Josephus and History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-Biblica)

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA GENFRAL EDITOR

DAVID S. KATZ (Vc\ Aviv) /\DVlSORY EDITORS

ITHAMAR GRUENWALD (Tel Aviv) FFRGUS MILLAR (Oxford)

VOLUME 41

JOSEPHUS AND THE HISTORY OF THE GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD Essays

in Memory

of Morton

Smith

KI)lTEr> RY

FAUSTO

PARENTK

JOSEPH

SIEVERS

•7

^^'^

^

•'6 8 V

E J . L E I D E N

B R I L L

• N E W

Y O R K

1994

•

K O L N

T h e paper in this bwtk meets thp guidelines for p e r m a n e n c e a n d durability of the C o m m i t t e e on P r o d u c t i o n (Juidcliiics for Book L o n g e v i t y of t h e C o u n c i l on I J b r a r y Resources.

Library of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publicatioii D a t a J o s e p h u s and the hisioiy of the G r e c o - R o m a n period: essays in m e m o r y of Morton Smith / edited by Fausto Parente a n d Joseph Sievers. p. c m . - S t u d i a post-Bibiica, ISSN 0169-9717 ; v. 41) Proceedings of the Josepluis CoLoquium, held Nov. 2-5, 1992, in San Mininto, Italy. Itichides bibliogiaphi.--Mistorio,graphy -eidcn ; New York ; Koln : Brill, 1994 (Studia post-biblicA ; V o l . 4 1 ) I S R N 90 04- 1 0 1 1 4 - 4 N b / I'arenle, Fausto |Hrsg.);

GT

ISSN 0169-9717 ISBN 90 04 10114 4 SD Copytigkt 1994 by E.J. Brill, lAden, llie Netherlands AH rights ratncd. JVo paH of this publication may be reproduced, Iramlaled, stored in a retrieval iyslem, or Iransmifled In anyjorm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or olhenviie, without prior umtten permission from the publisher. Aulhonzation lo photocopy itans foi internal or personal use is panted hy E.J. Brill provided that tlie appropriate fees are paid direct!} lo The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Roseivood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. fees are subject lo change. I'RL."^RKD T.N TIIE NETHKRLANDS

MORTON SMITH May 28, 1915 - July 11, 1991

CONTENTS

Editors' Preface and Acknowledgments

IX

IN MEMORIAM MORTON SMHTI SIIAYI- J. D . COHEN, Morion Smith and his Scholarly Achievement

1

P A R T I. P H I L O L O G I C A L Q U E S T I O N S

KlJCIO TROIANI, University of Pavia The noXiTcia of Israel in the Graeco-Roman

Age

11

SHAYB J.D.COHEN, Brown University, Providence, R.I. 'Iou5o(.roeb translators consistently translate ' l o u S a i o c / a "Jewish" or "Jew/ess," but adopt various translations for TO yk\oc,. They take Y E v o c to m e a n ' e i t h e r "birth" ("a Jew by birth," 1,2,3,5,6), or "race" ( " a Jew by race," 4,7,8), which in this context ! assume has the equivalent force o f the word "nation" {yi\oc, = E&VOI; and Xa6t6(; T t Q 'louSaroc; t o ykvoQ and the meaning of the passage would not have c h a n g e d . " Third, t h e s e passages demonstrate that generally the function of the phrase t o ykvoQ is to limit the scope of the identity indicated by the ethnic noun. Daniel R. Schwartz has argued that Josephus uses the phrase l E p E u c ; t o yiwi^ t o designate men w h o were priests by birth but not priests by function, that is, men w h o were of priestly lineage but w h o did not actually officiate as priests in the temple of Jerusalem. Priests functioning in the temple would simply be called Uptic. (Schwartz 1981). Similarly, s o m e o n e w h o is an "Idumaean by birth," is, in all likelihood, an Idumaean only by birth; by s o m e other criterion he either is not an Idumaean, or is no longer an Idumaean, or is not behaving as an Idumaean might be expected to behave. In the JW 1 § 123, Josephus says that Antipater was "an Idumaean by birth {yivoc, S'^v 'IBoufiatoc;) w h o was o n e of the most prominent men of his p e o p l e (e^voc;)." The qualification "by birth" prepares the reader for

" JW 1 § 432 {yivoc, JJV

'lepaoXOtiwv); 5 § 532 {yiw(^ i'i 'A\i[i<xo\it;,); 6 § 54

(yevoi; a r o Zupiac;); Ant 19 § 17 (ex KopByPr);; . . . yiwc,). "Birth" clearly seems the preferable alternative in Ant 17 § 78 ( c f JW 1 § 432); 18 § 314; 20 § 163; Life § 126; cf. AgAp 1 § 250 and 265 ( M a n e t h o ) . In any case in (b) a b o v e the translation "by n a t i o n ' is unlikely, since cities d o not constitute e&vi]. " T h e p h r a s e ^xctSev T O yevoi; is J o s e p h u s ' addition t o Daniel: 5.10,13; t h e p h r a s e is not found e i t h e r in our A r a m a i c Daniel or in t h e Septuagint o r in Theodotion.

32

SHAYF, J.D. COHEN

the fact that, when we meet him, Antipater is no longer active in Idumaea but is devoting all his time and attention to Judaean politics, specifically the interests of Hyrcanus against Aristobulus.'" Similarly, Kurycles is called a "Spartan by birth" because w h e n we meet him he is far from Sparta {JW 1 § 513). Corinthus was an "Arab by birth" but was brought up not in Arabia but in Herod's kingdom {JW 1 § 576). Rufus w a s "an Egyptian by birth," but is a R o m a n soldier {JW 7 § 199). A n d so o n for the bulk of the passages listed above under (a), (b), and (c). T o y£.voatin literature

indicates that

various

slanders a b o u t Jewish origins and c u s t o m s w e r e current in first-century R o m e (e.g. Tacitus,

Hist

5.1-13; Whittaker 1984: 35-84). T h e popular

derision may not h a v e had much practical effect o n its o w n , but it can only h a v e b e e n e x a c e r b a t e d by anti-Jewish s e n t i m e n t s arising from t h e war. J o s e p h u s , for his part, considers il urgent to "refute t h o s e w h o in their writings w e r e d o i n g outrage to the truth" (Ant 1 § 4, s p e a k i n g of t h e War). H e invites t h e G r e e k - s p e a k i n g reader l o j u d g e , o n t h e basis o f his narrative, w h e t h e r t h e Jewish lawgiver did not impart a worthy

168

S T E V E MASON

c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d {Ant 1 §§ 15, 2 4 ) . His a c c o u n t of biblical history m e a n s t o s h o w that Jews have a n o b l e history, e m b r a c e t h e highest ideals o f e(>o£peia and SixaioauMri, and are therefore

exemplary

citizens. In m a k i n g this general point, J o s e p h u s introduces a n u m b e r o f specific t h e m e s that will govern the s h a p e o f his s u b s e q u e n t narrative: ( a ) t h e Jewish v i e w of G o d holds that h e supervises everything ( n a v x a fentpXeicwv; Ant

1 § 20), exercising watchful care over h u m a n affairs

(cf. TCpovoia; Ant

1 §§ 45, 226); (b) M o s e s has trained t h e J e w s in

virtue {^Lpe:TT^•,Ant 1 §§ 6 , 2 0 ) ; and (c) Jewish history d e m o n s t r a t e s that G o d invariably rewards t h o s e w h o practice virtue and live in accord with t h e laws, while punishing t h o s e w h o transgress. This is t h e l e s s o n o f Jewish scripture {Ant

1 §§ 14, 2 1 ) . H a r o l d Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) has

s h o w n that t h e s e t h e m e s e m e r g e repeatedly t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Bible in Ant

1-11.

O t h e r c o m m e n t a t o r s have n o t e d that t h e preface t o t h e

Antiquities

is laced with t h e language o f contemporary philosophy ( W e i s s 1979: 4 2 1 - 3 3 ) . A p p a r e n t l y J o s e p h u s wishes to enter Judaism as an o p t i o n in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l market-place. T h e Jewish view of G o d ' s nature is s o p h i s t i c a t e d and philcsophical, J o s e p h u s says, which is why Jewish l a w a c c o r d s s o perfectly with natural law {fMaiohoyia.; T6Jv (pOaet; Ant

Ant 1 §§ 1 8 - 2 0 / xfj

1 § 2 4 ) . M o s e s ' teaching will b e found "highly p h i l o ­

sophical" ( > t a v (poXoootpot;) by t h o s e w h o care t o investigate it (Ant 1 § 2 5 ) . Just as t h e G r e c o - R o m a n s c h o o l s have their o w n prescriptions for e£)Sai(xovta, Judaism offers this as a reward t o t h o s e w h o o b e y t h e laws (Ant

1 §§ 14, 2 0 ) . T h r o u g h o u t t h e following story, A b r a h a m ,

M o s e s , a n d S o l o m o n all a p p e a r as wise philosophers, and t h e Jewish s e c t s are s c h o o l s (cptXoaofiai or aEpeocic;) of t h e national p h i l o s o p h y {Ant 13 § § 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 18 §§ 11-25). T h i s brief sketch will suffice to s h o w that J o s e p h u s ' substantial p a r a p h r a s e o f D a n i e l {Ant 10 §§ 1 8 5 - 2 8 1 ) is written s o as t o e n h a n c e t h e overall i m p a c t of t h e

Antiquities. M o s t striking is J o s e p h u s ' c o n ­

c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t . Having s h o w n that the exilic figure predicted t h e p e r s e c u t i o n u n d e r A n t i o c h u s IV {Ant 10 § 2 7 5 ) and e v e n t h e R o m a n d e s t r u c t i o n o f Jerusalem {Ant 10 § 2 7 6 ) , he points out t h e folly o f t h e E p i c u r e a n s , w h o e x c l u d e providence (icpovotav ^Kp&XXouai) and d e n y that G o d supervises h u m a n affairs. D a n i e l proves

