t i o n of a l l ' (2.24b). It is n o t clear w h a t e x p l a n a t i o n (if a n y ) A p i o n h i m s e l f offered for the g r o i n t u m o u r s , though h e could surely h a v e d o n e better than suggesting p u r e c h a n c e . H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s likes to present this as the only other e x p l a n a t i o n on offer. G i v e n that n o - o n e can predict w h a t can or c a n n o t h a p p e n by chance,

h e can do n o better than dismiss this as absurd (dXoycoraTOv).

B y this point J o s e p h u s clearly considers himself to h a v e closed off all options, 'natural' or 'fortuitous'. But, as w e h a v e seen, his first argu­ m e n t is contrived (and in any case, insecure), the second d e p e n d s on a dubious analogy and the third involves an incalculable factor; thus one cannot say that A p i o n ' s case has been effectively refuted. Identifying

another

inconsistency

J o s e p h u s n o w passes (via another piece of irony, 6 Gcrunaaxoq 'Amcov) to a second c l a i m e d inconsistency in A p i o n ' s story of the e x o d u s , this time b e t w e e n the Sinai story reported b y Apion a n d the a c c o u n t of the six-day crossing of the desert: ' H o w w a s it possible for the s a m e people both to r e m a i n for forty d a y s in the desert, a waterless p l a c e , and to cross all the i n t e r v e n i n g d i s t a n c e (TT)V ^£Ta%\) rcacav) in six d a y s ? ' (2.25). A t first g l a n c e it l o o k s like J o s e p h u s is c l a i m i n g a n inconsis­ tency in the time-notices: on the o n e hand, forty d a y s in t h e desert, on the other, o n l y six. R e i n a c h u n d e r s t o o d J o s e p h u s to b e m a k i n g this point, b u t noted rightly that, if J o s e p h u s is only paraphrasing A p i o n in 2 . 2 1 , A p i o n m a y not h a v e c l a i m e d that the w h o l e j o u r n e y to J u d a e a w a s c o m p l e t e d in six d a y s , only that a rest w a s n e e d e d after six d a y s , an e v e n t c o m m e m o r a t e d w i t h S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e w h e n the p e o p l e subsequently arrived in J u d a e a . H o w e v e r , a closer look at the sentence 42

cited a b o v e i n d i c a t e s that J o s e p h u s ' s a r g u m e n t w a s n o t a b o u t t w o inconsistent time-notices but about the inconsistency i n v o l v e d in the claim that the p e o p l e w e r e in the desert, without water, for as long as forty d a y s , b u t subsequently able to cross the distance to J u d a e a in six. O n l y this interpretation can m a k e sense of his careful, b u t o t h e r w i s e

42. Reinach, Contre Apion, p. 63 n. 1; cf. J.G. Miiller, Des Flavius Schrift gegen den Apion (Basel: Bahnmaier, 1877), pp. 233-34.

Josephus

218

Understanding

Josephus

unnecessary, depiction of the desert as ' w a t e r l e s s ' ( e v epr||ncp K a i d v u 8pq> T07ccp). T h e a r g u m e n t s e e m s to b e : a p e o p l e forty d a y s w i t h o u t water could hardly then cross the rest of the w a y in six; they w o u l d be too debilitated to m a k e the j o u r n e y . But the a r g u m e n t w o u l d only w o r k if the crucial qualification, ' a waterless p l a c e ' , w a s granted b y Apion: if A p i o n thought they h a d access to water, h e w o u l d not accept that they w e r e too dehydrated to m a r c h to Judaea in six days. A n d here precisely is the peculiarity in J o s e p h u s ' s line of argumentation. A l t h o u g h twice elsewhere in Against Apion h e refers to the desert as ' w a t e r l e s s ' (1.277; 2.157), in the narrative of Antiquities h e records at least s o m e of the biblical a c c o u n t s of w a t e r supplies. T h u s in Ant. 3.1-8 h e retells the story of the waters of M a r ( M a r a h ) , and in 3.33-38 the striking of the water from the rock; life in the desert is generally characterized by lack of water (3.296), but the Israelites were not wholly deprived. In relation to the forty d a y s at Sinai, Josephus says nothing explicit about the sup­ ply of water, a l t h o u g h the festive condition of the p e o p l e , including ' s u m p t u o u s f a r e ' a n d purification, implies s o m e p r o v i s i o n of w a t e r (Ant. 3.76-78). T h u s , in attempting to locate an inconsistency b e t w e e n t w o parts of A p i o n ' s account, J o s e p h u s h a s c r e a t e d o n e of his o w n , depicting a waterless scenario at Sinai w h i c h hardly accords with his o w n v e r s i o n of e v e n t s (or w i t h the B i b l e , E x o d 3 2 . 2 0 ) . O n c l o s e inspection, therefore, J o s e p h u s ' s rhetoric backfires. Dismissing an assertion J o s e p h u s finally returns to A p i o n ' s purported e t y m o l o g y , insisting that A p i o n ' s effort can signal only shamelessness or ignorance (see above). Josephus insists that the t w o terms 'are very different from e a c h other', ' s a b b a t o n ' m e a n i n g , in the J e w s ' l a n g u a g e , 'rest from w o r k ' , w h i l e ' s a b b o ' m e a n s , a m o n g Egyptians, 'groin t u m o u r s ' . J o s e p h u s thus grants A p i o n ' s interpretation of ' s a b b o ' (he w a s hardly in a position to d o oth­ erwise, given his ignorance of Egyptian languages), b u t denies the ety­ m o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n with ' s a b b a t o n ' . In this d e n i a l h e w a s a l m o s t certainly c o r r e c t , but it is striking that h e does not p r o v i d e any argu­ mentation at this point. T o say that the t w o w o r d s m e a n different things m a y b e true b u t is not a sufficient riposte: there m i g h t still b e a linguis­ tic (even an etymological) connection b e t w e e n the t w o apparently dif­ ferent t e r m s . J o s e p h u s , of c o u r s e , k n e w the origin of the G r e e k w o r k 43

43. Or, if there is a linguistic connection, the influence goes, pace Apion, from 'sabbaton' to 'sabboV'sabbatosis'; see above n. 34 with reference to Scheller.

BARCLAY Josephus

v. Apion

219

a d p p a x o v in the H e b r e w rQB?, m e a n i n g 'rest' (cf. Ant. 1.33). B u t h e w a s not qualified in either H e b r e w or Egyptian philology to b e able to prove that this H e b r e w root h a d n o connection with the E g y p t i a n w o r d aaPPco. O n e can hardly b l a m e h i m for the lack of an expertise w h i c h p e r h a p s n o - o n e in antiquity p o s s e s s e d , and to w h i c h A p i o n m a d e an o u t r a g e o u s l y fraudulent c l a i m . B u t it is worth n o t i n g t h a t the m o s t Josephus can d o is deny what A p i o n asserts, not p r o v e that his denial is linguistically well-founded. 44

4.

Conclusions

This analysis of J o s e p h u s ' s response to Apion in o n e small s a m p l e can­ not, of course, justify broader conclusions about his rhetoric as a whole. H o w e v e r , since his a r g u m e n t s are rarely analyzed in such detail, e v e n preliminary observations might b e of s o m e value. T h e following there­ fore represent limited conclusions which m a y stimulate further research: (a)

J o s e p h u s w a s clearly at an a d v a n t a g e o v e r his o p p o n e n t s in b e i n g able to select w h i c h of their statements h e w i s h e d to contest. A l t h o u g h h e s o m e t i m e s refers to the location of the material h e cites (e.g. 2.10, ' t h e third b o o k of h i s Aegyptiaka'), he probably did not expect his readers to scrutinize his sources carefully, only to b e generally a w a r e of t h e c h a r g e s they m a d e against J e w s . T h u s J o s e p h u s is relatively free to cite his opponents partially, in or out of context, and, w h e r e it suited his argument, to paraphrase rather than to cite, or e v e n paraphrase while appearing to cite. As w e h a v e seen, there are s o m e t i m e s grounds for suspecting that J o s e p h u s d o e s not cite A p i o n exactly and m a y misrepresent the a r g u m e n t h e claims to refute.

(b)

E v e n with this advantage, J o s e p h u s does not a l w a y s argue as well as w e might expect. Since Apion w a s an unattractive fig­ ure, and since his attacks on the J e w s w e r e s o m e t i m e s absurd or grotesque, w e naturally side with the Jewish apologist and

44. Earlier Josephus did make some claim to knowledge of Egyptian vocabu­ lary, in explaining the origin of Moses' name (1.286; cf. Ant. 2.228; Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.17); in that case, his philology ignores the biblical Hebrew etymology (Exod. 2.10)!

220

Understanding

Josephus

e x p e c t h i m to w i n the day on e a c h o c c a s i o n . O n closer in­ spection, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s is not as successful as w e might h o p e , scoring rather better in his attacks o n his o p p o n e n t ' s f)9o<; than in his attempts to grapple with h i m on the field of

Xoyoq. (c)

A s w e h a v e seen, abuse of A p i o n ' s character is J o s e p h u s ' s fa­ vourite w e a p o n t h r o u g h o u t 2.1-144, with a r e p e a t e d slur on A p i o n ' s ' E g y p t i a n ' nationality. W i t h i n t h e s a m p l e w e h a v e e x a m i n e d in detail, J o s e p h u s ' s fjGoq assaults are particularly effective: casting doubt on A p i o n ' s reliability (his figure is a ' g u e s s ' ) , ironic approbation of his 'extraordinary' a n d 'persu­ a s i v e ' statements, and the repeated p r o v i s i o n of alternative, equally d a m a g i n g , assessments of his character ('is h e a k n a v e or j u s t a f o o l ? ' ) . Such character assassination m a y n o t prove attractive to us, and m a y represent little m o r e than the trading of abuse, b u t in terms of ancient rhetoric it c o u n t e d for a lot. A s w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s r e c k o n e d that ' m o s t p e o p l e are particularly delighted w h e n e v e r s o m e o n e w h o has b e g u n to slander a n o t h e r is c o n v i c t e d of vices p e r t a i n i n g to h i m s e l f (2.5), and w e c a n hardly b l a m e h i m if h e e m p l o y s the w e a ­ ponry which h e thinks will win the day.

(d)

Regarding J o s e p h u s ' s marshalling of argument, the analysis of our s a m p l e has p r o d u c e d rather disappointing results. S o m e ­ times his a r g u m e n t a p p e a r s sound b u t insufficient, as in his denial of A p i o n ' s e t y m o l o g y but lack of philological reason­ ing. S o m e t i m e s it contains s o m e logical validity, b u t hardly the weight w h i c h Josephus imagines (e.g. the arguments about plausibility, 2.23-24). Often the reasoning is artificial since the crucial steps in the a r g u m e n t h a v e b e e n inserted b y J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a n d are not d e r i v e d from his o p p o n e n t : t h u s , for instance, w e h a v e found h i m exaggerating A p i o n ' s point or creating inconsistencies in his a r g u m e n t in order to p r o v e his s t a t e m e n t s i m p l a u s i b l e or i n c o h e r e n t . M o s t a l a r m i n g h a v e been those occasions w h e n , for argumentative purposes, Jose­ phus has allowed himself to imply or state facts w h i c h contra­ dict w h a t h e himself asserts e l s e w h e r e (e.g. in Antiquities). T h i s is clearly a d a n g e r o u s tactic in a w o r k that explicitly furthers the task of Antiquities and e v e n on o c c a s i o n refers back to material there (2.136). Perhaps J o s e p h u s c o u l d b a n k

BARCLAY Josephus

(e)

v. Apion

221

o n t h e l i k e l i h o o d that few r e a d e r s w o u l d b o t h e r to c h e c k through the vast Antiquities to ascertain his consistency. But it clearly leaves an orator s o m e w h a t vulnerable if, like Josephus, h e m a k e s the inconsistency of his o p p o n e n t s a major plank in his attack, but stumbles into self-contradictions of his own. T h u s , to the sympathetic v i e w e r and at first g l a n c e , J o s e p h u s appears an impressive rhetor, but, aside from the fj6o<; attacks, the argumentative fire-power is often disappointing. This con­ clusion accords with s o m e other recent a s s e s s m e n t s of J o s e ­ p h u s ' s a r g u m e n t a t i o n . D i s c u s s i n g J o s e p h u s ' s inconsistent a r g u m e n t s for t h e a n t i q u i t y of the J e w s , C o h e n r e m a r k s : ' T h e s e inconcinnities imply either that J o s e p h u s w a s a sloppy thinker, or that h e failed to h o m o g e n i z e his sources, or that he revised the Against Apion several times a n d did not notice the r o u g h n e s s of the final p r o d u c t , or that h e k n o w i n g l y u s e d s o m e less-than-perfect a r g u m e n t s in his defense of w h a t he took to be the t r u t h . ' In the case I h a v e studied, I suspect the fourth option is the m o s t likely. J o s e p h u s simply k n e w that A p i o n ' s statement about the Sabbath w a s absurd, a n d h e w a s prepared to use s o m e slippery arguments to ' d e m o n s t r a t e ' its absurdity. Only similarly detailed studies of the rest of his a r g u m e n t a t i o n will r e v e a l w h e t h e r s u c h a v e r d i c t a p p l i e s across the board. 45

46

45. See, for example van Henten and Abusch, T h e Jews as Typhonians', p. 309: 'a careful reading implies that Josephus' refutations leave certain key char­ ges unanswered'. 46. 'History and Historiography', p. 3.

