Passover in the Works of Josephus (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 75)

PASSOVER IN THE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Editor

JOHN J. COLLINS The Divinity School, Yale University Associate Editor FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Advisory Board P. ALEXANDER — J. DUHAIME - A. HILHORST- P.W. VAN DER HORST A. KLOSTERGAARD PETERSEN - M.A. KNIBB - J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN J. SIEVERS - G. STEMBERGER - J. TROMP

VOLUME 75

PASSOVER IN THE WORKS OFJOSEPHUS BY

FEDERICO M. COLAUTTI

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KOLN 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Colautti, Federico M. Passover in the works of Josephus / by Federico M. Colautti. p. cm. - (Supplement to the Journal for the Study ofjudaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ;v. 75) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004123725 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius—Views on history of Passover. 2. Passover—History I. Title. DS115.9J6C65 2002 933'.05'092—dc21

2002073532

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme Colautti, Federico M.: Passover in the works of Josephus / Federico M. Colautti. - Leiden ; Boston; Koln : Brill, 2002 (Supplements to the journal for the study ofjudaism ; Vol. 75) ISBN 90-04-12372-5

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 90 04 12372 5 © Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

To my parents Rudy and Betty, to my sister Cecilia, and my brothers Rodolfo, Guillermo, and Juan

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS Preface

xi

Introduction 1. Principal Aim of this Study 2. Aims and Intended Readers of the Works of FJ 3. The Terminology Employed by FJ for this Feast 4. The Process of this Investigation

1 1 3 5 8

PART ONE THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE REWRITTEN ACCOUNT OF IT BY FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS Chapter One: Methodological Premises 1. The Problem of the Relationship between Ant. and Its Sources 2. Methodology and Aim of the First Part Chapter Two: The Pentateuch 1. Comparison of the Account of Passover in Exod 11-13 and in Ant. 2.311-319 1.1. Summary 2. Ant. 3.248-251 and Its Biblical Parallels 2.1. Summary Chapter Three: The Historical Books 1. Ant. 5.20-32, 34 and Its Rewriting of Josh 4-6 1.1. Summary 2. The Celebration of Passover in the Period of the Monarchy According to FJ 2.1. The Passover of Hezekiah 2.1.1. Summary 2.2. The Passover of Josiah 2.2.1. Summary

13 13 20 23 23 33 34 43 45 45 52 53 53 59 59 66

Vlll

CONTENTS

3. Passover on the Return from Exile in the Version of FJ 3.1. Summary Chapter Four: Conclusions 1. General Considerations 2. Specific Considerations

67 75 77 77 78

PART TWO THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Chapter Five: Hellenistic and Roman Periods 1. Events Which Took Place at Passover from the Hellenistic Period until the End of the Reign of Herod 1.1. Summary 2. Passover and the Events Which Occurred after the Death of Herod 2.1. Summary 3. Passover and the Samaritans 3.1. Summary 4. Passover and the Visits of Vitellius to Jerusalem 4.1. Summary 5. Another Revolt during the Feast of Passover 5.1. Summary 6. Passover during the Progress of the Jewish War 6.1. Summary 7. Other Mentions of Passover in J. W. and in Ant 7.1. Summary 8. Two Significant Omissions? 8.1. Summary 9. Conclusion Excursus I: The Theme of Purity in the Work of FJ Excursus II: The Language of FJ regarding Passover and Its Implications

87

87 96 97 101 101 107 107 109 110 114 115 120 121 123 124 127 127 133 144

CONTENTS

IX

PART THREE

TOWARDS A SETTING AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED Chapter Six: The Setting within Jewish Literature 1. Some Introductory Observations 2. Passover in the Writings of Post-exilic Phophets 3. Passover in Wisdom 18:5~25 4. Passover in Ezekiel the Tragedian 5. Passover in Jubilees 6. Passover in Qumran Literature 7. Passover in Aristobulus 8. Passover in Philo 9. Passover in the New Testament 10. Passover in Pseudo-Philo 11. Passover in m. Pesahim 10 12. Conclusion

155 155 155 158 160 161 164 168 169 174 184 186 189

Chapter Seven: The Setting within the Historical Situation 1. Passover and the Revolutionary Movements before A.D. 70 1.1. Uprisings at the End of Herod's Governorship 1.2. From the Census of Quirinius to Felix's Governorship 1.3. From Felix to Florus 2. The Signs Foretelling Destruction 3. Conclusion

191

196 201 205 216

Chapter Eight: Other Means of Placing the Results in Context 1. Passover and the Other Pilgrimage Feasts 2. Passover and the Politeia/Politeuma of the Jews 3. The Celebration of Passover after A.D. 70

219 219 224 229

General Conclusions 1. Principal Results 2. Hypothetical Reconstruction of FJ's Position 3. Possible Paths for Further Research

237 237 239 241

191 192

X

CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 1. Bibliographical Abbreviations 2. Common Abbreviations

243 243

Bibliography

245

Index of Modern Authors Index of References

259 262

PREFACE This work is the result of many providential "coincidences." Therefore, first of all, I want to give thanks to the Lord in Heaven. The contents of this book reflect, with slight modifications, the product of several years of research in order to attain the doctoral degree at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. For this wonderful time in my life and for the successful achievement of this goal, I am grateful to Prof. Joseph Sievers, Ph.D. His wise and kind advice made this difficult task lighter, while at the same time he encouraged me to defend my own views. Most of all, however, I am grateful for his friendship and generosity in introducing me to the academic world. I thank Prof. Charles Conroy, Ph.D. who was my second advisor; his meticulous observations were very helpful. Fr. Anthony Trafford assumed the hard intense labour involved in translating my original Spanish text. For the love and dedication he gave to this enterprise, there is no just compensation. May the Lord give him a hundredfold! For the opportunity of studying in Rome and for my Christian and priestly formation, I am greatly indebted to the Neocatechumenal Way and to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. I would like to thank them all through the persons who initiated this Way, Kiko Argiiello and Carmen Hernandez, and the rector of the Seminary, Msgr. Claudiano Strazzari. The rector of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary of Vienna, Rev. Giuseppe Rigosi, Ph.D., as well as the seminarians there have given me great help during my time of service among them, and also deserve my recognition. Prof. Giinter Stemberger, Ph.D. was very generous in reading the Spanish version of the work, and his comments were valuable to me. I am deeply obliged to him for making me feel at home in Vienna. I would like to thank the personnel of the Pontifical Biblical Institute's library in Rome, and Mag. Monika Humer of the "Institut flir Judaistik" library in Vienna. Without their unselfish assistance, my work would have been almost impossible.

Xll

PREFACE

Mr. Mark Kovacik, Ms. Cathy Cancino, Mss. Margaret Waymel, and Ms. Anne Thurow dedicated many hours to checking the English manuscript. To all of them, I wish to express my sincere gratitude. However, the responsibility for the translation and any remaining mistakes is mine alone. In the early stages of my original work, the advice of Ms. Cristina Featherston de Arregui was invaluable for refreshing—after so many years in Rome—the usage of my own language. I want to thank her and her husband for their generosity. Finally, I am greatly indebted to Prof. Florentino Garcia Martinez, Ph.D. and Prof. John J. Collins, Ph.D.; without their approval, it would have been impossible to publish this book in the Series, Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. This is obviously a great honour for me. At the same time, I would like to thank the Brill publishing personnel for their professional and friendly way of working. My family at large as well as my community were always a source of encouragement for me. To all of them, I dedicate this book.

INTRODUCTION 1. PRINCIPAL AIM OF THIS STUDY

While working on this project, whenever I would explain my plan to friends, the reaction was always, though for different reasons, one of surprise and perplexity, on the part of specialists and nonspecialists alike. The latter could not grasp how a man called Flavius Josephus (henceforward: FJ), whom they knew vaguely as a historian, could speak about Passover. Those who knew a little more about this author in some way questioned whether FJ had said enough about this feast to merit a scientific study. It is my hope that these pages will demonstrate that the surprise of both groups was without foundation, and that they may usefully bring to light an aspect of FJ's work which until now has received little attention. The principal aim of this study is to identify and analyse the passages in FJ's writings which deal with this feast. The entirety of his work has been considered with the intent of capturing a comprehensive vision of what FJ endeavours to convey when he mentions, refers to, or situates the celebration of Passover in a particular historical context. Once the results of the research are collated, it will be possible to make a prudent attempt at formulating a hypothesis which might explain the data gathered. Above all, I shall attempt an explanation of the part which the feast played, according to this author, both before and during his time: in particular, the role of the feast in the process of reconstructing Judaism after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. An introduction needs to mark out the limits which this work, like any human endeavour, presupposes and consciously accepts. This is not an investigation of Passover in early Judaism, nor in early Christianity. It is not my intention to exhaust or to revive again the debates which have arisen in modern times concerning this subject. In relation to the NT, it is important to state clearly the position of this study. It is true that, given its importance for Christianity, studies of Passover in the NT, or works of exegesis on NT passages, are numerous.

2

INTRODUCTION

In the field of research the most common questions are well-known: Did Jesus celebrate the Jewish Passover at the Last Supper? Which timetable is historically most trustworthy, that of the Synoptics, or that of John? Normally, in these writings FJ is referenced with the idea of proving one hypothesis or another, and consequently, this is done in a fragmentary fashion and out of context.1 Here it is not necessary to argue about the validity of such a method. However, in my opinion it does not do justice to the riches apparently revealed both by investigation of this theme as a whole and by forming a global view of its value for FJ. I shall indeed draw a comparison with some aspects of Passover in the NT, but will not try to clarify what the fundamental document of Christianity has disclosed regarding this feast. Some similarities between both literary works will be briefly underlined, thereby highlighting, among other sources, what FJ has preserved for his posterity. A compilation of all the historical events which led to the destruction of the Temple does not come within the scope of this work. Nor is it possible to deal with the groups which at that time were aligned either for or against the armed anti-Roman reaction. I will simply present a context, within a reconstruction of the historical events, for the results obtained, taking principally into account the actual way in which this author develops it. The reason for this is that the meaning and evocative power of this celebration is of greater interest than the actual events which took place. Actually, I believe that, in the way the events are narrated, the strength of an institution such as Passover is clearly shown— either consciously or unconsciously—according to the role it is given within the continuum of events. Finally, it is necessary to clarify that an analysis of the significance of this feast in rabbinic literature is excluded, because it would extend beyond the scope of this monograph. I shall make a comparison— as in the case of the NT—only in order to highlight the information presented by FJ. Clearly, the importance of the results thus obtained will depend on the view one has of FJ as a historian, and above all on the assess1

A typical example is the work of J. Fitzmyer, which is considered a classic for the study of the Semitic background of the N T ; cf. J. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background, 222, 230, 232, 235; Id., A Wandering Aramean, 2, 31, 33-34, 61.

INTRODUCTION

5

ment one makes of the depth of his assimilation into the Roman world. Therefore, the next section will briefly discuss the various positions which have been held and are defended even today, in regard to the sincerity and credibility which this author merits as well as the audience for whom he writes. 2. AIMS AND INTENDED READERS OF THE WORKS OF FJ

It is well-known that FJ has suffered from a bad reputation among scholars in the last two centuries. Undoubtedly his desertion from the Jewish side and his alignment with the Romans do not aid his cause. FJ had to put up with this judgement in his own lifetime. This was no doubt part of the motive behind his abundant writings. Considering recent studies, one notes that from the beginning the same condemnation affects any evaluation of his work: you cannot expect anything but lies or half-truths from a traitor.2 In recent years FJ has received somewhat gentler treatment. He has been viewed with less passion and in a more balanced way, taking into account the content which he transmits rather than his personal strengths and failings.3 Instead of the cold and calculating apologist, one begins to glimpse a theologian and writer who is open to the future, and is concerned about what will happen to his people.4 Between these two positions are others (more or less clearly defined) which affect in one way or another the manner in which FJ is interpreted and utilised. At this point it is necessary to make a distinction. One cannot equally evaluate or categorise the surviving writings of FJ, because he wrote in different situations and, as he himself affirms, with different aims. 2 H.St.J. Thackeray will regret the harshness of R. Laqueur in his biography of FJ, but he himself will not avoid coming under some negative influence. Nevertheless, his opinion is much more balanced. In fact, for a good introduction to FJ, H.StJ. Thackeray's lectures are highly recommended. Recently they have been translated into French by E. Nodet; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the

Historian, 20, 76; H.StJ. Thackeray, L'homme et I'historien.

' To obtain an up-to-date perspective of the present situation conserning studies about FJ cf. H.K. Bond, "New Currents in Josephus Research," 162-190. 4 One of the first authors to take this line is H.W. Attridge, who underlines FJ's view of history. He regards FJ's reading of events as a theological interpretation; cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 181-184.

4

INTRODUCTION

Jewish War (henceforward: J. W.) is his earliest known work. As the author himself insists, this is a new version of what he had previously written in Aramaic for the Jews who were outside the Roman Empire. The intention which he makes clear in the prologue (J.W. 1.9—12), i.e. to recount the successive events of the Jewish war in an impartial way, seems, from its content, sufficiently fulfilled.3 The audience of this new composition, then, is broad, and probably includes both Jews and non-Jews.6 On the other hand, its aim is more specific and narrower. If alone J.W. had endured until the present, or this work were the sole product of his pen, there would probably be little reason to correct the commonly held view of this author. However, considering without prejudice his second work, viz. Jewish Antiquities (henceforward: Ant.), it is difficult to consider it merely as a one-sided apologia.7 The question of the audience he hoped to attract as well as the aim of Ant. led to a change of attitude in the appreciation of this author. In the introduction of P. Spilsbury's book, there is a good presentation of the various positions.8 His attitude, which I adopt, is that FJ writes for non-Jewish and Jewish readers, and only in this way can the content found there be justified.9 In my opinion, it seems rather unlikely that FJ, considering the situation in Rome in which he found himself, would have taken on such a wide-ranging task only as a pastime. It seems even less to be merely a work of self-justification, which he attempts in his Life. While the apologetic character of Ant. is undeniable, it cannot be compared to Against Apion (henceforward: Ag. Ap.), which is a true

5

In saying this, one does not exclude the obvious bias in favour of the Romans and against the revolutionaries which FJ does not conceal. On the other hand there is no historiography which totally avoids being partisan. There is no doubt that FJ will try to put all the blame for what happened on one group of people—the socalled brigands. However, this does not completely invalidate his version of events, even if it does demand a critical reading of his narrative. On the limitations of the historical-critical method cf. P. Sacchi, "Riflessioni metodologiche sulla critica biblica," 179-183 esp. 180-181. 6 H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 23-29. 7 Such a work, in fact, at the time of writing J.W., FJ thought to be unnecessary (cf. J.W. 1.17). When he found himself in Rome as a freedman of the Flavian family, he considered it to be either necessary, or in his best interests. 8 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 16-22. 9 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 22.

INTRODUCTION

0

apologia, faithful to the norms for this kind of literature. In fact, it is not surprising that in Life and Ag. Ap. he never mentions the feast with which we are concerned. Furthermore, one must ask why FJ, during his time in Rome, came under so many attacks. Among these was the accusation of his having underwritten a revolution in Cyrene.10 A possible and likely explanation is that FJ could have applied himself in some way to the re-organisation of Judaism after A.D. 70 or that he was laying claim to some kind of recognition from his fellow-citizens.11 If he had limited himself only to his personal interest, he would not have made so many enemies so easily. To sum up, it is Ant., FJ's work of broadest scope, which will prove most fruitful for this investigation. The audience for which FJ intended this work probably included, in different ways, but not separately, non-Jewish and Jewish readers. As he himself affirms in his prologue, non-Jews can benefit from the wisdom of his people's law, and the Jews can remember that distancing themselves from these same laws has brought them only ruin and perdition (cf. Ant. 1.5, 14). Thus, it seems probable that FJ strove to present himself to his compatriots as an authority deserving respect, and that he aimed to build around himself a form of Judaism capable of surviving the destruction of A.D. 70.12 3. THE TERMINOLOGY EMPLOYED BY FJ FOR THIS FEAST

In the biblical text there is a problem which is already well-known, namely, the relationship between the feasts of Passover and of Unleavened Bread. While the distinction between them is clear, the boundaries between them are not always well-defined. This has occasioned a long debate about the origin and significance of these celebrations.13 Obviously, this question cannot be considered fully here, but I endeavour to outline where FJ stands on this matter.