Ihc Antiquities' t h e s i s

that G o d d o e s exercise watchful care o v e r h u m a n affairs {Ant 10 § § 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 ) . This attack o n t h e i m p i o u s Epicureans b o t h sustains his

JOSCPHUS,

DANIHL, AND T H E FlJWIAN

HOUSE

169

a r g u m e n t a n d m a k e s J o s e p h u s a conversation partner with his gentile c o n t e m p o r a r i e s (cf. Plutarch, Pyth. Or. 9 ) . In k e e p i n g with this philosophizing t e n d e n c y is J o s e p h u s ' interpre­ tation o f t h e diet m a i n t a i n e d by Daniel and his friends in Babylon. W h e r e a s t h e biblical story had clearly stated that t h e "seeds" (or: v e g e t a b l e s ) e a t e n by t h e youths were t o prevent defilement

through

c o n s u m p t i o n of potentially unclean food ( D a n 1:8, 12), Josephus m a k e s t h e diet into a philosophical issue: they abstained from animal (cfupuxoi;) f o o d o u t of a desire t o live ascetically (aKXTipaywYEtv), b e c a u s e they w e r e unattracted t o it (Ant 10 § 190; Satran 1980: 3 3 4 8 ) ) . J o s e p h u s e v e n introduces dates, a Pythagorean favourite, into the m e n u (Ant 10 § 1 9 0 ) . David Satran aptly observes (1980: 3 7 ) , "amixia has given way t o enkrateia".

Jewish dietary habits w e r e a target o f

ridicule, contributing t o t h e charge of misanthropy (Whittaker 1984: 7 3 - 8 0 ) . J o s e p h u s m a k e s t h e Jews' diet a virtue, c o m p a r a b l e t o that of t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s (cf. Ant 15 § 371). H e observes that t h e y o u n g men's s o u l s w e r e thereby "kept pure and fresh for learning" Ant ( 1 0 § 194). S o D a n i e l j o i n s t h e ranks of illustrious Jewish philosophers. His w i s d o m , b o t h m u n d a n e and occult, far surpasses that of t h e f a m o u s C h a l d e a n s a n d magi. It is also typical of t h e Antiquities

t o reflect o n t h e rewards and

p u n i s h m e n t s m e t e d out t o appropriate parties. T h e y o u n g m e n were u n t o u c h e d by t h e fiery furnace "in consideration of their being thrown i n t o it without having d o n e any wrong"; they were saved by divine p r o v i d e n c e ( & e i a npbvoKx; Ant 10 §§ 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 ) . W h e n Daniel is deliv­ e r e d from t h e lions' d e n , hts accusers deny that it is d u e t o

Ttpovota,

charging rather that t h e animals had b e e n fed b e f o r e h a n d . T h e r e u p o n , in J o s e p h u s ' e m b e l l i s h m e n t , Darius feeds the lions before them

offering

D a n i e l ' s accusers, w h o arc n o n e t h e l e s s torn t o pieces and

c o n s u m e d . J o s e p h u s attributes this t o the w i c k e d n e s s of the m e n , which w a s apparent e v e n t o irrational animals; G o d arranged this p u n i s h m e n t (Ant 10 § 2 6 2 ) . Such moralizing reflections are c o m m o n in this work.^ A l t h o u g h t h e Antiquities

is n o literary masterpiece, J o s e p h u s is

careful t o c h o o s e key t e r m s that will p r o d u c e the desired r e s o n a n c e

' a. Ant 1 § § 4 6 - 5 1 , 65-66, 72, 194-95; 4 §§ 45-53, 154-55. 312-314; 5 §§ 107-9; 6 § § 3-7. 147-151; 8 § § 190-98, 265, 284, 313-14; 9 §§ 103-4; 10 §§ 37-39; 17 § § 168-71; 19 §§ 2 0 1 - 1 1 .

170

STIiVE MASON

with his a u d i e n c e . Whereas, for e x a m p l e , t h e L X X and 'ITieodotionD a n i e l had exclusively used TO fevujcvtov for "dream", J o s e p h u s favours TO o v a p and 6 oveipot;. H e retains t h e L X X u s a g e five t i m e s , but o p t s for o n e o f t h e s e alternatives thirteen times in his D a n i e l paraphrase. O u t s i d e o f t h e D a n i e l story, he consistently a b a n d o n s t h e L X X term e x c e p t in pejorative u s a g e — of uninspired d r e a m s (AgAp 1 §§ 207, 2 1 1 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 , 3 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s already s e e m s sensitive t o A r t e m i d o r u s ' distinction o f fevujcvtov from 6veipo(; o n t h e criterion that t h e f o r m e r refers t o an insignificant d r e a m , w h e r e a s t h e latter signifies an e v e n t s u s c e p t i b l e o f interpretation ( O e p k e 1967: 5.221). O t h e r characteristic features of Josephus' biblical paraphrase that a p p e a r in his treatment o f D a n i e l may b e summarily listed, ( a ) T o p l a c e Jewish history o n t h e world stage, he must s h o w h o w it intersects with t h e records of non-Jewish writers. T h e r e f o r e h e cites a variety o f s o u r c e s that m e n t i o n the Babylonian and Persian kings u n d e r w h o m D a n i e l served {Ant 10 §§ 2 1 9 - 2 3 1 ) . By identifying Belshazzar with fhis father] N a b o n i d u s {Ant 10 § 2 3 1 ) , J o s e p h u s quietly solves t h e p r o b l e m that D a n i e l ' s Belshazzar was not in fact king o f Babylon (contra D a n 5:1,5). ( b ) H e a t t e m p t s t o solve o b v i o u s difficulties within t h e biblical narrative, such as t h e identity o f t h e mysterious "Darius t h e M e d e " , w h o m D a n i e l m a k e s successor to the Babylonians in contradiction o f o t h e r biblical texts which assign that role t o Cyrus t h e Persian. J o s e ­ p h u s m a k e s t h e t w o conquerors relatives and c o m r a d e s {Ant 10 §§ 2 3 2 , 2 4 8 ) . H e e v e n tacitly corrects D a n i e l by noting that several kings c a m e b e t w e e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r and Belshazzar ( w h o m D a n i e l 5 had m a d e father a n d s o n ) , (c) J o s e p h u s introduces all sorts of "novelistic e l e ­ ments" into his paraphrase ( M o e h r i n g 1957), m o s t notably t e r m s that d e s c r i b e t h e e m o t i o n s of the characters: envy and jealousy {Ant 10 § 2 1 2 ) , grief and u n h a p p i n c s s {Ant 10 § 2 4 6 ) , h o p e , courage, and anxiety (Ant

10 §§ 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 ) .

A l t h o u g h m o d e r n scholars often lose t h e drift o f t h e unwieldy t h e

Antiquities J o s e p h u s

himself maintains a s e n s e of unity. In 10 § 2 1 8 h e

r e m i n d s t h e reader of his g o a l s as defined in t h e preface. 2.2

'Ihe Message of Daniel in the

Antiquities

J o s e p h u s ' interest in D a n i e l g o e s far b e y o n d supporting t h e g e n e r a l argument of

tho Antiquities.

p r o p h e t s " (Ant

F o r him, D a n i e l w a s "one of t h e g r e a t e s t

10 § 2 6 6 ) , with a distinctive m e s s a g e : he p r e d i c t e d in

detail t h e w h o l e c o u r s e of subsequent history and s o offers t h e key t o

JOSEPIIUS, DAEflEL, AND THE [lAVlAN HOUSE

171

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e t i m e s . W e are used to l o o k i n g for t h e central panel of a n c i e n t text t o find t h e heart of an author's c o n c e r n s . It is probably n o c o i n c i d e n c e that Josephus' discussion of D a n i e l falls in t h e exact c e n t r e o f his work. A s is well k n o w n , J o s e p h u s understands "prophecy" as essentially predictive, m i n i m i z i n g its ethical aspects, and s o expresses t h e greatest interest in t h o s e p r o p h e t s w h o left written records of the future (Paret 1856: 8 3 6 - 3 7 ; van U n n i k

1978: 52-54; B l e n k i n s o p p

1974: 244-45;

F e l d m a n 1990: 3 9 6 - 9 7 ) . M o s e s is called a prophet in part b e c a u s e he foretold Israel's p u n i s h m e n t s and repeated loss o f t h e t e m p l e (Ant 4 §§ 3 0 3 , 3 1 3 ) . T h e w h o l e value of prophecy is that it reveals future e v e n t s , t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is characteristically a m b i g u o u s about possibility o f avoiding what is d e t e r m i n e d (Ant

the

8 §§ 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) ; his

d o m i n a n t line is that fate is unavoidable. Speaking o f the prophets he says that "whatever h a p p e n s to us whether for g o o d or ill c o m e s about in accord with their prophecies" (Anl 10 § 35; Marcus, I-CL). W i t h this background, w e are in a position to understand J o s e p h u s ' special interest in D a n i e l . For what distinguishes this prophet from t h e o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s says, is that: "he was not only given to predicting the things t o c o m e , just as t h e other prophets, but he specified a t i m e at which t h e s e things will c o m e to pass" (Ant 10 § 2 6 7 ) . H e g o e s o n to n o t e that D a n i e l a l o n e predicted g o o d things, w h e r e a s the o t h e r s had f o r e s e e n c a t a s t r o p h e s (Ant