T H E AGAINST APION A N D THE CONTINUITIES IN JOSEPHUS'S POLITICAL THOUGHT

Tessa Rajak

Introduction:

Political

Thought

in

Josephus

A m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s various personae in the c o n d u c t of the p o l e m i c in Against Apion is that of political thinker. T h e signal merits of the J e w ­ ish p o l i t i c o - r e l i g i o u s o r d e r are i n v o k e d as part of t h e d e f e n c e of J u d a i s m against his o p p o n e n t s , that clutch of ( n a m e d ) detractors from previous generations, the foremost of w h o m w a s the Alexandrian intel­ lectual Apion. W h i l e the first of the two b o o k s demonstrates the superi­ ority of the Jewish nation by proving its antiquity, the s e c o n d b o o k is devoted specifically to the refutation of slanders, a n d in the process it concerns itself with defining, interpreting and defending the politeia of the J e w s , in the sense of the J e w i s h constitution w i t h its prescriptions for the life of the c o m m u n i t y . H e r e , J o s e p h u s ' s political t h o u g h t is distilled and systematically set out without the need, present in his his­ torical writings, to e n g a g e with specific time-bound e v e n t s . It is implicit in the discussion that the Jewish version is to b e j u d g e d in terms of the aims and attributes of Greek constitutions. T h e defence is upbeat: the system e m e r g e s not only as a w o r t h y c o m p e t i t o r b u t as superior: it is held out for inspection as a realized Utopia, available for emulation b y the rest of humanity. Already this has p r o v e d itself to b e widely admired by philosophers, copied by legislators, and sought after b y ordinary p e o p l e (Apion 2.279-86). E v e n Plato, w h e n h e e x c l u d e s unedifying representations of deities, is its imitator (2.257). T h e im­ pression given to the reader is that the J e w s live in an ideal state—at a time, w e m a y observe, w h e n in reality they w e r e stateless. 1

1. On the entire Against Apion discussion, see especially Vermes 1982. Amir 1985-88: 84-85 regards the Antiquities material as an earlier stage in Josephus's development.

R A J A K The Against

Apion

223

But political ideas occupy a significant place e l s e w h e r e t o o in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s writings. Closest to Against Apion is the brief J e w i s h 'constitu­ t i o n ' in t h e Antiquities, e m b e d d e d in w h a t is formally a digression within the D e u t e r o n o m i c a c c o u n t of the death of M o s e s {Ant. 4 . 1 9 6 3 0 1 ) . Public a n d domestic regulations from D e u t e r o n o m y are there c o m b i n e d with material from Leviticus to generate a systematic account. T h e n again, other of the a u t h o r ' s thoughts on the subject of the politeia and of the c o n d u c t of political life are dispersed t h r o u g h t h e biblical part of t h e Antiquities and especially t h r o u g h the e x t e n s i v e M o s a i c sections ( 2 . 2 1 7 - 4 . 3 3 1 ) . T h e r e c o m m e n t s arise for the m o s t part out of particular narrative contexts and they cluster especially a r o u n d analyses of M o s e s ' leadership. W h e n w e l o o k at t h o s e b o o k s that are c o n c e r n e d w i t h r e c e n t or current events, that is to say the Jewish War and the second half of the Antiquities, w e find that J o s e p h u s theorizes less a b o u t politics. N o n e the less, his writing is suffused with political j u d g m e n t s . L i k e m a n y of the G r e e k and R o m a n historians, h e is preoccupied with these matters. T h e turbulent times about w h i c h h e wrote, times during w h i c h the J e w s w e r e e x p o s e d to e x t r e m e vicissitudes from both external a n d internal forces, w e r e such as to d e m a n d a political interpretation quite as m u c h as did the d o i n g s of rulers, e m p i r e s or great battles. Indeed, J o s e p h u s himself claims just this, w h e n at the very opening of the Jewish War, h e p r o m o t e s his subject b y declaring, in t h e m a n n e r of T h u c y d i d e s , that the J e w i s h revolt w a s m o r e or less the greatest conflict in h u m a n his­ tory (1.1). In addition, there is the h u m a n factor. J o s e p h u s accepted a position of leadership in the J e w i s h revolt against R o m e of 6 6 - 7 3 / 4 C E , but, notoriously, h e deserted at an early stage from the revolutionary side a n d associated himself closely with Titus. W i t h the e m p e r o r - t o - b e h e witnessed and, for his o w n part, lamented the fall of Jerusalem, and h e w a s s o m e h o w active b e h i n d the scenes during the rise of the Flavian d y n a s t y to p o w e r at R o m e . T h e s e activities w e r e a p p a r e n t l y w e l l k n o w n in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day: that is n o doubt w h y he found it e x p e ­ dient to tell all in the so-called Life w h i c h h e a p p e n d e d to his Antiq­ uities, creating for h i m s e l f an o p p o r t u n i t y to p u t his o w n spin on events. T h e personal history w a s a powerful stimulus to political analy­ sis. A n d J o s e p h u s ' s interpretation of c o n t e m p o r a r y history e m e r g e s as in large m e a s u r e coherent, despite the inevitable emotive c h a r g e b e h i n d

224

Understanding

Josephus

his writing, the strong (if intermittent) e l e m e n t in it of personal apolo­ gia, and m o m e n t s of inconsistency. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s e x t e n d e d o v e r a l o n g period, with the Jewish War, or most of it, written in the 70s CE, the Antiquities a n d the Life a p p e a r i n g in the 9 0 s , and Against Apion after that. Their subject matter, as w e h a v e seen, also diverges radically, r a n g i n g from the rewriting of the Bible in the first half of the Antiquities, to the dayb y - d a y a c c o u n t of the h i s t o r i a n ' s personal c o n d u c t as a regional c o m ­ m a n d e r in the Life. Y e t there w e r e important continuities. Significant a m o n g t h e m , I w o u l d suggest, w a s the character of J o s e p h u s ' s core readership. H e said h e wrote the Jewish War for the inhabitants of the R o m a n world, and the Antiquities for Greeks, but content and approach suggest that the a u d i e n c e w a s always expected to consist as m u c h of J e w s w h o k n e w Greek, that is to say Jewish residents of the cities of the R o m a n e m p i r e . It is h a r d to explain o n a n y o t h e r basis t h e note of l a m e n t a t i o n that r u n s t h r o u g h the War, or the a t t a c h m e n t of the im­ m e n s e l y detailed Life to the Antiquities as an a p p e n d i x . A s for the Against Apion, it fulfils the function, like all apologetic literature, of bringing n e w heart to those u n d e r attack and p r o v i d i n g t h e m with an armoury for their defence. 2

3

T h e question of the various continuities in J o s e p h u s ' s writings is a difficult o n e . I n d e e d , there are major differences of o p i n i o n a m o n g m o d e r n scholars as to h o w far the h i s t o r i a n ' s j u d g m e n t s o n J u d a i s m a n d on J e w i s h society u n d e r w e n t c h a n g e with t h e drastic alterations first in his personal situation, from J e r u s a l e m priest to D i a s p o r a J e w and Flavian client, and second in that of the J e w i s h people, from being the p r o u d p o s s e s s o r s of a r e n o w n e d T e m p l e a n d e r s t w h i l e allies of R o m e , to a vanquished, dispersed and humiliated nation w h o s e m o t h e r city had b e e n burnt to a c i n d e r . T h e differences in m o d e r n assessment 4

2. On Josephus as apologist, Sterling 1992: Chapter 6. 3. Some scholars, it should be noted, are prepared simply to take Josephus's professions of reaching out to a Greco-Roman audience at face value e.g. Bilde 1988: 200. But see Apion 1.51 on the sale of his books to compatriots. 4. Some scholars prefer, however, to emphasize evidence of development. See especially Cohen's (1979) version of Morton Smith's widely-accepted theory, that Josephus's much-vaunted early affiliation with the Pharisees is retrojected from the 90s. But for a denial that Josephus ever meant to identify himself with Pharisaism, see Mason 1991.

R A J A K The Against

Apion

225

focus on J o s e p h u s ' s valuation and presentation of the J e w i s h sects and especially on his later self-presentation as a Pharisee. That debate remains open. S o it is perhaps worth transferring the en­ quiry, in order to consider o n a w i d e r front h o w far J o s e p h u s ' s reli­ g i o u s , m o r a l and social v a l u e s , or, at least, his e x p r e s s e d o p i n i o n s , d e v e l o p o v e r time. In this paper, the question is p o s e d in relation to J o s e p h u s ' s political thought. It is tackled by w a y of e n q u i r i n g w h a t continuities, and also w h a t disjunctions, are to b e found b e t w e e n the final, d e v e l o p e d s y s t e m of the Against Apion, o n the o n e hand, and J o s e p h u s ' s earlier ideas in the War and the Antiquities, w h e t h e r explic­ itly e x p r e s s e d or implicit, on the other hand. Differences b e t w e e n the latter t w o are also noted and discussed, but the m a i n e m p h a s i s is o n lo­ cating correctly the ideas of J o s e p h u s ' s last w o r k , the Against Apion. Distinctions of genre and of literary framework h a v e , of c o u r s e , to b e taken into account in such an enquiry. J o s e p h u s ' s leading ideas are ex­ a m i n e d o n e b y o n e and the m e t h o d adopted is to start w h e r e possible with the end-product and then to look b a c k to earlier texts. B u t first the ideas of the Against Apion need to b e set in context.

Greek-Jewish

Political

Thought

J o s e p h u s d r e w on an extensive corpus of political ideas a n d concepts. T h e b o o k s of the Bible offered a range of doctrines and exempla con­ cerned with g o v e r n m e n t and decision-making. It appears that J o s e p h u s w a s familiar with the Bible in Greek as well as in H e b r e w . T h e G r e e k translation, especially that of s o m e of the later b o o k s , offered a b o v e all a ready a n d peculiarly abundant vocabulary for describing p o w e r , b e it that of h u m a n rulers or that of G o d , correctly reflecting t h e H e b r e w B i b l e ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n with the subject, bvvacxeia, paoiA,eia, dp%f|, e ^ o v a i a , Kpdxoq a n d 8'6va|ni<; are all regularly e m p l o y e d , and they h a v e overlapping senses. Different translators within the c o r p u s h a v e their o w n preferences. J o s e p h u s incorporates the full r a n g e of termi­ nology, t h o u g h h e does not apply every one of these t e r m s to D i v i n e power, as d o the Septuagint translators. e ^ o u o i a for h i m m e a n s simply authority or competence, 8 \ ) v a a x e i a supreme p o w e r or rule of one kind or another, and dp%f| e m p i r e , sovereignty or office. J o s e p h u s , for his part, s h o w s a particular predilection for the various senses of Svvajuig. W h i l e s o m e t i m e s , the application is merely to a military force of o n e kind or another, especially, as might b e expected, in the Jewish War, or

226

Understanding

Josephus

else to h u m a n capacity, w h e n it j u s t m e a n s the ability to d o something, still m a n y of the w o r d ' s approximately 5 0 0 appearances carry a religiopolitical or a simple political significance. This is a preference of the Antiquities m o r e than of the Against Apion. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , in the Septuagint, the p e o p l e of Israel w a s G o d ' s slave, doulos; this latter formulation was also adopted, but m o r e rarely, by the c a u t i o u s historian, w h o h a d to defend his p e o p l e a g a i n s t the charge that they w e r e b o r n to b e slaves. N o n e the less, e x a m p l e s of the usage can b e found in his different w o r k s . 5

Greek-Jewish literature w a s created under the impact of the changing national fortunes of the J e w s : exile, Persian suzerainty, the rise of the high priesthood as a political force, the revolt of the M a c c a b e e s against the Seleucids, a state u n d e r Seleucid suzerainty, the i n d e p e n d e n t H a s ­ m o n e a n m o n a r c h y , the declining authority of that m o n a r c h y , civil war, the R o m a n conquest, the hardening of sectarianism, revolt and the loss of T e m p l e and capital city. O n e c o n s e q u e n c e of this e x p e r i e n c e w a s a g r o w i n g capacity to describe a n d analyse political c h a n g e , manifested a b o v e all, in the literature that w a s written in Greek, since the language w a s , b y the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , d e e p l y a t t u n e d to the d i s c u s s i o n of political m a t t e r s . J e w i s h - G r e e k political thought is a creative fusion of a n o n - G r e e k literary culture with Greek ideas. Interpreters h a v e debated the p r o p o r t i o n s in the m i x ; the truth is that the e l e m e n t s a r e i n s e p ­ a r a b l e . This w a s J o s e p h u s ' s inheritance. 6

7

Josephus w a s , m o r e specifically, the succeessor to Philo as the e x p o ­ nent of a political theory centred on J u d a i s m and e x p r e s s e d in Greek. T h e t w o writers are intellectually far apart, and J o s e p h u s had little pen­ chant for philosophical speculation. N o n e the less, their b a c k g r o u n d s and e x p e r i e n c e are c o m p a r a b l e . F r o m a b a s e within the small Jewish social elite of the R o m a n east, each acted for a period as political leader, defender of the J e w s and delegate to the emperor; in J o s e p h u s ' s case, the mission to R o m e m a r k e d the b e g i n n i n g of his career. J o s e p h u s ' s

5. Gibbs and Feldman 1986: 289-90. For Josephus's rebuttal of the natural slavery charge, Apion 2.125-34. 6. On these developments and their impact on Jewish culture, see Bickerman 1988, with attention to both Greek and Aramaic milieux. Also, Mendels 1992; Rajak 1996. 7. See especially Attridge 1976 for an analysis of the Jewish dimension in the biblical Antiquities.