10

H.StJ. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 16. ' M. Goodman takes the same view, claiming that FJ retained a strong Jewish identity after the destruction of the Temple. For that reason one has to assume that his links with the Jewish community in Rome were undoubtedly strong; cf. M. Goodman, "Josephus as Roman Citizen," 329-338. 12 S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 209-216. 13 Cf. J.B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, E. Olavarri, "La celebracion de la Pascua 1

D

INTRODUCTION

Certainly FJ is familiar with both names and even attempts an etymology of the difficult word Passover (PIOS). For now, it will be sufficient to review rapidly how these are presented in the writings of FJ. In J. W. the word "unleavened" {aC,x>\ioq) appears eight times, and is always linked to the word "feast" (eopxfi).14 Only on one occasion are they not paired, but the context makes it clear that he is referring to the feast {J.W. 5.99). In Ant. the situation is more developed. Eleven times the word refers to the feast,10 three times to the bread which was eaten at it (Ant. 3.249; 17.213; 20.106), and on one occasion, to the loaves which were presented at the Temple every Sabbath, which were also unleavened (Ant. 3.142). Furthermore, and always in relation to these loaves, he uses a similar expression, namely, "without leaven" (£6|ITI

H.StJ. Thackeray, Josephus, the Alan and the Historian, 81-83. E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, I, 5. Nevertheless, he believes that the use of the LXX can be demonstrated only in one case, and that this would have been a later revision, either by FJ or by a collaborator; E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, I, 7-8, 14-17, 45. 39 Normally, the so-called Gottingen Septuagint edition will be used or, when this is not available, the A. Rahlfs edition; cf. J.W. Wevers et ai, Septuaginta; A. Rahlfs, 37

38

Septuaginta.

20

CHAPTER ONE 2. METHODOLOGY AND AIM OF THE FIRST PART

It is now possible to move on to consider the specific method and aim of the first part of this investigation. In the first instance, an attempt will be made to identify and analyse the contents of the passages which differ from known biblical texts. Then, one must attempt to determine the reasons for these divergences, namely, whether they stem from the literary genre of his work, from his style, from his apologetic aims, from the influence of the liturgical-religious practice of his time, or from other causes.40 The possibility of a combination of these factors is not excluded. This initial research will reveal those divergences which can provide evidence, on the one hand, about the practice of the celebration of Passover in the first century of this era, and on the other hand, about the significance of this feast in the Jewish world of FJ's time. Undoubtedly, a judgement on whether a piece of evidence is useful or not cannot be made a priori. Hence no evidence will be discounted until it is shown to be outside the scope of this study. Apart from the literary difficulties presented by the work of FJ, it is necessary to keep in mind, considering the results of recent research, that the Jewish world before A.D. 70 was highly articulate.41 This means that there is no single, normative Judaism which embraces all the religious groups that consider themselves part of the Jewish people. Rather, these groups differ in some of their religious practices and in certain aspects of their doctrine. Generally, the consequence is that they are in conflict with one another. Therefore, it is not easy to pick out those common underlying elements, which allow each of these groups to identify themselves as "Jewish."42 In addition to these difficulties, there is the fact that FJ himself cannot be clearly identified with any one of these groups.43 For this 40

E. Nodet, La Bible de Josiphe, I, 16. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Modern Study," 1-30; G.G. Porton, "Diversity in Postbiblical Judaism," 57-73; E. Schiirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The 41

History of the Jewish People, II, 381-414, 488-606. R.A. Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs; J. Maier, Zjvischen den Testamenten, 249-300; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 317-494. G. Stemberger, Pharisder, Sadduzaer, Essener. 42

The very word "Judaism" is not very exact, but it is the one commonly used in scientific works; cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Modern Study," 2. 43 The classic view, which holds that FJ was a Pharisee, was thrown into crisis by S. Mason: S. Mason, 'Josephus on the Pharisees reconsidered"; Id., "Was Josephus a Pharisee?," 31-45; Id., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 325-371. G. Stemberger

METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES

21

reason, one must be very prudent in the use of other material in order to confirm or deny the data that he provides. Nevertheless, it is precisely this characteristic of FJ, along with the fact that he is an eyewitness, which makes him an important factor in the understanding of Judaism in the first century A.D. and, in particular, in the understanding of the significance of Passover during this period. In practice, it may well be impossible to resolve all the puzzles already mentioned within the scope of this study. However, it is important not to consider them insuperable obstacles. An attempt will be made to synthesise the additions of FJ in his rewriting of the Sacred Scriptures, in order to understand the significance of this feast in his time. This should create a solid foundation for the subsequent examination of all the references to this celebration in the works of FJ.

advocates once again the view of S. Mason but in a toned-down form; cf. G. Stemberger, Pharisder, Sadduz&er, Essener, 10-23. J. Sievers suggests that S. Mason did not give sufficient weight to the comparison made by FJ between the Pharisees and the Stoics; cf J. Sievers, "Chi erano i Farisei?," 57 n. 7. Subsequently he corrects himself slightly; cf. J. Sievers, "Who Were the Pharisees?," 147.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TWO

THE PENTATEUCH 1. COMPARISON OF THE ACCOUNT OF PASSOVER IN EXOD 11

13

AND IN A\T. 2.311-319 A general comparison of Ant. 2.311-319 with Exod 11—13 immediately reveals that the narrative of FJ is appreciably briefer and more concise, and that the accounts of direct speech disappear in it. This kind of "retelling" of biblical events is frequent in Ant.1 Furthermore, in the account of Exod 11 — 13 legal prescriptions related with the Exodus from Egypt are interpolated these FJ ignores almost completely.2 This approach in FJ is habitual. He does not wish to overload his account of historical events with excessively detailed legal prescriptions, as he explains in Ant. 1.25 and on all the other occasions that he mentions the future work on "Customs and Reasons" (Ant. 3.257; 4.198; 20.268). Another possible reason is that in Ant. 3.224 257, he summarises all the sacrifices the people had to offer. Therefore, he did not think it opportune to go into greater detail in the text in question. A more detailed analysis of FJ's narrative will disclose other reasons apart from these. Taking Exod 11 as a starting-point, one notes that the entire chapter has been summed up in one speech (Ant. 2.311). For reasons already given, this does not especially attract attention. However, what is surprising is the absence of other details in FJ's text. While the Bible mentions God's command to ask for precious objects from

1 T. Franxman, Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities," 24-27; M.V. Spottorno, "Flavio Josefo. Tecnicas de adaptacion," 232~234; C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 276-284. The latter divides FJ's variations into four principal categories: a) omissions; b) re-locations; c) modifications; d) additions. He then subdivides these categories again. This classification will be borne in mind in this study, but the stress will be on the meaning, or meanings, of the variations encountered. 2 It must be noted that the biblical text presents differences between the orders which God tells Moses to give to the people and those that Moses actually gives them. This literary phenomenon is not uncommon in the Bible; cf. R. Alter, Trie

Art of Biblical Narrative, 101.

24

CHAPTER TWO

the Egyptians, FJ makes no mention of it at all.3 Further on (Ant. 2.314), he will say simply that the Egyptians gave some gifts to the Israelites to make them leave more quickly, and gave other gifts as a sign of friendship. After this brief introduction, FJ presents the command of God to make a sacrifice, which is described succinctly. In this way, he discards the instructions about the calendar found in Exod 12:2,4 which clearly state that the year begins with the month of Nisan.5 He then indicates the period of preparation for the sacrifice—from the tenth to the fourteenth of Nisan—as in Exod 12:3, and adds a translation of the name Nisan. Through the use of the participle 7iapaaK£uaaalaivoix; (preparing), he sums up all the instructions which the Bible gives about how to prepare the sacrifice. On this point he adds a little note, "with all their possessions," which could be a veiled allusion to the command of God (Exod 11:2) to ask of the Egyptians precious objects, which, as already stated, FJ does not include. From this moment on, he begins to describe the events. The orders he chooses to preserve are not recorded as directly commanded by God: rather they appear as the initiative of Moses, or at least the divine command is presupposed by the conjunction KOU, as seems to be presumed by H.St.J. Thackeray's translation "accordingly,"6 when he attributes a strong sense to this conjunction. In the following description, he says that they were divided into "fraternities" (eiq cpaTpiccc,),7 interpreting the phrase "according to their Fathers' houses" 8 (KOCT' OIKOIX;rcaxpicov)in this way (Exod 12:3). However, he does not stop to consider the possibility that a family might not be large enough to consume the sacrificial meat, and might have to combine

3

Cf. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Moses (Part Two)," 42. The problem of the calendar in antiquity is complicated. Normally, it is taken for granted that two calendar systems are mutually exclusive. However, R.T. Beckwith shows how both in the Bible and in early Judaism—including FJ—more than one system can coexist without great difficulty. Later, once the practice is abandoned, doubts and disagreements arise, as one can find in b. Bet. 26a cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 1-9. 5 Nevertheless, in other passages he does say that the year begins in Nisan (cf. Ant. 1.81; 3.201, 248; 4.78; 11.109). 6 H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.312. 7 Cf. ch. V § 7. 8 The difference in prepositions (eiq—raxa) cannot be decisive for establishing whether FJ was following a Semitic or a Greek text, because both are good translations, in this context, of the Hebrew preposition b. 4

THE PENTATEUCH

25

with their neighbour, as is laid down in Exod 12:3-4. He does not indicate that it must be an animal without blemish and one year old,9 nor that it can either be a young sheep or goat, nor that it will have to be kept apart from the tenth until the fourteenth day, nor that it must be sacrificed in the evening (Exod 12:5—6).10 He does insist on the close relation between the sacrifice and the Exodus from Egypt. If indeed this link is not extraneous to the biblical text (cf. Exod 12:11), FJ stresses it by repeating it twice, which is to be noted, given his tendency to shorten and synthesise his sources.11 Quotation 1

And then he, having already prepared the Hebrews for the exodus, divided them according to fraternities, keeping them together; then, when the fourteenth day arrived, all being ready to leave, they

3

You shall say to the whole assembly of the Israelites that, on the tenth of this month, they shall take, each of them, a lamb for each household, one for each family. (Exod 12:3 LXX)

sacrificed. . . (Ant. 2.312)

He goes on to say that the people of Israel purified (tiyvi^ov) the houses, with the blood of the sacrifice, using branches of hyssop. This rite is given by God to Moses (Exod 12:7) who passes the order on to the Israelites, adding some details (Exod 12:22). While the verbs used in each case are not the same (STIOOUCJIV; 0i^ete), they

9

In Ant. 3.279 he establishes that, in all the sacrifices offered by the priests, the victims must be without defect. In Ant. 3.228, speaking of the well-being sacrifices he contrasts them with private sacrifices, saying that the animal must be unblemished and one year old. It would appear that, for FJ, the fact that the victim must be unblemished is a characteristic reserved for the sacrifices in which priests are involved. 10 In J.W. 6.423 it says that they sacrificed from the ninth to the eleventh hour. " Henceforward, when it is necessary to point out a parallel between FJ and his source(s) or other pericopes of the same author, a synopsis will be used, emphasising the common elements with bold type.

26

CHAPTER TWO

express the same action which does not, of itself, imply a purification,12 as FJ understands in Ant. 2.312.13 Quotation 2

. . . and with the blood, they purified the houses, sprinkling it with branches of hyssop . . . {Ant. 2.312)

'And they shall take some of t h e b l o o d and shall put it on the two doorposts and the lintel, of t h e h o u s e s in which they shall eat it. (Exod 12:7 LXX) 22 You shall take, then, a bunch of h y s s o p and dipping it in t h e b l o o d which is near the door, you will put on the lintel and on both doorposts t h e b l o o d , which is near the door. (Exod 12:22 LXX)

Regarding the instructions about the way the animal should be cooked (Exod 12:9), FJ says nothing, just as Moses says nothing when he repeats God's commands to the elders of the People (Exod 12:22). However, he does not fail to say that after the meal, the people of Israel burnt the leftover meat before leaving. In this way, he takes up again what Exod 12:10 puts into the mouth of God. Quotation 3

12

Cf. E. Otto, "ncs," VI, 670-671. The translation of the verbal form dvaXa(36vt£c; presents difficulties, as is pointed out by E. Nodet, Flavins Josephe. Les Antiquites Juives, 2.312 n. 5. If one follows the translation of H.St.J. Thackeray "to sprinkle," the text of Ant. 2.312 is a little closer to the biblical text, but it involves correction of the text of Ant., by exchanging the verb dvaXapovxet; for dvaPaA,6vxe He had already used the same word in J.W. 2.10; 6.423, without explaining its etymology.

28

CHAPTER TWO

OK£7raoco \>[iac, (I will protect you), the phrase DDbv TITOS! (I will pass over you) (Exod 12:13).17 In fact, FJ goes on to assert that God passed over the people when he struck the Egyptians with the plague. After this digression, he resumes the description of the events, saying that the very night of the "destruction of the firstborn" he struck the Egyptians. In this way, he takes up again the biblical text in Exod 12:29, but omits the details regarding the different classes of firstborn. Quotation 4

So, that very night, the destruction of the firstborn came upon the Egyptians ... (Ant. 2.313)

29

Then it happened in the middle of the night, that the Lord struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt. . . (Exod 12:29b LXX)

The reactions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians are presented by FJ, in a way that follows basically the biblical text, but with significant variations. In the first place, it is interesting to note that the role of influential people who live around the palace is highlighted. Secondly, the text of Ant. tends to diminish the drama of the biblical passage, in that it does not mention the great cry that went up from the whole land of Egypt. In addition, Pharaoh's permission to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt is reduced by FJ to a few words. He thus makes the intention of Pharaoh clear; according to him, Pharao gave this permission simply to put a stop to the evil that was afflicting the Egyptians. 17 The difficulty of interpreting Exod 12:13 can be verified in the translation of the Tg. Neqf., which presents the two possibilities side by side, cf. M. McNamara -

R. Hayward - M. Maher, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus,

48. A. Le Boulluec - P. Sandevoir, La Bible d'Alexandrie, II, 48-51, 147. For modern hypotheses on the etymology ofnos, cf. J.B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 95-101. With respect to early versions, cf. S.P. Brock, "An Early Interpretation of pasah:5aggen," 27-34; D. Biichner,"noD: Pass Over or Protect?," 14-17. It is possible that the meaning of nos has been affected by the verb "?2£2 (to save), since both appear in parallel in Exod 12:27, and that the whole problem stems from this. Also, the ambiguity could have been generated by Exod 12:23, where the LXX personifies the destruction as 6 6A,e9pet)tov and God, preventing his entry into the house of the Israelites, would have "defended" them. In this case also, the agreement with the MT indicates a Semitic source, even if it is a gloss.