10 § 268). If t h e e s s e n c e o f prophecy is

prediction, and if D a n i e l a l o n e predicted t h e future in c o n c r e t e terms, then w e can understand why J o s e p h u s c o u n t s him a m o n g t h e great. G i v e n this predilection for prophecy, it is remarkable that J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e o f D a n i e l is mainly d e v o t e d to t h e court tales o f chapters 1 t o 6, t h o u g h N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s statue dream o f D a n i e l 2 is included. His m o s t significant adjustments to this d r e a m are as follows, (a) T h e B a b y l o n i a n k i n g d o m will be e n d e d by "two kings," represented by the t w o s h o u l d e r s o f t h e statue, rather than t h e biblical "kingdom inferior t o you" (Ant

10 § 2 0 8 ) ; thus the Bible's allusion to t h e M e d i a n king­

d o m is altered t o a M e d o - P e r s i a n coalition, in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h u s ' identification o f D a r i u s t h e M e d e as a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Cyrus, (b) This a d j u s t m e n t l e a v e s t h e third kingdom up for grabs, and J o s e p h u s interprets it as "another king, from t h e west" (Ant

10 § 2 0 9 ) , which

indicates A l e x a n d e r t h e Great, (c) This shift, in turn, leaves the fourth k i n g d o m , which biblical Daniel had c o m p o s e d of m i x e d iron and clay — plainly indicating t h e M a c e d o n i a n e m p i r e s — n o w t o b e identified

172

STHVF. MASON

with t h e R o m a n e m p i r e . J o s e p h u s d o e s not malte the referent explicit h e r e , but h e o m i t s D a n i e l ' s m e n t i o n of clay, e m p h a s i z i n g o n l y t h e s u p e r i o r "iron nature" o f this kingdom, by which it will rule "com­ pletely" (e£(; otTcavxa — not "forever", as Marcus has it; cf. Lindner, 1972: 4 4 ) . In accord with learned interpretation o f his day (cf. 4 Ezra a b o v e ) , J o s e p h u s is able to read D a n i e l ' s prediction as referring to his own time. Y e t t h e fourth k i n g d o m will not last forever, according t o t h e d r e a m , and h e r e w e c o m e u p o n o n e of the most intriguing p a s s a g e s in J o s e p h u s ' writings. I l e vividly describes t h e s t o n e of N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s dream: TTien you s a w a s t o n e b r e a k off from a m o u n t a i n a n d fall u p o n t h e i m a g e , b r e a k i n g it to p i e c e s and leaving not o n e part of it w h o l e , s o t h a t t h e g o l d a n d silver a n d b r o n z e a n d iron w e r e m a d e finer t h a n flour, a n d w h e n t h e w i n d b l e w strongly, they w e r e c a u g h t u p by its force a n d s c a t t e r e d a b r o a d ; b u t t h e s t o n e g r e w s o m u c h l a r g e r t h a t t h e w h o l e e a r t h s e e m e d t o b e filled with it. {Ant 10 § 207)

In t h e vealed proper is past consuh

interpretation of t h e dream, J o s e p h u s n o t e s that D a n i e l re­ its m e a n i n g to N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , but "I have not t h o u g h t it t o relate this (loTopeiv), since I a m s u p p o s e d t o write o f w h a t and d o n e and not of what is t o be". Curious r e a d e r s may t h e b o o k of D a n i e l itself {Ant 10 § 2 1 0 ) .

C o m m e n t a t o r s have almost universally dismissed J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e d m o t i v e as a thin disguise of his unwillingness t o offend R o m a n readers by discussing t h e e n d of t h e e m p i r e ( B r u c e l 9 6 5 : 1 6 0 ; Bilde 1 9 8 8 : 1 8 8 ) . I t o o h a v e s u p p o r t e d this reading in t h e past. But c o n s i d e r t h e follow­ ing, ( a ) J o s e p h u s was not c o m p e l l e d to say anything a b o u t t h e s t o n e . In o t h e r respects, his biblical paraphrase o m h s or alters m u c h that is u n s u i t e d to his p u r p o s e . Y e t not only d o e s he c h o o s e to m e n t i o n t h e s t o n e ; h e d w e l l s o n t h e t h o r o u g h n e s s o f its d o m i n i o n , (b) I lis d e s c r i p ­ tion o f t h e .stone's actions d o e s not require inspired interpretation. It plainly e n v i s i o n s t h e ultimate d e m i s e o f R o m a n h e g e m o n y , and only an o b t u s e reader could have missed the point, (c) J o s e p h u s will g o o n t o say explicitly that D a n i e l predicted t h e R o m a n e m p i r e {Ant 10 § 2 7 6 ) , t h u s placing the identity of t h e fourth kingdom, t o b e d e m o l i s h e d by t h e s t o n e , b e y o n d any doubt, (d) H e has already d e c l a r e d , in his a c c o u n t o f B a l a a m ' s prophecy, that greatness still awaits Israel {Ant 4 § 125). If he is c o n c e r n e d about offending R o m a n readers with such talk, h e has already said far t o o much.

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE I-LAVIAN HOUSli

173

But it is not d e a r that such language w o u l d h a v e o f f e n d e d t h e m , for h e r e m o v e s all traces of Daniel's apocalyptic urgency. T h e s t o n e is not e x p e c t e d i m m e d i a t e l y . Long before J o s e p h u s ' time, Scipio had reflect­ e d that R o m e w o u l d o n e day fall as Carthage had d o n e (Polybius 38.22.3). A n d in t h e JW 3 ^ 396, Titus himself p o n d e r s the general instability o f h u m a n affairs. Josephus' remarks s e e m likewise to fall into t h e c a t e g o r y of harmless philosophical reflection, not revolution­ ary aspiration. W h y t h e n d o e s h e mysteriously invite his readers to consult D a n i e l for further information about the s t o n e ? His stated reason is that he is writing history, and cannot therefore discuss future events. W c are o b l i g e d t o c o n c e d e that e l s e w h e r e he deliberately neglects

large

s e c t i o n s o f t h e Jewish scriptures in t h e pursuit of a single historical t h r e a d , e x c l u d i n g all of t h e w i s d o m literature and most of t h e minor p r o p h e t s ; e v e n from his beloved Jeremiah he excerpts the historical material a l o n e (Franxman 1979: 7). T h e visionary material o f D a n i e l itself ( 7 - 1 2 ) is r e d u c e d to a single c o m p o s i t e vision (mainly drawn from D a n i e l 8 ) ; yet this e x a m p l e t o o pertains to e v e n t s already past, and is o f f e r e d as proof of Daniel's veracity (Ant

10 §§ 2 6 9 - 7 6 ) . S o

J o s e p h u s is aware o f his task as a historian, and this accounts for his o m i s s i o n o f e l a b o r a t e eschatological scenarios. Y e t his invitation to consult the b o o k o f D a n i e l also serves a rhetorical p u r p o s e . W c know that Daniel d o e s not materially clarity t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t o n e b e y o n d what J o s e p h u s has said. It is there­ fore likely that J o s e p h u s d o e s not expect his readers to consult the p r o p h e t (in H e b r e w ? ) any m o r e than he expects t h e m to l o o k up t h e "philosophical discussion" of fate and free will in Jewish law {Ant

16

§ 3 9 8 ) or t h e public registers o f Jerusalem that contain his g e n e a l o g y {Life 6 ) . H e w a n t s t o leave the impression that the Jewish scriptures c o n t a i n all sorts of oriental mysteries b e y o n d what he as a historian can presently discuss. In a d d i t i o n to recounting Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m , J o s e p h u s cites D a n i e l ' s predictions of world affairs at three significant junctures. First, in t h e p a s s a g e just m e n t i o n e d , he recounts the vision of t h e ram and t h e g o a t ( D a n i e l 8), while c o m b i n i n g s o m e features of t h e other visions ( G o l d s t e i n 1976: 561). T h e goat c o m e s from t h e W e s t , sprout­ ing first a s i n g l e great horn and then four smaller horns. A s u b s e q u e n t s m a l l e r horn m a k e s war on the Jewish nation and disrupts t h e t e m p l e service for 1290 days {Ant

10 §§ 2 6 9 - 7 1 ) . Since D a n i e l itself plainly

174

STEVE MASON

interprets t h e vision as t h e M a c e d o n i a n c o n q u e s t o f Persia a n d A n t i o c h u s ' persecution o f t h e Jews, J o s e p h u s can only marvel that things h a p p e n e d just a s Daniel h a d predicted "many years before"

(Ant

10 § 276).