RAJAK The Against

Apion

227

literary output, a l m o s t as m u c h as P h i l o ' s , b e l o n g s to the diaspora: transfering from Jerusalem to R o m e , h e addressed readers a r o u n d the empire. Admittedly, unlike Philo, w h o probably k n e w n o H e b r e w , Jose­ p h u s , w h o w a s of priestly and royal stock and b r o u g h t u p in an A r a ­ m a i c / H e b r e w milieu, h a d to labour, h e informs u s , to perfect his grasp of the l a n g u a g e in w h i c h he w r o t e . T h i s he successfully did, and w e should regard h i m as in full c o m m a n d of the political vocabulary and of the concepts h e deploys. 8

T h e r e are indications that J o s e p h u s k n e w and exploited Philo, and it is c o m m o n l y accepted that this w a s the case. T h u s , part of the discus­ sion of J e w i s h practices in the Against Apion reveals a c l o s e d e p e n ­ d e n c e on P h i l o ' s n o w fragmentary Hypothetical Indicative parallels include the prohibitions on destroying a fleeing a n i m a l a n d on killing an animal with its y o u n g or a bird in its nest. T h e r e is food for thought, too, in the fact that J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n butt in this w o r k , the g r a m m a r i a n , teacher and rhetor A p i o n , not only b e l o n g e d to P h i l o ' s generation, but confronted h i m directly before Caligula in R o m e , w h e n the t w o partici­ p a t e d in rival delegations from A l e x a n d r i a after the anti-Jewish riots there. E l s e w h e r e in J o s e p h u s the influence is less d e t e c t a b l e , for the simple r e a s o n that the bulk of his extensive output, u n l i k e P h i l o ' s , is historical. T o admit Philonic influence is to allow that J o s e p h u s w r o t e within a tradition a n d that h e w o r k e d w i t h s o m e w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d i d e a s ; not, h o w e v e r , to suggest that his exposition is other than his o w n . Neither Philo nor any other prior author, so far as w e k n o w , c h o s e to discuss Jewish practice within a polemical framework and there are n o k n o w n parallels for the structure of Against Apion or for m a n y of J o s e p h u s ' s t h e m e s . W e m a y safely take J o s e p h u s ' s ideas as his o w n a n d discuss t h e m on that basis.

8. On all these points, Rajak 1983. 9. Fragments in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8.15. On the parallels, see Terian 1985: 142-46. On Philo's Hypothetica in Josephus: Troiani 1978, and, rejecting direct dependence, Carras 1993. Asserting Philo's general influence on Josephus's con­ struction of an ideal constitution, Kasher 1996: II, 438. Schwartz 1990: 40-43 and 52-54, is less persuasive in seeking to reduce to a minimum Josephus's knowledge of Philo.

Understanding

228

The Jewish Politeia

Josephus

in

Josephus

J o s e p h u s in his later writings, and especially in the Against Apion, ac­ c e p t e d the c o m m o n J e w i s h - G r e e k interpretation of J u d a i s m as a po­ liteia (noXixeia), a constitution in the broadest sense. This application is of course quite distinct from the use of politeia with the m e a n i n g of c i t i z e n s h i p w h i c h figures, w i t h n o t o r i o u s a m b i g u i t y , in J o s e p h u s ' s narratives concerning Jewish status at Alexandria. Occasionally in the Against Apion J o s e p h u s uses as a variant the t e r m politeuma (noXixei)|na), a term which m e a n s , strictly, a constitutional entity, b u t w h i c h in this context bears m u c h the s a m e sense as politeia. 10

A l t h o u g h t h e J e w s w e r e a dispersed race (genos), the majority of w h o m n o l o n g e r r e s i d e d in their h o m e l a n d of J u d e a , the c o n t i n u i n g appropriateness of defining their religious w a y of life as a politeia c a m e from the central role in Jewish existence of the Torah, that is to say the Pentateuchal texts together with the code of law and practice set out in them. T h e politeia is indeed sometimes said to b e enshrined in a book, b o t h in the Against Apion a n d in the c o n s t i t u t i o n set o u t in the Antiquities. T h e definition had the advantage also of e v o k i n g vaguely a certain m o r a l and social cohesion of J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s within the non-Jewish civic structures surrounding t h e m . 11

12

T h e Jewish politeia of the writers, however, is often in large m e a s u r e theoretical, virtually a city of G o d , as w e shall see in J o s e p h u s ' s case. This interpretation of Judaism as a politeia is notably absent from the Jewish War; neither the w o r d politeia nor the w o r d politeuma figure in that w o r k . T h e r e the only categorization offered is the f a m o u s o n e in t e r m s of t h r e e , or four, p h i l o s o p h i e s ( w h i c h is n o t a b s e n t from the Antiquities). Politeuma still m a k e s n o a p p e a r a n c e in the M o s a i c sec­ tions of the Antiquities. Clearly, then, at this level of generalization,

10. Josephus uses politeuma for politeia at Apion 2. 145; 164; 165; 184; 250; 257. 11. Ant. 4.194; 302-304; Apion 2.295. Lebram 1974 stresses instead antecedents from Hellenistic Utopias. But the parallels in Strabo and Diodorus account for only a small part of Josephus's conception. 12. On the synonymity of the two terms, see Kasher 1996: 450 n. ad 2.165. The term politeuma, taken by some scholars (notably Kasher, elsewhere) as the formal definition of the Jewish entity within certain Greek cities, is never used by Josephus in this sense. For doubts as to the formal significance of the term, see Zuckerman 1985-88; Luderitz 1994: 222; and now Honigman 1997: 62-65

RAJAK The Against

Apion

229

J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e did d e v e l o p over time or w a s , at the very least, adapted to the nature of the w o r k he w a s writing: that m a y h a v e b e e n the result of wider reading, or perhaps of greater experience; or perhaps, again, the driving force w a s the literary exigencies of the m o m e n t .

Theocracy

and

Monotheism

T o J o s e p h u s falls the distinction of adding a n e w c o n c e p t to political t h o u g h t . T h i s h e p r e s e n t s as a b o l d i n n o v a t i o n , an a d d i t i o n to the a c c e p t e d G r e e k f r a m e w o r k of the three basic t y p e s of political rule, a u t o c r a c y (or t y r a n n y or m o n a r c h y ) , oligarchy (or a r i s t o c r a c y ) a n d d e m o c r a c y . J o s e p h u s speaks, indeed, of 'twisting the l a n g u a g e ' w h e n h e presents the new concept (Apion 2.165). This m i g h t incline us to believe that the word, if not the idea as well, is invented b y J o s e p h u s , t h o u g h , of c o u r s e , the possibility that the w h o l e d i s c u s s i o n is lifted from a source cannot be formally excluded. J o s e p h u s ' s concept, w h i c h h a s e n d u r e d , is theokratia ( G e o K p a x i a ) , the s o v e r e i g n r u l e of G o d (2.165). 13

It is curious that the n e w l y - m i n t e d abstract n o u n is d e p l o y e d b y the author j u s t this once in the Against Apion, and n o w h e r e else. H o w e v e r , the idea it c o n v e y s does receive s o m e expansion. T h e l a w g i v e r is said to h a v e p l a c e d in d i v i n e h a n d s 'all sovereignty [dp%ii] a n d p o w e r ' (2.167). Alternatively, and m o r e often, supremacy rests with the Deity, and the M o s a i c constitution is described as o n e framed in a c c o r d a n c e with G o d ' s will (184), or as deriving from k n o w l e d g e of G o d ' s true nature (250), or even j u s t as e m a n a t i n g from G o d , m u c h as divine ori­ gins are ascribed b y Plato to G r e e k constitutions at the o p e n i n g of the L a w s . T h e r e is n o r e a s o n to think that theocracy is here intended b y J o s e p h u s as i n c o m p a t i b l e with h u m a n rule u n d e r G o d ' s supervision, although the formulation has b e e n taken to imply that. W e r e that strong claim intended, then the Against Apion w o u l d indeed b e drastically out of line with the rest of Josephus. But there is n o hint of such an extreme position at any point. It w o u l d b e absurd to suppose that Josephus w a s ever a n y w h e r e near the u n c o m p r o m i s i n g theocratic doctrine h e ascribes to the revolutionary g r o u p s of 6 6 - 7 3 / 4 , w h o refused to r e c o g n i z e a n y other m a s t e r than 13. For the view that Josephus's coinage is original but not the idea, with a dis­ cussion of the previous literature and of the broader issues of interpretation, see Kasher 1996: 450-54

Understanding

230

Josephus 14

G o d , although that is w h a t m i g h t b e regarded as full t h e o c r a c y . T h e originators of that doctrine, the followers of the so-called F o u r t h Phi­ losophy (the coinage is probably J o s e p h u s ' s o w n ) , are said to diverge from the Pharisees precisely on that point. J o s e p h u s abhors their ex­ t r e m i s m and h e b l a m e s the destruction of his nation on the heirs of the Fourth P h i l o s o p h y . 15

Sole rulership by a wholly self-sufficient deity is, w e are told, e m ­ b o d i e d in the first c o m m a n d m e n t (2.167, 190). T h i s generates a g o v ­ erning principle in the world, that of unity (2.179), a principle that had always been important to Josephus on a n u m b e r of levels. T h e unity of the g o d h e a d is pictured as replicated in the structure of the w o r l d and equally in h u m a n institutions: thence springs the u n i q u e status of the T e m p l e (2.193). A t Antiquities 4 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 , w h e n J o s e p h u s introduces the M o s a i c c o d e , the s a m e idea is expressed in fuller form, with explicit m e n t i o n of Jerusalem: 'let there b e one holy city in the m o s t beautiful spot in the land of C a n a a n . . . and let there b e o n e T e m p l e in it and one altar of u n w o r k e d s t o n e s . . . l e t there b e n o altar or t e m p l e in any other city, for there is one G o d and o n e race of H e b r e w s ' . H o w e v e r , the u n i q u e status of the T e m p l e s e e m s to h a v e m a t t e r e d rather less to J o s e p h u s earlier on. For the digression in the Jewish War a b o u t the t e m p l e of O n i a s at L e o n t o p o l i s in E g y p t , w h i c h V e s p a s i a n closed in 7 3 CE, explains its foundation as a rival to the Jerusalem cult, fails conspicuously to offer any criticism of this alternative cult place, and, indeed, cites I s a i a h ' s prediction as offering apparent justification for the existence in E g y p t of a second 'altar to the L o r d ' (War 7.42036). T h e s a m e is true of the brief mention of the Leontopolis temple in connection with the appearance of Onias IV in the survey of the high priesthood at the end of the Antiquities (20.236-37). A l s o derived from the principle of unity are the fundamentally desir­ able and characteristically Josephan goals of 6|x6voia, social unity, and cru|Li<|)CDvia, u n a n i m i t y of opinion (Apion 2.179-80). T h e s e are under­ stood as social values w h i c h w e r e guarantees against stasis and civil strife. It is not the business of the Against Apion that those fundamental 16

14. War 2.117-19; 7.323, 4 1 0 , 4 1 8 ; Ant. 18.23; Hengel 1989: 76 and 90-110. 15. Josephus also seems to imply, however, that later, during the rebellion, the revolutionary leader Menahem was hailed as a would-be Messianic king. See Mendels 1992: 222 and 352 n. 30. 16. On unity, see especially Apion 2.193. Vermes 1982: 295; Kasher 1996: 46566. On stasis, see below, pp. 239-40.

RAJAK The Against

Apion

231

v a l u e s h a d not a l w a y s b e e n regarded. In the Jewish War, J o s e p h u s depicts the warring rebel g r o u p s as finally realizing, u n d e r the urgent pressure of the R o m a n siege, that they can only continue in business if they lay a s i d e their differences. T h a t is a p r a g m a t i c c o n c l u s i o n ; b u t these evildoers are also a w a r e that real homonoia, a true a n d lasting concord, is s o m e t h i n g very different, that it can c o m e only from G o d and that it will not b e a favour that is granted to t h e m (War 5.278). B y a h o r r i b l e i n v e r s i o n t h e y h a d f o u n d u n a n i m i t y in t h e p r a c t i c e of the grotesque impieties so eloquently d e n o u n c e d by J o s e p h u s (5.441). B u t it r e m a i n s the case that stasis, civil war, w h i c h is the r e b e l s ' stock-intrade, is the diametric opposite of concord (War 6.216).