THE PENTATEUCH

29

The biblical text may suggest this intention with the words of Pharaoh "and bless me" (Exod 12:32). However, it appears more obvious in the attitude of the people, who drive the Hebrews out with haste, saying "we are all going to die" (Exod 12:33). Immediately afterwards FJ says that the Egyptians gave gifts to the Hebrews; FJ, as already noted, had avoided God's command to ask the Egyptians for precious objects. Consequently, he does not mention the execution of the order here. Instead, he replaces it with this gesture which arises from an initiative of the Egyptians. This action has, according to FJ, two motives: to hasten the departure and to make a sign of friendship. It is very interesting that here (Ant. 2.314), FJ makes no mention of the unleavened dough which the Israelites took with them as they departed from Egypt (Exod 12:34). This corresponds to his way of dealing with the theme of unleavened bread in this section: he completely reinterprets the facts, as will become evident later. In Ant. 2.315 he begins to describe the actual departure of the Israelites from Egypt. Before describing the route they took, he adds a description of the Egyptians' attitude towards the Israelites, saying that the Egyptians were full of regret and repented of treating them so badly (Ant. 2.315). With respect to the route taken, FJ combines Exod 12:37a and 14:2. As for the places mentioned in the biblical text, FJ identifies them with places known in his time. He also adds some historical details, which show that at that time the places were desert. At the same time, he thinks it opportune to add that the Israelites arrived at the Red Sea by the shortest route, ignoring the statement of Exod 13:17-18, which says that God did not make them go out by the shortest route. Quotation 5

30

CHAPTER TWO

And they took the path towards Letopolis, which at that time was desert, then Babylon rose up there, when Cambyses conquered Egypt. Leaving the country by the shortest route, they arrived on the third day at Beelsephon, which faces the Red Sea. (Ant. 2.315)

37

Then the Israelites left Rameses in the direction of Succoth . . . (Exod 12:37a LXX) 2 You will say to the Israelites to turn back and to encamp on the other side of the camp, between Migdol and the Sea, on the other side of Baal-zephon. you shall pitch camp facing them, on the shore of the sea. (Exod 14:2 LXX)

At this point he takes up the theme of unleavened bread again (Ant. 2.316), following in part the biblical narrative, but varying the facts significantly, as has been said. Still more interesting is the fact that he completely changes their significance. In the first place, he says that the Israelites made dough in the desert, presupposing that they had taken flour, rather than dough that had already been prepared (Exod 12:39). This precarious cooking of the loaves is justified by FJ, saying that the land in which they found themselves was so dry, it offered no other possibility. According to FJ, the Israelites had fed themselves on these loaves for 30 days,18 enduring great suffering because of the lack of supplies. Quotation 6

18 This assertion can be based on Exod 16:1, which says that on the fifteenth of the second month of the departure from Egypt, the people were hungry and murmured, and God sent them manna. In fact, in Ant. 3.11 he states that on the thirtieth day of the journey their provisions ran out; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 3.11 n. d.e.

THE PENTATEUCH

Having no provisions because of the aridity of the land, they

31

39

And they cooked the dough that they had brought from

made dough and cooked the

Egypt, making unleavened

loaves with little heat; they fed on them, and for thirty days they met their needs from them. This was because they could not make what they had brought from Egypt last any longer, even though they rationed the distribution of food according to necessity, without ever having sufficient. (Ant. 2.316)

loaves, cooked under ashes since it was not leavened. This was because the Egyptians had driven them out, and they could not delay or make provision for the journey. (Exod 12:39 LXX)

FJ purposely links the significance of the feast of Unleavened Bread to the hardships of this moment. Up until this point, he had not mentioned it at all. For some reason, he now abandons the meaning which the biblical text gives to this celebration and gives it a totally different meaning. This explanation can be considered parallel to the gloss of Ant. 2.313 on the Passover sacrifice, both in relation to structure and content. Both passages are effectively introduced by the adv. O6EV (hence); both have a verb in the present tense, first person plural 0t>o|iev—ayojiev (we sacrifice—we make), which indicate present actions in relation to the historical past. As for the content, these passages emphasise the importance, according to FJ, which the feast had in his day. In the last of these two sections one finds the phrase eiq uvf||ir|v (in memory), with which FJ takes up again what the biblical text expresses with the word "["TOT and which the LXX translates with uvriuoouvov (cf. Exod 12:14). Finally, FJ assigns eight days to the feast, not seven, as in the biblical text (Exod 12:15, 19; 13:7) and Ant. 3.249. H.St.J. Thackeray suggests that it would be customary in the Diaspora to add a day to the feasts,19 but L.H. Feldman, offering the same hypothesis, recalls that Philo (SpecLeg 2.28, 156)—even though he belongs to the Diaspora—gives the feast seven days.20 It is probable that when he is dealing with a gloss it comes from FJ himself, but when he closely follows his source, he does not change the number of days he finds there {Ant. 3.249; 9.271; 11.110). 19 20

Cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.317 n. a. Cf. L.H. Feldman, Flavins Josephus. Judean Antiquities, 2.317 n. 844.

32

CHAPTER TWO

This gloss probably presupposes a somewhat inexact method for calculating the days of Unleavened Bread, as found in the Synoptics (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:17), which consider the day on which the paschal lamb was sacrificed (fourteenth of Nisan) as the first day of Unleavened Bread. 21 This error can be understood if— as R.T. Beckwith shows—there co-existed two ways of considering the beginning of the day,22 namely, one which calculated it from sunset and the other from dawn, 23 and if Passover was identified, in practice, with Unleavened Bread.24 Quotation 7

Hence, even today, we sacrifice in this way the feast called Passover, which signines "to pass over," because on that day God passed over them, when he struck the Egyptians with the plague. {Ant. 2.313) After this brief digression, scribes the multitudes that FJ re-works the content, and avoiding a definition

21

Hence, in memory of that time of need, we celebrate a feast, which lasts eight days, called Unleavened Bread. (Ant. 2.317)

he returns to Exod 12:37b~38, which deleave Egypt. As in previous opportunities, omitting the description of the animals of the multitude as eTuuiKioq (mixed).25

Cf. ch. VI § 9. Cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 1-9. 23 The period between morning and evening of the fourteenth of Nisan would count as one day, even if it does not strictly belong to the feast of Unleavened Bread, which would begin on the fifteenth. The fact that passover also had to be eaten with unleavened bread could have contributed to this confusion (Exod 12:8). 24 Cf. ch. IV § 2. Another indication of this probable confusion is that FJ on one occasion maintains that the Israelites were freed from Egypt on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (J. W. 5.99) and on another says that it was on the fifteenth (Ant. 2.318). 23 This is probably for reasons of apologetics; cf. Ag. Ap. 1.229. 22

THE PENTATEUCH

33

Nevertheless, he does not change the number of men prepared for war, namely, some six hundred thousand. The last paragraph which speaks particularly of the departure from Egypt (Ant. 2.318), takes up again the biblical details about the time which the people has spent in captivity. It is well-known that there is a difference between the MT and the LXX along with the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sam.).2b FJ follows these latter two witnesses in his text and divides the period of 430 years into two equal parts, so that one half is the time of the patriarchs in Canaan and the other half is the time of captivity in Egypt.2' Finally, before beginning to narrate the events following the escape from Egypt, he takes up again two indications which the Bible gives in different places: on the one hand, he gives the ages of Moses and Aaron (Exod 7:7) and, on the other hand, he recalls that they took with them the bones of Joseph as he himself had commanded (Exod 13:19). In the Scriptures, before the description of the crossing of the Red Sea, there is a series of commands related to the Exodus from Egypt. As has been said, FJ does not mention these. They are, in fact, the laws regulating participation in the celebration, which definitively exclude from it everyone who is not circumcised (Exod 12:43-49); the laws on the firstborn, which are linked with the destruction of the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exod 13:1, 11-16) and the laws on Unleavened Bread which are repeated anew (Exod 13:3-10). These last two seem to become effective after the people reach the Promised Land (Exod 13:5, 11). 1.1. Summary

The greatest quantity of omissions which one finds in Ant. 2.311319, consists of the liturgical prescriptions laid down by God to Moses for the celebration of Passover. Nonetheless, since many of these instructions are put aside in the biblical text when Moses gives

2(1

A. Le Boulluec - P. Sandevoir, La Bible d'Alexandrie, II, 153 n. 1. E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, 53. In this case, the hypothesis about the use of a Semitic text gains in weight, because it agrees not only with the LXX, but also with Sam. 2/ It should be noted, however, that on both occasions FJ gives the round number of 400 years; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.204 n. b.; Id, J.W. 5.382 n. a.

34

CHAPTER TWO

orders to the people, one can presume that FJ based his account more on this second list of orders than on the first. It should not be forgotten that this type of omission is part of the style and intention of FJ, who promises a treatise specifically intended to explain the laws {Ant. 3.257; 4.198; 20.268). It is of greater interest to note the changes which FJ makes to the biblical text with the definite intention of altering the meaning of the events described. In the first place, he suppresses all mention of God's command to ask the Egyptians for precious objects. He also insists on the kindness of the Egyptians towards the Israelites. Secondly, one notes the variations in relation to the feast itself, which will ostensibly be more important for this investigation. Among these, reference has already been made to FJ's insistence on relating the sacrifice of Passover to the Exodus from Egypt, combined with an idea of purification that is extraneous to the biblical passage (Ant. 2.312). It has also been seen that on two occasions FJ adds a gloss, which links the celebration of the feast in his day "with the events of the Exodus. The most significant change appears to be in regard to the theme of unleavened bread. This is interpreted in a totally different way and, for this reason, will require deeper study in the course of this work. It is also surprising that, among so many omissions, FJ considered it important to underline the family character of the feast, by showing, as in the biblical text, that the sacrifice is performed in family groups (biaxa^aq eiq cpaxp(aq). Finally, it has already been said that he does not mention either the prohibition against participation by the uncircumcised in the commemoration, or the law concerning the consecration of the firstborn. 2. A\T. 3.248 251 AND ITS BIBLICAL PARALLELS In this part of Ant. FJ sums up the laws on Passover that are found in Lev 23:5-14 and Num 28:16-25. Also in this seccion, FJ presents a more concise version of his source. In Ant. 2.312 FJ does not state plainly, whether the orders come from God or from Moses. However, in Ant. 3.248 he clearly asserts that the order to sacrifice is given by Moses, who is the tacit subject of the long command governed by the verbal form evojiicev (he

THE PENTATEUCH

35

ordered). 28 If indeed the style of FJ is more refined than the biblical text, both do begin by indicating the date of the feast in analogous terms. As in Ant. 2.311 FJ mentions the month not only by its Hebrew name, but also by the Greek name. Furthermore, he adds a valuable detail, i.e. that the fourteenth day is fixed according to the moon. A sign that the lunar calendar is not familiar to all his readers is his indication that the sun is in Aries. 29 Following the line already pointed out in the previous section, he again accents the fact that this feast commemorates the departure from Egypt; again he affirms that it is a family feast and that nothing should be left till the following day. 30 As before, he ignores the detail about the hour of the sacrifice, which is indicated in Lev 23:5. Quotation 8

28

This fact compels one to face the problem of FJ's conception of revelation, which may be very important in assessing the changes that he brings to the biblical text; and most importantly, for determining the value of the results of this investigation. If, as A. Momigliano says, FJ was simply the representative of a Judaism without true faith, and with a merely formal conception of the law, what will be discovered will be of little value, cf. A. Momigliano, "Un apologia del giudaismo," 63-71; Id., "Cio che Flavio Giuseppe non vide," 564-574. However, this position is too extreme and cannot be used to devalue all the work of FJ, given that, without doubt, one of his stated aims is the defence of Judaism in the face of the GrecoRoman world. A more balanced view is that of H.W. Attridge, who maintains that the work of FJ is of a theological nature, cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 26~27. P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, 182-191. Ch. Gerber, "Die Heiligen Schriften des Judentums," 91-113. On prophecy in FJ cf. J. Sievers, "Michea figlio di Imla," 97-105. 29 Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this indication also means that the spring equinox has already passed, because the feast of Passover could not fall before it; cf. E. Schlirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The History of the Jewish People, I, 593; J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea, 39-40. R.T. Beckwith, however, reminds one that the calculation of the equinox was not always exact, cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 282-286. "' R.T. Beekwith uses precisely this passage to demonstrate that, for FJ, it was no problem to calculate the days beginning from the evening or from sunrise; cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 7.

36

CHAPTER TWO

In the month of Xanthicus, which among us is called Nisan and is the beginning of the year, the fourteenth [day], according to the moon, when the sun is in Aries, since in this month we were freed from the slavery of Egypt, [Moses] then ordered us, that each year we should offer the sacrifice, which we offered on leaving Egypt, [which] as we said, is called Passover. (Ant. 3.248)

5

In the first m o n t h , t h e fourt e e n t h d a y of the month, between the evenings, t h e P a s s o v e r of the Lord. (Lev 23:5 LXX) 16 And, in the first m o n t h , t h e fourteenth of the month, t h e P a s s o v e r of the Lord. (Num 28:16 LXX)

At this point it is possible to stress the fact that FJ, referring to the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt uses the first person plural, clearly including himself in the number of those saved. It will also be necessary to take into account the use of "we" when referring to the Hebrews, because it will be essential to clarify to whom he refers, or better, whom he includes or excludes. Furthermore, it is surprising that FJ adds two elements not in the biblical text, namely, that the feast will be celebrated in families and that nothing must be kept till the following day (cf. Ant. 3.248). In Ant. 3.249 he revisits, almost literally, the beginning of Lev 23:6 and, partially, Num 28:17, preserving the difference of style. Quotation 9

THE PENTATEUCH

And the fifteenth [day], the feast of Unleavened Bread follows Passover . . . (Ant. 3.249)

37

6

And the fifteenth day of the same month, the feast of Unleavened Bread for the Lord. (Lev 23:6a LXX) 17 And the fifteenth day of the same month, a feast. (Num 28:17a LXX)

At this point, the question arises as to how FJ considers these two festivities: as distinct entities or as two parts of only one feast.31 The description of the feast is practically the same, apart from the differences of style, which have already been identified; a characteristic of such variations is the use of synonymous verbs. Quotation 10

. . . it will be of seven days, during which they will feed on unleavened bread . . . (Ant. 3.249)

6

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. (Lev 23:6b LXX) 17 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. (Num 28:17b LXX)

In the biblical text (Lev 23:7; Num 28:18) it says that on the first day there will be a gathering or sacred assembly and that nobody should do any servile work. FJ, for his part, completely ignores this element, as he had also done in the paraphrase of Exod 12:16. In this way, he passes directly to the description of the sacrifices that accompany this feast. Here he closely follows the text of Num, given that Lev says only in a general way, that sacrifices must be offered for seven days, and that on the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly. Quotation 11

F. Chenderlin, "Distributed Observance of the Passover," 373—375.

38

CHAPTER TWO l9

. . . and each day they slaughter two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs. And these are offered as a holocaust ... (Ant. 3.249)

And you shall offer holocausts, a fitting offering for the Lord, two young bulls, a ram, and seven lambs a year old, which will be without blemish in your eyes. (Num 28:19 LXX)

In the preceding synopsis it is evident that, in spite of the differences in terminology, the animals that must be sacrificed coincide in the two texts. It is true that FJ ignores the offering which, according to Num 28:20-21, should accompany the burnt offerings. However, one has to note that in Ant. 3.233^235 he takes up again Num 15:4-10, where it states that the animal sacrifices are always accompanied by an offering of fine flour, oil, and wine. Nor does it state here, as in Ant. 2.312, that the lambs must be without blemish and one year old. Quotation 12

. . . in addition to these there is also a young male goat for a sin offering, as a daily gift for the priests. (Ant. 3.249)

22

And a male goat, from among the flock, for a sin offering, for the rite of expiation for you. (Num 28:22 LXX)

In this case also the two texts coincide, apart from the difference of terms. It should be noted, however, that FJ states that this offering is for the priests, apparently taking for granted that this is for an expiation rite. From here FJ returns to Lev 23:11, which says that the day after the Saturday (n3$n) an offering of the first fruits of the harvest must be made. However, he leaves aside Lev 23:9—10, which declares that it is the Lord who imposes this sacrifice on Moses and that it will be maintained on entry into the promised land. In Lev 23:11 the difficulty of the Hebrew text is well-known. It says that the first sheaf shall be offered on the day following the Saturday (rQ$il). In the Jewish tradition there are two ways of inter-

THE PENTATEUCH

39

preting this phrase:32 one which sees in the word ni)©n (Saturday) a synonym for the feast, so that the offering should be made on the day following the feast, whether it be the Saturday or not; the other interprets the Saturday as the seventh day of the week, so that the offering will always be made on the Sunday following the first Saturday after the feast. Among those who support the former interpretation are Philo [Spec. 2.162) and the rabbinic literature (m. Menah. 10:3). From the rabbinic literature, it is known that the "Boethusians"— normally identified with a group of Sadducees33— represent the opposite view (m. Menah. 10:3). Whether the LXX adapts itself or not to the rabbinic tradition has already been debated, and there seems to be no solution within the limitations of the existing text.34 In Qumran they used a solar calendar of 364 days in which no commemoration fell on a Saturday.35 These calendars indicate that the presentation of the first sheaf always fell on the twenty-sixth of the first month, which was always a Sunday.36 This implies that for them the day mentioned in Lev 23:11, 15 was the Sunday after the week of Unleavened Bread, which went from the fifteenth (Wednesday) to the twenty-second (Wednesday).37 In another Qumran fragment (4Q513) the presentation of the first sheaf is mentioned—in a polemical context—but the fragment is too small to be able to enable the 32

Cf. m. Menah. 10:3. E. Nodet, Ant. 3.250 n. 1; P. Harle - D. Pralon, La Bible

cTAlexandrie, III, 189. A. Jaubert, La date de la Cene, 32. 35 A. Schremer, "The Name of the Boethusians," 290-299; presents briefly the various theories on the identification of this group. ;u In the LXX the word i"Q£?n (Saturday) is translated in v. 11 by xr\c, np(i>jr\q (of the first) and there appears to be a reference to the rabbinic tradition which understands rotSn (Saturday) as "after the first day of the feast"; on the other hand in v. 15 rQEin (Saturday) is translated xtov oaPfkrccov (Saturday or week). Accordingly, if the LXX has been adapted to the rabbinic tradition, v. 15 is inexplicable; but if it is contrary to the rabbinic tradition, v. 11 cannot be explained. Cf. H.B. Swete,

The Old Testament in Greek, 17. A.E. Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos, 142. !i F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (I)," 329-338; with a generous bibliography on the subject. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 93-140. * Among other fragments one can cite 4Q325, cf. F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (II)," 547. The book of Jubilees seems to agree with the calculation found in Qumran (Jub. 15:1; 44:4-5); cf. J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea, 31. t; In 4QLevh the text of Lev 23:11 is found, which seems to be identical to the MT. Evidently the halakah of Qumran interprets the Hebrew text literally, and hence the feast always falls on Sunday. What the biblical text does not explain is why it falls on the Sunday after the week of Unleavened Bread and not on the Sunday during the week of Unleavened Bread.