S e c o n d , w h e n h e is later narrating A l e x a n d e r t h e Great's c o n q u e s t o f t h e East, J o s e p h u s h a s t h e legendary king visit J e r u s a l e m . O n e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e high priest, t h e y o u n g c o n q u e r o r prostrates h i m s e l f in awe, b e c a u s e this w a s t h e figure h e had s e e n in a d r e a m back in M a c e d o n i a . It w a s this d r e a m , in which G o d assured h i m that "he himself w o u l d lead my army a n d give over t o m e t h e e m p i r e o f t h e Persians", that m o t i v a t e d A l e x a n d e r in his eastward march (Ant 11 § 3 3 4 ) . W h e n t h e M a c e d o n i a n g o e s up t o t h e t e m p l e , h e is o v e r w h e l m e d t o d i s c o v e r that t h e b o o k o f D a n i e l h a d long a g o predicted that "one o f t h e G r e e k s w o u l d destroy t h e rule o f t h e Persians'* (Ant 11 § 3 3 7 ) . J o s e p h u s is not merely e n g a g i n g in t h e current veneration o f A l e x a n ­ der (cf. Plutarch, Alexander), although that certainly plays i n t o his h a n d s w h e n h e c o n n e c t s A l e x a n d e r s o closely with Judaism.'* Earlier in t h e narrative, h e h a d Cyrus t h e Persian reading Isaiah (44:28) a n d c o n c l u d i n g that "the M o s t High G o d h a s a p p o i n t e d m e king o f t h e i n h a b i t e d earth" (Ant 11 § § 3 - 5 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s b e l i e v e s with e q u a l c o n v i c t i o n that t h e current R o m a n regime, which will o n e day m e e t its e n d , w a s also installed by G o d . S o t h e A l e x a n d e r story is not a specific e m b e l l i s h m e n t o f his narrative; it e v i n c e s his ongoing c o n c e r n t o s h o w that t h e p r o p h e t s in general a n d D a n i e l in particular provide t h e k e y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g world history. Finally, J o s e p h u s cites t h e fulfilment o f D a n i e l w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s t h e p e r s e c u t i o n under A n t i o c h u s IV. H e reminds t h e reader: "Now t h e desolation

(ipimtiaiQ)

o f t h e t e m p l e c a m e about in a c c o r d a n c e with

t h e p r o p h e c y o f D a n i e l , which occurred four h u n d r e d and e i g h t years b e f o r e h a n d " (Ant 12 § 3 2 2 ) . This further reference i n d i c a t e s t h e c o n s i s t e n c y with which J o s e p h u s wants t o present D a n i e l as an inspired g u i d e t o future events. G o l d s t e i n h a s argued, o n t h e w h o l e plausibly ( 1 9 7 6 : 5 6 0 ) , that s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' adjustments o f 1 M a c c a b e e s 1 : 2 0 - 6 4 s t e m from his "belief in t h e veracity o f D a n i e l 7-12". W h e r e 1 M a c c a b e e s had corrected D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s tried t o rehabilitate t h e

* Cf. the earlier Alexander romance by Ps-Callisthenes, which makes Alexander the son of the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebus II (Griffiths 1989: 273-74).

JOSEPHUS, DANlEl^ AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

175

p r o p h e t , w h i l e still following the main lines o f 1 Maccabees.^ D a n i e l ' s t h e m e of t h e rise and fall o f world e m p i r e s performs a critical function in t h e narrative of the Antiquities. O n t h e o n e hand, it e x p l a i n s why t h e Jewish nation, if it has such n o b l e traditions, has s o l o n g b e e n subject t o foreign rule. J o s e p h u s is a b l e to use this subservi­ e n c e as p r o o f of Judaism's truth, for the scriptures t h e m s e l v e s predict­ e d t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s . Me deftly c o n n e c t s t h e rise of k i n g d o m s with his main thesis, that G o d inevitably p u n i s h e s evil. T h e arch-prophet M o s e s articulates t h e p r o g r a m m e at the outset: Moses predicted, as the Deity revealed to him, that when they strayed from devotion to Him they would suffer ill: the land would be filled with enemy armaments; their cities would be demolished; their temple would be burned down; they would be sold into slavery to men who would take no pity on their misfortunes; and that repentance would be of no use in these sufferings. (Ant 4 § 313) W h e n t h e first t e m p l e is destroyed, accordingly, it is an inevitable r e s p o n s e t o t h e Jews' waywardness, and N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is G o d ' s c h o s e n m e a n s o f p u n i s h m e n t (Ant 10 §§ 3 3 , 40, 60, 89, 139). Thus J o s e p h u s effects a neat synthesis of D e u t e r o n o m y ' s two ways and D a n i e l ' s d e t e r m i n i s m . Indeed, D a n i e l had already achieved such a synthesis with t h e incorporation o f a "deuteronomistic prayer" in c h a p t e r 9. T h e resulting theological t e n s i o n d o e s not bother J o s e p h u s as it b o t h e r s m o d e r n scholars, w h o isolate D a n i e l ' s prayer as an alien tradition. F o r his part, J o s e p h u s innocently declares that t h e law j u x t a p o s e s fate and free will (Ant 16 §§ 3 9 5 - 9 8 ) . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a b u s e d f r e e d o m and inexorable punishment is a d e e p current flowing through t h e Antiquities. O n t h e o t h e r hand, Josephus' firm belief in t h e rise and fall o f e m p i r e s results, as it did for D a n i e l , in a pacifistic political o u t l o o k . O n e can o n l y accept t h e divine punishment, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel w a r n e d ; it is futile t o resist. This view is restated with increasing force toward t h e e n d o f the Antiquities, as J o s e p h u s describes e v e n t s leading u p t o t h e revolt against R o m e . Recapitulating M o s e s ' prediction, h e cites an array o f transgressions (Ant 2 0 §§ 181, 207, 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 ) as the g r o u n d s o f i m m i n e n t divine punishment:

' For example, Josephus connects Antiochus's attack on Jemsalem in 169 BCE with his withdrawal from Egypt under Roman pressure (cf. Dan 11:30), maintains two expeditions against Jerusalem (cf. Dan 11:28, 31), and creates a single persecution effort out of distinct episodes in 1 Maccabees.

176

STEVE MASON

This is the reason why, in my opinion, even God Himself, for loathing of their impiety, turned away from our city and, because He deemed the temple no longer to be a clean dwelling place for Him, brought the Romans upon us and purification by fire upon the city, while He inflicted slavery upon us...; for he wished to chasten us by these calamities. (20 § 166; Feldman, LCI,) T h o s e w h o refuse t o accept t h e p u n i s h m e n t and s o o p p o s e

the

R o m a n s — J o s e p h u s ' "fourth philosophy" — are accused of introducing an "innovation in t h e ancestral customs" out of a desire for p e r s o n a l g a i n {Ant

18 §§ 7 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h o p e for a rebuilding o f t h e

t e m p l e m o r e than o n c e {Ant 4 § 3 1 4 ) , but that must await t h e c e s s a ­ tion o f p u n i s h m e n t . In J o s e p h u s ' wide-ranging advocacy of Judaism, t h e n , D a n i e l plays a f e a t u r e d role. T h e exilic s e e r provides t h e basis for his c o n c e p t i o n o f history as t h e rise and fall o f k i n g d o m s under G o d ' s watchful care, an i n t e g r a t i o n point for d e t e r m i n i s m and d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c t h e o l o g y , a pacifistic poHtical platform, and specific p r o p h e c i e s that h a v e b e e n strikingly confirmed. T h e s e observations support Per Bilde's p r o p o s a l that t h e structure of t h e

Antiquities is

i n t e n d e d t o stress t h e parallels

b e t w e e n t h e first and s e c o n d t e m p l e periods (1988: 89-90). C o m i n g at t h e e n d o f b o o k 10, D a n i e l provides a fitting transition: vwitten i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e fall o f t h e first t e m p l e , it l o o k s a h e a d t o t h e fall o f t h e s e c o n d , and g r o u n d s t h e w h o l e story in a serviceable t h e o r y o f history. F o r all o f its literary fluctuations, detours, and assorted l o o s e ends, the

Antiquities have

a remarkably tight thematic unity.

2.3 Daniel and Josephus' Self-Understanding B e f o r e w e p r o c e e d t o t h e War, w e might consider t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e J o s e p h u s of t h e

Antiquities found

e c h o e s of D a n i e l ' s c a r e e r in his

o w n . His account of J e r e m i a h suggests m a n y such parallels {Ant 10 § § 8 0 , 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 , 1 3 9 ) . If Jeremiah's life s o clearly anticipated J o s e ­ phus', d i d he also s e e himself as a latter-day D a n i e l ? T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s confirm that h e did. First, in t h e court t a l e s that c o n s t i t u t e t h e substance o f t h e paraphrase, y o u n g Jewish m e n "of n o b l e s t birth" (E^Y^VTIC) happily join the court o f a c o n q u e r i n g king. Naturally gifted learners (cf.

Life

§§ 8-10), they s o o n master t h e f o ­

reign ( C h a l d e a n and native Babylonian) traditions as well as their o w n {Ant 10 § 194). A l t h o u g h they o p e r a t e easily and effectively in g e n t i l e circles, t h e y by n o m e a n s a b a n d o n their o w n "ancestral laws" {Ant

10

§ 2 1 4 ) . O n the contrary, they win universal respect for their traditions,

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

177

which i n d e e d d e s e r v e respect b e c a u s e they accord with natural a n d m o r a l l a w {Ant 10 § 2 1 5 ) . D a n i e l and his c o l l e a g u e s put i n t o practice t h e p r a g m a t i c directives of Jeremiah: "Seek the welfare of t h e city i n t o which 1 h a v e exiled y o u and pray t o t h e Ixird o n its behalf; for in its prosperity y o u shall prosper" (Jer 29:7; JPS). Still, the Jewish youths attract j e a l o u s y and envy b e c a u s e of their success ( 1 0 § 212, 2 5 0 ) , but G o d p r e s e r v e s t h e m . Since J o s e p h u s writes all of this as a J e w w h o is p r o s p e r i n g in t h e Flavian court, having learned a g o o d deal o f G r e e k and Latin literature, w h o is n o w d e f e n d i n g his ancestral traditions b e f o r e t h e literary world, yet w h o runs into persistent accusations from t h o s e w h o "envy" his success, w e can hardly avoid t h e conclusion that his p a r a p h r a s e of D a n i e l 1-6 reflects his o w n i m a g e . W h a t confirms t h e association b e t w e e n D a n i e l and J o s e p h u s is t h e t h e m e o f d r e a m interpretation, xptotc dveipwv. In all o f J o s e p h u s ' writings, only four parties are said t o be adept at Ihe interpretation o f d r e a m s : his biblical

n a m e s a k e J o s e p h / u s ('I6)ot)7i;o(;), D a n i e l ,

the

E s s e n e s , w h o m he consistently praises, and J o s e p h u s himself. This is a s e l e c t g r o u p . Parallels with t h e biblical J o s e p h ( u s ) are obvious, a n d J o s e p h u s a l s o closely identifies with t h e F^sencs (JW 2 § 158; Ant

13

§§ 3 1 1 - 3 1 2 ; 15 §§ 373, 379; 18 § 2 0 ) , s o it is not surprising that t h e figure of D a n i e l t o o w a s especially significant for him. A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , D a n i e l acquired w i s d o m like his Jewish c o l l e a g u e s , but m o r e than that "he o c c u p i e d himself with interpretations of d r e a m s (rcEpt xptoeK; 6v£tpxo56[iir]oav as "they fortified." H e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e in 1 M a c c a b e e s t h e Akra is p r e s e n t e d as c o e x t e n s i v e with t h e City o f D a v i d , o r at least t h e inhabitants o f t h e Akra control t h e e n t i r e City o f D a v i d (cf. 1 M a c e 7:32; 14:36). What was t h e n t h e relation o f t h e A k r a t o t h e City o f D a v i d ? W a s t h e Akra only a citadel o r w a s it a city quarter with a civilian p o p u l a t i o n In addition t o a garrison?