3. The Virtues in the Jewish

Politeia

In J o s e p h u s ' s definition, in the Antiquities as w e l l as in t h e Against Apion, a constitution fixes the framework of life, its KaxaaKei)f| (Apion 2.156) or 8idxa£i<; {Ant. 4.198) or KOO|LIO<; (Ant. 3.84). T h e politeia, thus broadly defined, tends to include the entire J e w i s h code. It is there­ fore easy for the historian to follow the standard Platonic-Aristotelian line, that a politeia promotes the virtues through education. B y contrast, h e recalls that the anti-Semites Apollonius M o l o n and L y s i m a c h u s had alleged J e w i s h laws to b e instructors in vice (Kaicicx, Apion 2.145). In the Antiquities (4.179), M o s e s before his death b e q u e a t h s t h e laws to the p e o p l e , not only as an eternal possession, but also, a g a i n e c h o i n g philosophical sources, as a generator of happiness. At the o p e n i n g of his defence against the anti-Semites (Apion 2.145), Josephus lists the virtues p r o m o t e d b y the Jewish c o d e as follows: piety ( e t i c e p e i a ) , fellowship (Koivcovia), universal goodwill (xfiv KaG6^o\) (|>iA,av0p(G7ciav), and, b y w a y of a d d i t i o n s , j u s t i c e , s u p r e m e p e r s e ­ v e r a n c e a n d a c o n t e m p t for d e a t h . L i s t s of c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s w e r e c o m m o n p l a c e s in G r e e k philosophical writing. B u t several points are n o t e w o r t h y in this particular hierarchy: the p r i m a r y position of piety, t h e r e l e g a t i o n of j u s t i c e to t h e s e c o n d a r y l i s t , the e m p h a s i s o n c o m m u n i t a r i a n values, and the expectation of persecution. T h e analysis is clearly influenced b y the charges requiring refutation in the Against 17

17. In his biblical narrative, Josephus does emphasize justice as a commendable attribute in certain monarchs, though still not as a pre-eminent quality. See e.g. on Josiah, Feldman 1993b: 123-24

232

Understanding

Josephus

Apion, a n d it is manifestly an analysis appropriate t o an e m b a t t l e d group. T h e list of cardinal virtues proves s o m e w h a t fluid in the Apion. This m a y suggest s o m e looseness of thought o n J o s e p h u s ' s part, a cavalier attitude t o w a r d s his argument, a concern perhaps with superficial i m pressiveness above coherence. B u t it should b e r e m e m b e r e d that greater p h i l o s o p h e r s than J o s e p h u s , a m o n g t h e m Philo, e v i n c e d a d e g r e e of flexibility in their a p p r o a c h to t h e roster of virtues. In t h e Against Apion, the formula is slightly different on its second, m o r e formal ap­ pearance. Piety (e-oaePeia) is further accentuated, a n d w e a r e told b y J o s e p h u s that it takes t h e position o c c u p i e d b y dpETtj in t h e G r e e k s c h e m e s , b e c o m i n g the overarching category; the e l e m e n t s that m a k e u p piety are then the Platonic virtues in their Jewish adaptation: justice, t e m p e r a n c e (acoc|>poa\>vr|), p e r s e v e r a n c e (in p l a c e of c o u r a g e ) , a n d , lastly, h a r m o n y (a\)|i(|>covia). T h e latter, intensely J o s e p h a n value here squeezes out the expected Platonic and Aristotelian (|>p6r|ai<; or practi­ cal w i s d o m (2.171). T h e definition of the cardinal virtues is an appropriate topic for the philosophically-orientated second b o o k of the Against Apion. B u t the lists are quite consistent with t h e value-system of the Antiquities, from w h i c h they m i g h t b e seen as extrapolations, EVGE(Jeia is indisputably the essential virtue ascribable to individuals, not only in t h e biblical half of that w o r k b u t throughout. T h e t w o versions of t h e list of virtues in the Against Apion h a v e in c o m m o n not only the e m p h a s i s on piety b u t also the p r o m i n e n c e of the v a l u e of c o m m u n a l h a r m o n y as a good. W e learn that e v e n w o m e n , w h o s e subservience is necessary to a well-run s o c i e t y fall into line (2.181). B u t such group loyalty, it is stressed, need n o t b e incompatible with o p e n n e s s to outsiders: the Spartan e x p u l s i o n s of foreigners are u n d e s i r a b l e , a n d J e w s , b y contrast, are n e v e r m i s a n t h r o p i c (2.261). Hostility to outsiders w a s the m o s t often repeated criticism of Judaism, m a d e even b y authors as favourable as Hecataeus of Abdera, let alone by those w h o w e r e hostile. A p i o n h a d said that J e w s swore a n oath of enmity to foreigners (2.121) and Josephus is on the defensive. 19

T h e interesting c o m p a r i s o n with Sparta recurs w h e n J e w i s h perse­ verance is said to outdo Spartan; their repeatedly-vaunted tenacity thus

18. See Apion 2.147-48. 19. Apion 2.201. Regarded as an interpolation by Niese, however.

RAJAK

The Against

233

Apion

confers u p o n t h e constitution of the J e w s another attribute highly val­ u e d in G r e e k political t h o u g h t , a n d exemplified b y S p a r t a , that of stability. A n d Josephus observes that e v e n t h e Spartan s y s t e m h a d suc­ c u m b e d t o its o w n defects in t h e e n d (2.222-27; 2 7 5 . It m a y b e said, too, that J o s e p h u s lends an extra dimension to t h e claim of stability b y repeatedly stressing h i s p e o p l e ' s distinctive readiness to u n d e r g o mar­ t y r d o m for t h e sake of t h e l a w ; this is t h e u l t i m a t e g u a r a n t o r of its p r e s e r v a t i o n . A law that is promised as eternal m u s t outdo all others. 20

J o s e p h u s ' s assertion of t h e stability inherent in t h e J e w i s h politeia applies t o its internal character: t h e l a w s c a n n o t b e r e p l a c e d or e v e n modified a n d the Jewish w a y of life will n o t change. Transgressions a r e not even w o r t h discussing (2.277-78). T h e physical fate of the J e w s is a different matter. Past calamities are talked of and their recent catastro­ p h e is fleetingly admitted: ' E v e n if w e a r e d e p r i v e d of r e s o u r c e s , of cities, of all advantages, o u r L a w remains i m m o r t a l ' (2.277). B u t these events are of little relevance to the project of the Against Apion. B y contrast, t h e u p s - a n d - d o w n s of history are central in J o s e p h u s ' s historical writing, w h o s e subject matter is naturally largely confined t o t e m p o r a l e v e n t s . F o r h i m , these a r e part of a world-historical process. In essentially biblical terms, the destinies of nations are seen a s ordained b y God, a n d as triggered b y t h e moral conduct of h u m a n b e i n g s . In t h e Jewish War, t h e notion of t h e shift of divine favour from t h e J e w s t o R o m e , a n d , specifically, t o t h e Flavian dynasty, is a k e y e x p l a n a t o r y tool, g o i n g far b e y o n d t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s p e r s o n a l n e e d t o e x c u l p a t e himself from charges of betraying t h e a n t i - R o m a n m o v e m e n t . In t h e Antiquities, t h e doctrine finds expression in t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s rendering of D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y of the succession of k i n g d o m s , w h e r e h e appears t o imply, b u t avoids mentioning, t h e predestined ultimate supersession of R o m a n p o w e r as w e l l . 21

22

20. Apion 2.232; 272; 277-78; the point about dying for the law is made also in the excerpt ascribed to Hecataeus at Apion 1.191-93, where illustrations are offered; cf. below n. 32. On the motif in general: Gafni 1989: 124-25. See also Rajak 1997. The word used for the eternity of the law is dctvaxo<;; cf. Ant. 4.179: di8iov. The word used for Jewish perseverance, Kapxepia is cognate with that applied to Spartan stability, eveKapxepnaev (2.225). 21.

War 2.261; 4.353; 5.19; 5.367; Ant. 20.166; Linder 172: 4 2 - 4 8 ; Rajak

1983: 99. 22. Ant. 10.210. Investigated anew by Mason 1994: 172-76.

234

Understanding

Josephus

T h i s central idea of instability h a r m o n i z e s w e l l w i t h t h e v i e w of other nations and their laws expressed in the Against Apion. It is against the b a c k g r o u n d of their instability that the p e r m e n a n c e of J u d a i s m is depicted (2.127-32).

4 . The Law and the

Legislator

Nomos or its plural are the ubiquitous Greek-Jewish terms for the J e w ­ ish law. J o s e p h u s ' s preference is for the plural. In Against Apion, laws are d e e m e d the m a r k of civilization, by contrast with rule b y edict and c u s t o m ; and since the Jewish c o d e is an ancient o n e , even p e r h a p s the m o s t ancient, the J e w s e m e r g e as highly civilized. J o s e p h u s , as is wellk n o w n , n o t i c e d the a b s e n c e of the w o r d \6\ioc, f r o m t h e H o m e r i c p o e m s (Apion 2.155). T h e exact reference of v o n o i , in the J e w i s h con­ text, is n o clearer in J o s e p h u s than in any other G r e e k - J e w i s h text. In b r o a d terms, the laws m u s t b e equated with Torah; b u t it is impossible to discern w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s , w h e r e h e speaks of a written source (for e x a m p l e at Ant. 4.194), has in m i n d the ten c o m m a n d m e n t s , the Pentat e u c h a l l a w c o d e s , t h e e n t i r e P e n t a t e u c h , or e v e n t h e P e n t a t e u c h together with all that already existed by w a y of oral law, w h i c h c a m e to b e u n d e r s t o o d as integral to the written T o r a h . T h e t e r m c a n b e used s y n o n y m o u s l y with politeia b y Josephus, as in the recurring pleonastic phrase 'the l a w s and the constitution' (e.g. Apion 2 . 2 2 2 ; 2 6 4 ; 2 8 7 and already at Ant. 4.194). A t o n e point in the Antiquities, however, Jose­ p h u s is m o r e precise, a n n o u n c i n g that h e will d i s c u s s t h o s e M o s a i c l a w s that are specifically r e l e v a n t to t h e politeia {Ant. 4 . 1 9 8 ) . O n e might suppose that this delimitation is envisaged as covering those laws and regulations that are concerned with government and social order. In fact, the laws then set out turn out to b e not particularly of this kind, but rather to include the basic prescriptions for purity in private life, as well as various public arrangements that w e r e less matters of social organi­ zation than of cultic practice, notably the c o n d u c t of the festivals and the mechanics of t i t h i n g . It seems that w h e n Josephus wrote the Antiq­ uities his conception of the Jewish politeia w a s not yet fully settled. 23

M o s e s , as legislator, is the sole h u m a n architect of the J e w i s h w a y of life, a system written and promulgated b y h i m as a b o d y of legislation, a v o j i o G e a i a (Apion 2 . 1 5 9 - 7 1 ; Ant. 3.287 etc.). H e is set firmly in a

23. Ant. 4.199-291. For this point, see Troiani 1994.

RAJAK The Against

Apion

235

c o m p a r a t i v e context w h e n h e is pitted against L y c u r g u s , S o l o n a n d Zaleucus of Locri; once, too, M i n o s is introduced (2.161). T h e lawgiver is, w e learn again, the educator of the nation, and M o s e s ' institution of w e e k l y r e a d i n g s e n s u r e d c o m p l e t e familiarity w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o n the part of the (male) population ( 2 . 1 7 5 - 7 8 ) . M o s e s u n d e r s t o o d , as m a n y did not, that education h a d to b e b o t h theoretical a n d practical, with the dietary l a w s , in particular, offering the desirable e l e m e n t of ctaicnai<;. T h e law is also said to educate as a father and m o t h e r educate (2.174), a n d especially through the m e d i u m of Sabbath reading (2.175). 24

In Against Apion J o s e p h u s delineates in brief M o s e s ' great qualities of l e a d e r s h i p , to b a c k u p the c l a i m s of the J e w i s h l a w g i v e r to rival M i n o s and other Greeks (2.156-60): M o s e s is a b r a v e general, a shrewd counsellor a n d a selfless protector. A l t h o u g h h e is effectively in sole control, and often lonely in power, M o s e s ' behaviour stands out, w e are told, as the opposite of tyrannical. But w e remain in n o d o u b t that his subjection to the divine will is w h a t ultimately permits M o s e s to out­ strip all the others in the competition. H e r e , J o s e p h u s is d r a w i n g o n t h e m e s h e h a d dealt with earlier and in extenso. E m b e d d e d in the nar­ rative of the Antiquities, and particularly in the biblical history, with its strong moralizing and apologetic tendencies, appear thumbnail sketches of political skill in action a n d of the correct or faulty e x e r c i s e of p o w e r . A n d it is M o s e s w h o stands out u n c h a l l e n g e d as t h e perfect m o d e l . His supreme dperri incorporates all the virtues, and a b o v e all of t h e m , sagacity and w i s d o m . T h e e n c o m i u m on his death in b o o k 4 e m p h a s i z e s his control of the passions, the p o w e r of his oratory, his generalship; but also, as the climax, his prophetic identity as the m a n through w h o m G o d spoke (Ant. 4.328-29). This last t h e m e is not taken u p in the Against Apion. 2 5

26

24. The comparison with other lawgivers echoes the opening of Plato's Laws. While the emphasis on education is also Platonic, Josephus is more specifically concerned with instruction in the system of law. See Feldman 1993b: 118-120, on this idea in relation to Josephus* presentation in the Antiquities of King Josiah as teacher. 25. For the terms in which leaders and prominent personalities are praised, See Villalba I Varneda: 200-203. 26. See especially Feldman 1992.

236

Understanding

5. Priestly

Josephus

Rule

T h a t the J e w i s h polity is what w e would call a hierocracy, a system of priestly rule, with a hereditary high priest (Apion 2.193-94) at its head, is a n o t h e r central p r i n c i p l e for J o s e p h u s , d e r i v i n g from h i s u n d e r ­ standing of GeoKpaxia (Apion 2.185-87). This w a s the s y s t e m estab­ lished b y M o s e s . A n d this is the system J o s e p h u s regularly e n d o r s e s , s u b s u m i n g t h e d o m i n a n c e of t h e h i g h - p r i e s t l y f a m i l i e s u n d e r the technical h e a d i n g of aristocracy, or a r i s t o c r a c y - c u m - o l i g a r c h y (Ant. 11.111). S o m e t i m e s , h e a s s i g n s a n o n - t e c h n i c a l s p o k e s m a n s h i p or representative leadership in the state (rcpoaxaaia or fiyejLiovia) to the high priesthood; this s e e m s to b e a w a y of describing the aristocratic m o d e l of a society controlled b y a pre-eminent, notionally hereditary g r o u p of superior m e n . 2 7

Hierocracy c a m e about because G o d as the s u p r e m e ruler of the uni­ verse delegated p o w e r to the priesthood. T h e original priestly title had b e e n allocated according to the skills and aptitudes of those selected, thus generating an aristocracy in the true sense. In a notionally inalter­ able system, centred o n holiness, the priesthood, and a b o v e all the high priesthood, is entrusted with the p e r m a n e n t protection of the legal sta­ tus quo, as well as with civil and criminal jurisdiction (Apion. 2.187). T h e omission here of any mention of a lay judiciary has b e e n n o t e d . N o r are the interpretative activities of a rabbinic or proto-rabbinic class allowed for in this timeless G r e e k version of an ideal Jewish polity.