40

CHAPTER TWO

determination of the exact sense of its content.38 FJ also includes himself within the supporters of the first of these two positions, and furthermore declares that it is the sixteenth day.39 Both the Qumran texts and the precision with which FJ identifies the day indicate that the polemic found in m. Menah. 10:3 at least originated in the first century of this era. FJ then adds a justification for this offering, saying that they consider it right to honour God from whom they receive that abundance. He continues to describe how this offering of the first sheaf should be made. In this description he takes up again Lev 2:14-16, which says that the offering of the first fruits of the grain must be made with roasted ears. Apart from this detail, the two descriptions of the way in which this offering must be made do not agree at all. However, the method described by FJ is the same as is found in m. Menah. 10:4.40 When he speaks of the lamb that must be offered with the first ear, FJ cuts out all mention of the offering of flour, oil, and wine which, according to Lev 23:13, accompanies this sacrifice, probably because, as stated previously, in Ant. 3.233-235 he establishes it as a general rule. After this divergence from the text of Lev 23:11, FJ agrees again with Lev 23:12 when speaking of the sacrifice of a lamb that has to be done along with the offering of the first fruits. He does not make it clear, as on other occasions, that the lamb must be without blemish and one year old. Quotation 13

38 This is what the editor himself proposes, cf. M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4, 289-290. The nature of the halakic material found in 4 Q was much debated. There are two principal problems: a) to which group this halakic material should be attributed (Sadducees or Essenes); b) what link can be established with the Tannaitic halakah. J.M. Baumgarten and K.L. Hanson defend the antiquity of the Tannaitic halakah and the possibility of comparing it with Qumran material. J.M. Baumgarten, "Recent Qumran Discoveries and Halakhah," 147-158; K.L. Hanson, Reflections of Early Halakha, 142-158. 39 Tg. Onq., Neof., and Ps.-J., are on the same line of interpretation as FJ, cf. M. McNamara - R. Hayward - M. Maher, Targum JVeofiti 1: Leviticus; Targum

Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, 90 n. 7, 192 n. 7. 40

E. Nodet, Ant. 3.251 n. 4.

THE PENTATEUCH

As well as the first fruits of the harvest, a lamb is sacri-

41

l2

And on the day on which you bring the sheaf, you will offer

ficed as a holocaust to the

as a holocaust for the Lord a

Lord. (Ant. 3.251)

lamb without blemish and one year old. (Lev 23:12 LXX)

The content of Lev 23:14, where the harvesting of grain before offering the sacrifice is prohibited, is explained by FJ with two phrases: one which expresses the prohibition and another which specifies the moment at which the prohibition ceases (cf. m. Menah. 10:5). Quotation 14

. . . which have not been touched before [. . .] and then it is permitted for all to harvest both for public and private use. (Ant. 3.250, 251)

14

And you shall not eat until this day bread of roasted ear, until you have offered the gift to your God. (Lev 23:14 LXX)

In this way, FJ finishes his reinterpretation of the content of the two biblical pieces already mentioned. The other texts that refer to Passover in the Pentateuch FJ either ignores or barely mentions, as will be seen later. In Exod 34:25 the content of the covenant, renewed after the Israelites sinned with the golden calf, is laid down. The order is also given, as in Exod 12:10, that nothing of the sacrifice must remain until the following day. Since FJ omits the entire episode of the golden calf,41 logically he does not include the second list of laws. However, as the preceding texts have shown, one of the elements of Passover which he most emphasises is precisely the law that demands the consumption of the entire sacrifice during the night (cf. Ant. 2.312; 3.248). In Ant. 3.294, after describing the manufacture of the trumpets (Num 10:1-10), FJ returns to the text of Num 9:1 14, which describes the second celebration of Passover after the Exodus from Egypt.

H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 3.99 n. c.

42

CHAPTER TWO

Nevertheless, he mentions only briefly this second commemoration of Passover. Thus he leaves aside the possibility that God allows a celebration of Passover one month later, for those who are in an impure state at the time of the feast, either through contact with a corpse, or because they are travelling too far to be able to arrive at the right time (Num 9:6-13).42 He also ignores the possibility that a foreigner might celebrate Passover with the Hebrews (Num 9:14).43 Finally, in Ant. 4.203—204 FJ refers to the three annual pilgrimages which are laid down in the Pentateuch (Exod 23:14-19; Exod 34:22^26; Deut 16:16). Probably he grounds himself chiefly on the text of Deut 16:16, given the immediate context, which gathers together some laws from Deut. With the usual change of vocabulary, FJ respects the content of the law, which establishes three pilgrimages to the Temple. Quotation 15

They will gather together, then,

l6

in the city, in which they shall declare (that stands) the Tern-

male shall present himself before the Lord your God, in the place

pie, three times a year, from

which the Lord will choose,

the ends of the earth, that the Hebrews shall conquer . . . (Ant. 4.203)

(Deut 16:16 LXX)

Three times a year, every

Apart from the differences in vocabulary and other minor details, it is noteworthy that in Ant. it is not God who chooses the place of the Temple, but the people who declare where it shall be.44 The text of Deut 16:16 proceeds to name the three feasts which coincide

42

This may be related to the emphasis noted in Ant. 2.312 on purification. Philo also ignores this aspect, cf. G. Dorival, La Bible d'Alexandrie, IV, 272. 44 This could be an indication of the way in which FJ understands revelation, especially considering that shortly before this, he has stated that God will choose by means of prophecy the city where the Temple will be constructed (cf. Ant. 4.200). 43

THE PENTATEUCH

43

with these pilgrimages; by contrast, FJ does not mention the festivities, but includes an explanation of the purpose of such pilgrimages. These serve not only to thank and to petition God, but also to strengthen links among all the people of Israel by reminding them that they are one people with the same customs (cf. Ant. 4.204). In fact, FJ does not include the elements that Deut 16:1^8 gives on Passover. Nevertheless, his explanation of the meaning of the pilgrimages can serve to illuminate one aspect of the commemoration that is being examined, because in other passages FJ states explicitly that for the feast of Passover there were pilgrimages to Jerusalem (cf. J.W. 6.421). Hence one may transfer what is said about the pilgrimages to the Passover celebration, but without forgetting that it is not the only feast celebrated in conjunction with a pilgrimage (cf. Ant. 14.337; J.W. 2.515). 2.1. Summary

In this second series of texts, FJ preserves the same characteristics which were found in the series previously examined. As before, he is briefer and has a more refined style than the biblical text. One begins to discern a train of thought which seems to be what FJ wishes to leave as a general impression with respect to Passover. In fact, it has become clear that he adds three elements to the biblical text which he had somehow underlined in the first text analysed. These are the relation between Passover and the departure from Egypt, the family character of the feast, and the importance of keeping nothing from the sacrifice for the following day {Ant. 3.248). Another relevant aspect, in agreement with the idea of memorial introduced in Ant. 2.317, is the fact that when he speaks of the liberation from Egypt, he uses the first person plural. Thus, he includes himself among those saved from Egypt, in spite of the fact that the event belongs to his past {Ant. 3.248). In regard to the problem of the presentation of first fruits, FJ firmly lays down that they must be presented on the sixteenth of Nisan {Ant. 3.250), agreeing with Philo (Spec. 2.162) and the rabbinic literature (m. Menah. 10:3). He adds a series of details on the manner of presentation of the first fruits, which must be roasted, purified, ground, and divided between the altar and the priests (Ant. 3.251). This process, which is not completely clear, is the same

44

CHAPTER TWO

as that found in m. Menah. 10:4 in greater detail. Finally, it must be recalled that he adds an explanation of the meaning of this offering, saying that they consider it right in the first place to give glory to God from whom they receive this abundance (Ant. 3.250).

CHAPTER THREE

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 1. ANT. 5.20-32, 34 AND ITS REWRITING OF JOSH 4-6 The passages examined until now have not differed greatly between the Hebrew and Greek texts. However, that which must be looked at now shows considerable variations between the two textual traditions (e.g. Josh 6:3—8). It is not useful to spend time on a textual critical analysis concerning these pericopes.1 It is, however, necessary to pay attention to those passages where the rewriting of FJ seems to indicate a greater affinity with one or the other textual tradition (MT or LXX).2 Nevertheless, it is possible to anticipate that there will be few cases in which such a conjecture will be possible, due to the extent of the changes which FJ makes to his source(s). At this point a detailed analysis of Ant. 5.20-32, 34 can be embarked on, with the aim of demonstrating the changes FJ brings to the biblical text. In the first place, FJ begins with some details about the location of the Israelites' camp that are not found in the biblical text. Further on, he mentions the events described in Josh 4, summing them up in just one phrase. In this chapter, the biblical text describes the crossing of the river Jordan and the carrying out of God's command to raise up twelve stones taken from the riverbed as a memorial of this event for future generations. The MT presents a double tradition on the twelve stones. In Josh 4:9 it says that Joshua set them up in the middle of the river, under the feet of the priests who carried the Ark of the Covenant, while Josh 4:20 states that he set them up in the camp at Gilgal. The LXX resolves the contradiction by adding to v. 9 the word OC 1

There is no lack of studies on this theme; a good starting-point would be J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d'Alexandrie, VI, 32. 2 The text of Joshua found at Qumran (4QJoshab), which is in Hebrew, appears to represent another textual tradition quite unlike both MT and LXX. This is even shorter than LXX, but the fragments are too few to draw general conclusions. L. Greenspoon, "The Qumran Fragments," 159-194. E.C. Ulrich, "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar," 89-104.

46

CHAPTER THREE

(other). In this way it distinguishes between the stones which remained in the river and those that he set up later in the camp at Gilgal. FJ only mentions those stones that Joshua set up in Gilgal, ignoring the difficulty of the biblical text. He attributes to this monument the character of an altar, something not found in the biblical text.3 Furthermore, he says that on this altar Joshua sacrificed to God. In accordance with his style, he gives no more details on the kind of sacrifices offered. However it does not seem that they should be identified with Passover, which he goes on to mention with the verb eopxd^co (to feast), a verb with a broader meaning than the verb Qxxo (to sacrifice). By making an altar of this monolith, FJ does not deny its validity as a memorial of the crossing of the Jordan and of the retention of the river's flow. Indeed, he affirms it explicitly: T£K(ir)piov yevrio6|ievov xr\q dvaK07ni pev\jiaxoc, (as a sign of the retreat of the current) (Ant. 5.20). He also says that the stones with which the altar was constructed were taken from the riverbed by order of the prophet, who in this case would be Joshua (cf. Josh 4:5; Sir 46:1; Ant. 4.165). In this way, just as he had already done with the figure of Moses, he accentuates the part played by Joshua and diminishes the role of God, in that he does not say that the command actually comes from God (Josh 4:1-3). Proceeding immediately to mention the celebration of Passover, FJ excludes the circumcision of the Israelites born in the desert, which is described in Josh 5:2~8. The circumcision is linked with the etymology of the name Gilgal which appears in Josh 5:9. This omission could be due to several reasons: first, the Hebrew and Greek texts differ greatly; second, as already established, FJ avoids the connection between the circumcision and Passover (Ant. 2.311—319); third, FJ gives, as will be shown, a totally different etymology of the name Gilgal. Regarding the commemoration of Passover, he only says that they celebrated in this region, leaving out the indication of the date that 3 E.C. Ulrich suggests that the construction of the first altar in the Promised Land, according to the fragment of Josh found at Qumran (4QJosha), would be at Gilgal as FJ says. If E.C. Ulrich's suggestion is correct, FJ together with 4QJosha would represent another textual tradition distinct from MT and LXX. E.C. Ulrich, "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar," 92~93, 96. On this point, it is also possible that FJ does not ignore the textual difficulty of the twelve stones, but that this was absent from his text.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

47

appears in Josh 5:10. Between the mention of Passover and the cessation of the manna, after the Israelites came to enjoy the fruits of Canaan, FJ adds a gloss, which turns out to be very significant. In it, he contrasts the previous situation in the desert, when they were totally in need, with the present, when everything is readily available. It is noteworthy that both situations are linked by the celebration of Passover, since both commenced with the same feast. In this way, FJ also reinforces the link between the feast of Passover and the gathering of first fruits. This link exists in the biblical text, but only because these two events are contemporaneous. In reference to the gathering of first fruits, FJ uses the word "grain" (oixov). This term, in place of the broader concept of "fruit" in the MT (TI3I?), could perhaps be a small indication that FJ is closer to the Greek text which also uses this word.4 But, as has already been said, no certain conclusion can be drawn, given the difference between Ant. and the biblical text. It is equally difficult to divine whether FJ had in front of him the indication concerning the time: "from the day following Passover" (nOQPI rTFIQQ), which is not found in the Greek text; the free paraphrase of this passage does not allow a clear conclusion in favour of one or the other.5 Quotation 16

So then, the grain of the Canaanites, already ripe, they harvested and of the rest they made booty, (Ant. 5.21)

"And they ate the grain of the earth, unleavened bread and the first fruits on the same day. (Josh 5:11 LXX)

"And they ate the fruits of the earth, from the day following Passover, unleavened bread and roasted grain, on that same day. (Josh 5:11 MT)

1 This affinity does not imply that FJ had a Greek text in front of him. It is possible that there was a Hebrew text different from the MT. ' Here it can also be noted that he has already explained in Ant. 3.250 that the first fruits were only consumed from the second day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, on which the roasted grain was offered.