3.

Ihe Occupants of the Akra in I Maccabees and the

Antiquities

In 1 M a c e 1:34 t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e Akra a r e n o t identified as a garrison o f soldiers, but only as S9-WQ 6TN(xpTwX6v, otvSpac; 7coLpav6(iou(; ("a sinful p e o p l e , lawless men").^ T h e adjectives a r e rough transla­ t i o n s o f H e b r e w terms such as J?tl?T a n d

bs'h^.

Especially t h e latter

e x p r e s s i o n is frequently used in t h e L X X in g e n e r a l a n d in 1 M a c c a ­ b e e s in particular t o d e s i g n a t e Jewish adversaries.^ A s h a s b e e n n o t e d by G r i m m ( 1 8 5 3 : 2 3 ) , however, grammatically avSpou; T t a p a v o ^ i o u c ; c a n h e r e o n l y b e read in apposition t o or, as h e puts it, as "rhetorische V a r i a t i o n " o f e&vo*; &[i(xpTuX6v, which is generally u n d e r s t o o d a s a r e f e r e n c e t o n o n - J e w s (pace G o l d s t e i n 1976: 124). Similarly, in t h e W a r Scroll o f Q u m r a n e v e n t h e Kittim, just as o t h e r "sons o f dark­ ness," b e l o n g t o t h e "army o f Beli'al."'* Therefore

it c a n n o t b e p r e s u m e d

that t h e e x p r e s s i o n

avSpat;

notpav6(iouc refers exclusively t o transgressors o f t h e T o r a h a n d that t h e a n c i e n t r e a d e r o r hearer w o u l d have clearly u n d e r s t o o d

that

J e w i s h r e n e g a d e s w e r e i n t e n d e d . Instead, t h e a u t h o r o f 1 M a c c a b e e s e m p h a s i z e s t h e foreign character o f t h e Akra's o c c u p a n t s in a p o e t i c l a m e n t , p e r h a p s c o m p o s e d by himself (1 M a c e 3:45): Jerusalem wa.s uninhabited like a wilderness, not one of her children went in or out. l l i e sanctuary wa.s trampled down, and aliens held the citadel, (itai uEoi iXXoYevtiv £v x f j & x p q L ) ; it was a lodging place for the Gentiles, ( x a x a ^u[ia i:oXTaToi TUV ' l o u S a t u v ) left t h e country and fled t o Egypt (Ant 14 § 2 1 ) . Apparently, respectable Jews n e e d t a k e n o s h a r e in t h e struggle.*' Correspondingly, s e c o n d , o n e especially p i o u s Jew, O n i a s , hid himself w h e n he saw t h e aTcnaic, was c o n t i n u i n g strongly ( § 2 2 ) ; apparently, he had b e e n unwilling or u n a b l e t o flee. W h e n H y r c a n u s ' m e n caught him and asked h i m t o curse Aristobulus a n d his f e l l o w stasis-makers ( a u o T a a t a o T u v

§ 2 2 ) , his r e s p o n s e was

a prayer t o G o d asking H i m to h e l p neither side. In other words, the Jewish religion — t h e realm of g o o d and evil

has nothing t o d o with

polities; a n d CJod i n d e e d s t e p s in only w h e n s o m e of Hyrcanus' m e n killed O n i a s (§ 25).'^ T h e fourth c a s e o f respectable religionists w h o are not involved in affairs o f s t a t e c o m e s a few p a g e s later, in t h e a p p e a l s m a d e t o P o m p e y . H e r e , a l o n g s i d e o f Hyrcanus and Aristobulus w h o each a p p e a l e d for t h e royal crown, a third group, t e r m e d "the nation" (eS^voc

Ant

14 § 4 1 ) , is said to have argued against b o t h o f t h e m ,

c l a i m i n g that t h e brothers w e r e trying t o c h a n g e the native c u s t o m , w h i c h w a s g o v e r n m e n t by priests, not by kings. T h u s , t o s u m m a r i z e . Antiquities

consistently t e a c h e s that polities is

a nasty g a m e , a n d o n e should either play it as it is to be played or l e a v e It; H y r c a n u s did neither. H e was by nature unsuited t o political life but did not leave it; t h e result was that during most o f his career h e e n g a g e d in oTototc; again.st his brother, a aTcaaic, which p r o v i d e d for t h e loss o f t h e H a s m o n e a n state a n d the H e r o d i a n takeover.

" When .such people reappear in Ant 14 § 43 in support of Hyrcanus, the explanation is immediately given: they had been "procured" by Antipater. Ilie true position of the Jewish people in that story is "a plague on both your houses;" see below. It is noteworthy that Josephus introduces here, via T O U T U T U TpoTCfp, a story which explains the ensuing drought as punishment not - as per the introduction - for the murder of Onias, but, rather, for a desecration of the Temple cult. That story too, in turn, as the preceding story about Onias, has talmudic parallels; cf. Derenbourg 1867: 112-15; Cohen 1986: 13. Josephus' own interpretation is given in the introduction (Ant 14 § 25). As Marcus (LCL) points out, the fact that there are two separate references to the Passover festival (§§21,25) is further indication of the source-splicing here.

226

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

T o m a k e this picture clear, J o s e p h u s not only r e p e a t e d l y contrasts t h e active and effectual Aristobulus to t h e p h l e g m a t i c and ineffective H y r c a n u s , but also s h o w s us, time and again, a H y r c a n u s w h o is a totally i n c o m p e t e n t player in t h e arena h e refuses t o leave, a s c h l e micl. In Ant 14 §§ 4-7 he is c o m p l e t e l y deserted and flees a l o n e t o t h e citadel in J e r u s a l e m , w h e r e h e finds m e m b e r s o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' family b u t fails t o take t h e m hostage, in t h e e n d c o m p l e t e l y capitulating t o his brother (contrast JW 1 §§ 120-22, w h e r e he and followers t a k e t h e m h o s t a g e and trade t h e m for a respectable c o m p r o m i s e ) ; at Ant 14 § 18 h e p r o m i s e s t o give A r e t a s territory and cities c o n q u e r e d by his father, s o m e t h i n g which, as w e h a v e s e e n , J o s e p h u s in Ant 13 § 431 a n d 14 § 77 regards as catastrophic ( n o t h i n g like this in TH^ 1 § 126); at Ant 14 §§ 30-31 Hyrcanus can't e v e n bribe and n e g o t i a t e convincingly, but A r i s t o b u l u s can (JW 1 § 128 has only Aristobulus bribing), just as Ant 14 §§ 3 4 - 3 6 has only Aristobulus bribing; at Ant 14 § 5 8 h e has n o party o f supporters, only Aristobulus d o e s (in JW 1 ^ 142 they b o t h d o ) ; " at Ant 14 § 8 2 h e is said t o have b e e n incapable o f w i t h s t a n d i n g A l e x a n d e r (unsaid in yW' 1 § 160); at Ant 14 § 165 h e is s o u n a w a r e o f his o w n interests that h e ignores or is e v e n p l e a s e d t o learn that A n t i p a t e r has given his gifts t o R o m a n officials as if they w e r e his o w n (JW 1 § 2 0 8 has him j e a l o u s and resentful of t h e growing popularity o f A n t i p a t e r and his s o n s ) ; correspondingly, according to Ant 14 § 179 after H e r o d ' s a b o r t e d trial Hyrcanus still did nothing t o s t o p H e r o d , d u e t o his "cowardice and folly" (JW 1 § 2 1 2 has him s t y m i e d by real d a n g e r - - ["the greater strength o f t h e enemy"]); etc. H a d s u c h a person left politics, like A b s a l o m or t h e religionists o f Ant 14 §§ 21-24,41, h e w o u l d have b e e n praiseworthy; staying in, which r e s u l t e d in o T o t o K ; and then in a H e r o d i a n takeover, bring u p o n him c o n d e m ­ nation. T h e r e are, then, apart from plain p r o - H a s m o n e a n i s m , t h r e e e l e ­ m e n t s which inform J o s e p h u s ' understanding o f H y r c a n u s II in Antiquities; t w o are matters of principle and o n e is empirical. J o s e p h u s c o n d e m n s oTaaic a s s u m e s politics are divorced from religion, and c o n d e m n s Hyrcanus for attempting to s u c c e e d in politics w h i l e b e i n g i n c a p a b l e of it. W h e r e did h e get t h e s e three points? T h e first is very J o s e p h a n ( B i l d e 1979: 190-91; Rajak 1983: 91-96). B e g i n n i n g in t h e

" So too in Cassius Dio 37.15.2 (M. Stern 1974-84:no. 406). To point up the slant in War, It is interesting that in Dio's whole long account of Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem there is no mention of Antipater.