28

T h e sanction of tradition for the rule of the high priests is spelled out in the concluding part of the Antiquities, w h e r e J o s e p h u s informs read­ ers that an Aaronite high priesthood had existed for 2,000 years, with A a r o n as the first in the line (Ant. 20.224; 261). T h e Antiquities excur­ sus on the high priestly succession offers a m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d account of the s e q u e n c e of constitutions w h i c h qualifies, a n d m i g h t s e e m to contradict, the simplification of the Against Apion. B e t w e e n the return from B a b y l o n and s o m e point in the late Seleucid p e r i o d , the fifteen successive high priests are said to have held office within a d e m o c r a c y , 29

27. On hierocracy in Judaean theory and practice, see Goodblatt 1994: 30-56, arguing for pre-Hasmonean origins. In relation to Josephus's theory: Amir 1 9 8 5 88. On rcpoaxaaia: Schwartz 1983-84: 33-38 and note especially Ant. 20.251. 28. Vermes 1982: 295. 29. The chronology is a little confused: see Feldman's note ad Ant. 20.234 in the Loeb edition.

RAJAK The Against

Apion

237

p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e they had to account for themselves before assem­ blies of the people. M o n a r c h y followed, under the H a s m o n e a n s and the H e r o d i a n s ; and the high priesthood, w h o s e hereditary continuity H e r o d h a d destroyed, only c a m e to b e at the h e a d of an aristocracy after the d e a t h of A r c h e l a u s (Ant. 2 0 . 2 5 1 ) . T h e ideal s y s t e m of t h e Against Apion, presented there as universal, is thus in fact the s y s t e m that pre­ vailed at Jerusalem during J o s e p h u s ' s o w n youth a n d early m a n h o o d . 30

In o t h e r w a y s , t o o , the Contra Apionem a c c o u n t is r e m a r k a b l y schematized. Discussion is c o n d u c t e d o n a plane w h e r e precise q u e s ­ tions such as the m a n n e r of a p p o i n t m e n t of the h i g h priest in charge, t h e preferred s u c c e s s i o n , or t h e e x a c t l e a d e r s h i p role of t h e h i g h priestly aristocracy simply d o not a r i s e . T h i s a p p r o a c h is p e r h a p s f o r e s h a d o w e d in the Antiquities, w h e r e , from the entire, e x t e n d e d e x ­ cursus on the high-priestly succession (20.224-251), w e learn j u s t that an office o n c e held for life gave w a y to limited tenure (20.229). 31

F u r t h e r m o r e , w e can hardly fail to observe that both the texts u n d e r consideration w e r e written long after 7 0 CE but that J o s e p h u s — u n d e r ­ standably—fails to point out that the high priesthood is b y then defunct, the resurrection of its d o m i n a n c e in a rebuilt T e m p l e at best a r e m o t e hope. F r o m the Antiquities, it e m e r g e s that J o s e p h u s a p p r o v e d also of the form of g o v e r n m e n t , in effect m o n a r c h i c , in w h i c h a n a u t o n o m o u s J e w i s h state w a s controlled b y a high priest, w h e t h e r as k i n g (like the later H a s m o n e a n s ) or not (like the earlier H a s m o n e a n s ) . H e also looked b a c k favourably to the individual d o m i n a n c e of M o s e s , J o s h u a (6.84; 20.229) a n d the j u d g e s . Certain types of | i o v a p % i a (the rule of one) c o u l d thus b e acceptable, although there w a s less to c o m m e n d in the exclusively kingly rule of Saul or of m o s t of the D a v i d i c dynasty, still less of H e r o d , w h o h a d been responsible for a profound devaluation of the high priesthood (20.247). T h e s e refinements are lost in the blanket statement of the Against Apion that the J e w s ' m o d e of g o v e r n m e n t w a s an aristocracy. 32

30. On this and other versions of the sequence of Judaean constitutions, see Schwartz 1983-84. 31. Cf. Thoma 1989: 201: 'Josephus evades the question how much political power might be given to the high priest'. 32. 6.84, 20.261; however, the judges seem to be defined as monarchs at 11.112 and 20.230. See Schwartz 1983-84: 39.

238

Understanding

Josephus

It is relevant to this investigation that J o s e p h u s ' s o v e r w h e l m i n g pred­ ilection for the priesthood in its various manifestations is at least partly p e r s o n a l in origin. H i s priestly descent w a s a major source of pride, s o m e t h i n g of which, in his Life, h e m a d e e v e n m o r e of than h e did of his royal o r i g i n s . H i s detailed k n o w l e d g e of the functioning of the T e m p l e and its ministers is not o p e n to doubt. Greek writers on Judaism also m a d e m u c h of the priests. B u t J o s e p h u s w a s d e e p l y interested in their role in the state before ever h e c a m e to write the Against Apion and his elevation of the priesthood and the high priesthood e v e n w h e n schematized, as it is in the Against Apion, stands apart from that of any o t h e r writer. T h u s , t h e e x c u r s u s on t h e J e w s e x c e r p t e d from the Aegyptiaka of the fourth-century BCE author, H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a , has the T e m p l e and the high priesthood at the centre of the state founded b y M o s e s , yet H e c a t a e u s ' s picture is hazy and h e erroneously believes that the high priest w a s c h o s e n (by w h o m ? ) out of the entire priesthood for his p r e - e m i n e n t qualities and that the priests w e r e all allocated large tracts of l a n d . 33

6. Foreign

Rulers

W o r l d rulers m a y b e put in position by G o d , as part of his s c h e m e for the rise and fall of nations, but the distinction b e t w e e n that idea and any claim to divinity by those rulers, ordained or not, is carefully preserved by Josephus. It is striking that in the Against Apion h e takes the trouble to spell out in a sentence the distinction b e t w e e n sacrifices offered b y J e w s to the R o m a n e m p e r o r s a n d sacrifices offered s i m p l y for their welfare, in r e s p o n s e to A p i o n ' s criticism that the J e w s are culpable in failing to m a k e statues of the e m p e r o r (Apion 2.73-77). It is interesting that this accusation of A p i o n ' s is specifically m e n t i o n e d in the Antiq­ uities, in connection with his role in the Alexandrian delegation to Cali­ gula (18.257-78). W e m a y also adduce here the Jewish War account of

33. On Josephus's personal relationship with the priesthood, see Life 1-2; Rajak 1983: 14-20. On Josephus's hierocracy generally, Vermes 1982: 294-96; Amir 1985-89: 88-92; Cancik 1987: 67-74; Thoma 1989. On Hecataeus, as cited in Diodorus 40.3.3-5 (from Photius), see the text and commentary in Stern 1974: n o . l l , 23-35; Goodblatt 1994: 31-35; Sterling 1992: 78-91; Bar-Kochva 1996.1 do not comment here on Ezekias, the otherwise unknown high priest who is prominent in the fragment of so-called Pseudo-Hecataeus at Apion 1.183-204: opinions are divided as to whether the fragment is a Jewish falsification; but cf. n. 19 above.

RAJAK The Against

Apion

239

the rejection of foreign gifts or sacrifices by the T e m p l e officials, the event w h i c h signalled the outbreak of revolt in 6 6 CE (War 2.409-417). T h e r e t o o , the narrative m a k e s it quite clear that w h a t is crucially at stake is sacrifice offered on behalf of the R o m a n s and the e m p e r o r (War 2.409; 4 1 6 ) . In the Antiquities, Josephus distances himself from e m p e r o r w o r s h i p b y his u n c o n c e a l e d identification with the J e w s w h o o p p o s e d actions such as P i l a t e ' s importation of R o m a n military standards, carrying the imperial b u s t into J e r u s a l e m — ' f o r our law forbids the m a k i n g of im­ a g e s ' — a n d the erection of C a l i g u l a ' s cult statue in the c i t y . It m a y b e recalled that the rejection of idolatry, i m p o r t a n t already in the later b o o k s of the Bible, is a central t h e m e in postexilic writing, and such material is highly visible in both A r a m a i c and G r e e k texts of the period. Autocratic rulers, especially oriental despots, are regularly associated w i t h idols: t h e s e figures, often g r o t e s q u e or i n t i m i d a t i n g , r e p r e s e n t either the rulers themselves as gods or else their favoured deities. Here, then, is a distinctly Jewish reflection on monarchy, b u t one expressed in graphic form rather than as theory. Josephus, in the Antiquities adapta­ tion of the b o o k of Daniel, gives full c o v e r a g e to the g o l d e n i m a g e , sixty cubits b y six, set u p b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r in the g r e a t plain of B a b y l o n , to w h i c h all b u t the J e w s b o w e d d o w n at the s o u n d of the trumpet (Ant. 10.213-14). 34

7. The

Masses

A b l a n k e t c o n t e m p t for the m a s s e s (plethos or demos) r u n s t h r o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s thinking. W e m a y detect it in the Against Apion w h e n a statement of Plato (Timaeus 2 8 c ) is paraphrased as asserting that it is not safe to e x p o s e the truth a b o u t G o d to the i g n o r a n c e of t h e m a s s e s (Apion 2.224). Josephus does, however, allow that o n e virtue exists that is o p e n to all—sticking to the L a w and abstaining from any attempt to c h a n g e it in g o o d times or b a d (Apion 2.153). T h i s assertion scarcely displays confidence in the c o m m o n people. M o s e s ' final oration in the Antiquities similarly exhorts t h e m to b e , a b o v e all, obedient, both to their masters and to the L a w (Ant. 4.187). W e hear in these sentiments the old Josephus of the Jewish War, with all his disgust for the masses, w h o m he identified with the rebels. There, 34. Ant. 18.55-59; 261-88. It has, however, been noted that the earlier erection by Caligula of the altar at Jamnia (Philo, Leg. Gai 200-203) is omitted by Josephus.

Understanding

240

Josephus

the rebel ideology of the zealots (in the n a r r o w sense) and t h e sicarii (knifemen), is p r e s e n t e d as t h e p o l a r o p p o s i t e to t h e s t a n c e of re­ spectable e l e m e n t s in society. J o s e p h u s ' s unrestrained loathing for all the dissidents is rooted in his personal experience of the catastrophe; his conviction that they h a d b r o u g h t it about w a s absolute. T h o s e for­ m u l a e for m o b b e h a v i o u r that h e derived from G r e e k political thought stand h i m in g o o d stead in c o m m u n i c a t i n g his loathing. A n d it is worth r e m e m b e r i n g that the irresponsibility and c a p r i c i o u s n e s s of the m o b w a s a regular preoccupation of the Greek w o r l d u n d e r R o m e , s o m e of w h o s e literature will h a v e assisted Josephus in the c o m p o s i t i o n of the War. F o r Josephus, civil discord, stasis, w a s the p r i m e c a u s e of t h e Jewish revolt. This is the agent that u n d e r m i n e s consensus, breeding violence, sacrilege a n d other f o r m s of m a d n e s s , and, in the Jewish War, the conflict is for the m o s t part fought out b e t w e e n the rich and the p o o r a n d within the rebel c a m p . T h e d a m a g e d o n e by d i s c o r d is a t h e m e t a k e n u p a g a i n in t h e Antiquities, e s p e c i a l l y in b o o k 4 , in w h i c h K o r a h ' s rebellion and other protests against M o s e s are recounted. T h e influence of T h u c y d i d e s , that m o s t political of historians, w h o s e great set-piece o n stasis in C o r c y r a (3.81-83) w a s highly influential, is here u n m i s t a k a b l e ; h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s ' s observations d o not aspire to the universality of those of T h u c y d i d e s . 35

8. The Idea of

Freedom

W h e n he argues with Apion, J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d SovXevexv of the c o n d i t i o n of subjection to R o m e (Apion 2 . 1 2 5 ) , j u s t as h e h a d in A g r i p p a ' s and his o w n orations in the Jewish War (2.355-56; 5.364). In a similar vein, it h a s b e e n effectively s h o w n that in his v e r s i o n of 1 M a c c a b e e s in the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s ' s m i n o r c h a n g e s serve to endorse the H a s m o n e a n w a r of liberation as a meritorious h u m a n a c t . It is p e r h a p s u n e x p e c t e d that J o s e p h u s w a s a l w a y s ready to label for­ eign rule e n s l a v e m e n t a n d to take for g r a n t e d the p o s i t i v e v a l u e of national l i b e r a t i o n . It is fair to say that the R o m a n e m p i r e , like every 36

37

35. Cf. also Ant. 1.117 (the tower of Babel); 8.205-210 (Jeroboam). On stasis in the Jewish War, Brunt 1977; Rajak 1983: 91-94; in the Antiquities, Feldman 1993a: 43-51. 36. Gafni 1989. Less so in the Jewish War. Hengel 1989: 113. 37. See e.g. Ant. 3.20; 3.44; 3.64; 3.300; 4.42. On this, Feldman 1993d: 316. In

RAJAK

The Against

Apion

241 38

other, m a y b e an acceptable necessity, b u t it is n e v e r a positive g o o d . It m i g h t b e said that t h e J e w i s h historian w a s d o i n g n o m o r e t h a n updating t h e m e s s a g e of the E x o d u s , precisely as every J e w is enjoined to d o . F r e e d o m , e t e v O e p i a , w a s t h e stated political a i m of rebel groups in the Great Revolt. Perhaps o n account of the resonances of this abstrac­ tion for b o t h G r e e k a n d R o m a n readers, J o s e p h u s , in t h e Jewish War, does n o t wholly disguise this o n e admirable aspect of the revolutionary ideal. O n t h e rock of Masada, before t h e m a s s suicide of the last of the J e w i s h resistance, t h e rebel leader E l e a z a r b e n Yair, is a l l o w e d t w o speeches in w h i c h t o laud death over political subjection, defining t h e latter s i m p l y a s slavery. T h e ideals a r e d e p i c t e d in distinctly H e l lenizing t e r m s , a n d it is indisputable that they stand o u t starkly, a n d unchallenged, even if m o d e r n historians continue t o differ a b o u t J o s e ­ p h u s ' s underlying attitude to t h e e p i s o d e . 39

Political freedom also figures in J o s e p h u s in a wholly different con­ text. It is a fact n o less remarkable for being well-known that the Jewish historian m a d e t h e deliberate c h o i c e of incorporating a l o n g narrative (the only o n e t o survive) of t h e assassination at R o m e of t h e e m p e r o r Caligula into b o o k 19 of his Antiquities. T h e episode is presented as an act of liberation from tyranny of the highest order; J o s e p h u s takes care to stress that ' f r e e d o m ' w a s t h e conscious goal, as well as t h e achieve­ ment, of the conspirators, and h e highlights the role of Cassius Chaerea, ' w h o p l a n n e d for o u r liberty in t h e t i m e of t y r a n n y ' , a n d w h o s e p a s s ­ word was eXevGepia. 40

But J o s e p h u s w a s acutely a w a r e of the dangers of liberty a n d a care­ ful distinction is d r a w n , in M o s e s ' parting w o r d s t o t h e p e o p l e (Ant. 4.187-89), b e t w e e n liberty o n t h e one hand, a n d o n t h e other insubordi­ nation, offensive a r r o g a n c e ( t i p p i ^ e i v ) a n d license (rcappriaia). H e r e , again, t h e historian exploits a familiar G r e e k distinction. Ultimately, h o w e v e r , w e r e m a i n in n o d o u b t that for h i m liberty w a s m o r e than a

the Jewish War, the reality of enslavement is by no means glossed over in the paci­ fying speech of Agrippa II to the Jerusalemites: War 2.345-401. 38. Stern 1987; Rajak 1991: 129-34. 39. Ladouceur 1987 stresses Josephus's reservations about the ideals behind the suicide of Masada, seeking to connect the historian's attitude with Stoic and Cynic discussions in Flavian Rome. 40. Ant. 19.11-273; see especially Sentius Saturninus's senatorial oration on tyranny: 167-84, culminating in the proposal of honours for Chaerea: 182-84.