48

CHAPTER THREE

In regard to the manna, FJ is definitely states that the people were fed on it for forty years. In this case also, it is significant that the period in the desert is placed between instances when the people were fed on unleavened bread. FJ does not say explicitly that they ate unleavened bread, as in the biblical text (Josh 5:11). Although, it can be deduced from the fact that the leftovers from the grain (xoc Xoina) became booty (Xeiav), so that a part was eaten immediately, without their being able to let it rise (Ant. 5.21). In calculating the time spent in the desert—40 years—(Ant. 5.21; cf. Ant. 3.32), FJ agrees with the MT, since the LXX asserts in this passage that it was 42 years.6 Next, FJ ignores the episode of the meeting between Joshua and the angel, general of the army of the Lord (Josh 5:13—15). He passes directly to the account of the conquest of Jericho (Josh 6). Following the line of diminishing God's role, he disregards all the commands God gives to Joshua (Josh 6:1-5), and makes Joshua the protagonist in all the events. In fact, Joshua decides to surround the city because the Canaanites have not moved: on the contrary, they have closed themselves inside, even though the Israelites have gathered in their harvest of grain (Ant. 5.22). Faithful to his style, FJ does not trouble to anticipate the events in the form of orders (Josh 6:2^10) and then narrate the events briefly (Josh 6:11), as is common in the biblical text. Rather, he describes the events at length, according to his interpretation of the orders given in the biblical text. He tells how the first day of the siege unfolded, identifying it with the first day of the feast of Passover. According to E. Nodet, this identification, which does not come from Josh and goes against S. cOlam Rab. 11, contradicts the context of FJ's work.7 This affirmation, while indeed not illogical, appears a bit forced, because it is based on the assumption that the gathering of the edible grain must be after Passover.8 Although it is true that the highest quality grain ripens after Passover, barley, which is gathered before Passover, can be edible (cf. Lev 23:14). In fact, FJ declares in Ant. 3.250 that nobody shares in what has been gathered,9 before 6 7 8 9

J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d'Alexandrie, 118. E. Nodet, Ant. 5.22 n. 5. E. Nodet, Ant. 5.21 n. 3. If indeed the verb (ietaXa(i(3dv(0 (to take part) used by FJ does not only mean

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

49

making the offering on the sixteenth day of the first month. To identify the feast of Ant. 5.22 with Tabernacles, as E. Nodet suggests, does not seem justifiable, for the reasons already given, and because it would contradict the immediate context.10 FJ gives an account of the taking of Jericho which is concise and reasonably coherent. On the one hand, it harmonises the differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. On the other hand, it somewhat rationalises the order of the procession presented in Josh 6:21, by putting the soldiers around the ark for protection, and the old men (who do not appear in the biblical text) at the rear. In short, he repeatedly says that the only thing they did was to surround the city, while the priests played the trumpets. In this way, he does not rationalise the whole event by removing its miraculous character. In fact, the description of the first day closely resembles that of the second day as described in the biblical text (Josh 6:12-14), which is very similar in the MT and the LXX. Quotation 17

"to eat," from the context one can presume this meaning among others. In fact, Ant. 3.270 says that the priest uses the fistful of flour which is offered as food. Certainly Ant. 5.219 says that the barley cake, which symbolised Gideon, is too ordinary to serve as food. However, he seems to speak of a particular type of barley, which implies that not all the barley is inedible. Finally, it is also possible that the adv. f|5T| indicates an earlier than normal time for the ripening of the corn: otherwise it seems superfluous. Actually, the Jericho climate is hotter than that of the rest of Palestine and corn can ripen earlier. FJ was certainly well-aware of these details about local conditions (cf. J.W. 4.471-475). Cf. O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age, 57. 1(1 H. Weiss suggests identifying this feast with a Saturday. This is unlikely since the celebration of the Saturday lasts only one day. Thus, the expression "first day of the feast" cannot be linked to the Saturday; cf. H. Weiss, "The Sabbath," 370-371.

50

CHAPTER THREE

And, the first day of the feast, the priests carried the ark, around it a section of soldiers were on guard. And the former advanced, playing the seven trumpets to encourage the army.

12

And on the second day, Joshua got up in the morning and the priests took up the ark of the covenant of the Lord 13 and the seven priests who carried the seven trumpets marched before the Lord

And, Joshua got up early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the Lord. BAnd seven priests, who carried seven trumpets, played before the ark of the Lord, while they walked [...]

They made, then, the circuit of the wall, followed by the elders. And after the priests alone had played, then they did nothing else, they returned to the camp. (Ant. 5.22-23).

[...] they circled the city [...]

14

And they circled the city [...]

H

and they returned to the camp. (Josh 6:12-14a TM)

And they returned to the camp. (Josh 6:12-14a LXX)

12

From the description of the first day, FJ proceeds directly to the phrase of Josh 6:14b, which sums up all the activity of the six subsequent days, repeating it almost literally.

Quotation 18

And thus they did for six days . . . (Ant. 5.24)

l4

Thus he did for six days . . . (Josh 6.14b LXX)

l4

And for six days they did . . . (Josh 6.14b TM)

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

51

In this way, FJ continues his account of the events of the seventh day (Ant. 5.24), revisiting a fundamental element which he had omitted previously: God had put the city into their hands (Josh 6:2). For the action of transmitting this news, FJ uses the verbal form £\)T|YY£AA^ETO;11 in the biblical text Joshua announces this good news explicitly and in direct speech (cf. Josh 6:16). In the biblical text there follows a brief discourse in which Joshua gives orders regarding how the sack should be carried out and what to do with the prostitute Rahab.12 In Ant. 5.25-26 almost all the elements of this discourse are included, with some emphases on the manner of carrying out the slaughter and other minor differences, which do not offer any data significant for this study. FJ resumes his description of the capture of Jericho, staying closer to the biblical text than he has up to this point. However, as always, he maintains his differences of style and language. For the history of Rahab as well, he remains close to the biblical text, with small differences that do not affect this work. A sign of the likelihood that FJ was using a text closer to the textual tradition of the LXX, is the fact that, in reporting the curse of Joshua on whoever rebuilds Jericho, he refers to the fulfilment of that curse in the time of King Ahab (Ant. 5.31).13 It is precisely the Greek text—not the MT—which has a gloss referring to just that fulfilment (Josh 6:26). Finally, FJ places the etymology of the name Gilgal, which he had omitted in his rewriting of Josh 5:9, at the end of the whole history of the conquest of Jericho. In the biblical text the etymology is based on the Hebrew root ^ 3 (gll), which basically means "to roll in order to take away"; therefore Gilgal signifies the fact that God, by rolling, has taken away (nf?3) the shame of Egypt, after the people have been circumcised.

11 G. Friedrich maintains that FJ uses this verb with a meaning different from that of the OT. This seems unjustified, at least in this passage. The fact that this announcement is given after they have gone around Jericho presupposes that it is an announcement of something that will be accomplished without fail, and not merely a promise. G. Friedrich, "e{>ayyeA.i^o[iat," T\VKT II, 711-712. 12 FJ, like the Targum, presents her as an innkeeper cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.8 n. b. i;i Even though he promises that later he will describe the episode, in the paraphrase of 1 Kgs 16:34 (Ant. 8.318) he does not fulfil his promise, cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.31 n. a.

52

CHAPTER THREE

For FJ the etymology of the name Gilgal is "freedom,"14 because it says that, having crossed the river, they felt they were free, both from the Egyptians and from the misery of the desert. No doubt, it is a loose etymology by FJ, as H.St.J. Thackeray suggests,15 but it is also possible that FJ derives it from assonance with the Hebrew root b\&2 (g'l), which means to redeem.16 Beyond the real meaning of the word or the scientific basis of its etymology, the interpretation of FJ in itself is of real interest: it is highly significant that this entire passage ends with this kind of synthesis of the complete account of the liberation from Egypt. If doubts remained about the relation between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, this section makes it clear that—for FJ— the process began at the Passover of Egypt is concluded only at the Passover of Gilgal. The latter marks the definitive liberation from slavery and the beginning of the conquest of the land of Canaan.17 1.1. Summary

In this narrative (Ant. 5.20-32.34), apart from the textual difficulties, it is clear that FJ preserves the characteristics observed in the preceding passages. His text is more concise than the biblical one and resolves some of its contradictions. The figure of God is diminished in favour of greater prominence for Joshua (Ant. 5.20), just as FJ did in order to give greater prominence to Moses (Ant. 2.311-319). As in his resume of the Passover of Egypt, the theme of circumcision is left aside.18 There are vari14

He applies the same etymology to the word "?3f when speaking of the Jubilee year {Ant. 3.283). 15 H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.34 n. e. 16 This being the case, it could be another indication that the text which FJ has in front of him is similar to that of the LXX, which gives the name as Galgala {Takyaka). It has already been noted that names are the least reliable guides for proving the use of one or another textual type. However, in this case, the etymological connection could strengthen the probability of the hypothesis. 17 E. Nodet and J. Taylor maintain that for FJ there is no link between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, cf. E. Nodet - J. Taylor, Essai sur les Origins du Christianisme, 346. Another proof that FJ was not unaware of and that he did not discount the union of these two events, is that in Ant. 4.242—following Deut 26:1-10—FJ says that an Israelite, after he has presented the tithe, will have to give thanks for being freed from Egypt and brought into the Land. As E. Nodet observes, this event is linked by FJ to the pilgrimage feasts and thus also to Passover, cf. Id., Ant. 4.242 n. 2, 5. Another text which shows a very close link between the escape from Egypt and the occupation of the land is Ant. 2.268-269. 18 Cf. ch. VI 8 3.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

53

ous indications in the account of Ant. 5.20—32, 34 which cause one to think that, with his revision of the biblical text, he wants to emphasise both the union between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, and the connection of Passover with the gathering in of the grain. In fact, he identifies the first day—of the seven days it took to conquer Jericho with the first of Passover. This fact, along with his mentioning the etymology of the name of Gilgal at the end of the passage (Ant. 5.34), gives to all the events a paschal character, which is not evident in the biblical text. 2. THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN THE PERIOD OF THE MONARCHY ACCORDING TO FJ

Throughout the entire literary collection of 1—2 Kings, the only mention of a commemoration of Passover occurs in 2 Kgs 23:21 23, where King Josiah—after his religious reform—organises it. On the other hand, in the books of Chronicles, there is also a celebration of Passover in the time of King Hezekiah, corresponding to his religious reform (2 Chr 30).19 FJ, for his part, refers to the celebration of Passover both under King Hezekiah and in the time of King Josiah.20 2.1. The Passover of Hezekiah

Concerning the reign of Hezekiah, FJ makes particularly unusual use of the sources.21 At one moment he develops the content of 2 Chr 29~30, showing a Hezekiah who is devout and a reformer (Ant. 19 From 1-2 Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles, there is the so-called Lucianic or Antiochene recension of the LXX. Generally, for the passages to be examined in this work, it does not introduce variations of note. In fact, in the edition of this recension by N. Fernandez Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz, no mention of FJ appears in the notes, even though the authors claim to be very thorough in mentioning the occasions when FJ and the said recension coincide. N. Fernandez Marcos —J.R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno, II, 148-155; III, 148-154. M.V. Spottorno claims that it is not possible to draw general conclusions about the text used by FJ in his rewriting of 1-2 Kings; regarding 1-2 Chronicles, she believes the points of agreement between FJ and the LXXAnt are very relevant; M.V. Spottorno, "Josephus' Text for 1-2 Kings," 151-152; Id., "The Books of Chronicles," 390. 20 For an overall view of the biblical texts that will be dealt with in this work, one can consult P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti, 539-553, 620-649. 21 In a recent article of 1997, C. Begg again proposes what he claimed in his book in 1993, namely, that studies comparing Ant. with 1-2 Kings or 1-2 Chronicles

54

CHAPTER THREE

9.260-276); at another moment, after describing the fall of the northern kingdom, he presents the reign of Hezekiah in a less favourable light (Ant. 10.1-35) re-using the content of 2 Kgs 18 20, which mentions the religious reform, but does not report the celebration of Passover.22 In analysing Ant. 9.260 276, one discovers that FJ, apart from varying his source in the usual manner, draws together the content of 2 Chr 29-30, and alters the order of some episodes. In the first place, he inserts Hezekiah's invitation to all Israel to celebrate Passover between the purification of the Temple and the rites of expiation carried out by the king, the dignitaries, and the people. In this way, he arranges the events so that all those who would then participate in the feast are also present at the moment of expiation, whereas in the biblical text only the inhabitants of Jerusalem make expiation. With this change, he avoids all the difficulties presented by 2 Chr 30 regarding the ritual purity of participants in the feast, and insists once again on the fact that ritual purity is indispensable in order to celebrate Passover. Concerning the invitation of Hezekiah to take part in the celebration, FJ reflects almost all the elements of the biblical text, expressing them in a different style: for example, he changes direct speech

are still lacking. As for the passages which he has studied, C. Begg claims that FJ makes use of one or the other work equally, and applies to both his typical modifications. E. Nodet, on the other hand, asks himself—generalising the conclusions of E.C. Ulrich—if FJ actually knew 1-2 Chronicles or had a fuller text of 1 Samuel-2 Kings than one knows today. As far as concerns the part of Ant. which is in question, one can say that it contains elements found today in 2 Chronicles. It is difficult to believe that one can affirm from the data available today whether FJ had them already included in his text of 2 Kings. Regarding FJ's way of combining in this passage the sources known today, it seems right to agree with the conclusions of C. Begg's article. However, a comprehensive response to the problem of the sources for this section of Ant. would be beyond the scope of this work. E. Nodet, "Pourquoi Josephe?," 100. E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel, 163-164. C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 2-3; Id., "Joash of Judah," 317-320. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 165-178. 22 L.H. Feldman says that FJ, faced with the figure of Hezekiah, finds himself at a crossroads, since it was likely that even in his time Hezekiah was seen as a prototype of the Messiah, something which FJ obviously could not accept. Given this difficulty, FJ's presentation of Hezekiah is very ambiguous, because, on the one hand, he is unwilling to exalt him, and, on the other hand, he cannot deny that during his reign God intervened miraculously, as FJ himself will record in his speech to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (J. W. 5.388). For this reason, FJ will emphasise the piety of Hezekiah, the quality which moved God to help him; cf. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus's Portrait of Hezekiah," 597-610.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

55

to indirect. The most outstanding aspect is that FJ feels it necessary to declare that Hezekiah had no political aim to reunite the kingdom, but that he invited the Israelites to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover freely and for their own good (Ant. 9.264). In this way, he synthesises the long exhortation of the biblical text (2 Chr 30:5 8) with this paragraph (Ant. 9.264). Quotation 19

!l

He said this to encourage them, not to make them in this way submit to him, if they did not wish, but for the personal good of each one, since they would be blessed. (Ant. 9.264)

8

And now, do not stiffen your necks. Give glory to the Lord God and enter into his sanctuary, which he has sanctified forever, and serve the Lord your God and he will repent of his anger against you. -'Because when you convert to the Lord, your brothers and your sons will enter into the goodwill of all those who have deported them, and he will make them return to this land. Because the Lord our God is merciful and kind and he will not turn his face from us, if we convert to him. (2 Chr 30:8-9 LXX)

He proceeds to describe how the majority of Israelites reject the invitation and make fun of the king's envoys. Furthermore, FJ injects greater vitality into his narrative by adding that they also despised and finally

56

CHAPTER THREE

killed the local prophets, who were announcing their destruction within a short time, should they reject the king's invitation. Just as in the biblical text, FJ says that, in spite of everything, some men decide to take part in the feast, influenced by the encouragement of the prophets who do not appear in the biblical text. By this, he continues to insist on the theme of the prophets. Nor does he agree with the biblical text in listing the tribes to which these men belong, since he omits those of Asher and Ephraim, who appear in 2 Chr 30:11, 18 respectively. Quotation 20

Many, however, of the tribe of "But some men of Asher and of Manasseh and of Zebulon Manasseh and of Zebulon and of Issachar, being conwere ashamed and went to vinced by the prophets who Jerusalem. (2 Chr 30:11 LXX) were calling them to loyalty, were converted. (Ant. 9.267) As already mentioned, at the very moment when all who have accepted the invitation to Passover are in Jerusalem, FJ inserts the sacrifices of expiation, which are found in the biblical text in 2 Chr 29:20—36. In this case, he again stays close to the biblical passage, while still modifying the style and some details (Ant. 9.268-270). Immediately afterwards, FJ describes the celebration of Passover, which, according to him, took place on the usual date in the first month (Ant. 9.271). In doing so, he once again avoids mentioning the possibility of commemorating Passover in the second month, as he had done in Ant. 3.294.23 This makes it more probable that FJ did not accept this practice, since he does not merely omit a part of the text, but also modifies it.24 23 The link between 2 Chr 30 and Num 9:6-11, as M. Delcor remarks, has been noted by the majority of commentators. M. Delcor, "Le reck de la celebration de la Paque," 106. 24 By contrast, in the calendar found in Qumran, the Passover of the second month always appears; what one does not know is this: whether it was intended

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 57hhhhhhhhhhh

In this passage, FJ maintains the distinction between the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover. He combines them in the same way as the biblical text: i.e., naming them separately but as two acts of worship intimately linked. Between the mention of the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover, the biblical text says that the altars in Jerusalem were torn down (2 Chr 30:14). FJ, on the other hand, omits this description, and will only mention later the other purification of the land described in 2 Chr 31:1. In this way, he presents a more ordered and less repetitive sequence of events. Quotation 21

When the feast of

13

And many people gathered in

Unleavened Bread arrived, having sacrificed the sacri-

Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Unleavened Bread in the

fice called Passover, for seven days they offered the remaining sacrifices. (Ant. 9.271)

second month, a very great assembly. 15And they sacrificed Passover on the fourteenth of the second month. (2 Chr 30:13, 15a LXX)

In regard to the events occurring during this celebration, FJ excludes some aspects that are important for the biblical text. Firstly, having already resolved the problem of the purification of the people, he does not mention that the Levites had to celebrate Passover in place of those who had not been purified, and that some people of Ephraim dared to sacrifice without ritual purity. Secondly, he does not report the songs sung by the priests and Levites during the sacrifices of the week of Unleavened Bread.23 Thirdly, he omits to note that Hezekiah decided to continue the commemoration for a further seven days. It

for those who were not purified in the first month or simply as another feast for all. F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (I)," 332. 20 However, he describes the musical performance of the Levites and the priests during the rites of purification before the week of Unleavened Bread, cf. Ant. 9.269.

58

CHAPTER THREE

is possible that this practice was inconceivable for FJ; so he places the sacrifices in the first week which, according to the biblical text, were offered during the second. While he agrees with the biblical text that the king and the dignitaries donated the sacrifices, he does not agree on the quantities of big or small cattle that were sacrificed. Finally, he avoids listing those who take part in the feast, while, in the biblical text (2 Ghr 30:25) these also include foreign residents (CH^n) in Israel and in Judah.26 Both the biblical text (2 Ghr 30:26) and Ant. 9.272 conclude the account of Passover with the affirmation that such a feast had not been celebrated since the time of King Solomon. It is interesting to note that while the MT says in general terms that there had not been such joy (nnptp) in Jerusalem since the time of Solomon, the LXX and Ant. refer specifically to the feast (eopxri). Quotation 22 KOcl TOVTOV TOV TpOTIOV

GOTO Ix)h}\iG)vov—from the point of view of textual criticism; cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J.W. 2.279 n. 2; L.H. Feldman, Ant. 20.256 n. 1. 76 There is a tendency to view as relative the importance which FJ attributed to the land, particularly when assuming only part of the conclusions of the work of B. Halpern-Amaru. Nevertheless, as P. Spilsbury occasionally notes, this element is not at all secondary and FJ's view of the Diaspora is ambiguous. On the one hand, he sees it as the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, while on the other, he sees clearly the dangers this implies. L.H. Feldman, in his article on the exile, emphasises the positive view of the Diaspora, without stressing any danger. Later in Rewritten Bible he briefly mentions the danger of assimilation, and \iews as relative the opposition of FJ to mixed marriages. However, the separation of the Jews (dfit^ta) does not seem to be a problem for FJ (cf. Ant. 13.245-247). In fact, as K. Berthelot demonstrates, FJ does not respond to the accusation of separatism among the Jews, except by means of a circular argument which does not deny their separation (otui^ia); cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 183; B. HalpernAmaru, "Land Theology'," 219-229; L.H. Feldman, "The Concept of Exile," 145-172 esp. 172; Id., Rewritten Bible, 544; P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 70-71, 123-124, 152-153, 159; K. Berthelot, "Kotvcovia et Oitaxv0pomia," 120. 11

S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 62.

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

115

it is not irrelevant that the Jews are prepared to leave the celebration of a feast in order to take up arms. The narrative of Ant. ends just before the beginning of the war, since FJ himself says that, for knowledge of what happened in the following period, the work he wrote previously can be read (Ant. 20.258). In Ant. 20.255^257 he says that before the war the people were forced by the situation to abandon their own customs and to emigrate abroad. In other words, an anti-exodus was taking place. 6. PASSOVER DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE JEWISH WAR

FJ seems to bestow secondary importance on the fact that the Jews decided to interrupt the sacrifice in honour of the emperor. This would be a real declaration of war against Rome {J.W. 2.409). However, he accentuates the events preceding this decision, in order to make it clear that the war truly began in response to the atrocities committed by Florus {J.W. 2.284).78 In this way, even if the terminology is ambiguous and presents the beginning of the war as a process and not as a particular moment,79 it seems fair to say that, for FJ, hostilities began in the month of Artemisius in A.D. 66 (J.W. 2.284; cf. Ant. 20.184).80 In relation to this date, the other indirect reference to the beginning of the war is comprehensible: wishing to justify the great number of deaths during the siege of Jerusalem, FJ says that a great multitude of people was present, because the war had taken them by surprise when they went up to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (J. W. 6.421). Certainly it is strange that, after four years, all the people who went up to Jerusalem for the Passover of 66 had not been able to return to their homes. However, one cannot rule out the fact that many freely chose to remain in order to support the rebels' cause, and that others were not able to embark on the return journey.81 78

J.S. McLaren, Power and Politics, 169-170. When he refers to the cessation of sacrifices in favour of the emperor (J. W. 2.409), he says that this was the foundation (mTapo?if|) for the war, as if it were a formal declaration, but in J. W. 2.284 he says that it was the beginning (dpxT|v) of the war. 80 According to J J. Price, FJ is not consistent, and sometimes puts in different contexts statements which are self-contradictory. The consequence is a confused vision of some events. Accepting the possibility that FJ may not always be consistent, it still seems that J. W. 2.409, 284 are not necessarily contradictory; cf. J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 188 n. 13. 81 Although the numbers given by FJ are undoubtedly exaggerated, it should be 79

1 16

CHAPTER FIVE

There is, nevertheless, another possibility, namely, that the point made in J. W. 6.421 refers to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (cf. J.W. 5.567), by Titus.82 However, this hypothesis presents two major difficulties: first, it is practically impossible that the Romans would have allowed a great number of people to gather in Jerusalem—while they had almost all the territory under their control—for the celebration of the year 70;83 second, it does not make sense that FJ should say that they suddenly (i^amv^q) found themselves trapped in the war (rc6A,£|io'3~lPn ]'3), which is not completely clear (cf. Exod 12:6; Lev 23:5). Excluded from the number of those admitted were those with leprosy or gonorrhoea, women who were menstruating, and all those who were impure. Thus it is obvious that, already in J.W., FJ is noticeably preoccupied with the idea of ritual purity in relation to Passover. On the other hand, it is interesting to observe the connection between purity (mGapoc;) and holiness (ccyioq). Further on he will deny, clearly and only this once, the possibility that foreigners could participate in Passover (aXXoyxyXoit;).109 This is a difficult idea for him to present, given that the Jews were accused of misanthropy (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.148). Perhaps he may be excused from criticism in this case because here he is speaking precisely of the number of people covered by the census and not of a total exclusion from worship.110 In Ant. 3.321 there is a mention of Unleavened Bread which seems to be totally casual. This is a proof of the coercive power of the 10/

The term that he uses here ((paxp(a) is linked etymologically to the semantic field of the family. However, since out of four occurrences {J.W. 6.423; Ant. 2.312; 3.248), only once is it not used to designate the Passover assembly (Ant. 5.43), it cannot be certain to what type of association it refers. In any case, it presumably refers to family groups, as the text of Exod 12:4 says. 108 The difference seems to be that in rabbinic literature those assembled had to be males more than 13 years old. For FJ, even if he uses the word dvfip (adult male), they can also be women, since he explicitly excludes menstruating women. In Ant. 11.109 he clearly states that the women and the children purified themselves for the feast; cf. E. Ashtor, "Minyan," XII, 67. 109 In ch. VIII § 2, FJ's vision of the relations between Jews and non-Jews will be carefully analysed. 110 The word GprjaKeia (worship) did not imply sacrifice. Another passage in which he clearly says that generally foreigners cannot sacrifice is Ant. 3.318-319. From that passage, even if he strives to present the situation in an edifying form, one can presume that, in reality, events did not unfold in such a peaceful way (cf. Acts 21:27-31).

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

123

Law of Moses. The example given by FJ is that, at a time of great need slightly before the Jewish war, the priests did not eat even a crumb (icp{|ivov), although great quantities of flour had arrived, probably from abroad. H.St.J. Thackeray says it must be understood that the flour had already been made into loaves with leaven, so that they were not permitted to eat it at that feast.111 Nevertheless, since he speaks previously of flour (dXeupou) and not of cooked bread, it is possible that the prohibition stems from the foreign origin of the flour: an analogous case would be that of the oil which the Jews apparently did not accept from foreigners {J. W. 2.591-592; Ant. 12.119-120; Life 74-76).112 In any case, for the purposes of this work it should simply be noted that an example of strict adherence to the Law is directly linked with the feast of Passover, which clearly emphasises the importance of the latter. These passages complete the examination of explicit references to Passover in the work of FJ. Meanwhile it should not be forgotten that neither Life nor Ag. Ap. make any mention of this feast or of any other celebration.113 By way of a temporary balance sheet, it can be said that Passover is the feast mentioned most in the known work of FJ. 7.1. Summary

Apart from the references already indicated, there are two other explicit mentions of Passover in J. W. One is related along with the listing of extraordinary events, which, for FJ, represented a warning from God for his people, but were seen as a positive sign by the rebels. The other appears when FJ details the total number of human

111

H.StJ. Thackeray, Ant. 3.321 n. d. M. Goodman, "Kosher Olive Oil," 227-231. 113 In Life and Ag. Ap. the Jewish feasts are not explicitly mentioned (eopxri). The only time that sacrifices in general are spoken of, a more generic word is used: eijcoxvoc (revelry) {Ag. Ap. 2.138). The other reference states that the Jews cannot have great revelry (EIKOXIOC) on the occasion of the birth of a son {Ag. Ap. 2.204). The exception would be the Sabbath (od(3(3aTov), which is named three times in Life 159, 275, 279 and five times in Ag. Ap. 2.20-27, plus two others with the word seventh (epSo^on;), referring to the days of the week {Ag. Ap. 2.175, 282). Although he does not expressly state that the Sabbath is a feast (eopxn), elsewhere in FJ's work it is clearly put on a par with the feasts (cf. J.W. 5.230; Ant. 13.52; 14.242). 112

124

CHAPTER FIVE

victims during the siege of Jerusalem. While justifying this figure, he mentions the census carried out by Cestius during the feast of Passover. In Ant. 3.321 there is also a reference to Passover, but it appears to have no particular significance. The argument that FJ is developing is the importance of keeping the law for the Jews, and the example he gives is precisely the strict observance of one of the commands for that feast. While it is true, as has been noted, that neither in Ag. Ap. nor in Life is there a mention of Passover, a simple calculation demonstrates that, in all the surviving works of FJ, Passover is the feast mentioned most. 8. Two

SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS?

If the accounts of the sieges of Jerusalem by Pompey and Titus are studied, some eloquent analogies quickly appear. Regarding the first, there are two texts {J.W. 1.142-154; Ant. 14.58-73) which basically describe the same events, with the addition of some extra details in the second version.114 The second is transmitted only by J.W. 5.106-135 and refers to events that FJ had been an eyewitness. It is useful to list the elements common to both episodes, without forgetting the inevitable differences found when dealing with two distinct events, which are also separated in time. In both passages, there is a Roman general who is preparing to conquer Jerusalem and finds the city divided into two factions {J.W. 1.142-144; 5.105). In the case of Pompey one party is on his side and another against him, while in the case of Titus both parties are against him. However, with intent to ambush, one group pretends to be willing to open the gates for Titus {J.W. 1.143; 5.109-119). In this case, a group of unruly soldiers falls into the trap and Titus wants revenge, but, due to the mediation of the other legionaries, he withdraws his threats. With this problem resolved, both texts describe in detail how the Roman army sets about the siege. The texts agree in designating the northwest sector as the area where the military manoeuvres begin. However, the geography of Jerusalem does not permit better alternatives, so for this reason, it 114

This section of Ant. appears to follow J. W. (cf. ch. V § 1) so closely that a detailed comparison does not seem worthwhile.

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

125

probably happened just like that in both episodes. This does not alter the fact that FJ could have been inspired by what he witnessed to describe what happened a century earlier."3 Obviously, the description of the siege and conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is much longer and more detailed than that of 63 B.C. Consequently, a comparison with the later material is impracticable. All that remains to be done is to examine the supposed omission indicated in the title of this section. This concerns the possible mention of Passover, at least as an aid to dating. It is convenient to begin with J. W. 5.128 135, where the omission seems to be more evident. In fact, J.W. 5.567 states plainly that the day on which Titus pressed the siege was the fourteenth of Xanthicus, but there is absolutely no trace of this in its proper context. Furthermore, just before he describes the movements of the armies towards Jerusalem {J.W. 5.106), FJ relates an act of treachery by John—one of the leaders of the revolt {J.W. 5.98-105)— which will give him command of the Temple on the very day of Passover in A.D. 70. Consequently, at the moment of the siege, Passover seems to be already an event of the past, when in truth these are simultaneous events. Thus, FJ does not mention Passover in relation to the advance of Titus. Rather, it seems he wishes to show that the feast had passed, and that during it, the Jews had once again behaved in a disastrous way by turning against one another. The vague mention in J.W. 5.567 of the fourteenth of Xanthicus is not easy to connect, in continuous reading, with the episode described in J.W. 5.128 135. In a similar way, FJ appears to have scrupulously concealed a potential connection between Pompey's bellicose activity and Passover, even though here things are less clear. A detail in J.W. 1.138 and in Ant. 14.53 makes it obvious that the attack took place in spring, i.e., that Pompey knew of the death of Mithridates before advancing on Jerusalem. Other sources inidcate that this happened in the spring of 63 B.C.,116 which means that these events approximately coincide with the feast of Passover.

113

From this instance, the possible contradiction could arise between this passage and J. IV. 5.506 on the position of Pompey's camp. 116 Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.53 n. d. Furthermore, Ant. 14.38 says that Pompey abandoned his winter quarters at the beginning of spring.

126

CHAPTER FIVE

In both versions, he insists on the priests' faithfulness to their worship during a very difficult situation, but he only explicitly refers to the daily sacrifice,117 while the other terms he uses are general and do not permit discovery as to which feast was being celebrated. Nevertheless, the date of Jerusalem's fall into the hands of Pompey could be another indication that the time of Passover is in question. In J.W. 1.149 he says that it was after three months of siege, and in Ant. 14.66, apart from the exact year, he says it was on the day of fasting. This generated much debate; because if he meant Yom Kippur, the dates would not fit. For this reason, it is suggested that FJ had copied this from non-Jewish authors who confused the Sabbath with a day of fasting.118 This solution is not entirely satisfactory either. Indeed, another possibility is that this was a day of fasting already known in the time of FJ, which rabbinic literature preserved in a clearer form. However, this hipothesis is not without some difficulties (cf. b. Tcfan. 28b). The implied fast would be the one in the fourth month, the seventeenth of the month of Tammuz, which is linked to the ninth of the month of Av, the day of the destruction of the Temple. According to the Mishnah (m. Tcfan. 4:6), on the seventeenth of Tammuz, five setbacks took place: a) Moses broke the tablets of the Law; b) a breech was opened into the city; c) the daily offering was interrupted; d) Apostomos burnt a roll of the Law in the Temple; and e) an idol was placed in the Temple. Some of these events, for which there is no other evidence, could have happened on the day that Pompey entered the Temple. It is still more probable that FJ looks for some similarity with previous tradition, as he does in J.W. 6.250, when he links two catastrophic events, such as the two occasions when the Temple was burnt. In any case, what does seem plausible is that a date for fasting during the fourth month was already known in the time of FJ. Thus, there would be another indication that the beginning of the siege took place during the time of Passover. If it were possible to be certain that the mention of the fast referred to the seventeenth of Tammuz,

117 It should be remembered that in the previous episode, while rabbinic literature speaks of the daily sacrifice, FJ refers to Passover (cf. Ant. 14.19-28). Here he asserts that the daily sacrifice was not interrupted, in spite of the difficulties of the war, which seems highly unlikely. 118 Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.66 n. c.

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

127

the siege would have started during the week of Passover (the seventeenth of Xanthicus). Once it could be shown with some degree of probability that FJ' aim is to avoid relating Passover to these two events caused by the Romans, it would be necessary to set forth a reasonable explanation for what does not seem to be merely by chance. The two episodes are preceded by an account of the exceedingly serious rivalries among the Jews in the midst of a celebration of Passover. One may also disregard the fact that, precisely at the time of the feast commemorating the liberation from Egypt, the Romans decide to press the siege around Jerusalem. Bearing all this in mind, the simplest explanation seems to be the use of a literary device to underline his main point—made exactly after describing the entry of Pompey into the Temple (Ant. 14.77)—that the disastrous situation of the Jews is due to their internal divisions, and in passing, he manages to excuse the Romans for taking advantage of this celebration to exercise their warlike activities. This section leads to the conclusion that probably the two omissions are not insignificant, but rather contribute to the purposes of this author. 8.1. Summary

Between the two descriptions of the sieges of Jerusalem, by Pompey and Titus respectively, there are clearly discernible analogies. What is of greatest concern to this work is that both attacks appear to be preceded by the celebration of a Passover. This prompts to the thought that FJ constructed these two episodes with the intention of accenting one of the ideas that inspires his work, namely, that the internal divisions among the different Jewish groups brought the whole nation to ruin. At the same time, he succeeds in concealing the fact that the Romans took advantage of the festivity in order to attack the Jews. Consequently, these two omissions are significant because they would aid in consolidating one of the messages that FJ wished to convey. 9. CONCLUSION

It has become clear from analysing the reference to the feast of Passover in J. IV., that, on the majority of occasions, it is named only

128

CHAPTER FIVE

in relation to other events, and thus does not appear to play a fundamental part in the work. However, two references to Passover— one direct and the other indirect—give the impression that, for FJ, this festival is not so insignificant (J.W. 2.280-283; 7.401). The first of these is Passover of A.D. 66, during which—as it seems for FJ— the hostilities that will lead to declaration of war against the Romans begin; the other is the allusion to the fifteenth of Xanthicus (Nisan) as the day on which the war ended definitively, after the conquest of Masada. The fact that FJ links—it seems intentionally—the beginning and subsequent failure of the war with the feast of Passover, indicate that FJ saw this event in the light of a commemoration which celebrated exactly the opposite, namely, the liberation of Israel. Confirmation of this theory can be found in the fact that many of the prodigies which occurred before the beginning of the war and presaged the defeat are also located by FJ in the period between Passover and Pentecost {J.W. 6.290 300).119 The examination of Ant. has disclosed that these intuitions gain strength from the reality that during the entire period when J.W. and Ant. are parallel, the references to Passover in Ant. are more frequent. The impression conveyed is that FJ adopts and develops the idea of Passover as the antithesis of the events of war, because he apparently wishes to provide some clear indicators for the Romans' presence in Palestine, adding a reference to Passover. Actually, it has already been noted that, in Ant. 14.19 28, FJ adds a mention of Passover at the moment when the Romans first intervene in Palestine. This intervention is the fruit of internal divisions among the rulers in Jerusalem, and these conflicts among the leaders of the people reach a climax during a celebration of Passover. If indeed it is true that the pilgrimage festivals were meant to reinforce the bonds of unity among the Jews, it has become evident that FJ highlights Passover in a special way and sets conflict situations within it in order to stress the intrinsic evil of the divisions among those who are called to lead the people. Within this event specifically, he presents an isolated group who prefer to return to Egypt, perhaps with the intention of finding surroundings which will permit fulfilment of the Law. This supposition is based on the

Cf. chap. VII § 2.

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

129

definition of this group as those "most highly regarded" (5oKi|j.cbTaxoi). Undoubtedly, this was an alternative reaction to the chaotic situation which had arisen. There are three other sections that are parallel in J. W. and Ant. and refer to Passover. In the first section, the two texts do not present great differences and, as was shown, the allusion to Passover is merely incidental {J.W. 2.8-13; Ant. 17.208-218). Perhaps the version of Ant. regarding this event reveals FJ's tendency as somewhat accentuated, because he puts the statement that it was a time of "harmony" (ojxovoeiv) in the mouth of Archelaus; on the other hand, in the narrative of Ant. FJ also emphasises that Passover is a feast when they sacrifice with zeal, with the number of victims exceeding that of any other celebration. The other two passages do not present great differences between the versions of J.W. and Ant., and in both cases the mention of the festivities serves only as a temporal marker to the unfolding of events {J.W. 2.224-227; 2.241-244; Ant. 20.105-112; 20.128-132). In the eighteenth book of Ant., FJ once again adds some episodes related to Passover, which have no parallel in J.W. In general, it has already been demonstrated that these events are accompanied by certain incidents, which will inevitably lead to the unleashing of hostilities. The first episode mentions a rather strange incident perpetrated by the Samaritans (Ant. 18.29-30), who for some reason wished to contaminate the Temple of Jerusalem with human bones during a Passover night. This event, as became clear, generates more questions than answers, but what seems relevant—and has already been stated—is that FJ places it during the governorship of Coponius, who was the first procurator of Judea. Another possible reason for incorporating this incident into the narrative of Ant. could be the desire to complete the portrayal of the religious groups existing in Palestine, since somewhat earlier FJ had briefly described the various philosophies current in Judaism. Another text of Ant. which speaks of Passover has also been examined. It has no equivalent in J.W., and deals with the visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem during a feast of Passover (Ant. 18.90—95). This reference is also linked with, or at least coincides with, another event, which seems to be relevant to FJ's presentation of the Roman presence in Palestine. He is describing the end of the tenure of the procurator Pontius Pilate, who was, according to FJ, the first procurator to abuse his power, causing protests on the part of discontented Jews.

130

CHAPTER FIVE

FJ describes two visits by Vitellius to Jerusalem, which again presumably indicate his intentions. He situates the first of these to coincide with a feast of Passover, though it is almost certain that was not the case. He thus clarifies once again the position he attributes to Passover in Ant. In contrast, it is practically certain that the second visit by Vitellius took place at Passover in A.D. 37 (Ant. 18.120 124), but in this case FJ does not refer to this feast, because he apparently does not wish to identify it with the concern that Vitellius should not enter Jerusalem with foreign troops. It has already been suggested that FJ probably wished to separate Passover from these reactions to the presence or foreign military, which would have been more accentuated at Passover, since this feast celebrates liberation from foreign rule. This episode permits the suggestion that a feast of Passover is also at stake when they asked Herod not to enter Jerusalem with foreign soldiers during an unspecified feast, and not during that of Tabernacles, as others have thought. The last element which must be pointed out is that FJ finishes his account of events in Ant. with a presentation of a kind of anti-exodus. A great number of people realise that they cannot live in Palestine according to the Law any longer and so decide to emigrate. Faced with this, FJ has two concerns. One is the fear of the Jews who had emigrated so they might be absorbed into the other nations, a fate which he defines as "to die little by little." The other is that the tyranny imposed by thugs and bad Roman procurators might forever deprive the Jews of the land that God had given them, after finding themselves forced to begin a war which would end in disaster. At this point in the work it can be asserted that, in spite of the lack of information about Passover that can be garnered from the narrative of events in the Second Temple period, such information as there is acquires a certain relevance when placed within the broad spectrum of FJ's work. It is not difficult to imagine that, at the time FJ was writing J. IV., he had already linked their loss of freedom with the feast that commemorated the beginning of their freedom. This tendency seems to become more conscious and intentional in Ant. Hence, it appears that FJ wished to emphasise, by mentioning Passover, certain key dates in the process, which would lead to the total loss of political autonomy for the Jews. The probable omission of Passover at two key moments in the process of submission to the Romans, namely, the sieges of Pompey

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

131

and Titus, which actually seem to happen during this feast, could serve as a counterproof of the partial results achieved. Both are preceded by—but apparently are not connected to—the allusion to a Passover at which strong rivalries among the Jews arose and which would subsequently contribute to the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. These partial conclusions lead to the question of what, in the consciousness of the people—beyond the differences between opposite groups—was the real meaning or relevance of Passover. It seems that it might also legitimately asked whether FJ saw in Passover a feast which could play an important role in the reconstruction of Judaism—as FJ conceived it—after A.D. 70.

This page intentionally left blank

EXCURSUS ONE: THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ

Without any doubt, the theme of purity occupies an important position in both biblical and post-biblical Judaism, as it does in other religions. This has elicited a considerable list of works approaching this subject from various points of view.1 In the first place, the system of purity as described in the Sacred Scriptures seems to present some inconsistencies or internal contradictions. Hence attempts have been made to discover the logic behind the individual prescriptions. The classic author in this field is J. Milgrom, who maintains that the basic contaminating element is death, and that the other sources of contamination can all be explained by analogy with this element.2 The discussion on this matter continues to produce opposing views, even up to the present time.3 In the second place, there is also an abundant bibliography that addresses the post-biblical period.4 Concerning the system of purity upheld by rabbinic literature, the outstanding author is J. Neusner, with his copious works.3 He basically maintains that the rabbis created a system that was not based exclusively on biblical prescriptions, and that they adapted the laws of purity to the new situations confronting them. Furthermore, there are studies of the laws of purification in other Jewish works, such as Jubilees or the Qumran literature.6 It is clearly impossible here to embark on a description of the problems embraced by such a broad theme. For such a task, it is possible to consult the introduction of H.K. Harrington, who outlines the question clearly and synthetically.7

1

For an introduction and general bibliography, compare F. Hauck - R. Meyer, "KaGapoq," TWNT III, 416-430; J. Klausner, "Purity and Impurity," 1405-1414. 2 J. Milgrom, "Rationale for Cultic Law," 103-109; Id., "Confusing the Sacred and the Impure," 554-559. 3 R.A. Kugler, "Holiness, Purity, the Body, and Society," 3-27. 4 H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems, 293-304; F. Garcia Martinez, "The Problem of Purity," 165-168. ' J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism; Id., A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities; Id., Purity in Rabbinic Judaism. 6

J. Milgrom, "The Concept of Impurity," 277-284; E. Lupieri, "La purita impura," 15-43; F. Garcia Martinez, "The Problem of Purity," 165-186. ' In this work, the most important views held on this theme over the last

134

EXCURSUS ONE

On the other hand, FJ's contribution to the understanding of the system of purification in early Judaism does not seem to have aroused interest similar to that which has just been presented.8 G. Vermes, in an article dedicated to FJ's presentation of the laws, affirms that the laws of purification do not occupy a pre-eminent position for FJ. Thus he contradicts rabbinic literature, which does accord them a central role.9 Nevertheless, it must be remembered that FJ promises a special work on the laws:10 as L.H. Feldman says, it is understandable that FJ does not develop this theme a great deal, since his work is a history and not a juridical treatise.11 Furthermore, if this theme is considered throughout the entire work of FJ and not only in the juridical sections, it will become evident that, far from being secondary, it is of primary importance. Before outlining briefly what FJ says in regard to this question,12 it is necessary to remember that already in biblical writings, there is a link between ritual and moral purity.13 These two spheres are united by one central reality which justifies both, namely, the holiness of God. For the purpose of simplification, the following equation is fundamental: all moral impurity is simultaneously ritual, but not all ritual impurity is automatically moral. This clarification is vital in order to understand the information provided by FJ. Many of the texts which speak of purity in his work are difficult to decipher, precisely because these two aspects interlock without always having clearly defined limits (cf. J. W. 2.7; 5.380; Ant. 3.278). hundred years are presented. The contribution of sociology with works such as that of M. Douglas is valued by H.K. Harrington, but she considers that it cannot be applied without previously examining the sources: H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems, 1-43. For a critique of H.K. Harrington's work, the recension of E. Nodet and an article by J. Maier can be consulted. These show that not all the laws of purity in Judaism can be linked with the Pentateuch; cf. E. Nodet, "Recensions: The Impurity System," 116-128; J. Maier, "La Torah di purita nel Levitico," 39-66; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger. 8 Cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 500-502. 9 G. Vermes, "A Summary of the Law," 292. 10 Cf. Ant. 3.223, 257; 4.198; 20.268. 11 L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 510. 12 A monograph on this subject in FJ would be invaluable, but would extend beyond the scope of this work. 13 J. Klawans, "The Impurity of Immorality," 1-16; Id., "Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity," 391-415. Strangely, in neither of the two articles—otherwise excellently written—is there any mention of FJ.

THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ

135

As far terminology is concerned, FJ's language can be described as varied and specific, thus displaying his accurate knowledge on the subject. The two principal semantic areas to be examined are those derived from the verbs ayve'ucQ (to purify ritually)14 and KocGapeixo (to purify in general).15 The first of these verbs is the more specific, and almost certainly refers to strictly ritual purity.16 Noteworthy for this research is the close relation established by FJ between this type of purity and the sacrificial system (cf. Ant. 3.224 273), which includes the entire festive calendar of Israel. A good example of the precision of this expression is to be found in a passage that speaks of the baptism of John the Baptist, which is only a ritual symbol (ocyveia) of a purity of soul (rcpo£KK£Ka9ap|ievr| It is also found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus some seventeen times; cf. AntRom. 1.21.1; 1.57.2; 2.3.8; 2.12.1; 5.53.1; etc. The word dvapOnrixog (countlesss) which occurs in Ant. 17.213, also appears once in AntRom. 13.4.2; E. Cary, The Roman Antiquities, I, 66-67, 188-189, 322-323, 346-347; III, 156-157; VII, 242243. :i:i

152

EXCURSUS TWO

come from FJ's pen, because if it had already been present in Nicolaus of Damascus, he would presumably not have omitted it from J.W. 2.10. In summary, the signs of a re-working of the source seem to be clear. However, in this case FJ does not appear to be combining two independent sources. Instead, keeping J. W. 2.10 in front of him, he uses Nicolaus of Damascus once again. Furthermore, he adds details from his own hand, at times using terminology he may have learned from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. After this analysis, it is possible to affirm that, in this case, the redactional technique of FJ is very similar to that which has been noted in the examination of his re-working of the biblical text. Furthermore, it is clear that he is not afraid to repeat some aspects already mentioned, even if the variations of language suggest that he is not simply copying what has already been said. With respect to his possible readers, this examination of his language seems to confirm what was suggested in the introduction,36 that he aspires to reach both non-Jews and Jews. This conclusion can be drawn from the basic scheme which he follows in the majority of his references to Passover, since he gives sufficient detail for those who do not know Jewish customs, without ever being so inexact that he might arouse criticism among his compatriots. This diligence on two fronts seems more evident in Ant. than in his first work.

Cf. § 2.

PART THREE TOWARDS A SETTING AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SIX

THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE 1. SOME INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS

It is obvious that FJ cannot be considered in isolation or outside his cultural and temporal context. It is essential to immerse oneself in the wide variety of works, which have been handed down by Judaism, in order to understand the elements shared with the work of FJ, those which he wishes to emphasise, as well as the new elements he wishes to present. Given the particular character of this work, it will not be feasible to examine deeply each of the writers to be considered in the same way as has been done with the writings of FJ. In each case we shall draw, as far as possible, on previous works on the subject, even if these are, unfortunately, not very numerous. In this comparison, no attempt is made to establish parallels in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, it is assumed that—as far as previous Jewish literature is concerned—FJ knew it, either directly or indirectly;' in each case it will be shown what kind of relationship is to be found between the texts compared. With respect to rabbinic literature, it is easy to determine the use of traditions shared with FJ.2 2. PASSOVER IN THE WRITINGS OF POST-EXILIC PROPHETS

Attention has already been paid to the texts from the exilic period that explicitly mention Passover, and to how FJ presents them in Ant. The prophetic books normally attributed to this period make no reference to Passover, except for a brief portion of Ezekiel (Ezek 45:21 24), which gives a series of legal prescriptions to be applied in the post-exilic period.3 It is worth mentioning that, in this context, Ezekiel 1

L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Isaiah," 583. SJ.D. Cohen, "Parallel Historical Tradition," 7-14. [i The number of animals that have to be sacrificed during the seven days of Unleavened Bread does not coincide with the prescriptions of Num 28:19, nor indeed with those of Ant. 3.249. 2

156

CHAPTER SIX

refers to a rite of purification, which precedes the feast of Passover (Ezek 45:18-20). Even though it is not exactly equal to the purifying power attributed by FJ to the blood of the Paschal sacrifice (Ant. 2.312), there appears to be a connection here between Passover and purification, not found in the Pentateuch.4 In another passage of Ezekiel (Ezek 32:17-32) there is an oracle, which in the LXX is dated the fifteenth day of the first month, that is to say, very probably during Passover. However, Origen considers that the phrase "of the first month" (xo\) 7ipcoxo"u (rnvoc;) should be removed, so that it agrees with the version of the MT. The oracle mentions Egypt, Pharaoh, his army and the descent to the depths of the underworld. These themes undoubtedly recall the crossing of the Red Sea: from this the connection with Passover could have arisen, by which the reference to the firs1 month would have been added to the date. The other possibility—which appears less probable—is that the MT modified the date in an attempt to reduce the polemic sense of Passover, since in this oracle the destruction of the peoples hostile to Israel is prophesied. In any case, whether the LXX is the more original text or this is merely a case of a gloss, it can be said that this text definitely shows an association between the defeat of Egypt and of the other foreign nations with Passover. It is also important to note the mention of the uncircumcised (Ezek 32:19, 21, 24-30, 32),5 because the Passover meal is the only one of which it is explicitly said that no uncircumcised person should take part (cf. Exod 12:43—49). The prophet Isaiah does not explicitly mention Passover,6 but the so-called Deutero-Isaiah (Is 40-55) makes generous use of the Exodus theme as the key in the reading of the return from exile. The structuring of this material has elicited to considerable discussion up to

4 Only Num 9:6-14 mentions the possibility of celebrating Passover in the second month for those who are impure through contact with a corpse on the fourteenth day of the first month, but there is no mention of an obligatory rite of purification during the first days of the first month; cf. Excursus I. 5 In this passage, the uncircumcised are mentioned more often than in all the OT and NT (seven times in the LXX; ten times in the MT). 6 The problem with the composition of the book of Isaiah has aroused a great debate in recent times. For an orientation in the different approaches to the study of Isaiah cf. M.A. Sweeney, "The Book of Isaiah," 141-162.

THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE

157

the present,7 but pursuit of this theme would extend beyond the limits of this work. It is sufficient to note that in Isa 40-48 the motif of the Exodus is employed as one of the vehicles for the announcement of salvation.8 The Exodus is viewed as the opening of a way and also as a journey under God's protection: the writer ignores the aspect of liberation from an oppression, or that of taking possession of the land.9 FJ undoubtedly places great importance on the role of the prophets and of prophecy, but in the case of Isaiah he tends to diminish it.10 As far as the Exodus is concerned, FJ appears to accentuate the idea of the "journey" less than the idea of salvation (cf. Ant. 2.347).11 With respect to the return from exile and the prophecy of Isaiah, he emphasises more the possibility of returning to take possession of the land of the Fathers (cf. Ant. 11.2-7); this distances him from the reinterpretation of Deutero-Isaiah. More than anything else it must be made clear that from the very beginning of the post-exilic period, the events linked with Passover and the Exodus are seen as prototypes of God's action in favour of his people. For this reason, one should not be surprised if FJ, in his reworking of Jewish history, attributes to Passover—which for him embraces the time from the leaving of Egypt to the conquest of the land12—a particular role, as already demonstrated. The antiquity of this link between the Exodus and the return from exile supports the suggestion that FJ identifies Passover with the feast celebrated before the return from Babylon (Ant. 11.66).

7

Cf. C. Stuhlmueller, "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions," 1-5; A. Laato, "The Composition of Isaiah 40-55," 201-208; J. Werlitz, Redaktion und Komposition, 1-14. 8 Stuhlmueller maintains that chs. 41-48 can be considered as a unity with their own particular theology; cf. C. Stuhlmueller, "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions," 8. The theme of the Exodus also appears in other passages of Deutero-Isaiah (49:8~12; 50:2; 51:9-10; 52:11-12; 55:12-13), but these passages do not substantially change what is said in Isa 40-48. 9 The conclusions of Kiesow are the fruit of a historic-redactional analysis, which he then tries to fit into the context of the whole book of Isaiah; K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch, 190-191, 201-203. 10 L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Isaiah," 607-608. " When he uses the word "journey" (686 47 48

Cf. ch. II § 2. D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily,

Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath,

and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival

Prayers, 21-57, 155-187. Prayers, 2 1 . Prayers, 34. Prayers, 175-176. Prayers, 176-178. Prayers, 253-255.

166

CHAPTER SIX

of the meaning of Passover that would be common to a significant proportion of the Jews of that period. A text of the Temple Scroll can also be helpful because it mentions some norms in relation to Passover (11QJ9 xvii).49 D. Altshuler shows that FJ presumably did not make any use of the Temple Scroll at all, and that one of the few similarities between Ant. 3 4 and this work is the grouping of the laws together in thematic form.50 The portion that is of interest here—even though it is a completely new redaction—reflects the laws given in Lev 23:5-14 and Num 28:16-25. For this reason, it also agrees with FJ, who, as has been noted, is quite faithful to these two texts. The only detail added to the biblical text in 11Q) 9 xvii is that the participants must be at least twenty years old.51 This regulation—as noted a little above—is also found in Jub. but not in FJ. On the other hand, according to Sh. Talmon and J. Ben-Dov, the Temple Scroll shares with the fragment 4Q326 the fact that it separates the ritual of the Passover sacrifice from the feast of Unleavened Bread.52 Now, when FJ wishes to be precise—as has been mentioned33—he also makes a clear distinction between these two rituals, and thus also resembles, in this respect, the two documents referred to here. Another fragment, which does not explicitly mention Passover, is 4Q462. This is likewise of significance for the purposes of this work. Line 13 mentions, according to the editor,'4 a second period of slavery in Egypt after an unspecified reign which will be endured.53 The text is admittedly obscure, but seems to have clear biblical connotations and would refer to the command not to return to Egypt (Exod 14:13; Deut 17:16; Hos 11:5).56 49 Regarding this work cf. M.O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll, 195-201; E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 1-8. 50 D. Altshuler, "On the Classification of Judaic Laws," 1-14. Dl This is probably deduced from Num 1:20; cf. E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 27. 52 Sh. Talmon J. Ben-Dov, "4Q326—A Festival Calendar," 167-176. ;3 ' Cf. ch. IV § 2. 04 His reading seems acceptable; cf. M. Broshi et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 200-203. Recently it has been suggested that 4Q467 is another copy of the text of 4Q462, and for this reason adds some words to lines 2-4 of 4Q462; cf. E. Tigchelaar, "More Identifications of Scraps and Overlaps," 63-64. 55 4Q462 13: lft]'pm rD^QQ ^p3 VT1D D'-tfM 1X1] n:m[ * M. Smith, the editor of the text, suggests this; cf. M. Broshi et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 203-204.

THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE

167

According to M. Smith, there are three possible interpretations of this text, namely, that it refers either to a second captivity of Israel in Egypt (cf. Hos 8:13b; 11:5a), or to the flight to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian exile, or to the Jewish community in Egypt during the post-exilic period. M. Smith holds the third as the most likely, and links it with a gloss inserted in the Temple Scroll 56.16 as well as in Pss. Sol. 17.33.57 There it is evident that the prohibition against a return to Egypt applies exclusively to a return for the purpose of war (nnn^D1?), which would legitimise the existence of a Jewish community in Egypt. In revisiting the main argument, it has already been seen that at the time of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulos II—in the view of FJ—a group of important characters fled to Egypt (Ant. 14.21)."8 Even if it cannot be claimed that 4Q462 13 or Temple Scroll 56.16; Pss. Sol. 17.33 are linked directly with this event,59 the difficulty seems to be similar. Thus, one can maintain that Ant. 14.21 together with Temple Scroll 56.16; Pss. Sol. 17.33 do not see the biblical prohibition against returning to Egypt as absolute, nor even as an event negative in itself, as 4Q462 13 seems to suggest.60 Recently, some further halakic texts belonging to the fourth cave have been published.61 In one of these fragments (4Q265 3) there is an allusion to Passover. In spite of its brevity, it is noteworthy for this study.62 It prohibits minors and women from taking part in the feast, which—as the editor points out—has no parallel in the work of FJ, but is found in Jub. 49.17 and in 11Q19 xvii. Nevertheless, there is a likeness to FJ's insistence on the problem of purity, which

5/

D. Rosen - A. Salvesen, "A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll," 99—101. Cf. ch. V § 1. M The mention of the end of a kingdom (HD^QQ ^p^) as the condition for the restoration would allow for the possibility that this fragment might refer to the event described in Ant. 14.21, namely, that those who went away to Egypt were the same as those who were awaiting the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. However, the brevity of both passages does not permit one to propose the likelihood of this hypothesis. 1)0 J. Vazquez Allegue, in an article of limited usefulness, appears to suggest that this text expresses the situation of the inhabitants of Qumran, who lived their real situation as a time of slaver)7, and for this reason were awaiting a new Exodus. J. Vazquez Allegue, "El 'Segundo Exodo' en Qumran," 61-83. This subject has already been well-examined by D.R. Schwartz, "Temple and Desert," 29-43; cf. ch. VII § 1.3. 1)1 J.M. Baumgarten et al, Qumran Cave 4, 57-78 esp. 63-64. 1)2 The reconstruction and commentaries by the editor are adopted here. 58

168

CHAPTER SIX

this prohibition intends to protect. The difference lies in the fact that FJ does not exclude a particular category of persons, but rather those who are impure on the date of the feast. However, what is truly intriguing is the biblical quotation found in this section and which, J.M. Baumgarten claims, should be linked to this regulation.63 This comes from Mai 2:10, which says that all have been created by God, and therefore it makes no sense to be dishonest with one another. From the context, one concludes that the word "all" includes only the members of the community, who would be male and adult.64 Hence, this interpretation is similar to what FJ says in relation to Passover, as far as it excludes some person from the celebration, and suggests the idea of unity and the absence of any mixing.63 7. PASSOVER IN ARISTOBULUS

Only five fragments of this author have survived until the present day, preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea.66 The very first of these includes a mention of Passover.6' It specifies that this feast must be celebrated after the spring equinox when the moon is exactly at the opposite extreme, namely, in the position of the autumn equinox, after sunset. This brief reference undoubtedly recalls to mind Ant. 3.248 where FJ declares that the date of Passover is fixed according to the moon, but it must take place when the sun is in Aries. J.M.G. Barclay thinks that Aristobulus is justifying—within his naturalist theology—two institutions that are central to Jewish life: Passover, in this fragment, and in the fifth fragment, the Sabbath. Aristobulus, then, is ascribing a cosmic meaning to this feast, since it comes within the structure of nature, and for this reason is completely rational.68 63

J.M. Baumgarten et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 64. Concerning this biblical quotation in this fragment cf. J.M. Baumgarten, "Scripture and Law in 4Q265," 31-33. 65 Cf. ch. VIII § 2. 66 Two of these are in the work of Clement of Alexandria and one in Anatolius, but all five fragments are only to be found in the work of Eusebius. For an introduction to these cf. A.Y. Collins, "Aristobulus," 831-836; C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, 43-126. 67 On the position of this fragment in the work of Eusebius and its use in the debate over the date of Passover in the first centuries of Christianity cf. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, 198-199 n. 1. b8 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 155. 54

THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE

169

Without entering into a deep consideration of the intention of this author and his possible contacts with Stoicism, as J.M.G. Barclay suggests,69 it seems that the fragmentary nature of the material does not permit such clear assertions. The parallel of FJ shows that a similar affirmation in a much broader context cannot be credited with such definite significance. For this reason, it seems essential not to fall into the temptation to attribute rashly the same ideas to FJ based on such a brief statement/0 Finally, it must be pointed out that, in this fragment, Aristobulus calls Passover the "feast of the crossings" (xfj xcov SiaPaxriptcov eopxfi). This term (Sux|3axf|pia) was normally used for sacrifices performed before crossing a frontier or a river/1 As pointed out earlier, FJ explains in Ant. 2.313 the etymology of Passover as tmepfiaoia (to pass over), thus staying closer to the biblical text. By contrast, Philo seems to follow Aristobulus in this terminology, using—as will be seen later—the words 8uxPocxf|pioc and 8idpacnv" (whence, still now);3 for Hanukkah, "|oixpi tov Sevpo" (up to this point);4 for Passover, "o0ev vvv exi" (hence, even now).5 Among the pilgrimage festivities, Tabernacles has a pre-eminent place in the works of FJ.6 In Ant. 8.100 he asserts that for the Hebrews it was the holiest and greatest celebration (ccyicoxaxric; Kal |i£yiaxr|ayyeWE;°Lun," TWKT II, 705-718. Garcia Martinez, F., "El problema de la pureza: la solution qumranica," in Los hombres de Qumran. Literatura, estructura social y concepciones religiosas, eds. F. Garcia Martinez - J. Trebolle Barrera, Madrid 1993, 165-186. , "Calendarios en Qumran (I), EstBib 54 (1996) 327-348. , "Calendarios en Qumran (II), EstBib 54 (1996) 523-552. Garrett, S.R., "Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24," CBQ52 (1990) 656-680. Gerber, Ch., "Die Heiligen Schriften des Judentums nach Flavius Josephus," in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, eds. M. Hengel - H. Ltihr, WUNT 73, Tubingen 1994, 91-113. , Ein Bild des Judentums fur Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus. Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem, AGJU 40, Leiden - New York - Koln, 1997. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews. VI. Notes to Volumes III and IV. From Moses in the Wilderness to Ester, Philadelphia 19879. Godley, A.D., Herodotus. In Four Volumes, LCL 117-120, London - Cambridge (MA) 1920-1925. Goldberg, A., Untersuchungen u'ber die Vorstellungen von der Schekhinah in der fruhen rabbinischen Likratur. Talmud und Midrash, SJ 5, Berlin 1969. Goodman, M., The Ruling Class of Judea. The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70, Cambridge 1987. , "Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity," in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, eds. P.R. Davies - R.T. White, JSOTSup 100, Sheffield 1990, 227-245. , "Josephus as Roman Citizen," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS M. Smith, eds. J. Sievers - F. Parente, StPB 41, Leiden - New YorkKoln 1994, 229-238. Gray, R., Prophetic Figures in IMU Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The Evidence from Josephus, New York - Oxford 1993. Greenspoon, L., "The Qumran Fragments of Joshua," in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990), eds. GJ. Brooke B. Lindars, SBLSCS 33, Atlanta 1992, 159-194. Gruen, E.S., "The Origins and Objectives of Onias' Temple," SCI 16 (1997), 40-70. Guttmann, A., "The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult," HUCA 38 (1967) 137-148. Halpern-Amaru, B., "Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities," JQR 71 (1980— 1981) 201-229. Hamacher, E. et al, "Literaturnachtrage," ThWAT X, 561.598 Hanson, K.L., Reflections of Early Halakha in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ann Arbor 1993. Harl, M., "L'originalite lexicale de la version grecque du Deuteronome (LXX) et la 'paraphrase' de Flavius Josephe (AJ. IV 176-331)," in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Paris 1992, eds. L. Greenspoon - O. Munnich, SBLSCS 41, Atlanta 1995, 1-20. Harle, P. - Pralon, D., La Bible d'Alexandrie. Le Levitique, Paris 1988. Harmand, R., CEuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Reinach.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Harrill, J.A., "The Dramatic Function of the Running Slave Rhoda (Acts 12.13-16): A Piece of Greco-Roman Comedy," NTS 46 (2000) 150-157. Harrington, D.J., Invitation to the Apocrypha, Grand Rapids - Cambridge 1999. Harrington, H.K., The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Biblical Foundations, SBLDS 143, Atlanta 1993. Hauck, F. - Meyer, R., "Ka0ap6