J O S E P H U S O N H Y R C A N U S II

227

very preface of War, J o s e p h u s saw internal a x d a n ; as t h e c a u s e of the worst catastrophe ever t o hit t h e Jews (JW 1 § 10). T h e t h e m e reap­ p e a r s ceaselessly, including, specifically, as t h e explanation for t h e fall o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s ( P o m p e y was drawn in by t h e B t a o x a a i d o a v T e c ; o f t h e last H a s m o n e a n s — JW 1 § 19) and t h e institution o f direct R o m a n rule ( d u e to t h e p e o p l e having x a T e o T a o i a o e v after Herod's d e a t h - § 2 0 ) ; in t h e Life t o o (§ 100) w e find t h e n o t i o n that the R o m a n s c o u l d e x p e c t t h e struggle of rival Jewish factions (izpoc, 6iKKy\koMC. o T o t o e o i v ) t o bring about their destruction. S o it w a s very natural for J o s e p h u s t o apply this notion also to the particular catas­ t r o p h e with which w e are d e a l i n g here, viz., t h e e n d o f t h e I l a s m o n e a n state and its r e p l a c e m e n t by Herod's kingdom. T h e s e c o n d e l e m e n t t o o , namely, t h e separation of religion from state, is also a typically J o s e p h a n point in Antiquities (and his other works), as I have argued e l s e w h e r e (1983-84: 4 2 - 5 2 ; 1992: 29-56). T h e third c l e m e n t , however, t h e empirical p o i n t a b o u t Hyrcanus' constitution and capabilities, J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o have inherited from Nicolaus. But for N i c o l a u s t h e implication w a s very different. T o this w e must briefly turn.

3. Nicolaus on Hyrcanus 11 In describing Hyrcanus, Nicolaus had t o deal with a delicate p r o b l e m . H e had t o describe him positively e n o u g h t o b e a worthy patron for A n t i p a t e r and H e r o d , s o m e o n e w h o s e legitimacy w o u l d b e transferred t o t h e Antipatrids.'* H o w e v e r , t h e reason for t h e transfer had t o b e m a d e clear; t h e usurpation had to be justified. H e a c c o m p l i s h e d t h e s e g o a l s in t h r e e ways. First, of course, Nicolaus e x p e n d e d t r e m e n d o u s e n e r g y o n exalting A n t i p a t e r and his sons, including - as M o t z o (1927) emphasized transferring many of Hyrcanus' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s t o t h e m . S e c o n d , w h i l e N i c o l a u s frequently n o t e s Hyrcanus' non-political nature, h e praises his character: right at t h e outset o{ Ant 14, Hyrca­ nus' t e n d e n c y not t o b e l i e v e slander is characterized as a result o f his d e c e n c y and kindness (xpy\ai6c, wv...St' feTctetxeiav); only undiscerning observers might c o n c l u d e that h e was ignoble and unmanly (dtyevvT) x a i ocvavSpov - Ant 14 § 13)."

" This happens implicitly throughout the story, explicitly a t / W l § TAAI/Ant 14 §§ 325-26, where Hyrcanus recommends "Herod and his men" to Mark Antony. " In further support of the assumption that this assessment derives from Nicolau.s, recall that Ant 14 § 179 in fact attributes Hyrcanus' inability to move

228

DANEEL R. SCHWARTZ

'Ilius, for N i c o l a u s , A n t i p a t e r and H e r o d were both active individu­ als ( A n t i g o n u s : SpaoTr)piO(; kvr\p JW 1 § 226; H e r o d : tpuoei Spaar?)pioc, JW 1 § 2 0 4 ) , just as much as Aristobulus was; they contrast with Hyrcanus, w h o s e . C o h e n (1979: 60-62) discusses t h e difference in n u a n c e of J o s e p h u s ' use of the p h r a s e "on account of a minor and trifling charge" b e t w e e n Life a n d Am. According to him, the p h r a s e in Life § 13 is t h e o n e which "Jose­ p h u s would u s e t o cover revolutionary activities." With C o h e n , w e would imagine that they were engaged in s o m e political activities against R o m e in t h e t i m e of Felix. W e would further imagine that: (1) b e c a u s e of their strong influence a n d popularity even after they were .sent to R o m e , t h e so-called revolutionaries kept d e m a n d i n g of t h e J e r u s a l e m authorities to have direct negotiations with t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r for their release; (2) the J e m s a l e m authorities, at t h e p r o s p e c t of t h e c o m i n g war, c a m e to think that the a n t i - R o m a n sentiments of those priests in R o m e h a d u n d e r g o n e s o m e change because of the passage of time a n d t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e of R o m a n power; (3) t h e J e r u s a l e m authorities could thus expect that if the priests r e t u r n e d t o Jerusalem, they could exercise their influence t o avoid a direct confrontation with R o m e ; a n d (4) they decided t o dispatch J o s e p h u s t o R o m e for t h e negotiation of their release. According t o o u r speculation, J o s e p h u s ' mission w a s highly political, not private, from t h e beginning.

IMAGINING SOME D A R K PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS'

UVli

315

that Josephus received "large gifts" from Poppaea (Life § 16). This s e e m s to be complete nonsense and makes us wonder if Josephus was hiding something important, for example, s o m e secret transaction he had had with Nero.'* We would also wonder here what sort of con­ versation Josephus had with Nero. W e would imagine that when Josephus met Nero, the Emperor first inquired about the political situation in Palestine and was surprised to hear of the maladministra­ tion of the R o m a n procurators there and of the impending Jewish revolt against R o m e . Then Nero proposed to Josephus that he perform s o m e clandestine activities in Palestine in exchange for the release of the "certain priests." We expect that Josephus accepted Nero's proposal because there was no alternative way for him to obtain their release and because he could convince himself that he was being loyal to the R o m a n cause, after observing the might of the R o m a n empire on his way to Italy. At that point, N e r o released the priests and gave Josephus the "large gifts." Having had an audience with N e r o and having received the gifts from him could be the facts Josephus had to hide, especially because the war against R o m e started in the twelfth year of Nero's reign {JW 1 § 20; 2 § 284). Josephus s e e m s to have tried to hide these facts by introducing Poppaea Sabina instead of N e r o to the scene and signaling already in Ant 20 § 195 that she was a Jewish sympathizer. What were the undercover activities proposed by Nero to Josephus? T h e s e were to maintain order in Palestine by muzzling the anti-Roman political and religious fanatics in Jerusalem and other cities of Pales­ tine. T h e y also included providing smooth passage for the Roman forces in case they should invade Palestine. Josephus was given the "large gifts" to use as operating funds with which to execute the mission assigned to him, evidently the "mission impossible." If our imagination is on track, we would further imagine that on his way back to Jerusalem, Josephus was ordered to see the regular R o m a n forces

" F e l d m a n {ABD 1992: 982) says: "The fact that the e m p e r o r gave s o m e gifts to J o s e p h u s ( w h e r e a s we would have expected Josephus to bring gifts to t h e e m p e r o r ) could b e explained most readily if we assume that N e r o h o p e d thereby to p e r s u a d e J o s e p h u s to use his influence to defuse the i m p e n d i n g Jewish revolt against R o m e . W e d o not know whether Josephus a t t e m p t e d such a mission, but in any case, the revolt did b r e a k out two years later." According to o u r hypothesis (see n. 14), the J e r u s a l e m authorities seem to have tried to use the influence of the priests d e t a i n e d in R o m e , and Nero also s e e m s to have tried to use the priests' influence as well as that of Josephus.

316

GOHEI HATA

(the fifteenth legion) in Alexandria and, if necessary, t o have s o m e military training. If the released priests had been engaged in s o m e anti-Roman activities in Palestine,'* they could be brainwashed in the R o m a n military camp of Alexandria. During his stay in Alexandria which lasted for more than o n e year, Josephus s e e m s t o have had an opportunity t o visit s o m e places in Egypt. His interest in and repeated references t o the T e m p l e of Onias both in the H^ar" and in the Antiquities,^^ and his collection of the stories of M o s e s and the Exodus in the Egyptian versions in the Antiquities^'' and especially in Against Apion would suggest that he had sufficient time in Alexandria t o visit Leontopolis, where the T e m p l e of Onias stood, and other places in the s a m e n o m e of Heliopolis.^

IV In June of 66 CE., the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem ceased t o offer sacrifices for the welfare of the Romans. Though Josephus says in a rather circuitous way that this cessation "laid the foundation of the war with the Romans" (JW 2 § 409. Cf. 2 §§ 411-17), this was evidently tantamount t o a declaration of war to the R o m a n s . Josephus and the priests returned to Jerusalem in the early s u m m e r of that year. According to Life § 17, Josephus (and the priests) urged the various factions not t o revolt against R o m e by emphasizing that they were "inferior t o the Romans, not only in military skill, but in

" S e e Our discussion in n . l 4 . " It is interesting t o n o t e that in t h e very beginning of his narrative {JW 1 § 33) J o s e p h u s refers t o t h e t e m p l e of Onias a n d promises his r e a d e r s t o r e t u r n t o this m a t t e r "in d u e course," about which he talks in detail in JW 1 §§ 421ff. J o s e p h u s s e e m s l o have had a clear picture of t h e temple of O n i a s w h e n h e w a s c o m p o s i n g the War in G r e e k ( s e e t h e contribution by P a r e n t e above). " S e e J o s e p h u s ' favorable description of t h e T e m p l e of O n i a s in Ant 13 §§ 63ff. a n d his r e p e a t e d references t o t h e T e m p l e in Ant 12 § 388; 13 § 2 8 5 ; 2 0 §§ 236-37. " F o r e x a m p l e , information about Moses' expedition t o E t h i o p i a as told in Ant 2 § 238 s e e m s t o have b e e n collected by Josephus while he w a s in Egypt. * If J o s e p h u s h a d a ch^lnce t o visit local areas of Egypt w h e n h e a c c o m p a n i e d V e s p a s i a n a n d Titus in 69 C E o r if h e h a d a chance t o visit A l e x a n d r i a after 7 0 C E , h e could have d e v e l o p e d his interest in t h e T e m p l e of O n i a s , a n d t h e stories of M o s e s o r t h e Egyptian versions of t h e Exodus, which later led h i m t o p u r c h a s e in R o m e t h e written sources o n Moses (sources m e n t i o n e d in Against Apion), b u t it is h a r d for us t o i m a g i n e that such a n opportunity w a s given t o J o s e p h u s in 69 C E o r after 70 C E . T h e r e f o r e , w e would imagine that J o s e p h u s ' stay in Alexandria a r o u n d 6 5 C E w a s t h e only occasion for h i m t o see some p a r t s of Egypt.

IMAGININC; SOMb DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS' LIFE

317

g o o d fortune." Josephus' experience with the regular R o m a n forces in Alexandria might have induced him to his efforts of persuasion. Persuasion is not an easy matter, especially when people are bent on revolt or war. As Josephus himself says in Life § 20, his "incessant reiteration of warning" brought him into "odium and the suspicion of siding with the enemy," and as a result he had to "seek asylum in the inner court of the Temple." Why did Josephus give warning to the Jerusalemites s o incessantly as to risk his own life? If his statement is true, w c would suppose that giving warnings was o n e of the tasks assigned to him by Nero. Of course, the same task would have been expected of the released priests, both by Nero and by the Jerusalem authorities.^' Often with the beginnings of a war, the initial victory causes morale to climb and makes people blind. They refuse to believe that the victory was brought about by s o m e fortuity rather than by their own power, and believe that the slate of victory would continue to the very end of the war. The Jerusalemites were no exception, as their reactions show after they had defeated the Roman force of Cestius in the autumn of that year {Life §§ 24-5, yPK 3 § 9, Cf. JW 2 §§ 499ff.)." According ioJWl §§ 562-68, after the defeat of Cestius, the "war­ time council" or the "provisional government" ( T O icotvov) was c o n v e n e d in Jerusalem for selecting commanders to conduct the war with R o m e . Although the nature of this council and its relationship with the Sanhedrin at this time is not clear at all, Josephus was appointed commander of Upper and Lx)wer Galilee and of Gamala. Regarding strategy, these districts were the most important for the defense of Jerusalem. Why then was Josephus appointed commander of such important districts? This appointment is certainly puzzling to us especially because the council members could easily foresee that N e r o w o u l d instruct his general to muster in Antioch the regular R o m a n forces of the Uast, invade Galilee first, and then proceed to Jerusalem. Since Josephus (and the released priests) failed to achieve their assigned task in Jerusalem, he would have desperately sought

" See Our discussion in n.l4. ^ In Ant 7 §§ 74-5, Josephus seems to have projected the victory of the Jews over Cestius' army into that of the Hebrews and the defeat of an army of Philistines. Not only in this place but also in other places of his Antiquities, Josephus seems to have projected his personal experiences or what he witnessed into his paraphrase of the stories.

318

GOHEI HATA

s o m e districts outside of Jerusalem to execute Nero's mission. If J o s e p h u s could foresee, as the council members s u p p o s e d l y did, where Ihe R o m a n forces would b e mustered and which areas of Palestine they would invade, he would have tried to obtain the position

of

c o m m a n d e r of Galilee. H e did, in fact, obtain it." According t o IJfe § 29, Josephus was sent t o G a l i l e e t o g e t h e r with t w o priests, Joazar and Judas, "to induce the disaffected to lay down their arms."^ W h o were these two priests? On the basis of the fact that the s a m e Greek adjective xaXoc; Ka.ycf.^bc, l o d e n o t e the charac­ ters of the "certain priests" in Life § 13 is e m p l o y e d for the descrip­ tion of the characters of both Joazar and Judas in Life § 29, w e w o u l d suppose

that both Joazar and Judas were the "certain priests" of

J o s e p h u s ' acquaintance w h o had been detained in R o m e . " According to JW 2 § 576, Josephus "levied in G a l i l e e an army of upwards of a hundred thousand young men, all of w h o m h e e q u i p p e d with old arms collected for the purpose," and trained t h e m in the

" As to the a p p o i n t m e n t of J o s e p h u s as c o m m a n d e r , Rajak (1983: 21) states: " W h a t e v e r J o s e p h u s ' talents, it is improbable that he would have b e e n a p p o i n t e d , especially before he h a d proved his ability, unless he was of e q u a l social standing with these m e n (i.e., m e n of high priestly rank who were likewise a p p o i n t e d c o m m a n d e r s in other districts)." F o r o u r argument, Rajak's reference to J o s e p h u s ' ability o r his "equal social standing with these m e n " s e e m s to b e not necessarily a persuasive reason. W e would speculate about the reason why J o s e p h u s , w h o s e e m s not to have b e e n very familiar with the districts of G a l i l e e a n d of G a m a l a , was a p p o i n t e d c o m m a n d e r of these areas. " A c c o r d i n g to o u r hypothesis in n . l 4 , Josephus went to G a l i l e e for t h e p u r p o s e m e n t i o n e d in Life § 17, although the "war-lime council" in J e r u s a l e m did s e n d him a n d o t h e r c o m m a n d e r s for t h e purpose m e n t i o n e d \nJW2 § 563, thai is, "lo conduct t h e w a r ' with t h e R o m a n s . " T h e proximity of the two occurrences in Life § 13 and 29 w o u l d support o u r hypothesis that both J o a z a r and J u d a s were t h e released priests. T h e r e a s o n for J o s e p h a n scholars' failure to identify them as such was probably d u e to T h a c k e ­ ray's Fngtish translation in I.CL. H e translated the ita>oucation of the Akra at the N o r t h e r n Part of the T e m p l e M o u n t . Cathedra 2 1 : 31-40 ( H e b r e w ) . Magen, Y. 1980 ' H i e G a t e s of the T e m p l e Mount according to J o s e p h u s and the M i s h n a h . Cathedra 14: 47-53 ( H e b r e w ) , 1986 A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on M o u n t G a r i z i m . Qadmoniot 19: 91-101.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

Maier, J. 1990 Zwischen den Teslainenten: Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Die n e u e Echter Bibel, Erganzungsbd.3. Wiirzburg: Echter. 1993 Israel und " E d o m " in d e n Ausdeutungen zu D e u t 2,1-8. P p . 135-84 in Judentum: Aus-biicke und Einsichten. Festgahe zum 70. Geburtstag von Kurt Schubert, eds. C. T h o m a , G. Stemberger, and J. Maier, J u d e n t u m und Umwelt 4 3 . Frankfurt a. M.; P. I^ang. Mantel, II. 1965

Studies on the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, M A : H a r v a r d .

Marcus, R. see 'Hiackeray et al. 1926-65 M a r s h a m , J. 1682 Chronicus Canon Aegyptiacus, Hebraicus, Graecus et Disquisitiones. I.ondon: Roycroft. Marti, K. 1901 Das Buch Daniel erklart. Kurzer H a n d - C o m m e n t a r zum Alten Testa­ m e n t 18. Tiibingen Mohr. Marti, K., and Beer, G. 1927 'Abot: Vater. Text, Obers. und Erklarung. Die Mischna. Vol. 4.9. Cjiessen: Topelmann. M a s o n , S. 1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Studia Post-Biblica 39. Leiden: Brill. 1992 Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Mattingly, H., a n d Carson, R. A. G. 1923-75 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. British M u s e u m .

9 vols. L o n d o n :

Mayer, G. 1974

Index Philoneus,

Berlin-New York: D e Gruyter.

Mazar, B. 1989 J o s e p h u s Flavius and the Archaeological Excavations in J e r u s a l e m . P p . 325-329 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989. M e l a m e d , E. Z . 1951 J o s e p h u s a n d Maccabees I: A Comparison ( H e b r e w ) . Erez-Israel 1: 122-30. M e r t e n s , A. 1971 Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer. Bibhsche M o n o g r a p h i e n 12. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag.

Stuttgarter

M e s h o r e r , Y. 1979 S e p p h o r i s and R o m e . Pp. 159-71 m Greek Numismatic and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of M. Thompson, eds. O. M o r k h o l m and N. M. Wag­ goner. W e t t e r n : Mesnil du Buisson, R. D u 1935

L e T e m p l e d ' O n i a s et le c a m p Hyks6s ^ Teli ei Yahoudiye. Bulletin de rinstitut frangaise d'archeologie orientate 35: 59-71.

358

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michel, ( ) . 1967-68 Studien zu J o s e p h u s . Simon bar CJiora, New Testament 402-8.

Studies

14:

M o e h r i n g , H. R. 1957 Novelistic E l e m e n t s in the Writings of Fiavius J o s e p h u s . Diss.: Univ. of C^hicago. 1959 'Ilie Persecution of the Jews and the A d h e r e n t s of the Isis Cult at R o m e A . D . 19. Novum Testamentum 3 : 293-304. Moller, C , and Schmitt, G. 1976 Siedlungen Paldstinas nach Flavins Josephus.

Wiesbaden: Reicherl.

Momigliano, A. D . 1930 Primee l.inee di Storia della Tradizione Maccabaica. R o m a : Society editrice del F o r o Italico (rp. A m s t e r d a m : H a k k e r t , 1968). 1975 Alien Wisdom: the Limits of IJellenization. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University. 1980 C i 6 che Flavio G i u s e p p e non vide. Introduction to Italian trans., // huon uso del tradimento, of P. Vidal N a q u e t , Fiavius Josephe ou du bon usage de la trahison. R o m e : Editori Riuniti = Pp. 305-17 in Settimo contribulo alia storia degli studi clamci e del moruio antico. 1984. R o m e . 1987 W h a t J o s e p h u s did not see. Pp. 108-119 in On Pagans, Jews and Christians. Middietown, C T : Weslcyan University. = trans, of M o m i ­ gliano 1980 by J. Weinberg. M o m m s e n , T. 1870 C^ornelius Tacitus and C;iuvius Rufus. Hermes 4: 320-22 = Ges. Schr. 7, 1909: 248. M o n t g o m e r y , J. A. 1927 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to the Book of Daniel. tional Critical C o m m e n t a r y . New York: Schribner's Sons.

Interna­

M o o r e , G. F. 1927 Simon the Righteous. Pp. 348-364 m Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion. 1929 F a t e and F r e e Will in t h e Jewish Philosophies According to J o s e p h u s . Han'ard Theoloffcal Review 22: 371-389. Morkholm. O. 1960 A p o s t h u m o u s issue of Antiochus IV of Syria. Numismatic Chronicle 50: 25-30. 1961 Eulaios and Lenaios. Classica et Mediaevalia 22: 32-43. 1963 Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria. Hist.-filos. M e d d . Kgl. D a n . Vid. Selsk. 40 no, 3. 1964 T h e Accession of Antiochus IV of Syria. The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 11: 63-76. 1966 M o r r , J. 1926

Antiochus

of Syria. Classica et medievalia. C o p e n h a g e n : G y l d e n d a l .

Die I-andeskunde von Palastina bei Strabon und J o s e p h u s 8 1 : 256-79.

Philologus

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

M o t z o , R. B. 1924 U n a fonte s a c e r d o t a l e antisamaritana in G i u s e p p e . P p . 180-206 oiSaggf di storia e letieratura giudaico-ellenistica. Firenze: I-e Monnier. 1924a G i u s e p p e e ii 1 Maccabei. Pp. 207-214 of Saggi di storia e letieratura giudaico-ellenistica. Firenze; Le Monnier. 1927 I r c a n o II nella tradizione storica. Saggi cagliarilani di storia e filologia 1: 1-18. R p . with original pagination shown, in idem, Ricerche sulla letieratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica, ed. F. P a r e n t e . R o m a : C e n t r o liditoriale Internazionale, 1977; 719-36. Moulton, J. H., a n d Milligan, G. 1930 The Vocabulary of the Creek Testament. Illustrated from the Papyri and the Other Non-Literary Sources. London. Nadel, B. 1966 J6zef Flawiusz a terminologia rzymskiej inweklywy polityczej [in Polish]: J o s e p h u s Flavius and the Terminology of R o m a n Political Invective). Eos 56: 256-72. Naville, B. 1890 The Mound of the Jews and the City of Onias. M e m o r i e s of the Egyptian Exploration F u n d 7. L o n d o n : K. Paul, T r e n c h , Triibner. 1891 Bubaslis (1887-1889). Eighth Memoir of the Egyptian Exploration F u n d . 2nd ed. L o n d o n : K. Paul, Trench, Triibner. Nestle, E. 1884 Z u D a n i e l . 1) Dan 9,26. Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche 4: 247.

Wisserucliaft

Nestle, W. 1926

Apragmosyne

{Zu Thukydtdes 11 63.}. Philologus 8 1 : 129-140.

Neusner, J. 1972 J o s e p h u s ' Pharisees. P p . 224-44 in Fjc Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo IVidengren Oblata, eds. C J. Bleeker, S. G. F. B r a n d o n , and M. Simon. S u p p l e m e n t s to N u m e n = Studies in the History of Religions 21-2. I-eiden: Brill. 1987 J o s e p h u s ' Pharisees: A C o m p l e t e R e p e r t o i r e . P p . 274-92 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1987. Nicols, J. 1978

Vespasian and the Panes Flavianae.

Wie.sbaden; Steiner.

Niese, B. 1903 Geschichte der griechischen und makedon'ischen Staaten seit der Schlacht von Chaeronea 111. Von 188 bis 120 v.Chr. G o t h a : P e r t h e s . 1914 J o s e p h u s . P p . 569-79 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings. E d i n b u r g h : Clark. Noldeke T. 1864 Uber die Amalekiter und einige andre Nachbarvolker der Israeliten, G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht. NRSV

New Revised Standard

Version

Obst, E. 1924

J o h a n n e s Hyrkan II. Cols. 788-791 in RE Suppl. 4.

360

BIBLIOGRAPFIY

Oepke, A. 1967 ovotp. Theological OGIS

see Dittenberger,

Dictionary of the New Testament

5.220-38.

W.

P a g a n o n i , M. 1986 Dimenticare Amaiek. Firenze: Giuntina. P a r e n t e , V. 1994 Tout; 'iepoaoX6|ioi(; 'Avxioxeft; avayponpai {// Mace IV,9): G e r u s a ienime 6 mai stata u n a no^icl Rivista di Storia e l^tteralura Religiosa 30: 3-38. Paret, H . 1856 Ober d e n Pharisaismus d e s Josephus. Theologische Studien und Kritlken 29: 836-37. P a r k e r S. T. (cd.) 1987 The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project. 1980-1985, vol. i-2. B A R I n t e r n a t i o n a l Series 340. Oxford: B.A.R. Paul, A. 1992

Fiavius J o s e p h e et les Ess^niens. Pp. 126-38 in D i m a n t a n d R a p p a p o r t 1992.

Petletier, A. 1962 Fiavius Josephe, mlaplateur de la Lettre d'Arislee. Une reaction atticisante contre la koin&. t t u d e s et C o m m e n t a i r e s 45. Paris: Klincksieck. Perles, F . 1921 Notes sur les Apocryphes et Pseudfepigraphes. Revue des Etudes juives 73: 179. Petit. M. 1992

Les Ess6ens d e Phiion d'Alexandrie et les Esseniens. Pp. 139-55 in Dimant a n d R a p p a p o r t 1992.

P e t r i e , W . M. F. 1906 llyksos and the Israelite Cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt. lx>ndon. Petrochilos, N. K. 1974 Roman Attitudes Price. J. 1991 1992

to the Greeks. Athens.

n i e E n i g m a of Philip b e n Jakimos. Historia 40: 75-94. Jerusalem under Siege. I-.eiden: Brill.

Purvis. J. D . 1988

Jerusalem,

The Holy City • A Bibliography.

M e t u c h e n , N J : Scarecrow.

Puscy. F . B. 1876 T h e prophecy of t h e 70 W e e k s and of t h e D e a t h of t h e Messiah, a n d the A t t e m p t s to M a k e t h e 70 W e e k s E n d with Antiochus E p i p h a n e s . Pp. 164-233 of E.B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. 3rd ed. l , o n d o n : P a r k e r (Isl ed. 1864).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

R a b e l l o , A.M. 1980 T h e I^ega! Condition of the Jews in the R o m a n Empire. Pp. 662-762 in vol. 2.13 of Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Rajak, T. 1973 Justus of 1978 M o s e s in 111-22. 1983 Josephus: 1987 Josephus

Tiberia.s, Classical Quarterly 23:345-368. Ethiopia: Legend and Literature. Journal of Jewish Studies 29: Ihe Historian and flis Society, l ^ n d o n : Duckworth. and Justus of Tiberias. Pp. 81-94 in Feldman and I l a t a 1987.

Ranovich. A . B. 1950 Ellenizm i ego istoricheskii roV. Moscow; Izdatelstvo Akademija Nauk. T r a n s , into G e r m a n by K. Diesing and O. Roth, Der Hellenismus und seine geschichtliche Rolle. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958. R a p p a p o r t , U. 1969 l £ S Idumdens en Egypt. Revue de Philologie 43: 73-82. 1972 I.eontopolis. Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 1 : 3 1 . 1977 J o s e p h u s flavius: Notes on his Personality and his Work. flaUmma 15:89-95 ( H e b r e w ) . 1982 J o h n of Gischala: F r o m Galilee to icivs,i\em. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 479-93. 1983a Judea and Rome: The Jewish Revolts. T h e World History of the Jewish P e o p l e 11. J e r u s a l e m ( H e b r e w ) . 1983b J o h n of CJischala in Galilee. 'The Jemsalem Cathedra 3: 46-57. 1983c J o h n of Gischala in Jerusalem. Pp. 97-115 in The People and Its History, ed. M. Stern ( H e b r e w ) . 1992 'Hie Jewish l.eadership in J e r u s a l e m in the First Half of t h e G r e a t Revolt. Pp. 133-42 in Leaders and Leadership, eds. I. Makkin a n d Z . T z a h o r . J e r u s a l e m : Z . Shazar Center, (Hebrew). RE

A. Pauly, G . Wissowa, and W. Kroll, Realencyclopadie Altertumswissenschaft. 1893-1978.

der

klassischen

R e i n a c h , T. 1900 U n pr^fet juif il y a deux mille ans. Rei/ue des Etudes Juives 40: 50-54. 1930 Flavius Josephe. Contra Apionem. Texte eiabli et annate. Paris. (.Collec­ tion G. B u d e . Reinach, T , C h a m o n a r d , J. et al 1900-32 Oeuvres completes de Flavius Josephe. 7 vols. Paris: Leroux. Rengstorf, K. H . 1964 D i e Stadt der M o r d e r (Mt. 22.7). Pp. 106-29 in Judentum, Urchristen­ tum, Kirche: Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester. Beihefte zur 7-eitschrifl fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 26. 2nd ed., Berlin: T d p e l m a n n . 1967 XnoTii