242

Understanding

Josephus

political value. A religious ideal w a s in his mind, intrinsic to J u d a i s m as h e presented it, a n d naturally therefore attainable only t h r o u g h the L a w . F r e e d o m is G o d ' s r e w a r d to those w h o a b i d e b y his precepts, e n s l a v e m e n t his p u n i s h m e n t . Liberty m u s t thus b e r e c o g n i z e d as the p r o d u c t of discipline a n d s u b m i s s i o n . T o this l o n g - l a s t i n g d o c t r i n e Josephus undoubtedly remained constant. 4 1

Conclusion T h e interests of the Against Apion are not those of J o s e p h u s ' s other w o r k s . E v e n the M o s a i c constitution in the Antiquities does not share the later w o r k ' s requirement for abstraction, simplification and general­ ization. T h e a r g u m e n t could scarcely b e conducted in any other terms. F u r t h e r m o r e , b e c a u s e the Apion is a response to G r e e k intellectuals, it partakes m o r e fully than the rest of J o s e p h u s ' s oeuvre in the G r e e k cul­ ture of its time: that culture w a s p e r m e a t e d with p h i l o s o p h y at all lev­ els, a n d this to s o m e e x t e n t e x p l a i n s J o s e p h u s ' s i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e s in the Apion; P h i l o ' s influence is clearly a n o t h e r factor. P o l e m i c , finally, w a s a b r a n c h of r h e t o r i c , a n d the Against Apion is the m o s t rhetorical of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s . In the light of all this, it is scarcely surprising that the political thought of the Apion is m o r e schematized than anything else in Josephus. T h e J e w i s h politeia has to b e presented as a clearcut entity, and m a d e parallel w i t h G r e e k s y s t e m s , before its individual virtues can b e highlighted a n d its quin­ tessential m e r i t s e x t r a c t e d . T h e t e r m s o p e r a t i v e in G r e e k political thought, especially in Plato, along with the characteristic m i x of real and ideal found in the philosophers were seized u p o n b y Josephus. T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h e l p u s to u n d e r s t a n d such d i s c r e p a n c i e s as h a v e e m e r g e d b e t w e e n the J o s e p h u s of the Against Apion a n d the ear­ lier J o s e p h u s . T h e innovations of the late w o r k can n o w b e reviewed. T h e r e , J o s e p h u s consolidates an existing preference for portraying the J e w s as living within their o w n politeia: the w h o l e of J u d a i s m is there explained in these terms. So frequently is the conception invoked that a s y n o n y m , politeuma, is pulled in for variety. F u r t h e r m o r e , the defi­ nition of J u d a i s m as a theocracy is new. It might b e seen as implicit in the control over leaders and their actions repeatedly ascribed to G o d in the Antiquities, but n o w w e h a v e a stronger claim. It is also a claim that

41. Feldman 1993d: 317.

RAJAK

The Against

Apion

243

c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n m a d e i n t h e Jewish War, w h e r e J o s e p h u s ' s theocratic ideal w o u l d have b e e n easily confused with t h e very different ideology of t h e zealots. Again, t h e insistence in Against Apion o n t h e essential u n i q u e n e s s a n d exclusivity of t h e b y - t h e n - d e f u n c t T e m p l e also p o s t - d a t e s t h e Jewish War, a l t h o u g h it is firmly p r e s e n t in t h e Antiquities. T h e definition of t h e J e w i s h constitution a s a p e r m a n e n t aristocracy is also confined t o the Against Apion. B y contrast, all of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s share t h e insistence o n G o d ' s o m n i p o t e n c e a n d of the i m p o r t a n c e of standing in a right relationship with h i m , t h e conviction that t h e L a w is t o b e u n c h a n g i n g a n d eternal, the high valuation p u t u p o n unity in all spheres, a p r e o c c u p a t i o n with political c o n c o r d a n d a hatred of stasis, an interest in asserting a n d b o o s t i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e high p r i e s t h o o d in s o c i e t y — w i t h o u t a l w a y s a clear picture of w h a t its role m i g h t b e — a g e n e r a l l y aristo­ cratic outlook, allied t o a contempt for masses, a realistic respect for t h e ruling p o w e r within t h e limits of a total a b h o r r e n c e of idolatry, a n d a positive attitude t o freedom, u n d e r s t o o d n o t as public l i c e n s e b u t a s liberty u n d e r and through the L a w . T h e c o m m o n g r o u n d b e t w e e n Against Apion a n d t h e later w o r k s w o u l d thus s e e m to b e extensive a n d significant, a n d w e m a y conclude that o u r author did n o t u n d e r g o a n y fundamental c h a n g e of heart about the nature of Jewish society a n d about the w a y it ought to b e governed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Amir, Y. 1985-88 Attridge, H.W. 1976

'Theokratia as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus' Presentation of Moses' Politeia', Scripta Classica Israelica 8-9: 83-105. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Flavius Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).

Judaicae of

Bar-Kochva, B. 1996 Pseudo-Haceataeus on the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press). Bickerman, E.J. 1988 The Jews in The Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard). Bilde, P. 1988 Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Brunt, P.A. 1977 * Josephus on Social Conflicts in Roman Judaea', Klio 59: 149-53.

244 Cancik, H. 1987

Carras, G.P. 1993 Cohen, S.J.D. 1979 Feldman, L.H. 1992 1993a 1993b 1993c 1993d Gafni, I.M. 1989

Understanding

Josephus

'Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft. Die mosaische Verfassung bei Flavius Josephus contra Apionem 2.157-98', in J. Taube (ed.), Theokratie: Religionstheorie und politische Theologie 2: 65-77. 'Dependence or Common Tradition in Philo Hypothetica 8.6.10-7.20 and Josephus Contra Apionem 2.190-219', Studia Philonica Annual 5: 24-57. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses', part 1, JQR 82: 285-328. 'Josephus' Portrait of Jeroboam', Andrews University Seminary Studies 31:29-51. 'Josephus' Portrait of Josiah', Louvain Studies 18: 110-30. 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses', part 2, JQR 83: 7-50. 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses', part 3, JQR 83: 301-30.

'Josephus and I Maccabees', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press): 116-31. Gibbs, J.H., and L.H. Feldman 1986 'Josephus' Vocabulary for Slavery', JQR 76: 281-310. Goodblatt, D. 1994 The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ, 38; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr). Goodman, M. 1994 'Josephus as Roman Citizen', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roaman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (SPB, 41; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 329-38. Hengel, M. 1989 The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (trans. D. Smith; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Honigman, S. 1997 'Philo, Flavius Josephe, et la citoyennete" alexandrine: vers une utopie politique', JJS 48.1: 62-90. Kasher, A. 1996 Josephus Flavius: Against Apion. A New Hebrew Translation and Commentary (2 vols.; Jerusalem). Ladouceur, D.J. 1987 'Josephus and Masada', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus Judaism and Christianity (Detroit Wayne State University Press): 95-114. Lebram, J.C.H. 1974 'Der Idealstaat der Juden', in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (eds.), Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und den neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70 Geburtstag gewidmet (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 233-53.

RAJAK The Against Linder, H. 1972 Luderitz, G. 1994

Mason, S. 1991 1994

Mendels, D. 1992

Rajak, T. 1983 1991

1977

Apion

245

Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage (AGJU, 12; Leiden: E.J. Brill). 'What is the Politeuma?\ in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (AGJU, 21; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 183-225. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (Leiden: E.J. Brill). 'Josephus, Daniel and the Flavian House', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (SPB, 41; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 161-91. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday). Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Gerald Duckworth). 'Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa IPs Speech in Josephus' Jewish War', in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire (JSOTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 122-34. 'The Martyr's Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature', in M.J. Edwards and S. Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representations in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press): 39-68.

Schwartz, D.R. 1983-84 'Josephus on the Jewish Constitution and Community', SCI 7: 30-52. Schwartz, S. 1990 Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Sterling, G.E. 1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Stern, M. 1974 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary 1 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities). 1987 'Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in the Jewish War, in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity: 71-80. Terian, A. 1985 'Some Stock Arguments for the Magnanimity of the Law in Hellenistic Jewish Apologetics', in B. Jackson (ed.), Jewish Law Association Studies 1 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 141-50. Thoma, C. 1989 'The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History: 196-215.

Understanding

246 Troiani, L. 1978 1994

Josephus

'Osservazioni sopra 1'Apologia di Filone: gli Hypothetica', Athenaeum 56: 304-14. 'The Politeia of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith: 11-22.

Vermes, G. 1982 'A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus', NovT 24.4; 28: 289-303. Villalba I Varneda, P. 1986 The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. B rill). Zuckerman, C. 1985-88 'Hellenistic polteumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration', SCI 8-9: 17185.

INDEXES

INDEX O F REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1.6-7 5.1-8 5.18-24 5.24 12.10-20 20.1-18 22.1-2 22.9

25.5-10 49 49 49,50 24 122 122 186 25

Exodus 2.1-3 2.10 3.13-14 17.1-7 19.16-25

119 219 50 50 209

19.19 20.1-21 20.2-3 32.20

50 50 187 218

Leviticus 25.23-55

120

Numbers

26 27.5 32.9 37.7 Judges 17.1-21.25 20.8-11 21.1-14 Ruth 1.1-2 1.1 1.1 (LXX) 1.2-4 1.2 1.3-4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

22-24 23-24 23.7-10 23.11-17 24

52,89 54 52 52 38,53

Deuteronomy 6.8-9 20.12-13

186 121

1.7 1.8-9 1.8 1.9

120, 1 2 1 , 127 184 118 118 118

122 121 121

111,119 122, 125, 133 109, 1 3 3 125 1 1 1 , 123, 133,134 119 125, 1 3 4 134, 1 3 5 123, 125, 126, 135 109, 115, 116, 135, 136 118,136 113, 116, 118 115,136 1 1 1 , 115, 117, 130,

1.10

137 113, 118, 137

1.11-13 1.11 1.12-14

113,118 137,138 125

1.12 1.13

138 115,116, 138, 1 3 9

1.14 1.15

111,139 113,115, 116, 1 3 9 113 115, 116, 140 115-17,140 141 111,113, 120, 124, 141 113, 115, 116 109, 115, 123, 126, 129, 1 4 1 , 142 115, 130, 142 142, 143 143 113,143 143, 144 113,115, 116, 123,

1.16-17 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19

1.20-21 1.20

1.21 1.22 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

248

2.5 2.6-7 2.6 2.7 2.8-9 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11-15 2.11-12 2.11

2.12 2.13 2.14

2.15-16 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20

2.21 2.22

2.23 3.1-4 3.1

3.2 3.3 3.4

Understanding 124, 144 113, 123, 144, 145 113 124, 145 145 113,114 146 146 112, 113, 146, 147 122 113 114, 120, 121, 123, 147 115-17,130, 147, 148 113, 114, 117,148 113, 120, 121, 148, 149 113,120 111,149 149, 150 150 121, 126, 150, 151 113, 114, 117,151 113, 115, 116, 151, 152 113,115, 130, 152 113, 114, 126, 152, 153 123, 153 113,118 115, 124, 130, 153, 154 154 154, 155 115, 122, 126, 155

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10-13 3.10-11 3.10 3.11 3.12-13 3.12 3.13 3.14

3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 4.1-2 4.1 4.2 4.3-4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9-10

Josephus 113, 126, 155,156 156 111, 126, 156 119, 156, 157 111, 113, 130, 157 113,119 119 115, 116, 157,158 115,158 119 158, 159 115, 116, 127, 159 113, 120, 127, 159, 160 113, 126, 160 113, 114, 160, 161 113, 130, 133, 161 113, 126, 130, 161 118 113, 121, 123, 162 113, 118, 162 113,122 127, 162, 163 113, 114, 163 113, 164, 165 113,124, 164 111, 164, 165 113, 121, 165 114

4.9

4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22

118, 165, 166 166 114 115,116, 166, 167 115-17,167 115, 116, 123, 167 114 115,116, 167, 168 168 120 168, 169 114,123, 169 169 170 170 170, 171 171

1 Samuel 5.6 28 28.9 28.21

27 29 29 29

1 Kings 17.21

29

2 Kings 2.1-14 2.9-14

50 50

2 Chronicles 23.5

118

4.10 4.11-12 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14-15 4.14 4.15 4.16-17 4.16 4.17

Esther 2.21

118

Psalms 74.9

45

Lamentations 5.14

118

Index of References Daniel 2 2.34-35 2.44-45 7-12 7-10

54 53 47,53 41 53,54

7 7.13 12.2-3

54 38 40

I Maccabees 4.46

249 9.27 14.41

45 45

2 Maccabees 1

40

18.1 20.6 21.15 24.1 24.24 25.1 28.11 28.17

123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123

Romans 4.17

26

I Corinthians 7.1

114

Hebrews 11.17-19

26

Revelation 6-22 19.10 22.8-9

41 112 112

1.154-68 1.161-65 1.161 1.183 1.203 1.207-208 1.207-12 1.220-21 1.224 1.225 1.228-31 1.229 1.230-31 1.231 1.233

89 122 89 186 68 122 122 117 186 26,187 26 187 23 26 187

45

NEW TESTAMENT Mark 1.10 1.12 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.29 1.30 1.42 2.8 2.12 4.5 5.29 5.30 5.42 6.27 6.45 7.35 8.10 9.15 10.52

123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123

11.2 11.3 14.43 14.72 15.1

123 123 123 123 123

Luke 1.24 2.46 5.27 10.1 12.4 15.13 17.8 18.4

123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123

Acts 1.1 10.25 13.20 15.16 15.36

123 112 123 123 123 JOSEPHUS

Ant. 1-11 1.1-4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10-17 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.14

14,69 68 79 66,80,82, 105 68 68 79,98,181 66,79 199 80 79,88 80 84,87

1.15 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.30 1.33 1.70 1.83-88 1.84 1.85 1.92-93 1.117 1.120-53 1.128-129

79,80 84,87 80 79 87 49 219 49 117 51 23,24,49 93 240 117 67

250 1.234 1.235 1.238-39 1.272 2.4-6 2.9-10 2.164 2.172 2.176-83 2.185 2.188 2.196 2.210-21 2.210 2.211 2.212 2.214 2.215 2.217^.331 2.222 2.226 2.228 2.260-61 2.268-69 2.276 2.317 2.332 2.346 3.1-8 3.9 3.19 3.20 3.33-38 3.38 3.44-46 3.44 3.49-50 3.64 3.76-78 3.78 3.84 3.90 3.91-92 3.96-97 3.98 3.159-87 3.213

Understanding 187, 188 188 117 189 117 93 83,84 187, 189 117 83 81 188 119 188 188 188 188 188 223 81 81 219 81 182 42, 50, 187 212 176 190 218 114 182 240 218 50 182 240 216 182,240 218 185 80, 87, 185, 231 50 50 23,25 182 82 80

3.214 3.223 3.236 3.259 3.266 3.274-75 3.287 3.296 3.300 3.313 3.317 3.322 4.37 4.42 4.45 4.100-31 4.104 4.105 4.114-17 4.114 4.115-16 4.118-24 4.122 4.125-28 4.125 4.127-28 4.128 4.130 4.152 4.179 4.180-90 4.184 4.187-89 4.187 4.190 4.191 4.193-95 4.194 4.196-98 4.196-301 4.197 4.198 4.199-308 4.199-291 4.199-201 4.199 4.203

Josephus 82 185 85 85 215 85 234 218 182,240 182 67 80 84 240 80 52 52 42 52 38,89,182, 185 89 52 182 54 52,182 53,183 183 189 82 231 189 80 241 239 189 80 80 228,234 80 223 67 231,234 183 234 230 190 183

4.211 4.212 4.213 4.223 4.237 4.239 4.243 4.254-56 4.254 4.256 4.266 4.292 4.294 4.296-97 4.296 4.297 4.302-304 4.302 4.304 4.310 4.312 4.315-19 4.315 4.323-26 4.326 4.328-29 5.15 5.43 5.55 5.95 5.98 5.115-16 5.135 5.136-78 5.151-52 5.213 5.314-17 5.318-37 5.318

5.319 5.320

185 183 185, 186 83 183 183 184 120 120 121 184 184 182 121 184 184 228 80 82 80 80 184, 185, 189 23,25 23 25,49 235 83 83 83 190 81 189,190 83 122 121 190 122 16, 107 82, 109, 111, 117, 119, 122, 123, 125, 133 119, 123, 125, 134 109, 125, 126, 135

Index of 5.321-22 5.321

5.322

5.323

5.324-25 5.324

5.325

5.326

5.327

5.328

5.329

5.330

5.331

5.332

111 113, 117, 118, 136, 137 111, 113, 117, 125, 138, 139 109,111-13, 115, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 141, 142 112,114 113, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124, 142-45 113,114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 147, 148 111,113, 121, 126, 149-51 H 3 , 114, 117, 118, 123, 126, 130, 152 113, 115, 117, 119, 122-24, 126, 153,155 111,113, 118, 126, 155-57 113, 114, 117, 119, 120, 126, 127, 157, 158,160 113, 114, 117, 127, 160 113, 117, 118, 121, 123, 126, 130, 161, 162

5.333

5.334-35 5.334 5.335

5.336

5.337 5.338 5.350 6.3 6.20 6.36 6.122 6.160 6.242 6.294 6.329-36 6.329 6.330 6.332 6.334 6.340-42 7.338 7.340 7.380 8.111 8.116-17 8.119 8.146 8.205-10 8.295 8.326 8.327 9.28 10.11-14 10.33-35 10.78-80 10.88-95 10.103-107

References 113, 114, 117, 122, 127, 163, 164 111 113, 124, 164 114, 117, 118, 121, 123, 127, 166, 167 114, 117, 120, 123, 169 115, 127, 129, 171 122 42 23, 27, 31 190 83 82 189 82 190 23 29 29 29 29 29 190 182 182 188 176 190 21,23,24 240 190 23,29 21 23, 25, 50 51 51 51 51 51

251 10.112-30 10.142 10.150-52 10.177 10.186-281 10.195 10.198 10.201 10.202 10.205 10.208 10.210 10.213-14 10.218 10.266 10.267-68 10.267 10.268 10.270 10.271 10.272 10.276-81 10.276-77 10.276 10.277 11.9 11.21 11.66 11.73 11.90 11.111 11.112 11.121 11.158 11.297 11.300 11.306 12.90 12.138 12.142 12.282 12.304 13.36 13.108 13.166 13.169 13.171-73

51 51,54 82 42 51 42 42 42 42 42 42 38, 42, 53, 54 239 105 51 51,53 38,50 47 42 42 42 90 53 49, 53, 54 42,90 21 68 20 82 82 83 237 82 82 82 82 82 42 83 83 23 23 92 92 83 83 12,88

252 13.257-58 13.288 13.294 13.298 13.300-301 13.317 13.318-19 13.397 13.401 13.415 13.416 14-19 14.1-3 14.91 14.186-87 14.186-187 14.403 14.406 15.49-67 15.165-82 15.243-46 15.254 15.267-79 15.281 15.375-76 16.1-5 16.150-59 16.174-75 16.175 16.179-88 16.311-12 16.362-63 17.150-51 17.168-71 17.180-81 17.191 17.200 17.213 17.354 18.9-10 18.9 18.11 18.12-18 18.14-18 18.14 18.15 18.17

Understanding 90 84 86 68 83 23,27,28, 31 90 90 84 28 28 84 67 83 70 67 83 42 85 85 85 81 85 81 85 85 85 70 67,71 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 67 67 23 84 81 68 88 23 21 84 84

18.18-22 18.18-21 18.23 18.55-59 18.81-84 18.257-60 18.257-59 18.257-58 18.261-88 18.305-306 19.11-273 19.201-11 19.276-277 19.276 19.325 20.17-96 20.17 20.18 20.19-22 20.25 20.34 20.35 20.38-80 20.38-42 20.38 20.42 20.43 20.46 20.47 20.48 20.49 20.53 20.66 20.69-91 20.69-71 20.72 20.75 20.76-91 20.77 20.81 20.88 20.91 20.96 20.106 20.139 20.143 20.144 20.145

Josephus 44 12 230 239 90 200 197 238 239 86 241 86 76 76 23 92 93 93 93 93 93 95 30 93 93 93 93,94 94 93 92-94 94 92,94 94 92 93 94 93 94 94 94 94 93 92 67 90 99 92 90,99

20.146 20.147 20.166 20.189-96 20.216 20.224-51 20.224 20.229 20.230 20.234 20.236-37 20.247 20.251 20.258 20.259-67 20.261 20.262 20.267 20.282-18

99 92 233 99 67 237 236 81,237 237 236 230 237 81,236,237 68 102 81,236 66,67 68,92 99

Apion 1.1-2.144 1.1-56 1.1-5 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.15-27 1.15 1.28-56 1.29-38 1.42-43 1.45 1.47-56 1.50-51 1.50 1.51 1.57-69 1.59 1.60 1.74 1.93 1.112 1.117 1.119 1.134 1.146 1.165

197 48 196 105 196 213 212 212 47 82 67 212 68 78 72 224 196 197 67 208 208 208 208 21,24 208 208 208,209

Index of 1.168-69 1.183-204 1.185 1.187 1.188 1.189 1.191 1.195 1.201 1.227-320 1.232 1.233 1.235 1.250 1.253 1.257 1.260 1.277 1.278 1.286 1.289 1.290 1.298 1.302 1.304-20 1.305-308 1.305-306 1.305 1.311 1.315 2.1-144 2.2-3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8-32 2.8-14 2.9 2.10 2.12 2.13-14 2.14 2.15-19 2.15-17

208 238 209 209 209 209 209 209 208 215 208 215 215 228 215 215 215 218 215 219 208,215 215 215 213 211 215 215 208 210 215 200, 205, 220 201,202 202 201,202 197, 198 202, 205, 220 202,213 204,206 204,207 206 208,219 202,213 202 202,213 204,207 212

2.15 2.17 2.20-27

2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23-24 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.28-32 2.28-29 2.28 2.29-32 2.29 2.30 2.32 2.33-78 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.37 2.38 2.41-42 2.41 2.42-64 2.49-56 2.49 2.56-60 2.56 2.62 2.63-64 2.65-67 2.65-66 2.65-57 2.65 2.68-70

References 202,215 213 195, 204, 205, 207, 208 201,211, 212 206,208-10, 213,217 202,211, 213,216 215,220 215,216 216,217 208, 209, 215,217 202,211, 213 203, 206, 207 203 206, 210, 213 203 203,213 202 202,213 197,204 209 202,206 204 213 202,213 206 203 205 204 202, 203, 210 204 202 213 204 204 206 203 209 204

253 2.70 2.71-72 2.72 2.73-78 2.73-77 2.74-75 2.79-124 2.79 2.80-88 2.80 2.81 2.82 2.85-86 2.85 2.88 2.89-111 2.89 2.91 2.98 2.109-11 2.109 2.111 2.112-20 2.112 2.115 2.116 2.120 2.121 2.122 2.124 2.125-34 2.125-33 2.125-29 2.125 2.127-32 2.135-36 2.135 2.136 2.137-42 2.137 2.138-39 2.139 2.142 2.143-44

202 206 203 204,205 238 199 204 201, 202, 213 204 213 206 213 203 213 202,213 204 202,213 208 213 213 202 202 204 201,202, 208 213 202 213 232 213 213 204,226 203 206 240 234 202,204 213 220 203, 204, 206 202,206 206 203 202 203, 206, 211

254 2.143 2.144 2.145-219 2.145-96 2.145 2.147-48 2.147 2.148 2.153 2.155 2.156-60 2.156 2.157 2.159-71 2.161 2.164 2.165 2.167 2.171 2.174 2.175-78 2.175 2.178 2.179-80 2.179 2.181 2.184 2.185-87 2.187 2.190 2.193-94 2.193 2.201 2.202 2.203 2.209-10 2.209 2.214-17 2.218 2.222-27 2.222 2.224 2.225 2.232 2.250 2.257 2.258

Understanding 203 202,213 30 197 197, 209, 228, 231 232 198 199 239 234 235 231 218 234 209,235 228 83, 228, 229 229,230 232 235 235 199,235 86 230 230 232 228,229 236 236 230 236 230 232 29 24,29 199 87,88 86 21,23,24 233 234 239 233 233 229 222,228 87

Josephus

2.261 2.264 2.272 2.275 2.277-78 2.277 2.279-86 2.281-86 2.287 2.295 2.296 4.159

199,232 234 233 233 233 86,233 222 199 81,234 228 181 216

Life 1-12 1-2 1 5 10 12 16 27 29 189 244 259 344 357-67 359 361-63 362-64 365-66 402 412 414-29 414 415 419-21 422-29 424 427 428 429 430

102 238 67 125 68 67, 101, 103 179 68 179 101 180 180 103 48 78,99 79 78 78 28 68 75 125 125 180 180, 181 181 125 74, 181 72, 75, 100 103

War 1.1-3 1.1

71,73 223

1.2-3 1.3 1.6-16 1.6-9 1.6 1.58 1.84 1.297 1.521 1.556 1.599 1.607 1.628 1.650-53 2.117-19 2.118-19 2.119-61 2.119-59 2.131 2.136 2.139 2.151 2.153-58 2.154

48 79 73 71 79 23 23,27,28, 31 42 28 28 28 28 28 23 230 12 12,44 31 44 44 12 23 23 27, 29, 31

2.158 2.159 2.163 2.261 2.308 2.336-407 2.355-56 2.390 2.409-17 2.409 2.416 3.350-54 3.351-53 3.351 3.354 3.356 3.362-78 3.372-75 3.374 3.400-402 4.353 5.2 5.19-20

12 44 21,23 233 75 100 240 54 239 239 239 46 43,45 46 54 23 23 23 21 46 233 54 54

Index of 5.19 5.278 5.362-419 5.364 5.367 5.375-419 5.415 5.419 5.441

38,233 231 54 240 54,233 47 54 125 231

6-16 6.47 6.105 6.216 6.285-86 6.285 6.312-13 6.312 7.323

References 48 23, 27,31 23 231 46,47 38 47 38 230

255 7.333 7.340-57 7.344 7.353 7.380-88 7.410 7.418 7.420-36

30 22,23 27,31 27,31 30 230 230 230

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Pseudepigrapha I En. 9 41 14 49 14.8-13 49 17-18 49 72-81 49 89.52 25 4 Mace. 18.23

26

Jub. 18 Pss. Sol. 3.12 Philo Fug. 78 Hypothetica 11.1-18 Leg. Gai. 200-203

26

219

44 44

Classical Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics 87

Politics

6.8.4 7.8.1

200 200

Cassius Dio 37.17.1 57.18.5a 65.1.4 65.14.1-5 65.15.3-5 65.15.4 67.2-3 67.13.2 67.14.2 67.14.4 67.15.2 67.2.1 68.1.2

116 116 77 76 77 76 97 98 116 98 100 72 97

Catullus Poems 64

86

3.5.1-2 [1279a] 83 21 Rhetoric 21 13 239

Plant.

Somn. 1.138-39

Qumran IQpHab 2.5-10 7.4

10.6.1

Omn. Prob. Lib. 75-88 13

14

Vit. Mos. 1.17

29

29

1.2.3-5 1.3 1.9.35-37 2.23.7 2.23.30 3.13 3.15 3.15.7 3.17.10 3.17.13 Athenaeus 14.642e 15.680d Aulus Gellius, Nodes Atticae 5.14.1-2

201 196 198 205 198 197 203 205 197 198 210 210

Cicero, De Inventione 1.76 204 1.78-96 203 De senectute 22

22

Divination 2.2.4.

86

Diogenes Laertius 5.22.12 88 200

Understanding

256 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom. 2.9-10 Epictetus Discourses 1.4.32 2.9.20 Homer Odyssey 11.36-635

Meleager Anthologia Graeca 5.160 210 178 Ovid Remedia Amoris 220 210 87 96

29

Horace Odes 3.6

Juvenal Satires 3.268-314 5.14.96-106 6.158 14.96-106

Philostratus Apollonius 5.33

86

104

86 96 76 116

Lucian Wisdom ofNigrinus 14 89 33 89 35-37 89 38 89

27

Meno 81b

96,116 210

73

Plato Cratylus 400c

Satires 1.4.139-43 1.69 Isocrates Paneg. 7-10

Josephus

21

Phaedo 65a 70c Timaeus 28c

27 21 239

Pliny the Younger Ep. 5.8.12 104 Pliny Hist. Nat. 12.1 5.73

178 13

Plutarch Quaest. Conviv. 4.6.2 210

Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe 5.1135 81

Porphyry De Abstinentia 4.11-13 31 4.17-18 31 4.18 31

Martial Epigrams 6.10

Pseudo-Longinus Subl. 13.1-14.3 104

75

Quintilian Decl. 268 5.10.119-25 5.13.27-28 5.13.42-50 5.13.59-60 5.13.7 5.7.7

179 194 209 195 195 204 195

Sallust Catilinarian Conflict 37.3 81 Seneca De superstitione in Augustine CD 6.11 116 Ep. ad Luc. 8.3 119.16

179 179

Epistulae Morales 88.40 200 Suetonius Augustus 76.2

210

Domitian 1.1 14-15 15.1

74 98 97

Tibullus 32.2

210

Titus 7.1

76

Vespasian 4.5 22 5.6.4

46 75 77

Index of Tacitus Ann. 11.15

Xenophon Cyropedia 8.7.19-21

76 73 201 209 116 96,98 46

Valerius Maximus Facta et dicta memorabilia 1.3.3 116

257 Praep. Ev. 8.15

227

22

179

Hist. 2.2 5.1-13 5.4 5.4.3 5.5.2-3 5.5 5.13

References

Early Christian Augustine City of God 6.11 96 Confessions 3.4.7

88

Eusebius Eccles. Hist. 3.18.4 3.9.2

97 77

Minucius Felix Octavius 10 73 33 73 Origen Against Celsus 5.41 73 5.41.6 96

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abusch, R. 194, 197, 205, 212, 221 Amaru, B.H. 85, 107, 115, 172, 175 Amir, Y. 222, 236, 238 Attridge, H.W. 14, 54, 69, 85, 93, 107, 127, 172, 176, 187, 226 Aune, D.E. 46, 47 Badian, E. 177, 178 Baillet, J.T. 131 Bar-Kochva, B. 238 Barclay, J.M.G. 210 Barth&emy, D. 109 Bauckham, R.J. 25 Bauernfeind, O. 22 Beall, T.S. 44 Beattie, D.R.G. 132 Begg, C. 24, 25, 107 Bergmeier, R. 22, 44 Bernstein, M. 107 Betz, O. 43, 47 Bickerman, E.J. 226 Bilde, P. 35, 40, 41, 44, 46-49, 51, 56, 224 Blatt, F. 131 Blenkinsopp, J. 47, 48, 52 Bloch, H. 107 Blum, L. 207 Bousset, W. 37, 39-41, 46 Bruce, F.F. 53 Briine, B. 22 Brunt, P.A. 240 Burnett, F. 21 Campbell, E.F. Jr 109, 112, 124, 130 Cancik, H. 238 Carras, G.P. 227 Caspi, M.M. 108

Cavallin, H.C.C. 20 Charles, R.H. 37, 45 Charlesworth, J.H. 37, 41 Chesnut, G.F. 47, 53 Chestnut, G.F. 39 Cohen, S.J.D. 47, 66, 67, 71, 73, 8991, 96, 102, 129, 212, 221, 224 Collins, J.J. 37, 40, 92 Courcelle, P. 27 Cross, F.M. 109 Daube, D. 47 Davies, G.J. 39, 48, 49, 53 Davies, P.R. 132 Davies, W.D. 172 De Ste Croix, G.E.M. 177, 179 Eisenstadt, S.N. 177 Elliger, K. 131 Elliot, J.H. 177 Feldman, L.H. 21, 24, 25, 37, 45, 46, 51,64, 68, 69, 92, 106-108, 110, 112, 115, 116, 131, 186, 194, 226, 231, 235, 236, 240, 242 Fischer, U. 20, 21, 38, 53 Fitzmyer, J.A. 110, 111 Franxman, T.W. 107, 174, 187 Frerichs, E.S. 92, 96 Gafni, I.M. 92, 233, 240 Gellner, E. 177, 178 Giangrande, G. 216 Gibbs, J.H. 226 Giet, S. 36 Ginzberg, L. 132 Glasson, T. 36

Index Goodblatt, D. 236, 238 Goodman, M. 44, 96, 99, 105, 180, 181, 199 Goold, G.P. 70 Grabbe, L.L. 11, 67 Gray, R. 46, 47 Greenspahn, F.E. 46 Gressmann, H. 37, 39-41, 46 Gunther, JJ. 36 Hall, R.G. 46, 48, 56, 194, 195 Hals, R.M. 115, 127 Hamerton-Kelly, R. 173 Hammond, N.G.L. 178 Hartman, L. 40 Hata, G. 69, 92, 186 Hawthorne, G.F. 177 Hellholm, D. 37, 40 Hemelrijk, E.A. 203 Hengel, M. 230 Hennecke, E. 37 Hilgenfeld, A. 36, 37, 40, 41, 45 Himmelfarb, M. 37, 46 Holscher, G. 65 Honigman, S. 228 Jabl6nski, P.E. 211 Jacobson, H. 201 Jacoby. F. 105, 200 Johnson, G.L. 47 Jones, B.W. 72, 75, 76, 82, 98 Jonge, M. de 54 Kasher, A. 227-30 Koch, K. 40, 41, 45 Kocis, E. 37 Kohler, K. 36 Krieger, K.-S. 69 Ladouceur, D.J. 241 Laqueur, R. 65, 66, 73 Leon, H.J. 96 Levine, E. 112, 114, 115, 132 Levine, L.I.A. 67 Levison, J.R. 64, 107, 119, 120, 194 LSvy, I. 202 Lewis, N. 76 Linder, H. 233

of

Authors

259

Lindner, H. 14, 21, 22, 39, 53, 54 Lisowsky, G. 115 Liideritz, G. 228 Luther, H. 98 Luz, U. 108 Maier, J. 38 Marcheselli-Casale, C. 20 Marcus, R. 131 Martin, J.D. 132 Martinez, F.G. 44, 45 Mason, S. 20-22, 43, 47, 51, 64, 68, 73, 90, 95, 198, 224, 233 Mayer-Schartel, B. 115 McKnight, S. 96 McLean, N. 131 McNamara, M. 132 Meier, J.P. 30 Mendels, D. 226, 230 Meshorer, Y. 99 Michel, O. 22, 37, 38 Millar, F. 99, 105, 200 Moessner, D.P. 48 Momigliano, A. 35, 39, 178 Moore, G.F. 116 Morel, W. 22, 31 Mott, S.C. 177 Mulder, M. 108, 109 Muller, J.G. 217 Muller, K. 45 Murphy, F.J. 41 Naber, S.A. 131, 207 Naschert, G. 25 Neusner, J. 67, 71, 92 Neyrey, J.H. 179, 180 Nickelsberg, G.W.E. 20, 105 Niese, B. 131, 207, 232 Nikolainen, A.T. 20 Nodet, E. 131 Noth, M. 176 Ogilvie, R.M. 67 Parente, F. 179, 181 Paul, A. 172, 174 Pelletier, A. 107 Philonenko, M. 43

260

Understanding

Poznanski, A. 54 Rabinowitz, L. 132 Rahlfs, A. 131 Rajak, T. 39, 44, 70, 79, 123, 195, 226, 227, 233, 238, 240, 241 Rasp, H. 66 Reinach, T. 207, 217 Reinhold, M. 76 Roberts, W.R. 70 Roniger, L. 177 Rowland, C. 37, 40, 43 Rudolph, W. 131 Russell, D.S. 37, 39-41, 43, 45 Sacks, K. 104 Sailer, R.P. 74, 177, 178 Sanders, E.P. 11, 172, 173 Sasson, J.M. 112 Schalit, A. 54, 92 Scheller, M. 211 Schiffman, L.H. 92 Schlatter, A. 20, 21, 24, 28 Schmithals, W. 37 Schneemelcher, W. 37 Schreckenberg, H. 36 Schreiner, J. 37 Schurer, E. 99, 105, 200 Schwartz, S. 66, 71, 73, 91, 99, 179, 227, 237 Scroggs, R. 173 Scullard, H.H. 178 Segal, A.F. 26 Shanks, H. 67 Siegert, F. 65 Sievers, J. 179, 181 Smallwood, M.E. 96 Smelik, K.A.D. 203 Smith, M. 39, 42, 71, 224 Spiegel, S. 26 Spilsbury, P. 185, 186, 196 Stemberger, G. 20

Josephus Sterling, G.E. 47, 70, 105-107, 224, 238 Stern, M. 21, 31, 116, 209, 238, 241 Stone, M.E. 40, 49, 105 Swete, H.B. 131 Syme, R. 177 Tabor, J.D. 24, 50 Talmon, S. 109 Tcherikover, V. 66, 210 Terian, A. 227 Thackeray, H.St.J. 51, 66, 69, 108, 121, 124, 131, 172, 207 Thoma, C. 237, 238 Tov, E. 109 Troiani, L. 212, 227, 234 Ulrich, E.C. 109 Unnik, W.C. van 11, 187 Van Henten, J.W. 194, 197, 205, 212, 221 Vanderkam, J.C. 37, 49 Vermes, G. 44, 51, 99, 105, 200, 222, 230, 236, 238 Vielhauer, P. 37 Villalba I Varneda, P. 235 Volz, P. 38, 40, 41, 52, 53 Wallace-Hadrill, A.N. 177, 188 Waterbury, J. 177, 178 Wellesley, K. 82 Wellmann, M. 200 White, P. 74, 77, 78 Williams, D.S. 30 Willrich, H. 202 Winter, B.W. 177 Zuckerman, C. 228

JOURNAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21

FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES

John R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance Philip R. Callaway, The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation Tom W. Willet, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study Robert G. Hall, Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography George J. Brooke (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll (Manchester, 1987) Lawrence H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory ofYigael Yadin John J. Collins & James H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium Shemaryahu Talmon (ed.), Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of I Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran David Bryan, Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts James H. Charlesworth & Craig A. Evans (eds.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation Michael Owen Wise, Thunder in Gemini, and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine Randall D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph andAseneth Edith McEwan Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and The Shepherd ofHermas Jonathan Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah Ida Frohlich, Time and Times and Haifa Time: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (trans. W. Short) Isaiah M. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

James H. Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon, Volume I: Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John Samuel Cheon, The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation Doron Mendels, Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History Michael Chyutin, The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Compre­ hensive Reconstruction Stanley E. Porter & Craig A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After Gerbern S. Oegema, The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba Phillip B. Munoa, HI, Four Powers in Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham James S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse Sian Jones & Sarah Pearce (eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and SelfIdentification in the Graeco-Roman Period Steve Mason, Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives