Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond
Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor
John J. Collins T h e Divinity S c h o o l , Y a l e University
Associate Editor
Florentino García Martínez Q u m r a n Institute, University o f G r o n i n g e n
Advisory Board J. D U H A I M E A.
A. HILHORST -
K L O S T E R G A A R D PETERSEN J.T.A.G.M.
-
V A N RUITEN E.J.C.
P . W . V A N DER HORST
M . A . KNIBB J.
SIEVERS ~
T I G C H E L A A R ~ J.
V O L U M E 104
H. G.
NAJMAN STEMBERGER
TROMP
Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond Edited by
Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi
BRILL LEIDEN • B O S T O N 2005
T h i s b o o k is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Gataloging-in-Publication Data Josephus and Jewish history in Flavian R o m e and beyond / edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi. p. c m . — (Supplements to the Journal for the study o f Judaism, I S S N 1 3 8 4 2 1 6 1 ; v. 104) Includes bibliographical references and index. I S B N 9 0 - 0 4 - 1 4 1 7 9 - 0 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius—Congresses. 2 . J e w s — H i s t o r y — 5 8 6 B . C . - 7 0 A . D . Congresses. I. Sievers, Joseph. II. L e m b i , G a i a . III. Series. DS115.9J6 J64 2005 933\05—dc22 2005050145
ISSN
1384-2161
ISBN 90 04 14179 0
© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication m a y be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or b y any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to p h o t o c o p y items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to T h e Copyright Clearance Center, 2 2 2 R o s e w o o d Drive, Suite 9 1 0 , Danvers, M A 0 1 9 2 3 , U S A . Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS
CONTENTS
Preface
ix
Abbreviations
xv PART O N E
HISTORIOGRAPHY T h e Formation o f an Historical C a n o n o f the G r e c o - R o m a n Period: F r o m the Beginnings to Josephus DORON
3
MENDELS
L a genese historique des Antiquités juives
21
L u c i o TROIANI
J u d e a n Historiography in R o m e : Josephus a n d History in Contra Apionem B o o k 1 JOHN M .
G.
29
BARCLAY
T h e I m p o t e n c e o f Titus, o r J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum as an E x a m p l e o f "Pathetic" Historiography FAUSTO
45
PÁRENTE
O f A u d i e n c e a n d M e a n i n g : R e a d i n g J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum in the C o n t e x t o f a Flavian A u d i e n c e STEVE
71
MASON
T h e Provincial Historian in R o m e J O N A T H A N J.
101
PRICE
PART T W O
LITERARY QUESTIONS " B y the Waters o f B a b y l o n " : Josephus a n d G r e e k Poetry HONORA
HOWELL
....
121
CHAPMAN
T h e Hellenistic Biographical History o f K i n g Saul: Josephus, AJ.
6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 a n d 1 Samuel 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3
DETLEV
DORMEYER
147
vi
CONTENTS
P o w e r and Pity: T h e I m a g e o f H e r o d in J o s e p h u s
5
Bellum Judaicum TAMAR
159
LANDAU
C o m m o n p l a c e s in H e r o d ' s C o m m a n d e r S p e e c h in Josephus' A.J.
15.127-146
JAN
W I L L E M VAN
183 HENTEN
PART THREE
JOSEPHUS AND JUDAISM R e a d i n g the Bible in R o m e : Josephus and the Constraints o f Empire PAUL
209
SPILSBURY
J o s e p h u s ' U s e o f Prayers: Between Narrative a n d T h e o l o g y TESSEL
229
JONQUIÉRE
S o m e Observations o n Josephus' Description o f the
Essenian
M o r n i n g Prayer NICLAS
245
FÖRSTER
PART FOUR
HISTORIES AND HISTORY W e r client w e m ? D i e Darstellung des Flavischen T r i u m p h z u g e s auf d e m T i t u s b o g e n u n d bei Josephus {BJ.
7.123-162)
BARBARA
257
EBERHARDT
Josephus o n Titus: T h e V a n q u i s h e d Writing a b o u t the Victor JAMES S.
279 MCLAREN
Josephus and the Philosophers o f R o m e : D o e s Contra Apionem M i r r o r Domitian's Crushing o f the "Stoic O p p o s i t i o n " ? GUNNAR
297
HAALAND
Alexandrien als D r e h s c h e i b e zwischen Jerusalem und R o m : D i e Bedeutung der Stadt i m W e r k des Josephus GOTTFRIED
SCHIMANOWSKI
317
CONTENTS
vii
Jews, R o m a n s , and Christians: F r o m the Bellum Judaicum to the Antiquitates
331
G I O R G I O JOSSA
T h e D i v o r c e s o f the H e r o d i a n Princesses: Jewish L a w , R o m a n L a w o r Palace L a w ? BERNARD
343
S. JACKSON
PART FIVE
TRANSLATION A N D TRANSMISSION T h e Latin Translation o f J o s e p h u s ' Antiquitates GAIA
371
LEMBI
Translating B o o k 1 o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum: S o m e Critical Observations A N T H O N Y J.
383
FORTE
Josephus u n d das A l p h a b e t der R ö m e r : Ü b e r l e g u n g e n zur Schreibung Griechischer E i g e n n a m e n in Lateinischer Schrift FOLKER
405 SIEGERT
Concluding Remarks FOLKER
425
SIEGERT
List o f Contributors
431
I n d e x o f A n c i e n t Sources
433
PREFACE
T h e present v o l u m e is the fruit o f an international "Josephus b e t w e e n J e r u s a l e m
colloquium on
a n d R o m e " that w a s h e l d at
the
Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Pontifical G r e g o r i a n University in R o m e , S e p t e m b e r 2 1 - 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 . It was the seventh in a series o f annual colloquia, based o n an initiative that was l a u n c h e d in 1997 b y Prof. Folker Siegert, D i r e c t o r o f the Institutum J u d a i c u m Delitzschianum at the University o f Munster.
1
T o h o l d such a c o l l o q u i u m
within walking distance o f the A r c h o f Titus and o f J o s e p h u s ' place o f w o r k , if he actually lived o n the Quirinal Hill, p r o v i d e d a very special a m b i e n c e for the gathering o f o v e r forty specialists from four continents and ten different countries. G e o g r a p h i c proximity certainly raised the participants' sensitivity to J o s e p h u s ' context, though it did not make u p for the c h r o n o l o g i c a l and cultural distances. C o n t e x t is, o f course, o f utmost i m p o r t a n c e for understanding
a
person and his o r her w o r k , ancient o r m o d e r n . T h i s is especially true o f the w o r k o f J o s e p h b e n Matityahu, better k n o w n as Flavius Josephus, w h o was b o r n and raised in Jerusalem, but seems to have spent the s e c o n d half o f his life mainly in R o m e . T h e tensions and connections b e t w e e n his cultural a n d religious roots in Jerusalem, his role as a c o m m a n d e r in Galilee, a n d his later career as a writer in R o m e are evident in his works. T h e y have b e e n the subject o f a n u m b e r o f studies since the 1970s. Certainly his writings c a n n o t be understood without taking into a c c o u n t his precarious role as a person w h o inhabited these different worlds, sometimes simultaneously. In his works R o m e is a central force he needs to reckon with, but also o n e toward w h i c h he maintains a certain ambivalence. O n various occasions he refers to the R o m a n s ' fortune and their invincible p o w e r over J u d e a as well as o v e r other parts o f the Empire {B.J. 3 . 7 0 - 7 1 ; 5.367; 6.399; A.J. 2 0 . 7 0 and passim).
1
T h e proceedings o f the first six colloquia have been published as vols. 2 , 4 , 6, 10, 12, and 14 in the series Munsteraner Judaistische Studien (Munster: L I T Verlag, 1998— 2 0 0 3 ) . A n earlier colloquium had been organized under the auspices of the Italian Association for Jewish Studies (AISG). T h e proceedings were edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (StPB 4 1 ; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
X
PREFACE
G i v e n this assessment, J o s e p h u s is in line with c o n t e m p o r a r y writ ers. Plutarch reports that the origin o f the city's n a m e r e c e i v e d different interpretations. T h e first o n e cited is that R o m e ' s military 2
might (pcó|xt|) p r o v i d e d the city's n a m e . J o s e p h u s employs the same term at least o n c e with an ironic twist. H e reports that Gabinius was sent from R o m e (EK Tcojiriq) to Syria (57 B . C E . ) . Gabinius then rushed to J u d e a to assist H y r c a n u s II, w h o was unable to withstand the might (pco^ri) o f his n e p h e w A l e x a n d e r , the son o f his brother Aristobulus II. T h e latter, h o w e v e r , was prevented from carrying o u t his plans b y the R o m a n s (Tcojiaioi)
3
w h o w e r e beginning to m a k e
their p o w e r felt in Jerusalem. It m a y b e intentional that Josephus d o e s not clarify w h o these R o m a n s w e r e .
4
Perhaps it was e n o u g h
for h i m to s h o w that they w e r e really "the mighty." W h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g the insuperable might o f R o m e , not only in the military and political arena but in m a n y cultural spheres as well, Josephus remained c o n n e c t e d to his roots. H e d e v o t e d m a n y years a n d twenty-seven b o o k s to the writing o f the history o f his p e o p l e in his two major works, and allotted less space, but equal detenriination, to a forceful a p o l o g y o f J u d a i s m in the Contra Apionem (and to his Vita). Y e t , if scholarly communis opinio is not mistaken, he did all this in R o m e , with a n d for an audience that was at least to a large extent non-Jewish and (Greco-) R o m a n . T h e question as to h o w he kept these different realms c o n n e c t e d is tackled in this v o l u m e in various ways a n d from different angles. In the essays o f this v o l u m e it is quite evident that there are m a n y areas o f intense discussion, whether it b e a b o u t the real o r intended audience o f Josephus, his c o n n e c t i o n s with R o m e a n d Jerusalem, his reliability as a historian, a n d so forth. T h e r e is general agreement, h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s needs to b e taken seriously as an author a n d n o t simply as a quarry that m a y be used as a source o f information a b o u t the various subject matters he treated. T h e r e f o r e , the first section o f this v o l u m e centers o n questions o f historiography, putting J o s e p h u s the historian in a b r o a d e r context.
2
5iot xf]v ev xoiq onXoiq pcbuT|v oikox; ovouotcoci xfjv TI6A.IV (Plutarch, Rom. 1.1). A.J. 1 4 . 8 2 - 8 3 . T h i s triple play on the word pcburi is entirely absent in the other wise closely parallel passage in B.J. 1.160. A b r a h a m Schalit (Konig Herodes: der Mann und sein Werk [SJ 4; Berlin: D e Gruyter, 1 9 6 9 ] , 31) suggests R o m a n businessmen; see also M e n a h e m Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (in Hebrew) (ed. Daniel R . Schwartz; Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1 9 9 5 ; repr. 1999), 2 1 9 . 3
4
XI
PREFACE
T h e o p e n i n g essay b y D o r o n M e n d e l s raises important
questions
concerning the development o f canons o f historical writings. In a brief essay, L u c i o Troiani discusses the purpose a n d techniques in Josephus' c o m p o s i t i o n o f the Antiquitates. J o h n Barclay, using the Contra Apionem as his test case, applies post-colonial theory to the study o f J o s e p h u s ' strategy o f trying to p r o v e the truthfulness
o f the J u d e a n tradition.
A l m o s t as a counterpoint, Fausto Párente, o n the other hand, raises some serious questions about Josephus' reliability as a historian, focus ing o n s o m e famous incidents in the Bellum Judaicum. T h e other t w o contributions deal with the question o f J o s e p h u s ' audience. W h i l e Steve M a s o n emphasizes the R o m a n c o n t e x t in w h i c h J o s e p h u s ' works were written a n d the immediate R o m a n audience to w h i c h they were addressed, J o n a t h a n Price insists o n the "provincial" and J u d e a n character o f Josephus a n d his works. T h e s e c o n d section is d e v o t e d to literary approaches to Josephus, a relatively n e w field that in a w a y h a d b e e n o p e n e d u p with numer ous studies b y Louis Feldman o n J o s e p h u s ' rewriting o f the Bible. H e r e , instead, the focus is o n the specific techniques used b y Josephus that link h i m n o t only to G r e e k o r Hellenistic historiography and rhetoric, but also to poets such as Pindar, a link e x p l o r e d b y H o n o r a C h a p m a n . T h e rendition o f the figure o f Saul in Hellenistic g a r b is e x a m i n e d b y Detlev D o r m e y e r . T a m a r L a n d a u subjects the H e r o d narrative a n d especially the K i n g ' s i m a g e in the Bellum to a narratological analysis. J a n Willem van Henten concentrates o n o n e o f Herod's speeches in the Antiquitates, c o m p a r i n g it to c o m m a n d e r speeches in other G r e e k historians. In the third section some aspects o f the interaction between Josephus' Judaism a n d his context are e x p l o r e d . In particular, the brief essays b y Tessel J o n q u i é r e a n d Nielas Fórster deal with the issue o f prayer in a multicultural environment. Paul Spilsbury, taking his c u e in part from J o h n Barclay's post-colonial interpretation, shows h o w Josephus' reading a n d presentation o f biblical material was deeply influenced, positively as well as negatively, b y the constraints o f living at the center o f the R o m a n empire. T h e fourth section tackles a variety o f historical issues, w h e r e it is possible to bring Josephus' w o r k into fruitful c o m p a r i s o n with other c o n t e m p o r a r y o r near-contemporary literary, d o c u m e n t a r y , a n d ar chaeological sources, beginning from the testimony o f the A r c h o f Titus, e x a m i n e d b y Barbara
Eberhardt. J a m e s M c L a r e n , instead,
critically analyzes the image o f Titus that emerges from the literary
xii
PREFACE
sources. G u n n a r H a a l a n d brings us to the time o f D o m i t i a n a n d addresses the question o f the whether the crushing o f the Stoic o p p o sition b y the E m p e r o r is reflected in the Contra Apionem. Gottfried Schimanowski leads us b e y o n d R o m e to Alexandria and the latter's i m p o r t a n c e in Josephus, w h i c h is certainly inferior to R o m e but in n o w a y to b e o v e r l o o k e d . A n o t h e r perspective is o p e n e d b y Bernard J a c k s o n ' s expert discussion o f d o c u m e n t a r y a n d literary
material
c o n c e r n i n g marriage and d i v o r c e in theory a n d in practice. H e r e J o s e p h u s is an important source that needs to b e illuminated b y other sorts o f e v i d e n c e , but in turn sheds light o n several cases. Finally, in a subject area that is fraught
actual
with controversy,
namely the Testimonium Flavianum, G i o r g i o Jossa provides a n u a n c e d analysis o f what might have b e e n J o s e p h u s ' intent in introducing Jesus as a victim o f Pilate's misrule. A last section deals with several aspects o f the reception o f Josephus, in particular questions c o n c e r n i n g the translator o f Josephus, ancient and m o d e r n . G a i a L e m b i discusses several passages where the freq u e n d y neglected Latin translation m a y p r o v i d e access to early a n d important textual traditions. A n t h o n y Forte discusses s o m e o f the diffi culties encountered in faithfully rendering the Bellum into English today, a n d while appreciative o f the w o r k o f his predecessors, shows s o m e weaknesses in the highly regarded translation b y H . St. J. T h a c k e r a y . Finally, Folker Siegert discusses the difficult choices to b e m a d e in rendering G r e e k p r o p e r names in a m o d e r n G e r m a n
translation.
Prof. Siegert also offers s o m e c o n c l u d i n g remarks c o n c e r n i n g the c o l l o q u i u m as a w h o l e , pointing out s o m e o f its achievements as well as s o m e areas still o p e n to discussion. This v o l u m e a n d the c o l l o q u i u m that generated it w o u l d have b e e n impossible without various forms o f support, assistance,
and
c o o p e r a t i o n for w h i c h w e are immensely grateful. W h e n the question o f the feasibility o f such a c o l l o q u i u m in R o m e was still u n d e c i d e d , and it seemed nearly impossible to get public o r private funding for it, M s g r . D D r . R i c h a r d Mathes, then R e c t o r o f the Pontificio Istituto T e u t o n i c o di S. Maria dell'Anima offered his enthusiastic and concrete support. A generous grant from the A n i m a Foundation p r o v i d e d the basis for starting to plan in earnest. T h e D i o c e s e o f Munster p r o v i d e d additional funding. T h e c o l l o q u i u m was further
supported b y the
University o f Pavia through its Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità. Logistical support and helpful advice was unstintingly p r o v i d e d b y Professor Folker Siegert and his staff at the Institutum J u d a i c u m
PREFACE
Xlll
Delitzschianum. A special thanks goes to the Institute's D r . J. Cornelis de V o s , w h o helped edit the contributions b y colleagues D o r m e y e r , Schimanowski, and Siegert. T h e Pontifical Biblical Institute through its R e c t o r , at first the R e v . R o b e r t F. O ' T o o l e , SJ, and at a later stage the R e v . Stephen Pisano, SJ, generously p r o v i d e d the meeting facilities and other amenities for the c o l l o q u i u m . T h e Pontifical Biblical Institute also gave J o s e p h Sievers time and encouragement during the preparatory phases. Faculty and staff at the Institute, especially M r . C a r l o V a l e n t i n o a n d R e v . A n t h o n y J. Forte, SJ, w e r e most helpful in making the c o l l o q u i u m a pleasant a n d successful event. T h e Pontifical G r e g o r i a n University w e l c o m e d the c o l l o q u i u m participants for a p u b l i c session a n d m e m o r a b l e evening. T h e secretary o f its Cardinal B e a C e n t r e
a for
J u d a i c Studies, M s . Flavia Galiani, w o r k e d untiringly to take care o f m a n y o f the logistic details before, during, a n d after the c o l l o q u i u m , and helped in the preparation o f the present v o l u m e . Istina D e c o r t e o f Incontri R o m a n i t o o k care o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n s a n d tour arrange ments for the participants. R o b e r t a R o n c h i a t o , a doctoral student at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, p r o v i d e d additional
assistance.
T h e present v o l u m e is, o f course, primarily the fruit o f the labors o f e a c h contributor. Both o f us edited all the contributions in English and French. T h e articles in G e r m a n were edited b y J o s e p h Sievers, G a i a L e m b i prepared
the index. T h e w h o l e process, spread
over
different countries and continents, was certainly m a d e easier b y fast and efficient e-mail c o m m u n i c a t i o n , but it w o u l d not have b e e n p o s sible without the excellent c o o p e r a t i o n o f all involved. G A I A LEMBI
JOSEPH
Pisa and Jerusalem
SIEVERS
Rome M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 5
ABBREVIATIONS
In general, the abbreviations used are those contained in Patrick H . A l e x a n d e r et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). In addition, the following abbreviations have b e e n adopted: BJP
Brill J o s e p h u s Project: Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. E d . Steve M a s o n (Leiden-BostonK o l n : Brill, 2 0 0 0 - ) V o l . 3: Judean Antiquities 1-4; Trans, and Commentary b y Louis H . Feldman (2000) V o l . 4 : Judean Antiquities 5-7; Trans, and Commentary b y Christopher T . B e g g (2005) V o l . 5: Judean Antiquities 8-10; Trans, and Commentary b y Christopher T . B e g g a n d Paul Spilsbury (2005) V o l . 9: Life of Josephus; Translation and Commentary b y S. M a s o n (2001)
GLAJJ
M e n a h e m Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 v o l s . ; J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences a n d Humanities, 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 4 )
Niese
Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. Benedictus Niese (7 vols.; Berlin: W e i d m a n n , 1 8 8 5 - 1 8 9 5 ; the so-called editio maior)
Schürer, History
Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. Eng. e d . G e z a V e r m e s , Fergus Millar, et alii; 3 vols, in 4; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987)
PART ONE H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
OF
THE G R E C O - R O M A N PERIOD: F R O M T H E BEGINNINGS T O JOSEPHUS* DORON THE
MENDELS
H E B R E W UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
A S Josephus scholars w e are always a m a z e d about the fact that except for the H e b r e w Bible, most o f the sources he used for the Antiquitates and Contra Apionem, important as they might have b e e n , vanished in thin air. W e l l - k n o w n historians at their time such as Posidonius, Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , as well as the ones he used in his Contra Apionem, figures like M a n e t h o a n d Berossus, all have
disappeared.
Y e t the H e b r e w Bible that was used b y Josephus in his Antiquitates 1-12 was preserved since this was considered as a Jewish holy text. W e should then ask: W a s the disappearance o f sources, which Josephus used for his w o r k , a u n i q u e p h e n o m e n o n ? W a s it an accidental process that c a n b e p o i n t e d out only in J o s e p h u s ' case? Is it m e r e c h a n c e that Josephus was kept whereas all his sources except for the Bible vanished during later generations? Let m e then surprise y o u , o r perhaps even shock y o u : T h e case o f Josephus c o n c e r n i n g the disappearance o f his sources was not unique in antiquity, a n d should b e seen as part o f a process that has a bear ing o n Josephus studies. Since w e speak o f lost historical works as against preserved works, w e are actually o c c u p i e d with the crucial p r o b l e m o f c a n o n . C a n w e speak o f a historical c a n o n that was cre ated in antiquity? I have studied this issue for the last three years ( a m o n g other topics), a n d m y conclusions are based o n a detailed research that has a time-span o f 1000 years, namely from H e r o d o t u s to the w o r l d o f Late Antiquity. T h i s c a n n o t b e b r o u g h t forward within the time limit o f m y presentation here, but I will t o u c h here only s o m e points that m a y interest y o u . H a v i n g said that, can w e find a list o f preferred historical works at any given time in Antiquity? I k n o w only o f a very partial o n e , * A m o r e extensive version (reaching Late Antiquity) of this article can be found in m y book Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the Greco-Roman World (London: Sheffield-Continuum, 2 0 0 4 ) , chapter 1.
4
DORON MENDELS
from the Hellenistic era ( S E G 2 6 . 1 1 2 3 ) . But a list o f distinguished authors is not necessarily a c a n o n ,
1
a n d scholars are u n a n i m o u s in
assuming that there n e v e r was a c a n o n o f historical writings in Antiquity. T h e r e was perhaps a list o f c a n o n i c a l literary authors, but 2
certainly not o f historians. T o m y knowledge, this question has never b e e n seriously addressed, n o t e v e n w h e r e I w o u l d recently h a v e e x p e c t e d it.
3
I w o u l d like to make an attempt in this direction.
T h e term " c a n o n " is a l o a d e d o n e .
4
T h e m a i n reason for this is
that it has b e e n very often associated with the monotheistic Scriptures. But it also received m u c h attention in the last century from literary critics a n d musicologists. W h a t is relevant for us here is that a c a n o n is f o r m e d gradually and its final shape is defined b y later generations. W h e t h e r there was o r was not a c o n c e p t o f a historical c a n o n in ancient times, what matters to us is the fact that later generations in the w o r l d o f antiquity had a well-defined c o n c e p t o f w h i c h historian was " i n " a n d w h i c h was " o u t , " w h i c h p e r i o d o f history was to b e r e m e m b e r e d and w h i c h was to b e forgotten. I c a n n o t enter here this p r o b l e m in detail, but this process b r o u g h t to a fragmentary picture o f ancient history. T h e historians w h o entered the m o d e r n era are those w e m a y call n o w c a n o n i c a l .
5
Nine factors a p p e a r to have contributed to the fragmentary nature o f o u r picture o f ancient history:
1
See recently for the literary canon A . Vardi, "Canons o f Literary Texts in R o m e " in Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary Canons in the Ancient World (ed. M . Finkelberg a n d G . G . Stroumsa; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 3 1 - 1 5 2 , w h o takes a list o f authors to represent a literary canon. For this problem see also R . Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship. From the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 205-9. 2
"Das K ö l n e r Philosophenmosaik." See mosaics from the Rhineland and M o s e l valleys from the second century C . E . and later which allude in several cases to "figures o f philosophers and poets, or of Muses. O n e mosaic from Trier, for instance, shows a philosopher, evidently A n a x i m a n d e r , seated beside a sundial; one from C o l o g n e has philosophers and poets identified b y n a m e , in Greek: Diogenes, K l e o boulos, Socrates, Cheilon, Sophokles . . . Others draw u p o n the amphitheatre a n d circus for their materials: charioteers are especially popular in Trier . . ." Katherine M . D . , D u n b a b i n , Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1999), 7 9 - 8 1 . 3
J. Marincola, in his recent book, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). Michel Foucault, "L'ordre du discours, 1 0 - 1 1 , " in A History of Reading in the West (ed. G . Cavallo and R . Chartier; Amherst: University of M a s s . Press, 1999), 3 4 9 - 5 2 . T h e discussion here is on a historiographical canon a n d not o n other sources such as archaeology. 4
5
5
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
1. R o l l a n d c o d e x are vulnerable. M a n y manuscripts disappeared during Antiquity and the early M i d d l e A g e s due to physical reasons such as wars, fires, earthquakes a n d
floods.
"Certainly the fact that
a w o r k o f ancient literature a c h i e v e d circulation in c o d e x f o r m was n o automatic passport to survival";
6
2. W e can assume that at certain junctures in Antiquity b o o k s w e r e b a n n e d , as w e learn from T a c i t u s c o n c e r n i n g the affair o f Cremutius C o r d u s {Ann. 4.34); 3. M a n y historical writings from Antiquity have disappeared d u e to the fact that they were heavily used b y later sources. T h a t is, w h e n a source was heavily q u o t e d b y a later source, the latter was in m a n y instances m o r e often read than its o w n sources. W e shall see that those historians w h o withstood "cannibalization" b y their users, o r c o n t i n u e d to b e read themselves, did in m a n y instances enter
the
list o f surviving works; 4. It is c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d that summaries and epitomes b r o u g h t a b o u t the elimination o f the works they e p i t o m i z e d ;
7
5. In certain cases w e c a n s h o w that w h e n a historian was harshly criticized b y others, he lost his status as an independent historian. Even w h e n a great authority praised his source, it is quite likely that the source was forgotten a n d the great authority used (or read) instead; 6. T h e C h u r c h Fathers as a rule w e r e not interested in the history o f the Gentiles (except for a limited use b y those w h o w r o t e C h r o n o graphies); this in itself is a misfortune. In their use o f historical gen tile sources they frequently caused the effect n o t e d in point 3 a b o v e ; 7. Certain historians achieved an authoritative position during their o w n lifetimes, a n d they usually retained it in ensuing generations. I f they survived cannibalization processes (not always e m e r g i n g intact), they m a n a g e d to enter the historical c a n o n . W e shall see that Polybius survived the process (at least partially); Ephorus a n d T i m a e u s did not. T h e y perished, i.e. were cannibalized. In other w o r d s , the abil ity to survive cannibalization a n d attain popularity b e c a m e m a j o r factors in the preservation o f a historical c a n o n ; 8. Public libraries w e r e created in the late R e p u b l i c a n d later in 8
several places in the E m p i r e . But they, as well as o c c a s i o n a l b o o k -
6
C . H . Roberts and T . C . Skeat, The Birth of the Codex ( L o n d o n : T h e A c a d e m y by O x f o r d University Press, 1987), 7 5 ff. 7
British
P. A . Brunt, " O n Historical Fragments and Epitomes," CQNS 3 0 (1980): 4 7 7 - 9 4 . L . D . Reynolds and N . G . W i l s o n , Scribes and Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd ed., 1991), 2 3 - 2 5 and passim. 8
6
DORON MENDELS
shops, did not have an influence o n the process o f canonization. If 9
a certain b o o k was o n the shelves, as Aulus Gellius tells us, but was not r e p r o d u c e d and circulated, it was d o o m e d to disappear. R e y n o l d s and W i l s o n argue (p. 32) that "the story that the e m p e r o r Tacitus ( 2 7 5 - 6 ) o r d e r e d that the works o f his name-sake b e c o p i e d ten times a year . . . ( / / . A. 27.10.3), is almost certainly a fabrication o f the late fourth century, but the situation that it implies m a y not b e far from the truth." 9. Historical curricula m a y have b e e n formulated at schools from time to time, and those w o u l d have helped create a c a n o n o f historical books.
10
T h i s c o u l d have h a p p e n e d in the sixth century, for instance,
w h e n the c o n c e p t o f the historian w h o followed a predecessor with hardly any overlapping in the narrative, was emerging. Perhaps this c o n c e p t in itself was responsible for the view that the w h o l e o f ancient history should b e r e c o r d e d b y a succession o f historians w h o nar rate defined periods without overlapping. T h i s o f course does n o t m e a n that such a view was not apparent before the Byzantine period. A t all events, as is well k n o w n , curricula have a great influence in creating m o d e r n literary c a n o n s . It m a y b e n o t e d that curricula a n d collections o f fragments a c c o r d i n g to themes as well as codification processes were extremely p o p u l a r in the Byzantine E m p i r e .
11
O u r m e t h o d here will b e to e x a m i n e the " b i o g r a p h y " o f historical works at various junctures during antiquity. But the p r o b l e m remains that ancient historians usually d o not specify what source they are using. E v e n if they d o (or the source c a n b e inferred from their writ ings), w e c a n n o t b e sure whether the^ used the source directly o r t o o k it from an intermediate work. M o r e o v e r , a distinction has to b e m a d e between the availability o f historical texts and the i m p a c t they had o n later generations. H e n c e , what counts for m y discussion here is not whether the annalists used b y the great R o m a n historian Livy were still circulating as manuscripts here a n d there, but whether they had any farther impact o n historical writings after Livy. In this case
9
See Reynolds and W i l s o n , Scribes, 3 0 . O n the literary school curricula, see W i l a m o w i t z mentioned in Reynolds and W i l s o n , Scribes, 5 3 , and M . I. M a r r o u , A History of Education in Antiquity (London: Sheed and W a r d , 1965). 1 0
11
A b o u t curricula as canon molders see H . Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1 ( M u n i c h : C . H . Beck, 1978), and D . Mendels, "Greek and R o m a n History in the Bibliotheca of Photius," in Idem, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic History (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 0 0 - 2 1 0 .
7
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
o n e has to b e cautious since a later historian m a y have used the annalists only indirectly through a historian w h o h a d already drawn o n them, even without b e i n g aware o f d o i n g so. T h e output o f historical writing in antiquity is relatively n o t very great. Nevertheless w e c a n e x a m i n e o u r available sources a n d learn what historians used at certain junctures. In other w o r d s , w e c a n try to assess the reception o f historical works b y later historians.
For
instance, w e all k n o w that the histories o f H e r o d o t u s a n d T h u c y d i d e s had a very l o n g life, a n d that they b e c a m e m o d e l s for the writing o f history. T h e i r reception (by other historians) in antiquity was extra ordinary, n o t so m u c h because they were used as sources b y later writers, but because, like Polybius in the Hellenistic era, they were seen as m o d e l s for perfect historiography already during their o w n times. But the surprising fact is that with all the processes o f selection and elimination listed a b o v e in 1-9, a solid sequential line o f histo rians in antiquity remains, usually with o n e " m a i n " historian in each p e r i o d . T h i s is the picture w e have today a n d it was p r o b a b l y sim ilarly v i e w e d in the sixth century C.E. It is a well-known fact that s o m e o f the historians themselves thought they were continuing where a famous predecessor h a d s t o p p e d .
12
Polybius continues Aratus, and
X e n o p h o n says that he is continuing T h u c y d i d e s . Agathias claims that he is continuing Procopius o f Caesarea, and M e n a n d e r Protector continues Agathias. T h i s in itself d o e s not o f course m e a n that there was o n e historian per p e r i o d , but it d o e s indicate that there was a c o n c e p t o f a succession o f those c o n s i d e r e d to have b e e n outstand ing historians. Let m e elaborate. W h e n I say that a historical c a n o n e m e r g e d through a gradual process, I m e a n that several factors, as I have sug gested a b o v e , contributed to the inclusion a n d exclusion o f historical works. W h e n I say inclusion and exclusion, I d o not necessarily refer to a process dictated from a b o v e . But it was also not merely a m e c h a nical o r natural kind o f process. T h e selection " h a p p e n e d " during a thousand years o f the creation o f a linear c o n c e p t o f history. W h e n w e d e c i d e to use the term c a n o n in this context w e must m a k e the o b v i o u s distinction b e t w e e n a holy c a n o n a n d a secular o n e . H o l y canons are the O l d Testament, the N e w Testament a n d the Q u ' r a n .
1 2
13
Marineóla, Authority and Tradition, passim. See for instance P. B. Davies, Scribes and Schools. The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, K y . : Westminster J o h n K n o x Press, 1998), and the older bibli ography cited there. 1 3
8
DORON MENDELS
Secular c a n o n s m a y b e o f English literature o r o f m o d e r n music. A c a n o n o f the latter nature c a n b e easily assessed with hindsight, as H a r o l d B l o o m a n d others have d o n e .
1 4
T h e y w e r e never a n n o u n c e d
during the process o f creation, and w e r e not a c o n s c i o u s undertak ing. In b o t h cases distinguished figures and revolutionary ones h a d a g o o d c h a n c e to get into the p a n t h e o n o f figures that f o r m e d a c a n o n . But in the case o f ancient historians, a c a n o n - f o r m i n g process that stretched o v e r a very l o n g p e r i o d , m e c h a n i c a l and technical fac tors were m u c h m o r e dominant. W h e r e a s the c a n o n o f m o d e r n music a n d art gives us a m o r e o r less reliable representation o f what h a p p e n e d in these fields in the twentieth century, the c a n o n o f ancient history is extremely fragmentary,
and is thus an obstacle to a true
p e r c e p t i o n o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e history o f that p e r i o d . W h a t w e still have o f this history is what p e o p l e h a d in the ninth and tenth c e n turies, a picture extremely distorted because o f its b r o k e n - u p nature. But these c a n o n makings share a certain aspect. T h e g r o u p o f ancient historians that r e a c h e d the m o d e r n p e r i o d is a most distinguished o n e , an astonishing s e q u e n c e o f great historians figures
o r revolutionary
m a n y o f w h o m i n t r o d u c e d n e w historical m e t h o d s and n e w
genres. H e n c e , although so m a n y eliminatory factors w e r e at w o r k during the canonization process, it is n o accident that w e still c a n read T h u c y d i d e s , Polybius, Tacitus a n d A m m i a n u s Marcellinus. I use the expression "astonishing sequence." W h y is there a sequence a n d w h y is it so astonishing? L o o k i n g b a c k from 9 0 0 C.E. o n e seems to find s o m e sort o f rationale behind the grand narrative that e m e r g e d c o n c e r n i n g ancient history. O r is this a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the fact that w e are so used to this picture? T h i s has b e c o m e o u r o w n m e m o r y o f the period, o r rather the sole image w e have o f it. But it is remarkable that the m o r e important historical periods were those elaborated u p o n . I shall treat this aspect after a short necessary survey o f the evidence.
1 4
H . Bloom, The Western Canon: The Boob and School of the Ages ( N e w York: Harcourt Brace, 1994), and for recent discussions o f literary and musical canons see, for instance: J. G o r a k , The Making of the Modern Canon ( L o n d o n and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone, 1991); W . W e b e r , The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); F. E . Court, Institutionalizing English Literature. The Culture and Politics of Literary Study, 1750-1900 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); J. Guillory, Cultural Capital. The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press, 1993); T . Ross, The Making of the English Literary Canon. From the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century (Montreal: M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s University Press, 1998); R . Alter, Canon and Creativity. Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture ( N e w H a v e n and L o n d o n : Y a l e University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) .
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
9
Before discussing the nature o f the historical c a n o n o f antiquity, let m e again emphasize the main factor that brought about the for mation o f this c a n o n . I f w e wish to e x a m i n e the sources used b y the surviving ancient writers o f history, w e w o u l d have great difficulty in finding most o f them. T h e y h a d already disappeared during antiq uity and certainly towards the M i d d l e A g e s . A great deal o f this u n h a p p y circumstance was brought about b y the fact that if the users o f sources h a p p e n e d to b e important historians in their o w n times o r even later, it was almost inevitable that the sources they used b e c a m e " s e c o n d a r y , " suppressed, and lost during the course o f time. N o t every figure that wrote history a n d was famous in his o w n lifetime was necessarily respected b y later generations. D i o d o r u s Siculus was not the greatest o f historians, but he was influential because he was an innovator within the genre o f universal history, and contributed to the intellectual life o f the first century B.C.E. as a collector o f sources.
15
H e is a g o o d e x a m p l e o f what I have just observed. H e d r e w o n an a m a z i n g n u m b e r o f sources in m a n y o f his predecessors for Books 1-5 o f his Bibliotheke. All these disappeared in the course o f time and it was only the Bibliotheke that was influential. H e b e c a m e as it were a substitute for Ctesias, Hecataeus o f A b d e r a , Megasthenes, Ephorus and T i m a e u s (used in his later books), a kind o f reader's digest. T h e same holds true o f the great b i o g r a p h e r Plutarch, the larger part o f w h o s e historical sources have also vanished, except for those that w e r e a l r e a d y c a n o n i c a l w h e n h e u s e d t h e m : historians
s u c h as
H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s and Polybius. T h i s p h e n o m e n o n o f a " m a i n " text using other texts that then b e c o m e secondary and disappear in the course o f time was, I believe, quite c o m m o n in antiquity. In fact this h a p p e n e d also in the case o f the H e b r e w Bible. All the written sources o f the "historical" b o o k s o f the Bible have vanished (and the oral ones have b e e n forgotten) since the Bible b e c a m e the authoritative text. A n o t h e r example c o m e s from music: J. S. B a c h d r e w o n c o m p o s i t i o n s o f his predecessors, e m b e d d i n g t h e m in his o w n music, and m a n y o f the works he used have vanished, o b s c u r e d b y his great r e n o w n .
1 5
16
E . R a w s o n , Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985); and K . S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990). C h . Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach. The Learned Musician (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 6
10
DORON
MENDELS
Let us n o w examine in m o r e detail h o w a historical c a n o n emerged in antiquity. Since I a m writing here for Josephus scholars, I will n o t go b e y o n d Josephus' era. Needless to say that this survey is an extremely important b a c k g r o u n d for Josephus studies since if o n e looks at the list o f historians J o s e p h u s mentions, o n e immediately figures
finds
many
that I will mention in the following. I will concentrate o n
two lines o f historiography w h i c h Josephus was aware of, the G r e e k one
and the R o m a n o n e .
The
History o f H e r o d o t u s is decidedly the first full a c c o u n t in G r e e k
from the ancient G r e e k world. His main theme is the conflict between the Persians and the Greeks during the years 5 0 0 - 4 7 9 B.C.E. Therefore it is remarkable
that H e r o d o t u s remains o u r only source for this
period, although m a n y historians, the logographoi, such as Hecataeus o f Miletus w h o m H e r o d o t u s used, but also p e o p l e like X a n t h u s a n d C h a r o n as well as Hellanicus, were already writing o n various g e o graphical and historical themes in the G r e e k East before his time and during it. N o n e o f those historical m o n o g r a p h s have survived except for references and quotations in later authors. Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s m a y have used the Lydiaca o f X a n t h u s for Lydian history, a n d Dionysius o f Halicarnassus
as well as Strabo m a y still have
k n o w n s o m e o f the logographoi ( T h u c y d . 1.21; Strabo 2.6.2.; 12.3, 21). In the sixth century C E . Stephanus o f Byzantium m a y still have used Hecataeus o f Miletus' Periodos Ges. It is h o w e v e r extremely unlikely that he saw the original, a n d it is quite clear that this w h o l e g r o u p o f local histories written before H e r o d o t u s , during his time, and later, has disappeared. If w e g o o n towards the years 4 7 9 - 4 0 4 B.C.E., w e are astonished to realize that for the very important
p e r i o d o f the Pentecontaetia
( 4 7 9 - 4 3 1 B.C.E.), the peak o f Athenian d e m o c r a c y and empire (the s o - c a l l e d Delian League), n o full and linear historiography has sur v i v e d . W e have o n l y the s o m e w h a t p r o b l e m a t i c i n t r o d u c t i o n o f 11
T h u c y d i d e s to his Peloponnesian War,
but this c o v e r a g e o f the years
4 7 9 - 4 3 1 is extremely c o n d e n s e d and concise. T h u c y d i d e s n o d o u b t used written sources for the history o f that p e r i o d but they are all lost. T h e historians called Atthidographers w h o w r o t e local histories in the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. (the Atthis) p r o b a b l y p r o v i d e d
17
E. Badian, From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentecontaetia (Baltimore: J o h n Hopkins University Press, 1993).
THE
11
FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
information a b o u t the Pentecontaetia but they, like their 18
the logographoi,
forerunners
disappeared possibly due to heavy c o n s u m p t i o n b y
later historians. Ephorus used t h e m extensively, whereas perhaps saw s o m e o f them. H e n c e , as a result o f the
Pausanias
transmission
process, and the situation in which Herodotus and Thucydides b e c a m e so influential, very few narratives o f this crucial p e r i o d are preserved in w e s t e r n c u l t u r e . T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t in eight b o o k s o f the Peloponnesian W a r between Sparta and Athens and their allies dur ing the years 4 3 1 - 4 1 1 B.C.E. survived. T h u c y d i d e s did not c o m p l e t e his undertaking and the last years o f the war, 4 1 1 - 4 0 4 / 3 , remained u n c o v e r e d b y h i m . H e himself used mainly oral material but also written sources, s o m e a c k n o w l e d g e d (such as Hellanicus) a n d others u n a c k n o w l e d g e d ( H e r o d o t u s , A n t i o c h u s o f Syracuse, e t c . ) .
19
From
411 B.C.E. (where Thucydides stopped his account) w e have X e n o p h o n ' s Hellenica. E x c e p t for T h u c y d i d e s a n d X e n o p h o n all the sources for this w a r had disappeared. T h e popularity o f b o t h T h u c y d i d e s and X e n o p h o n never really faded. X e n o p h o n was aware that T h u c y d i d e s ' unfinished a c c o u n t o f the Peloponnesian W a r n e e d e d a c o n t i n u a t i o n .
20
His Hellenica carried the
history o n to 3 6 2 B.C.E. with a focus o n Sparta's role. X e n o p h o n remains the only source for that p e r i o d , other c o n t e m p o r a r y sources having disappeared. H o w e v e r , a fragment o f an u n k n o w n historian referring to the year 3 9 6 - 3 9 5 B.C.E. was discovered in 1906 in the sands o f O x y r h y n c h u s in Egypt. Ephorus o f C y m e ' s ( 4 0 5 - 3 3 0 B.C.E.) vast w o r k in 3 0 b o o k s was, a c c o r d i n g to Polybius, the first universal history. But it is lost. Ephorus narrated events in East and W e s t from the return o f the Heraclidai to 3 4 0 B.C.E. (the siege o f Perinthus). T h e reception o f this w o r k b y later historians in antiquity was enthusiastic and it had a great impact o n the writings o f later figures. Ephorus was used b y Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , Plutarch, Josephus and others. D i o d o r u s Siculus paraphrased h i m extensively, a n d this is w h y w e still have a g o o d narrative for fourth-century G r e e c e . A l t h o u g h Ephorus, o r quotations from him, were still quite current in Late Antiquity (Stephanus o f Byzantium, Suda), it seems that the
18
See, in general, P. Harding, Androtion and the Atthis: the Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). S. Hornblower, Thucydides (London: Duckworth, 1987). Cf. Marineóla, Authority and Tradition, 2 3 7 - 3 8 , for a summary o f this well-known notion. 1 9
2 0
12
DORON MENDELS
extensive quarrying o f his w o r k b y later historians was slowing d o w n already during the first century C E . T h e bits o f Ephorus preserved in Felix J a c o b y ' s collection o f G r e e k fragments confirm this assump tion. Ephorus was thus gradually forgotten because those w h o used his work, historians such as Diodorus, Strabo o r Plutarch, were read exten sively o r exclusively b y later generations, and he sank into o b l i v i o n .
21
A n o t h e r prolific historian w h o s e loss m a y b e lamented is T h e o p o m p u s o f C h i o s . His Hellenica in twelve b o o k s and his Philippica in fifty-eight
b o o k s recounted the history o f the years 4 1 1 - 3 3 6 B.C.E.
Perhaps the fact that he "consistently falsified the e v i d e n c e a n d e n g a g e d in wholesale i n v e n t i o n , " as c l a i m e d b y s o m e s c h o l a r s ,
22
d e m o t e d h i m from the historical c a n o n . I f he was used at all exten sively, he was p r o b a b l y d e v o u r e d , like Ephorus, b y later historians, a n d was most likely already lost before the first century C E . T i m a e u s o f T a u r o m e n i u m ( 3 5 6 - 2 6 0 B.C.E.) underwent a fate sim ilar to that o f Ephorus o f C y m e . His historical accounts reached 2 6 4 B.C.E., and included R o m a n history. H e dealt with the history o f the W e s t with a focus o n Sicily. It is p r o b a b l y n o t an accident that Polybius started his history in 264 B.C.E., where Timaeus finished. H e r e again w e m a y assume that the distressing disappearance o f T i m a e u s ' history was caused inter alia b y the vast use o f it b y later historians who
were read instead. Perhaps he m a d e it into a c o n t e m p o r a r y
c a n o n , but was then lost since later accounts gradually for
substituted
the original T i m a e a n history. H e was used b y a w i d e n u m b e r
o f historians, b o t h G r e e k a n d R o m a n , such as Agatharchides, Fabius Pictor, Posidonius, Strabo a n d Plutarch. D i o d o r u s Siculus d r e w o n him
extensively c o n c e r n i n g Sicilian affairs (Books 4 - 2 1 ) , and Polybius
used h i m as well. In addition to a very extensive use o f his history (with n o a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t ) , Polybius'critical stance towards T i m a e u s p r o b a b l y took its toll and h a r m e d T i m a e u s ' stature as o n e to b e kept in the p a n t h e o n o f great historians. Let
23
us stop here for a m o m e n t and l o o k b a c k from o u r view
point in 9 0 0 C E . W h a t emerges is that the historical narrative o f
2 1
Rightly G . Schepens, "Jacoby's FGrHist," in Collecting Fragments. Fragmente Sammeln (ed. G . W . M o s t ; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997), 145 (but Gresham's law cannot be applied here since m a n y of the better works were preserved). M . A . Flower, Theopompus of Chios—History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 1 8 4 - 2 1 0 . For this critical attitude see F. W a l b a n k , Polybius (Berkeley: T h e University of California Press, 1972). 2 2
2 3
T H E FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL
13
CANON
the time-span from the Persian wars until the rise o f A l e x a n d e r the Great was preserved in Herodotus and Thucydides o f the fifth century B.C.E., a n d D i o d o r u s Siculus o f the first. Surprisingly e n o u g h , as if s o m e o n e in Byzantium during late Antiquity had planned a historical curriculum, a m o r e o r less linear line o f history (with all its lacunae) was preserved until the present day. W a s this an accidental process? I d o u b t it. A s c o m m e m o r a t i o n was designed in the course o f a l o n g process, it presumably omitted s o m e unwanted periods. But let us return to fourth-century
G r e e c e and the histories o f
A l e x a n d e r the Great. T h e anabasis o f A l e x a n d e r was an event that c h a n g e d the w o r l d and h a d an e n o r m o u s impact during its o w n time and for m a n y generations to c o m e . But the histories written during Alexander's lifetime and s o m e decades later are all lost.
24
T h i s was
p a r d y due to the fact that this a m a z i n g chapter, revolutionary in the history o f antiquity, was "picked u p " b y later historians. A g a i n , it was D i o d o r u s Siculus in B o o k s
1 8 - 2 0 w h o used H i e r o n y m u s o f
Cardia for the account o f Alexander (and o n to 272 B.C.E.). Hieronymus was also used b y Plutarch, Arrian and Justin. Y e t H i e r o n y m u s , w h o was considered an excellent historian, was lost, and so were Ptolemy, Aristobulus a n d Cleitarchus, also important
Alexander
historians.
T h e y were extensively d r a w n u p o n b y Plutarch and still b y Arrian 150
years later. Even the Vulgate history o f A l e x a n d e r the
Great,
used b y later historians and b y Curtius Rufus w h o w r o t e in Latin in the first century C E . , sank into oblivion. In other w o r d s , w e see again that a significant p e r i o d o f ancient history c o v e r e d b y distinguished contemporaries, w h o were then used extensively b y later generations o f historians, is lost in its original form. T h e reception o f the first historians o f A l e x a n d e r was so "perfect," that their accounts were actually e m b e d d e d within later ones and thus altogether
disappeared
as independent sources. Since the later accounts almost never m e n tion their sources it is usually extremely difficult to k n o w w h e r e o n e source starts a n d where the other ends (Ptolemy a n d Aristobulus in Arrian are almost impossible to detect). Let us n o w enter the third century B.C.E., still in G r e e k history. S o m e parts o f the later "primary" D i o d o r u s Siculus have disappeared, for
2 4
instance the crucial section o n the successors o f A l e x a n d e r the
L. I. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great ( N e w York: A P A , 1 9 6 0 ; repr. C h i c o , California: Scholars Press, 1983).
14
DORON MENDELS
Great, the D i a d o c h i ( 3 2 3 - 2 8 5 B.C.E.). Unfortunately w e d o not have a linear historical narrative o f the greater part o f the third century, from 300 d o w n to 242 B.C.E. H e r e w e are in d e e p trouble. Phylarchus wrote a history starting in 272 B.C.E. (approximately where Timaeus left off) and g o i n g to 2 2 0 / 1 9 B.C.E., "continuing H i e r o n y m u s o f C a r d i a and Duns o f Samos."
25
H e r e w e can detect a fate similar to that o f
Ephorus and T i m a e u s . Phylarchus was extensively used b y Plutarch (in
his Agis and Cleomenes; Aratus and Pyrrhus) a n d b y Polybius ( w h o
as in the case o f T i m a e u s , but for different reasons, criticized h i m severely in the s e c o n d b o o k o f his Histories). In spite o f his p o p u l a r style Phylarchus was extensively used even b y the Latin P o m p e i u s T r o g u s . W e can attest that perhaps the most important sections o f the history o f Phylarchus were " d e v o u r e d " b y Plutarch. T h e "residue" o f this history, not e m p l o y e d b y later historians, was simply i g n o r e d a n d lost. I f o n e c o u l d read Plutarch w h y w o u l d he o r she n e e d Phylarchus? The
history o f the s e c o n d century B.C.E. was m u c h better preserved
by later generations than that o f the third. Polybius o f M e g a l o p o l i s wrote elaborately a b o u t the years 2 2 0 - 1 4 6 B.C.E. H e himself declares that he d e c i d e d to continue from the p o i n t w h e r e Aratus c o n c l u d e d his history o f the A c h a e a n league, in 2 2 0 B.C.E. ( 4 . 2 ) . on
26
Polybius d r e w
m a n y written sources for the third century, historians such as
D u n s o f S a m o s , Ephorus, T i m a e u s , Aratus and Phylarchus. It seems that n o n e o f these historians
" m a d e it" into a preserved c a n o n ,
f o r m e d almost b y a process o f natural selection. T h e y gradually turned into secondary sources whereas Polybius remained the m a i n a n d p r o m i n e n t source (at least in part). N o d o u b t an important rea 5
son
for Polybius entering the p a n t h e o n o f historians was that he
was
innovatory and wrote a b o u t a unique topic ( R o m a n imperial
ism,
w h i c h w o u l d b e an urgent issue for m a n y centuries to c o m e ) .
Polybius even m a n a g e d to push aside an important writer o f his g e n eration, Agatharchides o f Cnidus, w h o s e history o f the third century a n d the beginning o f the s e c o n d disappeared, p r o b a b l y at an early stage o f transmission. By the time o f Photius in the ninth century only Agatharchides' b o o k o n the R e d Sea was still p o p u l a r .
2 5
OCD,
s.v.
"Phylarchus";
E . G a b b a , "Studi
27
su Filarco," Athenaeum N . S.
35
(1957): 3 ff., 193 ff. W a l b a n k , Polybius, and Marincola, Authority and Tradition, 9 8 . For this work see S. M . Burstein, Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea (London: Hakluyt Society, 1989). 2 6
2 7
THE
15
FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
A similar fate overtook historians w h o wrote in Greek about R o m a n history o f the third century B.C.E. Polybius used Fabius, Silenus and Sosylus, as well as Cincius Alimentus and others. All o f t h e m were lost in the course o f time and did not enter the preserved c a n o n o f historians in later periods. W h e n w e reach the first century B.C.E., still in G r e e k history, w e should speak o f Posidonius o f A p a m e a w h o s e w o r k c o v e r e d the years 146-80 B.C.E.
28
His history is lost in its entirety, and only fragments
have b e e n preserved through later historians as well as other liter ary writings. Posidonius, like Ephorus and T i m a e u s , was used exten sively b y later historians such as Strabo and Flavius Josephus. M a n y o f the fragments were preserved b y the great collector Constantinus Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century. T h i s in itself is interesting. It may
b e accidental, but m a y also reveal the position Posidonius had
as a literary figure in later generations (perhaps he was less i m p o r tant in historiography p r o p e r than w e used to think).
29
But he was
extensively used (again without a c k n o w l e d g m e n t ) b y m a n y
figures
such as Athenaeus, Plutarch, Strabo and Flavius Josephus, to n a m e only a few. T h e most extensive user was Strabo. Gradually (this c o u l d have taken hundreds o f years) Posidonius turned into a secondary historian and only his users kept their canonical status. We
m a y e n d this section with Plutarch.
30
T h e story o f the emer
g e n c e o f m a i n texts o f historical narration and the loss o f any other competitive narrative is repeated here, as part o f the l o n g a n d c o m plex process that resulted in a fragmentary picture o f ancient his tory. W h e r e a s Phylarchus was forgotten as an independent historian, an
Plutarch remained as the narrative o f Agis d
Cleomenes, etc. T h e
same m a y apply to Plutarch's use o f Strabo's Histories, also lost, for his Lives of Sulla, Lucullus and Caesar. W h a t picture emerges for the R o m a n R e p u b l i c ? H e r e I will b e even briefer. It seems that the o n l y two linear historical narratives
2 8
I. G . Kidd, Posidonius (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 8 8 - 1 9 9 9 ) . O n Posidonius see recently K . Clarke, Between Geography and History. Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 1 2 9 - 9 2 , w h o c o m m e n t s that "it is clear that we are dealing with o n e of the most influential intel lectual figures o f the Hellenistic world. But there is a curious disparity between the tiny fraction of his work to survive and the great reputation which has b e c o m e attached to him." (p. 130) 2 9
3 0
T h i s aspect of Plutarch's selection methods has often been discussed. See for instance J. Geiger, "Plutarch's Parallel Lives: T h e C h o i c e of Heroes," in Essays on Plutarch's Lives (ed. B. Scardigli; O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1 6 5 - 9 0 .
16
DORON MENDELS
concerned with the Republic to survive antiquity are those o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and Livy; not accidentally, I believe, o n e is in G r e e k a n d the other in Latin. T h e t w o surviving collections o f biographies c o n c e r n e d with figures o f the R o m a n R e p u b l i c are similarly in Latin (Nepos) a n d in G r e e k (Plutarch). Livy, w h o wrote the Ab Urbe Condita starting with the foundation o f R o m e and ending with his o w n life-time in the first century B . C E . , usually followed o n e main source in each section o f the narrative. H e used m a n y o f the annalists, and in m a n y instances w e can show w h o m he used where. T h e n u m b e r o f historians he consulted is remarkable: from Valerius Antias and Licinius M a c e r through Claudius Q u a d rigarius,
Q.
Fabius Pictor, Polybius, Posidonius and m a n y others.
31
It w o u l d not b e an exaggeration to say that 9 5 % o f the sources he used were lost, s o m e still during the late R e p u b l i c and early Principate. 5
Even parts o f Polybius sections c o n c e r n i n g the East that Livy used have disappeared, though this was probably only during the Byzantine period. S o m e o f the annalists w h o were still read in Livy's lifetime did
not enter the historical p a n t h e o n and w e r e e m b e d d e d in later
authorities.
32
It is unfortunate that the important last b o o k s o f Livy's
history, c o v e r i n g the years 167 to Augustus, have vanished. Be that as it m a y , Livy's grand history o f the R o m a n R e p u b l i c b e c a m e the main and only authority in Latin that entered the M i d d l e Ages. But an alternative history o f the same p e r i o d was written in G r e e k by Dionysius o f Halicarnassus. His Roman Antiquities start with mythol ogy
and e n d with the first Punic W a r (264 B . C E . , where Polybius
continues). W e c a n say a b o u t h i m the following: 9 5 % o f the sources he used, such as m a n y o f the annalists, have disappeared altogether; the s e c o n d half o f his Roman Antiquities has vanished ( B o o k 11 is still preserved in a fragmentary
form in the excerpts o f Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus a n d in a M i l a n Epitome). Dionysius himself c o m p o s e d an e p i t o m e o f his w o r k (which Photius still saw, c o d . 84), a n d another o n e m a y also have existed.
33
T h e entire w o r k has thus suffered
a partial loss. 3 1
T h e best survey on Livy remains P. G . W a l s h , Livy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). H . W . Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (2d ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 1 6 ; repr. Stuttgart: B. G . Teubner, 1967), and H . Beck and U . Walter, Die frühen römischen Historiher. Bd. I: Von Fabius Pictor bis Gn. Gellius (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buch gesellschaft, 2 0 0 1 ) . U s e d by Stephanus of Byzantium: see E. Schwartz, "Dionysios", P W 5.1 (1903): col. 9 6 1 . 3 2
3 3
THE
Of
17
FORMATION OF A N HISTORICAL CANON
this particular time the historical c a n o n preserved o n l y two
monographs, Sallust's Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Jvgurthinum. Yet Sallust's grand history, w h i c h b e g a n in 78 B.C.E. a n d w h i c h he did not c o m plete, is lost. Perhaps because it was so heavily used b y later histo rians we still have m a n y fragments o f this w o r k . H e was "cited m o r e 34
often than any Latin prose author, C i c e r o alone e x c e p t e d . " H o w e v e r , he was not an innovator in the field o f historiography, and his pic ture o f the Late R e p u b l i c is quite distorted. His history did n o t make it into the preserved c a n o n o f important historical works. W e should o f course m e n t i o n Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars a n d his unfinished Civil Wars, w h i c h c o v e r the years 58 to 5 2 B.C.E. It is not surprising that these accounts b y Caesar, w h o was considered a mas ter o f Latin, survived the process o f canonization. Caesar w e n t into the historical m e m o r y o f later generations as a unique e x a m p l e o f great achievement in R o m a n history during a p e r i o d o f d e c a d e n c e and fall. Before w e leave the R e p u b l i c w e should return for a m o m e n t to D i o d o r u s Siculus. H e was, together with Livy and Plutarch, o n e o f the most important " c o n s u m e r s " o f ancient sources. D i o d o r u s him self was not used so m u c h b y later historiography,
35
but was p a r d y
excerpted b y Byzantine scholars. T h e parts o f the Bibliotheke that have reached us in their entirety are B o o k s 1-5 and 1 1 - 2 0 . A n d again the same story is repeated. D i o d o r u s used an astonishing a m o u n t o f sources, most o f them n o w lost. T o n a m e only a few: Hecataeus o f A b d e r a , Ctesias (one part preserved b y D i o d o r u s a n d another b y Photius), Cleitarchus, Megasthenes, Agatharchides, Dionysius Scytob r a c h i o n a n d Matris o f T h e b e s .
3 6
H e also used E p h o r u s , D u n s ,
H i e r o n y m u s o f Cardia, Erathosthenes, Posidonius and Polybius (some o f w h i c h were used also b y Josephus). T h i s is an impressive list o f sources, and w h e n w e l o o k carefully at it w e can c o n c l u d e the fol lowing: First, almost all o f them have disappeared. T h e only sources that D i o d o r u s used and that have survived are Herodotus, T h u c y d i d e s and Polybius. S e c o n d , the b o o k s o f D i o d o r u s , o r s o m e o f them, were still available in the ninth and tenth centuries, and disappeared later.
3 4
See Cambridge History of Classical Literature vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 2 6 9 . Schwartz, "Diodorus," cols. 6 6 3 - 6 4 . Alongside an extensive use of T i m a e u s in Books 3 - 4 : see Schwartz, "Diodorus," cols. 6 7 6 ff. 3 5
3 6
18
DORON MENDELS
In certain instances, the m e t h o d s o f Byzantine excerptors m a y well have had the same effect as cannibalization. W e should also m e n tion here Velleius Paterculus w h o wrote an outline o f history, a genre discussed in m y recent b o o k m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . W h e n w e enter the era o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , and start with the first century C.E., w e find t w o Latin authors o f great stature, Tacitus a n d Suetonius. B o t h were active at the e n d o f the first century a n d the beginning o f the s e c o n d . Suetonius did not write a linear (annalistic) history, but a s e q u e n c e o f twelve biographies, starting with Caesar and ending with Domitian. Suetonius had an enormous impact o n the genre o f b i o g r a p h y in the following centuries. His innovations and high standards b r o u g h t about his inclusion in the preserved p a n theon o f great historians from antiquity. A g a i n , the sources that he drew u p o n have not reached us. T h e same can b e said about Tacitus. Both his Annals and Histories (incomplete) c o v e r the first century C.E. from Tiberius to the year 70. It is quite clear that Tacitus follows the convention o f antiquity, and usually does not mention his sources. T h e ones he notes in his a c c o u n t o f N e r o are Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder's l o n g history o f G e r m a n y , but all these are lost. In his Germania Tacitus d r e w u p o n Posidonius w h o has b e e n lost, as were the twenty b o o k s o f the Bella Germanica b y Pliny the Elder. Tacitus' Germania in fact replaced his predecessor's w o r k o n G e r m a n y . F o r o u r purposes it is important to emphasize that all three a c c o u n t s that w e still have o f the J u l i o - C l a u d i a n
dynasty,
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius D i o , d r e w o n o n e "hostile source written under C a l i g u l a . "
37
T h i s c o m m o n source has altogether dis
appeared. H e r e w e should also mention the Epitome of Roman History b y Lucius A n n a e u s Florus ( 7 5 - 1 4 0 ) w h o wrote a summary o f the history o f R o m e from the foundation o f the city d o w n to Augustus. H e used a great deal o f material, mainly Livy, but also Sallust a n d Caesar, as well as others. His w o r k gained e n o r m o u s popularity a n d served as a s c h o o l - b o o k until the seventeenth century. T h e reason for his popularity, o n e m a y guess, is that his Epitome was a sum mary, a reader's digest, that c o u l d b e read easily and d i d not p o s e a threat to the great histories he used. T h e latter had already gained canonical status.
3 7
R . Mellor, Tacitus ( N e w Y o r k and London: R o u d e d g e ,
1993), 3 3 .
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
19
T o c o n c l u d e : from the first century C.E. and the b e g i n n i n g o f the s e c o n d , w e have three Latin historical narratives, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Florus. T h e i r sources for the history o f the first century have b e e n lost. T o m y m i n d it is n o t accidental that the three are o f three different genres, history, b i o g r a p h y a n d e p i t o m e . H e n c e , w e have answered o u r question: Is the disappearance o f Josephus' sources a unique p h e n o m e n o n ? It is not. M o r e o v e r , Josephus entered the c a n o n o f historians n o t only because the C h u r c h was interested in him, but also because his status as an innovative "national" historian required a firm position within this c a n o n . It remains a fact that whereas Josephus entered the c a n o n , m o s t o f his p a g a n sources vanished for ever.
L A G E N È S E H I S T O R I Q U E D E S ANTIQUITÉS
JUIVES
L u c i o TROIANI UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI P A V I A
En 9 3 - 9 4 apr. J.-C., l'historien hiérosolymitain Flavius J o s è p h e finit d'écrire une oeuvre m o n u m e n t a l e en vingt livres, les Antiquités juives. L ' œ u v r e parcourt l'histoire j u i v e des origines du m o n d e j u s q u ' à l'empire de N é r o n . D a n s le p r o è m e , l'auteur explique qu'il a maintes fois été saisi d'hésitation et d e crainte p o u r réaliser une œ u v r e aussi importante et audacieuse. C e p e n d a n t , l'aide et l ' e n c o u r a g e m e n t de quelques personnes désireuses d e connaître l'histoire a n c i e n n e lui auraient permis de bien surmonter ces inquiétudes. J o s è p h e se dépeint c o m m e une personne étrangère à l'hellénisme et à la langue g r e c q u e , et il d e m a n d e à plusieurs reprises au lecteur d'être indulgent et c o m préhensif envers lui quant au style et à l'expression littéraire.
1
L'historien
m o d e r n e , qui s'efforce d e reconstruire le c a d r e historique dans lequel l'œuvre mûrit, s'interroge sur l'identité et sur la catégorie d e lecteurs qui pouvaient être la plus intéressée par c e qu'il définit «l'histoire a n c i e n n e » . Il se d e m a n d e o ù naissent les Antiquités juives et dans quel 2
cadre d e référence culturelle celles-ci doivent être situées. A u cours des dernières années du premier siècle apr. J.-C., selon le témoignage de Pline l'Ancien, Jérusalem n'existait tout b o n n e m e n t plus; les adulateurs d e c o u r célébraient César, régnant avec b o n h e u r , répandre avec férocité les flammes sur la ville sainte.
3
U n e guerre l o n g u e et
1
C. Ap. 1.27; B.J. 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 . Vita 4 0 . Cfr. S. M a s o n , BJP 9 , 4 5 - 4 6 ; S. J. D . C o h e n , "History and Historiography in the C o n t r a A p i o n e m o f Josephus," History and Theory 2 7 (1988): 1 - 1 1 . 2
J. M . G . Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996); S. M a s o n , " A n Essay in Character: T h e A i m and Audience of Josephus's Vita," in Internationales Josephus-Kolbquium Munster 1997 (ed. F. Siegert and J. U . K a l m s ; Munster: Lit, 1998), 3 1 - 7 7 ; M . Pucci ben Z e e v , Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (Tubingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1998); E . Schùrer, Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesù Cristo (175 a.C.-135 d.C) 3.1 (rev. ed. G . V e r m e s , F. Millar et al.; ed. ital. C . Gianotto; Brescia: Paideia, 1997); P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus Paraphrase of the Bible (Tubingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1998), L . Troiani, "Il m o dello ellenistico," Studi Ellenistici 15 (2003): 2 1 5 - 2 7 . 3
3
GLAJJ
1 : 4 6 8 - 8 1 no. 2 0 4 , esp. 4 7 1 , 4 7 7 - 7 8 = Pline l'Ancien, Nat. 5 . 7 0 ; GLAJJ
22
LUCIO TROIANI
cruelle—celle des Juifs de Palestine contre R o m e — a v a i t impressionné pendant presque une d é c e n n i e ( 6 6 - 7 4 apr. J.-C.) l ' o p i n i o n publique et Tacite exprime bien, dans l'excursus sur le Judaïsme c o n t e n u dans e
le V livre des Histoires, l'exaspération suscitée par la résistance tenace des révoltés. J o s è p h e t é m o i g n e en personne d e l'état d e prostration et d ' a b a n d o n qui circula p a r m i les vaincus, ainsi que des représailles inflexibles des légions de César contre les survivants. L a chaîne des suspicions et des rancœurs, les épurations qui y succédèrent, s'élargirent à la Diaspora; à C y r è n e , un révolté repenti, d u n o m d e J o n a t h a n , avait e x p o s é notre historien au dédain et à la suspicion des bienpensants.
4
L a récente guerre avait n é a n m o i n s suscité la curiosité
publique. Il était compréhensible que l'on entendit connaître les origines et la civilisation d'une nation qui, pendant presque une décennie, s'était trouvée sur le devant de la scène politique internationale. Ainsi q u e l'écrit T a c i t e , « l a colère était accrue par le fait q u e les Juifs étaient les seuls à ne pas c é d e r » . C e p e n d a n t , à la différence d'autres précédents auteurs indigènes d'histoires nationales, Josèphe doit exposer l'histoire, n o n pas d'une nation, mais d'une civilisation (ce qu'était le Judaïsme dans les années 9 0 d e notre ère) disséminée dans différentes nations, enracinée depuis des générations dans le tissu social et culturel des villes d'appartenance. Il ne s'agit pas d'écrire, selon les c a n o n s littéraires grecs courants, une ethnographie, c'est-à-dire une m o n o graphie sur un peuple n o n grec. Sa tâche est b e a u c o u p plus c o m plexe et articulée. Ecrire au m o n d e grec, en 9 3 - 9 4 apr. J . - C ,
une
histoire du Judaïsme depuis ses origines jusqu'à l'époque contemporaine signifie écrire une histoire c o m p o s i t e d e rencontres et de syncrétismes avec c h a c u n e des civilisations environnantes; p a r conséquent, une histoire qui implique directement c e m ê m e m o n d e grec. L'historien ne doit pas uniquement parcourir les phases marquantes du peuple délimité par la terre d e J u d a , en discutant d'us et de c o u t u m e s particulières; il doit aussi tenir c o m p t e de l'histoire séculaire de c o m munautés implantées depuis des générations sur un sol étranger, p a r
1 : 5 0 4 - 5 no. 2 2 6 = Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, 1 . 1 2 - 1 4 . E . M . Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 3 3 1 - 8 8 ; L. H . Feldman, Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 8 4 - 1 7 2 . 4
Tacite, Hist. 5 . 1 0 . 2 ; GIAJJ 2 : 1 7 - 6 3 ; Flavius Josephe, Vita 4 2 4 - 4 2 5 : voire le commentaire de M a s o n , BJP 9 , 169; B.J. 7 . 4 3 7 - 4 5 3 ; S. A p p l e b a u m , Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 2 2 8 - 2 9 ; 2 4 2 - 6 0 .
23
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
e x e m p l e Alexandrie, R o m e , B a b y l o n e .
5
À la différence des É g y p -
tiens o u des Babyloniens, les Juifs d e l ' é p o q u e des Césars ne sont pas un p e u p l e ni, surtout, u n e culture c i r c o n s c r i t s d a n s des limites géographiques traditionnelles. Ils constituent une civilisation et une culture c o m p o s i t e , faites d e c o m m u n a u t é s implantées depuis des générations dans une z o n e qui s'étend d e l'Italie j u s q u ' a u x pays situés au-delà d e l'Euphrate. U n t é m o i n sous cet aspect impartial, tel que Porphyre de T y r , admet que la loi juive s'est étendue jusqu'aux confins de l'Italie «après Gaius César o u , d u m o i n s , durant son e m p i r e » .
6
Les Juifs c o n t e m p o r a i n s des Antiquités juives, parlent des langues différentes et o n t des us et c o u t u m e s différents. Philon d'Alexandrie, J o s è p h e de Jérusalem, L u c d ' A n t i o c h e s'accordent à penser q u e les grandes fêtes d e pèlerinage annuelles étaient une o c c a s i o n unique de 7
r e n c o n t r e et d e c o n n a i s s a n c e r é c i p r o q u e . D e s historiens anciens c o m m e T a c i t e et D i o n Cassius identifient le Judaïsme à une culture et à une civilisation internationale. Selon la vision de l'historien latin, «les pires individus», dans leurs patries respectives d'appartenance, 8
continuent de mépriser les religions natives. Selon D i o n Cassius, le terme «Juifs» s'applique «aussi aux autres h o m m e s , c e u x qui observent strictement les lois, bien qu'originaires d'autres p a y s » .
9
C'est p o u r
cette raison q u e , dans la littérature néo-testamentaire, le terme «Juif» finit p a r ne plus désigner une identité ethnique. L u c définit c o m m e étant «Juif» aussi bien A p o l l o s , né à Alexandrie, qu'Aquilas, né dans la p r o v i n c e d u P o n t .
10
Ecrire l'histoire du Judaïsme, dans les années
90 d e notre ère, signifie écrire une histoire qui touche la connaissance
5
Schürer, Storia, 3 . 1 : 7 7 - 1 0 4 ; CPJ; J. M é l è z e Modrzejewski, Les Juifs d'Egypte de Ramsès à Hadrien (Paris: A r m a n d Colin, 1997); J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1 (StPB 9; Leiden: Brill, 1965); H . I. L e o n , The Jews of Ancient Rome (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995). 6
Sed ne dicant, inquit (scil. Porphyrius), lege iudaica vetere hominum curatum genus, longo post tempore lex Iudaeorum apparuit oc viguit angusta Syriae regione, postea vero prorepsit etiam in fines ítalos, sed post Caesarem Gaium aut certe ipso imperante (Adversus Christianos = Augustinus, Epistulae 1 0 2 . 8 9 ; GLAJJ 2 : 4 8 1 , no. 4 6 5 h ) . 7
Philo Alexandrinus, Spec. 1.69; Flavius Josèphe, A.J. 4 . 2 0 4 ; A c 2 : 6 - 1 1 ; L . Troiani, "Greci ed ebrei, ebraismo ed «ellenismo»," in / Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Società (ed. S. Settis; T o r i n o : Einaudi, 2 0 0 1 ) , 3 : 2 0 3 - 3 0 . 8
Tacite, Hist. 5 . 5 . 1 : Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc congerebant. GLAJJ 2 : 1 9 , 3 9 . C e ne sont pas des gentils attirés par le Judaïsme, c o m m e veut l'opinion courante, mais (vraisemblablement) des citoyens d'origine juive. C'est n'est qu'ensuite (5.5.2) que Tacite envisage des trangressi in morem eorum. Cassius D i o , Historia Romana 3 7 . 1 6 . 5 - 1 7 . 1 ; GLAJJ 2 : 3 5 3 no. 4 0 6 . A c 18:24; 18:2; L. Troiani, Henoch 2 4 (2002): 3 5 9 - 6 5 . 9
1 0
24
LUCIO TROIANI
et le c œ u r des lecteurs depuis les confins de l'Italie j u s q u ' à la M é s o p o t a m i e ; cela signifie parcourir les phases d'une culture multilingue et aux p r o v e n a n c e s les plus variées qui accueille en son sein des traditions « b i b l i q u e s » tout autant q u e b a b y l o n i e n n e s ; r o m a i n e s tout autant qu'alexandrines; éphésiennes tout autant q u e corinthiennes. U n e histoire qui n'est pas circonscrite au cadre d e la Palestine, mais élargie à toutes les aires géographiques dans lesquelles sont présentes des c o m m u n a u t é s consistantes. L ' o n pouvait rencontrer, dans tous les recoins d e la Méditerranée, des personnages curieux d e connaître l'histoire ancienne, c o m m e par e x e m p l e , Epaphrodite, à qui sont dédiées les Antiquités juives: des personnes possédant une culture c o m posite et multiforme, des personnes bien intégrées dans la vie institutionnelle et intellectuelle des villes d ' a p p a r t e n a n c e ,
mais qui se
souviennent de leurs propres origines et de leur p r o p r e adhésion à la «citoyenneté d'Israël». Sous cet aspect, les épîtres d e Paul, en particulier
celles aux Corinthiens et aux R o m a i n s , avec le rappel à la
descendance c o m m u n e d ' A b r a h a m et à l'histoire collective telle qu'elle est fournie dans les Saintes Ecritures, pourraient constituer une m i n e d'indices p o u r reconstruire la p h y s i o n o m i e et l'articulation de c o m munautés de la Diaspora grecque.
11
Influencés c o m m e nous le sommes,
dans la caractérisation historique du Judaïsme antique, par la p h y sionomie dessinée dans le N o u v e a u Testament, d'une part, et par le témoignage de la littérature rabbinique, d'autre part (en particulier dans les traités d e la Mishna), n o u s n o u s plaisons à i m a g i n e r le Judaïsme c o n t e m p o r a i n des Antiquités juives de J o s è p h e c o m m e étant hermétique au contact extérieur, et m o n o l i t h i q u e . Il est c o m m e renfermé dans une c l o c h e d e verre, substantiellement i m p e r m é a b l e au m o n d e extérieur et inaccessible. D e s siècles de vie citadine passés en c o m m u n avec des concitoyens, par exemple d'Ephèse o u d'Alexandrie o u de R o m e , finissent par être effacés dans une perspective, p o u r ainsi dire, confessionnelle. C a r le Judaïsme antique est c o u r a m m e n t p e r ç u c o m m e un p h é n o m è n e religieux avant d'être un p h é n o m è n e historique. Sur la base d u N o u v e a u T e s t a m e n t o u , m i e u x , d ' u n e interprétation du N o u v e a u Testament et sur la suggestion de la littérature rabbinique, nous avons l'habitude d e restreindre
l'identité
j u i v e antique aux catégories d e stricte observance (nous pourrions dire, à ces groupes désignés c o m m e « o r t h o d o x e s » ) . En c o n s é q u e n c e , nous identifions avec certitude la catégorie, attestée par les sources
Par exemple, R o m 4 : 1 ; 1 C o r 1 0 : 1 - 4 .
25
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
anciennes, des «craignant D i e u » à des gentils attirés par le J u d a ï s m e .
12
Ainsi q u ' e n témoignent les restes d e la littérature j u i v e en langue grecque d e cette p é r i o d e , la culture j u i v e antique s'exprime sous des formes variées et articulées et ne refuse à priori pas des contacts et des influences avec des genres littéraires et historiographiques courant dans la patrie respective d'appartenance. Par e x e m p l e , des citoyens d'origine j u i v e d'Ephèse doivent avoir considéré Heraclite
comme
une gloire de la patrie et nous possédons des indices qui nous indiquent q u e , dans les milieux juifs d e culture g r e c q u e , une recherche d'us et traditions bibliques dans les p o è m e s homériques (que l'on peut définir c o m m e étant la Bible des grecs) a été tentée. J e pense à des grammairiens et stylisticiens c o m m e Cécile d e C a l a c t e .
13
Des
citadins implantés depuis des générations dans la cité g r e c q u e étaient éduqués tant aux lettres grecques q u ' a u x Saintes Ecritures. U n certain A l e x a n d r e , qui parle à l'assemblée extraordinaire d'Ephèse, tel qu'il est décrit par L u c dans les Actes des Apôtres, représente bien le caractère de la présence j u i v e dans la ville g r e c q u e : il vit et parle c o m m e une personne q u e l c o n q u e .
1 4
D a n s c h a q u e ville, a v e c les
«archontes de la synagogue et les archisynagogues des Juifs» pouvaient coexister des écoles plus o u m o i n s indépendantes des
institutions
publiques d e c h a q u e c o m m u n a u t é . L ' é c o l e d e T y r a n n u s à Ephèse o u la maison d e Tite, à C o r i n t h e , attestées par les Actes des Apôtres, indiquent la nature c o m p o s i t e et multiforme de la culture et d e l'intellectualité j u i v e citadine, qui ne s'était pas nécessairement identifiée à la synagogue. L ' e m p e r e u r T i b è r e , durant sa retraite temporaire à R h o d e s , d e m a n d e à être admis dans l'une d e ces écoles qui, selon le triomphalisme d e Philon, pullulaient sur le sol g r e c .
15
Il est difficile
de douter q u e la lettre de C l a u d e aux Alexandrins présuppose un haut degré d'activisme des c o m m u n a u t é s juives locales: César rappelle aux Juifs de la m é t r o p o l e q u e la ville ne leur appartient p a s .
16
1 2
G . Jossa, / gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesù (Brescia: Paideia, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 7 6 - 8 6 . A . - M . Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum hellenistarum Jragmentis (Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 7 - 6 0 ; 1 7 1 - 7 4 . L'auteur a changé opinion dans Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique (Turnhout: Brepols, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 : 9 6 6 ; 1 0 5 7 - 5 8 ; 1 2 7 7 ; Schürer, Storia, 3 . 1 : 8 9 6 - 9 0 1 . 1 3
1 4
A c 1 9 : 3 3 - 3 4 ; Philo Alexandrinus, Légat. 147; Prov. 2 . 6 6 ; Arrianus, Epict. diss. 2 . 9 . 1 9 ; GLAJJ 1 : 5 4 2 - 4 4 ; E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 3 : 3 4 2 . A c 19:9; 1 C o r 16:19; Suetonius, Tib. 3 2 . 2 ; GLAJJ 2 : 1 1 1 - 1 2 ; Philo Alexandrinus, Spec. 1 . 3 2 0 - 3 2 3 ; 2 . 6 2 - 6 3 . > CPJ 2 , no. 1 5 3 . 8 5 - 9 5 . 1 5
n
26
LUCIO TROIANI
Le Judaïsme c o s m o p o l i t e et international imaginé par les Antiquités juives vit dans le climat politique particulier des années 9 0 apr. J . - C . Selon un t é m o i g n a g e de l'auteur chrétien M i n u c i u s Félix, le m o n d e j u d a ï q u e s'interrogea, depuis l'Italie j u s q u ' à la M é s o p o t a m i e , sur les raisons d e la catastrophe d e l'an 70 apr. J . - C .
17
Et c e , d'autant plus
q u e la D i a s p o r a resta indifférente, à cette o c c a s i o n , aux raisons des rebelles d e J u d é e (BJ.
1.5). U n e histoire p o l i t i q u e d u J u d a ï s m e
d ' é p o q u e hellénistique et r o m a i n e , c o m m e le sont les Antiquités juives, ne pouvait ne pas être influencée par c e climat p s y c h o l o g i q u e qui consiste en une progressive prise de distance des autorités d e Jérusalem, après le règne d ' H é r o d e et d e ses successeurs, d e l'hellénisme et d e la collaboration q u ' u n e partie de la D i a s p o r a avait offert en son n o m . A p r è s l'activisme d ' H é r o d e le G r a n d , qui avait p r o m u d'intenses échanges avec la D i a s p o r a utilisée c o m m e base de départ d e sa politique extérieure, c e que les auteurs évangélistes définissent c o m m e étant le régime « d e s Juifs, des scribes, des Pharisiens et des G r a n d s Prêtres» avait redimensionné les ouvertures précédentes. L e Judaïsme traverse la phase d u repli sur lui-même lorsqu'il récupère une pleine identité contre la m e n a c e d e l'intégration. Ainsi q u ' u n passage d e l'Évangile d e saint J e a n semble le mentionner, le Judaïsme le plus helléniste, celui qui n'avait pas entièrement renié la réforme de l'an 167 av. J . - C , celui qui avait été si envahissant sous le règne d ' H é r o d e et qui avait c o n c o u r u à sa stabilité et à ses fastes, devint toujours plus étranger à Jérusalem et aux «Juifs» (Jean 7:35). C e n'est pas un simple hasard si, dans c e climat, J o s è p h e « l i q u i d e » toute la littérature parabiblique en grec en la considérant p e u c r é d i b l e .
18
C'est juste-
m e n t dans c e climat q u e mûrit la ré-élaboration des Antiquités juives à p r o p o s d u cadre politique d u Judaïsme d ' é p o q u e hellénistique et romaine. N o t r e historien entend s'opposer à un certain esprit c o n formiste d e présentation des é v é n e m e n t s d u passé. Il se p r o p o s e
1 7
Minucius Felix, Oct. 3 3 . 2 - 4 : sed Iudaeis nihil profuit, quod unum et ipsi deum aris atque templis maxima superstitione coluerunt: ignorantia laberis, si priorum aut oblitus aut inscius posteriorum recordaris. Nam et ipsi deum nostrum—idem enim omnium deus est—quamdiu enim eum caste innoxie religioseque coluerunt, quamdiu praeceptis salubribus obtemperaverunt, de paucis innumeri facti, de egentibus divites, de servientibus reges; modici multos, inermi armatos, dum Jugiunt insequentes, dei iussu et elementis adnitentibus obruerunt. Scripta eorum relege vel si Romanis magis gaudes—ut transeamus veteres—Flavi Iosepi vel Antoni Iuliani de Iudaeis require: iam scies nequitia sua hanc eos mentisse fortunam nec quidquam accidisse quod non sit iis, si in contumacia perseverarmi, ante praedictum. 1 8
L. Troiani, "Gli autori giudaico-ellenistici e la Settanta," Annali di Scienze Religiose 2 (1997): 1 9 7 - 2 0 7 .
27
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
ouvertement d e libérer l'histoire d u régime des hérodiens de la c h a p e conformiste et de l'oléographie des présumés «écrivains de r é g i m e » . Le traumatisme d e l'an 70 apr. J . - C . ainsi q u e les précédentes d é c e n nies agitées avaient m o n t r é q u e l'interprétation de l ' é p o q u e hérodienne fournie par les c o n t e m p o r a i n s n'était pas satisfaisante. Fort de la l e ç o n offerte par les événements successifs, J o s è p h e veut préciser à quel point l'œuvre d ' H é r o d e à fait verser de larmes et d e sang. L'imposante activité du secteur d u bâtiment, l'audience c o n c é d é e à des aventuriers d e tout b o r d p r o v e n a n t du m o n d e grec, la ténacité d é p l o y é e p o u r flatter César et les R o m a i n s et p o u r mépriser les c o u tumes nationales constituent le leitmotiv d e la narration
historique
de la p é r i o d e . J o s è p h e appartient à la classe dirigeante, identifiée par les auteurs des Evangiles dans les «scribes, Pharisiens et G r a n d s Prêtres» qui, après avoir pris ses distances vis-à-vis des concessions faites par H é r o d e à l'hellénisme, avalisa c o m m e unique et possible histoire, celle d u J u d a ï s m e unifiée par l'observance d e la « l o i de M o ï s e » . P o u r cette classe dirigeante, les j o u r s d ' H é r o d e avaient fait revivre c e u x d ' A n t i o c h e I V de Syrie, caractérisés par une dévaluation systématique des coutumes nationales. Dans les Antiquités juives, H é r o d e et ses descendants sont montrés d u doigt c o m m e un e x e m p l e de désertion des c o u t u m e s nationales: les concessions répétées faites aux m o d e s étrangères, l'avilissement d e la «constitution nationale» («qui devait rester inviolée») constituèrent le tragique p r é a m b u l e d e cette féroce o p p o s i t i o n populaire qui se d é c l e n c h a sous les procurateurs romains et qui fut à l'origine d e la tragédie d e l'an 7 0 .
1 9
L'essence du
Judaïsme, p o u r cette classe dirigeante, fut identifiée dans l'adhésion à la loi; sa survie, confiée au respect d e cette c o n d i t i o n . Seul un état théocratique pouvait garantir l'intégrité du Judaïsme, qui s'étendait
1 9
W . W . Buehler, The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate. Jewish Society in the Period 76-40 B.C. and Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of Pharisees and the Sadducees (Basel: Reinhardt, 1974); D . A . Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period. The Land is Mine (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity V o l . 2 0 ; Lewiston: Edwin M e l l e n Press, 1991); M . Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem contre Rome (Paris: Cerf, 1991); M . H e n g e l , Gli JÇeloti. Ricerche sul movimento di liberazione giudaico dai tempi di Erode I al 70 d.C. (ed. ital. G . Firpo; Brescia: Paideia, 1996); G . J o s s a , Gesù e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina (Brescia: Paideia, 1980); B. Lifshitz, "Jérusalem sous la d o m i n a tion romaine. Histore de la ville depuis la conquête de Pompée jusqu'à Constantin (63 B . C . - A . D . 3 2 5 ) , " ANRW ILS (1977): 4 4 4 - 8 9 ; D . Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine within the Greco-Roman Period ( N e w Y o r k : D o u b l e d a y , 1992); L . Troiani, "Osservazioni sopra il quadro storico-politico del Giudaismo del I secolo d . C , " in / / Giudaismo palestinese: dal I secolo a.C. al I secolo d.C. (ed. P. Sacchi; Bologna: A I S G , 1993), 2 3 1 - 4 3 .
28
LUCIO TROIANI
d e l'Italie j u s q u ' à l'Iran, contre le d a n g e r des forces centrifuges. À l'époque de Josèphe, l'identité juive pouvait s'ajouter à un conglomérat d e cultures. Ainsi q u e l'affirmera le philosophe Epictète, l ' o n entendait des Juifs parler et se c o m p o r t e r exactement c o m m e des G r e c s .
20
Un
p o è t e satyrique latin, Perse, expose à la risée d u public les scrupules p o u r la «vie j u i v e » d'un a n o n y m e aspirant à Pédilité, p r o b a b l e m e n t d'origine j u i v e .
21
Paul semble connaître des m e m b r e s des c o m m u -
nautés juives d'Ephèse et d e Colosse qui sont devenus étrangers
à
la «citoyenneté d'Israël» ( E p h 2:12 ; C o l 1:21). Il s'agissait, par c o n séquent, d e repenser et d e p a r c o u r i r l'histoire à travers la ligne maîtresse d e l'observance d e la loi. Peut-être n'existait-il pas d'autres voies p o u r réduire à une exposition historique un p h é n o m è n e si c o m plexe et articulé tel q u e l'était le Judaïsme avant l'affirmation
d'une
identité chrétienne spécifique. Et c e n'est pas un hasard si, dans le N o u v e a u Testament, le m ê m e terme désigne n o n pas déjà une réalité ethnique, mais une sorte d e «manifeste» p o u r rappeler la nation à l'unité contre l'érosion et la dissipation d e sa p r o p r e identité.
2 0
Diodorus 4 0 . 2 ; GLAJJ 1 : 1 8 5 - 8 7 . Philo Alexandrinus, Legai. 2 7 8 . Cfr. n. 14. Persius, Sat. 5 . 1 7 6 - 1 8 4 ; GLAJJ 1 : 4 3 5 - 3 7 ; D . Gilula, "La satira degli ebrei nella letteratura latina," in Gli Ebrei nell'impero romano. Saggi vari (ed. A . Lewin; Firenze: Giuntina, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 9 5 - 2 1 5 ; L. Troiani, "Il giudaismo negli autori greci e latini dei primi secoli d . C . , " in Storiografia locale e storiografia universale ( C o m o : N e w Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , 379-91. 2 1
J U D E A N H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y IN R O M E : J O S E P H U S A N D H I S T O R Y IN CONTRA APIONEM JOHN M .
G.
BOOK 1
BARCLAY
UNIVERSITY OF D U R H A M
1.
W R I T I N G JUDEAN
H I S T O R Y IN R O M E
T o write J u d e a n history in R o m e at the e n d o f the first century C.E. was, for a J u d e a n , a fraught p r o c e d u r e . Q u i t e apart from the prac tical and literary challenge in c o m p o s i n g an extended historical p r o j e c t , a set o f c o m p l e x political hurdles faced any w o u l d - b e J u d e a n historian. T o write c o n t e m p o r a r y history, that is, the b a c k g r o u n d and course o f the J u d e a n W a r , was to enter highly sensitive terrain in w h i c h J u d e a n pride a n d imperial self-image were at stake
and
potentially in conflict: scholarship continues to examine (and variously evaluate) J o s e p h u s
5
success at negotiating the challenges o f this task,
w h i c h are evident throughout his Bellum Judaicum (explicidy in B.J. 1.1-16; C. Ap. 1.47-56; implicitly throughout).
1
T o write the early
history o f the J u d e a n p e o p l e (their "ancient l o r e , " apxouo^oyia) might appear to b e a safer a n d an easier task, but in fact it raised a set o f cultural problematics quite as awkward as the politics surround ing the Bellum. J o s e p h a n scholars have m a d e considerable inroads in analysis o f the formal and stylistic features o f the Antiquitates Judaicae, its pervasive "Hellenisation" o f J u d e a n figures and its adaptation o f the biblical story to fit the tropes, themes, narrative c o n v e n t i o n s and authorial standpoints typical o f G r a e c o - R o m a n historiography.
2
Rather
1
E.g. R . Laqueur, Der jüdischer Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen 1 9 2 0 ; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1970); W . W eber, Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: K o h l h a m m e r , 1921); H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1972); T . Rajak, Josephus. The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983); K . - S . Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Franke, 1994). T h e most recent, and a m o n g the most perceptive, is G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography. Apologetic and Impression-Management in the Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 0 ) . r
2
}
L . H . Feldman's numerous essays on this topic are collected in his Josephus s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) and Studies in
30
JOHN M. G.
BARCLAY
less attention has b e e n paid to the p r o b l e m o f w h i c h Josephus h i m self is conscious in the preface to the Antiquitates {A.J. 1.1-17) a n d to w h i c h he returns in the o p e n i n g sections o f Contra Apionem, w h e r e he attempts to m e n d the c h i e f weakness o f the Antiquitates. T h e p r o b l e m discussed here is not h o w to write the Antiquitates, but
whether
anyone will read it and believe it, a p r o b l e m o f reception which concerns not just Josephus' auctoritas as an author but also, and m o r e
funda
mentally, the cultural p o t e n c y o f the J u d e a n tradition within the lit erate circles o f late
first-century
Rome.
T h e question w h i c h most exercises Josephus in the preface to the Antiquitates is whether a n y o n e will wish to read his work. H e is c o n vinced (he says) that the w o r k will " s e e m to all Greeks worthy o f serious attention" (arcctoi (paveiaGai xoiq "EAXnaiv d^iav O7co\)8fix ojioiac; f|^{coxai), since there is n o accurate line o f p r o p h e t i c succession (C. Ap. 1.41).
27
XTJV
àXXà uóvcov xcòvrcpoqynxcòvxà uèv àvcoxàxco m l 7taXaióxaxa m x à arcò
1.37).
TOX)
XTIV
èjcuivoiav
9eo\) uaGóvxcov, xcc 5è m 0 ' avxoix; ax; èyévexo aacpax; a-oyvpacpovxcov (C.
Ap.
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM B O O K I
41
T h u s J u d e a n historiography d o e s not just have different sources from those e m p l o y e d b y others, with w h i c h it can supplement the a c c o u n t o f universal h u m a n history. N o r d o e s Josephus simply claim that Judeans have particularly accurate historical records, w h i c h have b e e n p r o v e d b y investigation to b e m o r e reliable than the m y t h o l o gies p e d d l e d b y others. T h e notable feature in this a c c o u n t is that n o investigation o f these J u d e a n sources is either necessary o r desired. T h e i r authority is not just in practice unchallenged, but in princi ple unchallengeable, since their authors are themselves authorised b y their divine s o u r c e .
28
T h e point is m a d e almost in passing b y refer
ence to M o s e s ' accurate k n o w l e d g e o f 3 0 0 0 years o f h u m a n history " b y inspiration from G o d " (ката xx\\ ercircvoiav TT)V ало той беой), an authority w h i c h then leaks o v e r b y implication to all the other prophets in the accurate line o f succession.
29
It is reinforced b y the
chain o f "learning" (|iav0cxv£iv) w h i c h applies in J u d e a n historiog raphy: w e learn from the records o f the past (С. Ap. 1.23), but the prophets in turn learned from G o d (C. Ap. 1.37). Elsewhere in this discussion (e.g. C. Ap. 1.10, 14, 15), as everywhere in the G r e e k tra dition, the relationship o f learner to teacher is o n e o f subordination: to learn from another is to submit to his authority. But whereas the G r e e k historian in the critical tradition w o u l d never simply learn from his sources, but must scrutinise them, adjudicate what was plausible, "cleanse" them, and submit them to his o w n reasoning capacity, Josephus portrays (and practices) a discipline o f learning from sources, w h o s e contents are ultimately learned from G o d . T h e difference is immediately dramatised b y J o s e p h u s ' claim in C. Ap. 1.42-45 that, unlike the typical G r e e k attitudes to their his tories, Judeans will never a d d to o r subtract from their writings, but learn right from birth to regard them as 0eo\) боуцххта; they are willing to remain faithful to them, even to death (C. Ap. 1.42-43). T h i s set o f claims shows quite h o w novel an element Josephus here inserts into the tradition o f historiography in w h i c h he wishes to b e heard. O n c e again, the difference is not just in the particular sources to w h i c h Judeans appealed, but in their understanding o f those sources
2 8
T h e role o f the M u s e s in inspiring poetry, and the inspiration of the Sibylline prophets, are the closest analogies in the Greek tradition; but neither of these fit the genre of historiography. 2 9
In comparison with the later prophets, M o s e s has no eyewitness claims to accu racy, nor (despite C. Ap. 1.6 ff.) does Josephus refer to records at his disposal. T h e only way he can know about 3 0 0 0 years of history (!) is by divine inspiration.
42
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
a n d o f themselves in relation to them. If the sources cannot b e altered b y addition o r subtraction, o n e has surrendered p o w e r to them as unquestionable a n d c o m p l e t e . I f it is necessary for Judeans to main tain a belief o n this point first instilled from birth (£\)0\)8ovxai xcbv TtpayuoVccov), either through flattery toward the Romans or through hatred toward the Judeans—their composi tions comprise denunciation in some cases and encomium in others, but nowhere the precision o f history—; I, Josephus . . . have set myself the task o f providing a narrative in the Greek language.. . . (B.J. 1.1-3) A l t h o u g h c o m m o n l y available translations (such as W h i s t o n
and
T h a c k e r a y [ L C L ] ) represent the italicized verbs b y the English per fect, indicating completed accounts against w h i c h Josephus reacts
after
the fact, like a m o d e r n scholar, his G r e e k portrays a m u c h livelier a n d m o r e fluid situation. H e knows what other writers are currently doing. But h o w c o u l d he k n o w this, if they have n o t yet "published" b y disseminating completed works? Josephus has evidendy seen advance copies o r extracts via friends o r he has heard s o m e o f these p e o p l e recite, o r b o t h .
4 9
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3 . 9 . 1 - 2 ) , significantly calling Josephus the most renowned Judean o f his time also a m o n g the R o m a n s , w h o had a statue erected in his honor, claims that his works (Xoyoi) were included in R o m e ' s library—which ones, we are not told.
89
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
It appears, similarly, that others have heard and r e s p o n d e d to his War—before
he c o m p o s e s this p r o l o g u e . Q u i t e unexpectedly, hav
ing o u d i n e d the main themes o f his narrative ( 1 . 1 - 1 2 ) , he turns to criticize certain eloquent Greeks (1.13-16). T h e s e m e n admittedly excel in speech-craft, he says, and yet they c h o o s e for their subjects the ancient conflicts between Greeks and Persians ("Assyrians and M e d e s " — for effect): a fairly direct attack o n the tendencies o f the G r e e k revival discussed a b o v e .
5 0
O f interest here is not o n l y that Josephus
again
seems well aware o f what his contemporaries are writing, but also that they are fully apprised of his work, they have " a b u s e d " h i m for it. W h a t else are w e to make o f this lengthy a n d peculiar
paragraph?
T h e s e eloquent m e n "position themselves as j u d g e s " o v e r great recent events (sc. the J u d e a n war): " w h i c h expose the ancient wars as pal try b y comparison, while abusing those who rival them for honor—in relation to w h o m , even if they p r o v e superior in speech-craft, they are inferior in c h o i c e o f subject." O b l i q u e though this passage m a y b e , for under standable reasons in a dignified p r o l o g u e , it seems to s h o w Josephus again in vigorous debate with other writers in the capital. H e can even take advantage o f traditional R o m a n stereotypes o f the Greeks,
51
as m o n e y - g r u b b i n g windbags (1.16), to drive h o m e his attack. S o Josephus has p r o d u c e d an a c c o u n t o f the war, w h i c h eloquent Greeks have dismissed, while they o c c u p y themselves with the past glories o f Hellas. O n e o f the main issues in their abuse is J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k style a n d perhaps accent, w h i c h are matters o f continuing sensitivity for h i m (e.g., A.J. 2 0 . 2 6 3 ; Vita 4 0 ; cf. B.J. 1.16 with
CAp.
1.23-24). I f w e wished to put all the pieces together, then, it w o u l d b e easy to suppose that he secured the help o f friends with better G r e e k than his (CAp. 1.50), "for the G r e e k s o u n d , " precisely because o f such p r e - p u b l i c a t i o n criticism. T h i s a t m o s p h e r e
o f sniping
at
another's diction and style was characteristic o f the G r e e k revival and it is clearly reflected in L u c i a n .
53
52
But all o f this h a p p e n e d before
5 0
See E . L. Bowie, " T h e Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic," Past and Present 4 6 (1974): 3 - 4 1 ; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250 (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1996). 5 1
See J. P. V . D . Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina Press, 1979), 3 0 - 5 4 . See Bowie, " T h e Greeks and their Past." See Lucian's Pro lapsu inter salutandum and Pseudologista; also Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 4 3 - 6 4 . 5 2
y i
90
STEVE MASON
54
Josephus c a m e to write the current prologue to the War.
W e can only
make sense o f such evidence if he and his contemporaries knew e a c h other's w o r k in progress, quite possibly through recitation, though w e c a n n o t p r o v e that. J o s e p h u s ' remark even in the version o f the p r o logue that has c o m e d o w n to us—"I shall not c o n c e a l any o f m y o w n misfortunes, since I a m about to speak to those who know [them]" (neMxov ye npbc; eiSoxotq epeiv; 1.22)—though susceptible o f other meanings, tends to confirm the oral dimension o f publication. A t the very least, it reminds us that Josephus knew his audience, and they knew h i m . Finally, the most o b v i o u s statements about intended audience in War's p r o l o g u e take nothing away f r o m the f o r e g o i n g discussion, though they are implausibly sweeping statements. In B.J. 1.3 Josephus claims to write for those u n d e r R o m a n h e g e m o n y ( т о ц ката xf^v Tcojioucov fiyejiovmv), as a counterpart to the equally vague " u p p e r barbarians" graced with his prior accounts o f the conflict in A r a m a i c .
55
A litde further a l o n g (1.6), having enumerated (and wildly exagger ated) various g r o u p s a m o n g those A r a m a i c - s p e a k i n g
recipients—
Parthians and Babylonians, etc.—he correspondingly elucidates the readership o f his current work: "Greeks and those o f the R o m a n s w h o did not take part in the fighting" (B.J. 1.6). But w e have already seen that he actually delivered c o m p l e t e d copies o f the War to those w h o had participated: Vespasian and Titus, their generals, A g r i p p a a n d his relatives (Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 3 ; С. Ap. 1.51-52). Rhetorical motives are at w o r k in b o t h passages: there to stress that his k n o w l e d g e a b l e recipients w o u l d have o b j e c t e d had he misrepresented the facts, here to emphasize his didactic p u r p o s e — s o that he n e e d not write for those w h o fought in the war. T h e n again, he has just claimed that even those w h o were present are writing their accounts from preju dice rather than fact (B.J. 1.1-2). All o f this highlights the
rhetori
cal malleability o f such p r o g r a m m a t i c statements, in contrast to the m o r e concrete e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g audience.
5 4
For other readings of B.J. 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 , some of which indeed speculate about Josephus' conditions in R o m e , see S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 7 1 - 5 . 5 5
A s I hope to show in m y forthcoming introduction to the War, the A r a m a i c precursor to the Greek War is best understood as some sort of concise c o m m u n i cation^) issued from Judea, not as a Vorlage in any proper sense—or indeed as a composition from his R o m a n period.
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
91
Still, w e n e e d not d o u b t the sincerity o f such b r o a d descriptions in general—cf. A.J. 1.5: the Antiquities is for "the whole Greek w o r l d " — as long as w e r e m e m b e r that this is not a practical goal. Every selfrespecting author, from T h u c y d i d e s (1.22.4; cf. Josephus in C. Ap. 1.53) to Pliny the Y o u n g e r (Ep. 7.17.15: quodplacere et semper et omnibus cupias), strove to write for posterity o r for the w o r l d . But they all had m o r e immediate audiences a n d aims in view. I leave it to an expert in T h u c y d i d e s — t h e p a r a d i g m o f the writer for posterity—to make the point: " T h u c y d i d e s , like H e r o d o t u s , clearly intended his w o r k to endure, like a m o n u m e n t in stone. But all m o n u m e n t s are established for an immediate p u r p o s e . "
56
J o s e p h u s ' h o p e for a hear
ing across space and time has been fulfilled b e y o n d his wildest dreams, but that d o e s not change the fact that he wrote the War with a c o n crete audience and situation in view. T h e r e m a i n i n g three lines o f e v i d e n c e that he w r o t e for (and received) a local R o m a n audience m a y b e summarily presented. 3. T h e narrative assumes i g n o r a n c e o f basic J u d e a n realia, but sub stantial k n o w l e d g e o f R o m a n history. T h e following examples are representative. T h e War's audience is a p p a r e n d y not e x p e c t e d to k n o w anything significant a b o u t even the most famous figures o f J u d e a n history in the centuries p r e c e d i n g the revolt: the H a s m o n e a n s , including J u d a h M a c c a b e e {BJ.
1.36-37), o r H e r o d the Great (1.181, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 ) . All
these m e n receive full introductions at first mention. A s for J u d e a n culture, J o s e p h u s must explain that o n the seventh day J u d e a n s abstain from l a b o r (1.146), that Sepphoris is a city o f Galilee (1.170), that the high priesdy office requires f r e e d o m from physical defect (1.270), that J u d e a n law (not an o b s c u r e o n e , note, but the s e c o n d c o m m a n d m e n t ) forbids representation o f living creatures (1.650), that a feast called " U n l e a v e n e d , " also k n o w n as Pascha (no A r a m a i c is assumed), is a feast involving pilgrimage and m a n y sacrifices ( 2 . 1 0 - 1 1 ) , that another k n o w n as "Fiftieth" (i.e., Pentecost) takes its n a m e from the interval following Passover (2.42), that a certain (i.e., nazirite) v o w requires shaving o f the head (2.313), a n d that J u d e a n law (viz. D e u t 2 1 : 2 1 ) prescribes the i m m e d i a t e burial o f c o r p s e s ( 4 . 3 1 7 ) . A l t h o u g h the audience seems to have an idea about the coastal cities
M u n n , The School of History, 3 1 6 .
92
STEVE MASON
o f Phoenicia—Berytus (a R o m a n colony) m a y b e m e n t i o n e d along side T y r e , Sidon, Byblos, and Ptolemais without explanation ( 1 . 4 2 2 ) — they are assumed to k n o w nothing at all about J u d e a n o r Galilean geography and topography. Even Jerusalem and its temple (5.136-229) must b e described in detail, as also the t w o Galilees (1.22; 3 . 3 5 - 4 4 ) . All this is basic information. O f course, K i n g Agrippa's relatives a n d presumably even R o m a n c o m m a n d e r s from the conflict w o u l d k n o w it, but Josephus a p p a r e n d y has in view a local R o m a n audi e n c e that needs such explanations. T h e i r lack o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t matters J u d e a n is thrown into sharp relief b y what Josephus appar e n d y d o e s expect them to know—Roman history and politics. A l t h o u g h he c a n also introduce m i n o r R o m a n figures, o f a c e n tury o r m o r e past, in the w a y he introduces the major J u d e a n s (e.g., B.J.
1.205: Sextus Caesar, a relative o f the great Caesar w h o was
at that time g o v e r n o r o f Syria), the audience receives n o such help with important R o m a n personalities. T h u s , Josephus first mentions M a r c A n t o n y , Augustus, a n d M a r c u s A g r i p p a without introduction (1.118) and describes Scaurus as the general w h o had b e e n sent to Syria b y Pompeius Magnus (notice the transliteration from Latin, rather than the G r e e k equivalent Meyaq)—assuming audience with P o m p e y if n o t S c a u r u s .
57
familiarity
E v e n P o m p e y ' s father-in-law
[Q.
Caecilius Metellus Pius] Scipio, his associate in the eastern imperium, acquitted o n a charge o f ambitus, famous in R o m e and discussed b y Julius Caesar, C i c e r o , and Livy, can b e m e n t i o n e d (1.185) without introduction. Josephus likewise assumes that [P. Licinius] Crassus a n d his notorious Parthian c a m p a i g n (53 B.C.E.) are well k n o w n to the audience (1.179). A n d in 1.183 w e find the telling c h r o n o l o g i c a l pointers, " W h e n P o m p e y fled with the senate across the Ionian Sea, [Julius] Caesar n o w being master o f R o m e a n d the w o r l d , " w h i c h expect rather a lot from the audience. ( W h e n did P o m p e y flee with the senate, then?) A t 1.242 he casually mentions the "death o f Cassius at Philippi" (in 4 2 B.C.E.), again expecting audience knowledge o f a p e r i o d so famous a m o n g R o m a n s . Especially telling, it seems, are the War's first references to Q u e e n Cleopatra, for e x a m p l e (1.243): M a r c A n t o n y was " n o w a slave to his desire for Cleopatra." T h e dark portrait o f the Egyptian m o n a r c h
5 7
T h e Latin nick-name appears even more strikingly, without need of "Pompey," at 5 . 4 0 9 .
93
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
intensifies in 1 . 3 5 8 - 3 6 8 , w h e r e J o s e p h u s speaks o f A n t o n y ' s gradual destruction through enslavement to his desire for C l e o p a t r a a n d n o w also o f her "thirsting for the b l o o d o f foreigners." T h i s is o b v i o u s l y not a d e t a c h e d description, but highly tendentious rhetoric especially suited to the standard R o m a n i m a g e o f the eastern seductress, w h o had p r o v i d e d the basis for m u c h o f Octavian's anti-Antony p r o p a ganda.
58
I n d e e d , m e m o r i e s o f C l e o p a t r a m a y well have contributed
to Titus' n e e d to dismiss the J u d e a n Q u e e n Berenice f r o m his house and b e d in 79 C E . , before a c c e d i n g to the principate—not Cleopatra!
59
another
J o s e p h u s assumes here b o t h the subject k n o w l e d g e a n d
the values o f a R o m a n audience. Further examples a b o u n d . In B.J.
1.243 a n d 2 8 4 [ M . Valerius]
Messalla [ C o r v i n u s ] , the eminent R o m a n general a n d orator, liter ary patron o f O v i d and Tibullus (64 B . C E . to 8 C E . ) , is m e n t i o n e d quite incidentally as "Messala." Y e t b o t h contexts have to d o with oratory: defending H e r o d a n d Phasael before A n t o n y and speaking for H e r o d ' s kingship in the senate (40 B . C E . ) . T h e audience should presumably understand the significance o f this particular character. At
1.364 J o s e p h u s casually mentions the outbreak o f w a r at A c t i u m
(31 B . C E . ; cf. 1.398). At 1.400 Josephus remarks that, "In Caesar's affections, H e r o d stood next after A g r i p p a , in A g r i p p a ' s next after Caesar." But this assumes audience knowledge o f the very close relationship, n o w h e r e explained, b e t w e e n Augustus and his son-in-law M . Vipsanius A g r i p p a .
B.J.
2.25 is even m o r e telling. First, [P. Quinctilius] Varus, legate o f Syria in 4 B . C E . , notorious in J o s e p h u s ' R o m e for his loss o f three legions in the T e u t o b u r g forest in 9 C E . ,
6 0
is i n t r o d u c e d without elabora
tion (as in the p r o l o g u e , 1.20; see b e l o w ) . T h e n Augustus c o n v e n e s an advisory c o u n c i l , in w h i c h J o s e p h u s pointedly remarks that "for the first time he also seated Gaius, the son [he] adopted from A g r i p p a and Iulia his daughter." It is a p o i n t e d reference ("for the first
time"),
but what is the point—since neither Gaius n o r Julia will appear again in the
War? T h i s notice c o u l d o n l y have m e a n i n g for an audience
5 8
E.g., Cambridge History of Classical Literature 2.3: 3 9 , 5 7 , 9 3 , 1 0 2 . Cf. Suetonius, Tit. 1 and thereto B. W . Jones and R . Milns, Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors, A Historical Commentary (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 0 7 . 5 9
6 0
2.41,
E.g., Velleius 2 . 1 1 7 - 2 1 ; Tacitus, Germ. 3 7 . 5 ; Ann. 1.3, 4 3 , 5 5 , 5 7 - 6 2 , 6 5 , 7 1 ; 4 5 ; Cassius D i o 5 6 . 1 8 - 2 2 .
94
STEVE MASON
familiar with the sad history o f Augustus' family: the marriage o f the princeps' daughter to his loyal friend A g r i p p a , the birth o f their son Gaius and Augustus' hopeful a d o p t i o n o f h i m as successor, a n d the later tragedy o f the y o u n g man's death in 4 C E . , w h i c h so fatally shaped the subsequent imperial succession. T h a t such assumptions
a b o u t the audience's R o m a n k n o w l e d g e
d o not derive f r o m J o s e p h u s '
sources (such as Nicolaus) is clear
because they continue throughout. In B.J. 2.247 Josephus introduces the n e w g o v e r n o r o f J u d e a , Felix, as the brother of Pallas. But this identification only works if Pallas himself was already k n o w n to his audience. Marcus Antonius Pallas was indeed notorious in élite R o m a n circles as the stereotypical too-powerful freedman in Claudius' court (Suetonius, Claud. 28; Tacitus, Ann. 12.53). Similarly, in 2 . 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 Josephus prescinds from exploring the horrors o f N e r o ' s reign because they are well k n o w n to his audience. N o t i c e again b o t h the content o f the audience's assumed k n o w l e d g e and J o s e p h u s ' hostile tone c o n cerning N e r o , w h i c h matches elite R o m a n attitudes o f the late first century.
61
A c c o r d i n g to Suetonius (Ner. 57) a n d Tacitus (Hist. 1.4),
the masses rather liked N e r o and m o u r n e d his death. Josephus, h o w ever, shares the scandalized o u d o o k o f the elite authors. Finally, in 4 . 4 9 6 , he likewise avoids exploring the R o m a n civil w a r following N e r o ' s death o n the g r o u n d that these events are well k n o w n (8i' oy\ox) nàoiv éaxiv) and they have b e e n written u p b y m a n y , "Greeks as well as R o m a n s . " Both o f these appeals to audience k n o w l e d g e , from experience a n d from current b o o k s , make the best sense in the context o f his R o m a n environment. Josephus' pointed reference to works b y both G r e e k and R o m a n authors raises the important question whether his efforts at fashion able and high-level G r e e k s o m e h o w restrict his audiences to Greekrather than Latin-speaking circles in R o m e . Such an assumption w o u l d , h o w e v e r , misunderstand
R o m a n literary culture, w h i c h was fully
bilingual. T h e fact that Josephus wrote in G r e e k was simply a result o f necessity: even with a functional literacy in Latin, he w o u l d n o t have h o p e d to c o m p o s e at a level high e n o u g h for elite c o n s u m p t i o n , whereas he c o u l d (and did) manage this in Greek. But w e have m a n y solid clues that he c o u l d read Latin as n e e d e d .
(il
62
A n elite audience in
Cf. BJ. 2 . 1 8 4 on Gaius Caligula, w h o cut off the cream of nobility in his country and then extended his designs to Judea. T h e s e include not only antecedent probability (after years spent with R o m a n 6 2
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
95
R o m e , even if R o m a n b y birth, was able to function well in G r e e k . In sum: J o s e p h u s ' assumption that his a u d i e n c e is s c h o o l e d in R o m a n conditions is thrown into sharp relief b y his e x p e c t a d o n that they k n o w nothing (necessarily) a b o u t J u d e a n culture. 4. T h e prospectus o f the narrative that Josephus provides in War's p r o l o g u e ( 1 . 1 7 - 3 0 ) conspicuously reaches out to a R o m a n audience. This fact o n its o w n — t h o u g h not discussed before, to m y knowl edge—seems decisive for the question o f Josephus' expected audience. If o n e c o m p a r e s the Polybian-style table o f contents that Josephus provides with the actual narrative to follow, o n e discovers that he has consistendy shaped the prospectus to appeal to R o m a n interests, while d o w n p l a y i n g o r omitting altogether features o f the
narrative—
n o matter h o w large o r important in the narrative context itself— that will require careful introduction. T h i s is immediately apparent from the personal names given. O f the Judeans,
o n l y H e r o d son o f Antipater ( w h o was in any case
world-famous) receives m e n t i o n ( 1 . 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Even though the narra tive to follow is a b o u t the J u d e a n revolt and so deals at great length with such figures as J o h n o f Gischala, S i m o n bar G i o r a , and Eleazar son o f Yair, Josephus leaves these m e n u n n a m e d in the p r o l o g u e , referring only in a general w a y to the J u d e a n "tyrants" and their differences (1.24). By contrast, a n u m b e r o f R o m a n s receive antici patory billing: not only Vespasian a n d Titus, w h o figure repeatedly (1.21, 2 3 , 24, 2 5 , 28, 29), but also rather less important figures in J o s e p h u s ' narrative such as P o m p e y (1.19), [Gaius] Sossius (1.19), Augustus (1.20; in Latin transliteration rather than the G r e e k equiv alent lepocoxoq), Quintilius V a r u s (1.20; simply Varus at 2.25), Cestius [Gallus] (1.20), and N e r o (1.20, 21). Josephus includes names that will b e immediately meaningful to his envisaged audiences and readers,
officers and guards in captivity, then in the capital itself) but also more concrete indicators. Josephus apparently used the generals' commentarii (field notes) as sources (Vita 3 5 8 ; C. Ap. 1.56); his War shows m a n y parallels with Julius Caesar's highly esteemed Gallic War (the 7 - b o o k structure, third-person references to the author, general's ruses, and such specifics as B.J. 2 . 1 1 9 / / Bell. Gall. 1.1), with Sallust's influential Catilinarian Conspiracy (B.J. 2 . 5 8 5 - 5 8 7 / / Bell. Cat. 5 [cf. Thackeray in L C L 2.xix], and with Virgil's Aeneid [Thackeray, loc. cit.]. B y the time Josephus writes the A.J. 1 8 - 1 9 , at least, he seems to borrow heavily from Latin sources for the detailed description of Gaius' death and Claudius' accession ( T . P. W i s e m a n , Death of an Emperor: Flavius Josephus [Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1 9 9 1 ] ) , e.g., xii-xiv.
96
STEVE MASON
but omits those that will s o u n d alien o r perhaps generate
adverse
responses without careful introduction. Still m o r e important are the prospectus' lack o f p r o p o r t i o n a n d disparity o f theme vis-a-vis the narrative. F o r e x a m p l e , B.J.
1.19-20
passes o v e r most o f the l o n g and detailed B o o k 1, c o n c e r n i n g the H a s m o n e a n dynasty and H e r o d ' s colorful career, focusing only o n R o m a n involvement in the region. This R o m a n political and military emphasis continues throughout, with some astonishing results. Josephus omits from B o o k 2 the entire H e r o d i a n succession story ( 2 . 1 - 1 1 7 ) , the three philosophical schools (especially Essenes), the governors o f J u d e a , and K i n g Agrippa's strenuous efforts before the war; f r o m B o o k 3, almost everything that d o e s not relate to the activities o f Vespasian and Titus, including Josephus' o w n military career (the focus o f that b o o k ) ; from B o o k s 4 to 6 almost everything—the c a p ture o f G a m a l a , T a b o r , a n d Gischala, the g r o w t h o f serious fac tionalism
in Jerusalem, the arrival o f the Idumeans and the pivotal
m u r d e r o f A n a n u s and Jesus ( 4 . 2 3 3 - 3 3 3 ) , as well as other crimes against the sanctuary, though these are pivotal in the b o o k ' s theme a n d structure. M o s t significandy, he leaves out o f the prospectus the narrative's m a n y examples o f J u d e a n c o u r a g e , resourcefulness, a n d partial success ( 5 . 7 1 - 9 7 ,
1 0 9 - 1 3 5 , 2 5 8 - 3 3 0 ) , as also the R o m a n s '
l o n g hard struggle to take Jerusalem, w h i c h was delayed b y the tem porary victories o f the J u d e a n s ( 6 . 1 2 - 9 2 , 1 2 9 - 1 9 2 ) . H e omits refer ence to his o w n final speech ( 6 . 9 9 - 1 1 0 ) and his relay o f Titus' speech ( 6 . 1 2 4 - 1 2 8 ) , as well as the worst h o r r o r o f the famine: M a r y ' s can nibalism ( 6 . 1 9 3 - 2 1 9 ) . In their place, he highlights only a few para graphs towards the e n d o f B o o k 4 and the beginning o f B o o k 5 c o n c e r n i n g N e r o , the Roman civil war, and Vespasian, s o m e exotic information a b o u t the temple and its priests, the u n n a m e d J u d e a n tyrants and bandits, the suffering they inflicted o n the Judeans, a n d the R o m a n desire to spare his compatriots ( 1 . 2 1 - 2 8 ) . If w e h a d only this latter half o f the p r o l o g u e , w e might suppose that the War was indeed an instrument o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a o n the o l d view, but it is crucial to r e m e m b e r that this o u d i n e does n o t in fact m a t c h the c o n t e n t o f the b o o k . It seems rather carefully crafted to h o o k the audience in—a R o m a n audience—while reserving detailed reinterpretation o f the War for the appropriate time. Josephus has already signaled that he will c o u n t e r the prevailing jingoistic accounts with a b a l a n c e d viewpoint ( 1 . 2 - 3 , 6 - 1 0 ) , but the force a n d c o n s e q u e n c e o f his revisionist view must await careful articulation in the story itself.
97
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
5. Josephus uses the major theme o f his Judean War, civil war (oxdoi Tepoi yuvaiKo^ \IX\XE ovuTcaGeaTepoi 8' biiexq evaepeiq Kai TTJV eu-Tiv arcoaTpEcpeaOe Gvaiav, eyo) \ikv VILXV Kai TO Xoucov 8e ejLioi jLieivaxco." (BJ. 6.210-211)
eya) peppcoKa. jXTixpo^. ei PePpcoKa,
Josephus' audience c o u l d clearly read M a r y as a w o m a n from G r e e k tragedy, b o t h in p r o c l a i m i n g this murder-cannibalism
her "deed"
and b y referring explicidy to h e r status as a w o m a n a n d a m o t h e r as a challenge to the rebels. She is, in fact, a conflation o f several Euripidean
mothers: A g a v e , A n d r o m a c h e , a n d M e d e a .
Euripides'
A g a v e does n o t call h e r s o n Pentheus's brutal death a n d d i s m e m b e r m e n t a "sacrifice" in the extant portions o f the play, but she does invite the chorus to "share the b a n q u e t " (Bacchae 1184) a n d then h e r father C a d m u s to the "feast" (Bacchae 1242). C a d m u s , in response, refers to the death as " m u r d e r " a n d Pentheus' b o d y as a "sacrifice victim" (Bacchae 1 2 4 5 - 1 2 4 6 ) . In the Bellum M a r y does n o t dwell u p o n her b a b y ' s severed limbs n o r does she try to p u t h e r baby's b o d y b a c k together again as A g a v e m a y have d o n e towards the e n d o f 74
the Bacchae, b u t b o t h w o m e n a n d their p e o p l e suffer the same fate o f dispersion. In lines reconstructed
from the Christus Patiens that
appear to c o m e from Dionysus' speech in his epiphany at the e n d o f the Bacchae, the g o d m a y have p r o n o u n c e d the following sentence u p o n the T h e b a n s as punishment for their blasphemy against him:
7 3
See H . Chapman,
"Spectacle a n d T h e a t e r in Josephus' Bellum J u d a i c u m "
(Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1998), which also discusses the H e b r e w scriptural b a c k g r o u n d , a n d also " ' A M y t h
for the W o r l d ' : Early Christian R e c e p t i o n o f
C a n n i b a l i s m in Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 6 . 1 9 9 - 2 1 9 , " (Adanta: Society o f Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) : 7 4
SBL 2000
Seminar Papers
359-378.
D o d d s , Euripides Bacchae, 5 7 - 5 9 , provides several adaptations o f a n d citations
to the Bacchae in an attempt to help fill the lacuna perceived after line 1 3 2 9 , which is the second line o f Agave's speech in response to C a d m u s .
144
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
d 8' at)rcaGeiv8ei X,aov ox> Kp\)\j/co icaicd. Xinr[ noXioiia, Pappapoiq E I K C O V , ( C X K C O V ) noXziq
8 e noKkaq
eioaquKcovxai,
tpybv 70
SovXeiov (avetacovxeq) oi SuaSaVoveq.
Josephus' readers m a y very well have perceived an allusive connection between the tragic fate o f the T h e b a n s a n d their city at the e n d o f the Bacchae a n d that o f the Judeans a n d Jerusalem in the Bellum. Later Christian readers, w h o certainly knew the G r e e k tragedies as both texts and performances, read this infanticide scene in the Bellum as an episode from G r e e k tragedy a n d also as the final catalyst f o r the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m .
76
W h e n Pseudo-Hegesippus adapted the
scene for his loose Latin rendition o f the Bellum called De Excidio, h e seems to have read it at least in part as an allusion to the Bacchae, a n d then to have d o n e Josephus o n e better b y returning to a n d using m o r e literally the e n d o f the Bacchae, w h i c h w e in the m o d e r n era d o n o t have in toto. In his a c c o u n t Pseudo-Hegesippus goes so far as to have M a r y address the h a n d a n d foot o f h e r b a b y .
77
In d o i n g s o ,
he makes his M a r y even m o r e Euripidean, since w e have lines from the Christus Patiens, as well as the report o f the third-century rhetori cian Apsines, that p o i n t to A g a v e speaking to Pentheus' individual b o d y parts the w a y M a r y does in P s e u d o - H e g e s i p p u s .
78
Even setting aside Pseudo-Hegesippus' adaptation o f the Bellum, the allusions to the Bacchae are strong in the Bellum. All o f the allusions c o m b i n e d invite the reader o n o n e level to appreciate J o s e p h u s ' artistry, b u t o n another t o e x p e r i e n c e the h o r r o r a n d tragedy o f Jerusalem's fall in a far m o r e vivid a n d sympathetic w a y than, for instance, with T a c i t u s ' telegraphic a c c o u n t , albeit fragmentary, in his Historiae, B o o k 5. Perhaps Josephus was even responding to the p e r -
7 5
This is reconstructed from Christus Patiens, lines 1 6 6 8 - 1 6 6 9 a n d 1 6 7 8 - 1 6 7 9 , in D o d d s ' edition 5 8 - 5 9 , lines de Thebanis. 7 6
For authors before Pseudo-Hegesippus, World'," 3 7 0 - 7 8 .
see H . C h a p m a n , ' " A M y t h for the
7 7
Pseudo-Hegesippus, De Excidio 5 . 4 0 . 2 : "hoc est prandium meum, haec vestra portio, videte diligentius ne vos frauderim. Ecce pueri manus una, ecce pes eius, ecce dimidium reliqui corporis eius, et ne alienum putetis, filius est meus, ne alterius opus arbitremini, ego feci, ego diligenter divisi, mihi quod manducarem, vobis quod reservarem." 7 8
See D o d d s , Euripides Bacchae, 5 7 for the quote from Apsines. Notice that in Christus Patiens 1 4 7 0 , as reported in D o d d s , ibid., 5 8 , idov is used to draw attention to his head (which is covered here), a n d then lines concerning his limbs follow; in the same way, M a r y in Pseudo-Hegesippus uses ecce followed b y b o d y parts. B o d y parts are a theme throughout the Bacchae, foreshadowing Pentheus' fate.
145
JOSEPHTJS AND GREEK POETRY
sonal taste o f o n e o f the most important characters in and
readers
o f the Bellum, the future e m p e r o r Titus; w e d o have evidence that Titus himself wrote poetry, including G r e e k tragedies.
79
CONCLUSION
Josephus's use o f H o m e r , Pindar, S o p h o c l e s , and Euripides grants his history a certain grace and grandeur, and was presumably d o n e to please and impress his audience with his attempts at literary artistry and ultimately to m o v e and to c o n v i n c e them o f his point o f view c o n c e r n i n g the war. W h e t h e r Josephus personally k n e w G r e e k poetry very well, o r was still in the process o f acquiring m o r e familiarity with it at the time he was c o m p o s i n g the Bellum in the 70s, does not detract from the fact that poetic allusions, whether verbal, thematic, o r structural, d o exist in the text for his readers to appreciate. S h o u l d a n y o n e d o u b t the Jewish general's desire o r ability to read o r listen to G r e e k poetry set to music, w e should turn to the e x a m ple o f a m o d e r n Japanese general, T a d a m i c h i Kuribayashi, w h o , like Josephus with respect to R o m e , h a d seen the U n i t e d States as a deputy attache
80
before W o r l d W a r II. F r o m this e x p e r i e n c e he
declared in a letter to his wife, " T h e United States is the last c o u n try in the w o r l d J a p a n should fight."
81
W h i l e the samurai Kuribayashi
was putting u p a well-crafted but ultimately futile defense o n I w o J i m a in early 1945, he w r o t e again to his wife, "It really d o e s not matter m u c h to m e where m y grave will b e . If there really is such a thing as a soul, then it will stay with y o u and o u r c h i l d r e n . "
82
The
A m e r i c a n M a j o r General Erkine sent Japanese P O W s and Japanese Americans to try to convince Kuribayashi to surrender, but he report edly said o v e r the radio to his compatriots, " W e only laughed at
7 9
C . P. Jones, "Greek D r a m a in the R o m a n Empire," in Theater and Society in the Classical World (ed. R . Scodel; A n n Arbor: University o f Michigan, 1993), 5 1 , n. 2 9 , cites Eutrop. 7 . 2 1 . 1 , Suda T 6 9 1 , Tr GF 12 no. 1 8 3 , for evidence o f Titus as tragedian. 8 0
D . W r i g h t , Iwo Jima 1945 (Oxford: Osprey, 2 0 0 1 ) , 13. R . T h o m p s o n , Empires on the Pacific: World War II and the Struggle for the Mastery of Asia ( N e w York: Basic, 2 0 0 1 ) , 3 3 4 . O n e main message of Josephus' Bellum Judaicum is that war against the far m o r e powerful R o m a n s is futile. Ibid, 3 3 4 - 3 5 ; cf. BJ. 3 . 3 6 2 - 3 8 2 , especially 3 7 4 , for Josephus' c o m m e n t s on the soul when facing possible death by suicide. 8 1
8 2
146
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
this childish trick a n d did not set ourselves against t h e m . " the v i c t o r i o u s U . S . t r o o p s , i n c l u d i n g m y father,
finally
83
When entered
Kuribayashi's headquarters, w h i c h was b u r r o w e d into a hillside near the central airfield, they discovered an elegandy w o o d - p a n e l e d office.
84
A s m y father l o o k e d though the papers o n Kuribayashi's desk, he f o u n d o n e d o c u m e n t that s t o o d out from the rest: a single p a g e showing western musical notations a n d their Japanese
counterparts.
Unlike Josephus at Jotapata, h o w e v e r , Kuribayashi had b e e n killed b y shells a n d then buried, a c c o r d i n g to his son, w h o learned this from a Japanese
sergeant. T h e U . S . M a r i n e Lieutenant
General
H o l l a n d Smith called Kuribayashi " o u r m o s t r e d o u b t a b l e adver sary."
85
H a d Kuribayashi survived the war, perhaps he w o u l d have
p e n n e d a history o f his country's defeat in English, using western literary o r even lyric expressions (given his interest in music), thereby bridging the gap b e t w e e n east and west, just as Josephus had d o n e so l o n g a g o .
8 3
W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 1 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 4 ff. on R o m a n invitations to Josephus to surrender. T h e r e is n o w a memorial stele marking the site of the Kuribayashi's cave o n I w o Jima; see W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 4 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 1 on Josephus' cave. W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 4 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 7 on Vespasian's supposed admiration for Josephus. 8 4
8 5
T H E HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL H I S T O R Y O F K I N G S A U L : J O S E P H U S , A J. 6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 A N D 1 S A M U E L 9:1-31:13 DETLEV DORMEYER UNIVERSITÄT D O R T M U N D
Josephus gave a clear center to his Antiquitates: he e n d e d B o o k 10 with the exile in B a b y l o n . B o o k s 1-10 follow the Pentateuch a n d the deuteronomistic history from J o s h u a to 2 Kings. Books 1 1 - 2 0 are less closely related to biblical b o o k s . T h e story a b o u t K i n g Saul c o m prises A J. 6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 . Saul is n a m e d b y Josephus only in the Antiquitates: 149 times in B o o k 6; 4 0 times in B o o k 7; o n c e in B o o k 10; o n c e in B o o k 11. T h e text used b y Josephus, the H e b r e w story a b o u t K i n g Saul, has a very clear oudine: (1) 1 S a m 9 : 1 - 1 5 : 3 5 : election, c o r o n a t i o n , victories and rejection b y G o d ; (2) 1 S a m 1 6 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3 : D a v i d , Saul a n d others, Saul's death. T h e first part is stricdy concentrated o n the rise o f Saul, the s e c o n d part, e n d i n g with his death, is e x p a n d e d b y the c o u r t history with 1
m a n y important figures. Josephus took o v e r this episodic structure.
1
H . W . Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher (7th ed., A T D , 10; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1986), 1 0 3 - 1 0 6 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; Hertzberg starts with 1 S a m 7:2 ( 4 8 - 5 1 ) ; K . Baltzer, Die Biographie der Propheten (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), 7 1 - 8 3 , begins with 9:1 and names the whole story "biography of the prophet" ("Prophetenbiographie"). T h e biographical pattern normally consists of three parts: (1) ancestry, childhood and youth; (2) public life with fame; (3) old age a n d death; D . D o r m e y e r , Evangelium als literarische und theologische Gattung ( E d F , 2 6 3 ; Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1989), 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 6 0 - 1 9 4 (bibliog.); R . H . Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography ( S N T S M S , 70; Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1 9 9 2 ) , 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 ; D . Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie. Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst ( T A N Z , 2 2 ; T ü b i n g e n / B a s e l : Francke Verlag, 1997), 1 9 2 - 2 1 0 ; D . D o r m e y e r , Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener (2nd ed., S B B , 4 3 ; Stuttgart: V e r l a g Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2 0 0 2 ) , 8 - 9 , 2 6 8 - 8 6 ; for Josephus' Vita see S.J.D. C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian ( C S C T , 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 1 0 2 - 3 ; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), 107; S. M a s o n , Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary (BJP 9; 2 0 0 1 ) , xxii-xxiii; D . D o r m e y e r , "Die V i t a des Josephus als A u t o b i o g r a p h i e eines gescheiterten Herrschers", in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (ed. J. U . K a l m s a n d F. Siegert; MJSt,
148
DETLEV DORMEYER
H e s m o o t h e d the style and a d d e d s o m e reflections. T h e result was a b i o g r a p h i c a l history very closely related to the Hellenistic b i o 2
graphical history. T h e c o n d e m n e d sinner Saul is b e i n g transformed into a bright m o d e l o f a ruler and king. H o w did J o s e p h u s achieve this c h a n g e and adaptation for the Hellenistic culture? H o w did he deal with the Saul m o d e l in the later b o o k s o f the Antiquitates? T h r e e points will b e dealt with in this essay: (1) J o s e p h u s ' retelling o f 1 Samuel 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3 (2) Saul in A J.
7; 10; and 11;
(3) T h e role o f Saul and the self-definition o f Josephus.
1. JOSEPHUS' REVISION OF 1 S A M 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3
Josephus concludes the Saul story with the e n c o m i u m : T o such an end did Saul come, as Samuel had predicted, because he had disobeyed God's commandments touching the Amalekites, and because he had destroyed the family o f Abimelech the high priest and Abimelech himself and the city o f the high priests. He reigned eigh teen years during the lifetime o f Samuel and for twenty-two years more after the latter's death. Thus then did Saul depart this life. (A J. 6.378)
3
B o o k 6 closes with the term pioq. In J o s e p h u s ' time this term means at first the description o f a life; the term " b i o g r a p h y " was created in late Antiquity.
4
In this final sentence o f b o o k 6, Pioq signifies,
14; Münster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 5 - 3 4 , esp. 2 0 - 2 1 . Saul's biographical history has only part 2 and 3. T h e omission o f Part 1 (childhood a n d youth) is usual for the most ancient biographies (Frickenschmidt, Evangelium, 2 5 3 ff; J. Kügler, Pharao und Christus? ( B B B , 113; Bodenheim: Philo, 1997), 1 3 3 - 8 5 ; D o r m e y e r , Markusevangelium, 2 6 8 - 8 6 ) . T h e ancestry of Saul was told in A.J. 6 . 4 5 - 4 6 . 2
O n biographical history see T . J. Artemis & W i n k l e r V e r l a g , 1 9 9 8 ; 1 6 0 - 1 6 2 ; for some related examples, by Isocrates see Louis H . Feldman, 4 5 - 9 9 , esp. 4 6 - 4 7 . 3
Luce, Die griechischen Historiker (Düsseldorf/Zürich: Engl. L o n d o n / N e w Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e , 1 9 9 7 ) , including the encomiastic biography of Euagoras "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," HUCA 5 3 (1982):
T h e translation o f the Antiquitates is throughout this article taken from Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, (trans. H . St. J. Thackeray, R . M a r c u s , A . W i k g r e n , and L. H . Feldman; L C L ; C a m b r i d g e , M . A . : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 6 5 ) . D . W ö r d e m a n n , Der bios nach Plutarch und das Evangelium nach Markus. Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Analogie des Charakterbildes des Helden und des Christusbildes im Evangelium Jesu Christi (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, N F 1,19; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 2 - 4 2 . 4
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
149
firstly, the story o f Saul's death in A.J. 6 . 3 6 8 - 3 7 7 ( / / 1 S a m 3 1 : 1 - 1 3 ) . Secondly, it comprises the w h o l e Saul story. But this story d o e s not 5
belong to the genre o f peripatetic b i o g r a p h y . Therefore Baltzer deter mines
rightly
6
the Saul story as " p r o p h e t i c b i o g r a p h y . " J o s e p h u s
changes the genre to b e a variant o f the Hellenistic biographical his tory. This form o f history c a m e to b e with Herodotus and X e n o p h o n . In B o o k 1 H e r o d o t u s gives a wonderful biographical picture o f the Persian king Cyrus ( H e r o d o t u s 1 . 7 1 - 2 1 4 , esp. 1 0 8 - 2 1 4 ) . X e n o p h o n wrote a l o n g w i s d o m novel w h i c h he called Cyropaedia. W i t h o u t great difficulties Josephus c o u l d rewrite the Jewish p r o p h e t i c b i o g r a p h y as Hellenistic biographical history. In order to achieve this goal he m a d e some alterations. H e recounted only t w o instances o f the disobedience o f Saul in the final e n c o m i u m : (1) the sparing o f the Amalekites, (2) the destruction o f A b i m e l e c h and his family. But 1 Samuel contains accounts o f further instances o f Saul's disobedience, w h i c h Josephus had recounted earlier. T h e first disobedience was the unauthorised sacrifice b y Saul. T h e act o f sacrifice b e l o n g e d to the ministry o f the p r o p h e t Samuel (1 S a m 13). For this disobedience, G o d revoked his promise o f an eternal rule o f the house o f Saul and a n n o u n c e d a n e w king " a c c o r d i n g the heart o f G o d " (1 S a m 1 3 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s slighdy changes this episode. "Forever" b e c o m e s "exceedingly l o n g " (rcA-eioxov av paoiAeuoai %povov) (A.J. 6.104), and the promise o f the n e w king is omitted. T h u s the punishment o f Saul is minimised. T h e reason c o u l d b e that G r e e k and R o m a n leaders always had the right o f sacrifice and that the rivalry
b e t w e e n king and p r o p h e t c o u n t e d as a h u m a n matter and
not a divine privilege.
7
Josephus has also modified Saul's last great sin, the visit given to the witch o f E n d o r (A.J. 6 . 3 2 7 - 3 4 2 ) . T h e prosaic banishment o f witches here seems to b e arbitrary, not an act o f o b e y i n g the first
3
F. Leo, Die griechisch- römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig: Teubner, 1901); A . Diehle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie ( A A W G . P H , 3 , 3 7 ; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1956); D o r m e y e r , Evangelium, 1 6 8 - 9 0 ; Burridge, Gospels; D . D o r m e y e r , Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte. Eine Einfuhrung (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 0 5 - 2 8 ; translated b y R . K o s s o w , The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity (Biblical Seminar, 5 5 ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 2 0 - 4 3 ; W . Eckey, Das Markus-Evangelium. Orientierung am Weg Jesu. Ein Kommentar (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 2 4 - 2 7 . 6
7
Baltzer, Biographie, 7 1 - 8 3 . Feldman, "Saul," 8 5 .
150
DETLEV DORMEYER
c o m m a n d m e n t ( E x o d 2 0 : 3 - 6 ; D e u t 5 : 7 - 1 0 , esp. 1 8 : 1 1 - 1 4 ) . In
an
a n a l o g o u s w a y , T i b e r i u s e x p e l l e d all astrologers e x c e p t his o w n astrologer for fear o f the " b a d press" he g o t b y their art (Suetonius, Tib. 36). In Josephus the witch o f E n d o r b e c o m e s an
honourable
e x a m p l e o f her profession. Josephus c o n c l u d e s with an
impressive
e n c o m i o n o n her: Here it is but right to commend the generosity o f this woman who, though she had been prevented by the king from practising an art which would have made it easier and more comfortable for her at home, and though she had never seen Saul before, yet bore him no resentment for having condemned her profession nor turned him away as a stranger and as one with whom she had never been acquainted; but instead she gave him sympathy and consolation, exhorted him to do that which he regarded with great unwillingness, and offered him with open friendliness the one thing which in her poverty she pos sessed. And this she did, not in return for any benefit received, nor in quest o f any favour to come—for she knew that he was about to die—, whereas men are by nature wont either to emulate those who have bestowed some kindness upon them or to be beforehand in flattering those from whom they may possibly receive some benefit. It is well, then, to take this woman for an example and show kindness to all who are in need, and to regard nothing as nobler than this or more befitting the human race or more likely to make G o d gracious and ready to bestow upon us His blessings. Concerning this woman, then, let these words suffice (A.J. 6.340-342). S o , m a g i c incited o n l y Saul's "unwillingness." T h e prohibition o f m a g i c b y G o d in the T o r a h is totally forgotten. J o s e p h u s
writes
pathetic o r m i m e t i c history, w h i c h is interested in signs, predictions, invocations o f deeds and miracles.
8
H e c a n n o t a c c e p t an apodictic
p r o h i b i t i o n o f n e c r o m a n c y a n d incantations.
S o he m e r e l y gives
unclear hints to the "unwillingness" o f Saul. Josephus adds an e n c o m i u m o n Saul, w h i c h is m u c h longer than the final e n c o m i u m o n him. Saul has c o m m i t t e d only t w o sins: o n e against G o d and o n e against humankind. Nevertheless he is worthy o f a l o n g e n c o m i u m with a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p o l o g y for his disobe-
8
E. Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller. Studien zur Apostelgeschichte ( S U N T , 9; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1972), 9 - 3 2 ; K . Meister, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus (Stuttgart: K o h l h a m m e r , 1990), 9 5 - 1 0 2 ; O . Lendle, Einführung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von Hekataios bis JTpsimos (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1992), 1 8 0 - 2 0 6 ; Eckey, Markus-Evangelium, 2 4 - 2 7 .
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
151
dience against G o d (A.J. 6 . 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 ) . T h e first sin against G o d — t h e sparing o f the Amalekites—is slighdy different from the biblical par allel. 1 S a m 15:9 reads: "But Saul a n d the a r m y spared A g a g (the Amalekite king) with the best o f the sheep. . . . " Josephus divides this action: Saul spared the K i n g , while the c r o w d spared the animals for the sacrifice: "But he also took prisoner the e n e m y ' s king, A g a g , w h o m o u t o f admiration for his beauty (mAAoq) a n d his stature (uiyeGoq) he a c c o u n t e d w o r t h y to b e saved" (A J. 6.137). Saul gave preference to the Hellenistic ideal o f kalokagathia o v e r against the will o f G o d : " F o r G o d so hated (euiorioe) the race o f the Amalaketes . . . " (6.138). But a pious J e w does not have the right to o p p o s e the explicit will o f G o d . T h e r e f o r e Saul is rejected b y G o d and destined to s o o n lose his kingship (A.J. 6.150). T h e emphasis o n the male beauty a n d stature o f A g a g c o u l d b e an allusion to the ancient friendship cult a n d c o u l d motivate Saul's 9
first sin. In J o s e p h u s ' m o d e r n v i e w Saul's sin b e c o m e s very special and strange. Like O e d i p u s he b e c o m e s guilty o f having violated an incomprehensible c o m m a n d m e n t o f an archaic
10
time.
T h e s e c o n d sin carries m o r e weight. O u t o f pure revenge Saul m u r d e r e d a clan o f priests a n d destroyed their city (A.J. 6 . 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) . C o n c e r n i n g this atrocity w e find a lengthy reflection b y J o s e p h u s o n the changes in character w h i c h w e r e caused b y Saul's accession to p o w e r (A.J. 6 . 2 6 2 - 2 6 9 ) . T h e r e is n o reflection o n the favour to king A g a g . Saul's portrait is a m b i g u o u s . T h e final e n c o m i u m recalls the t w o sins: (1) the disobedience o f an archaic divine c o m m a n d m e n t , (2) the i n h u m a n revenge that also violates the ideal o f a Hellenistic king. But the l o n g e n c o m i u m standing immediately before the a c c o u n t o f Saul's death should not b e overlooked:
9
Q u o t i n g H o m e r , Feldman explains the importance of "physical attractiveness" for Saul as well as for "his bodygards" ("Saul," 6 2 - 6 3 ) . Feldman relates this motive also to Agag: "Josephus . . . also adds an aesthetic m o t i v e , . . . the very same quali ties which . . .Josephus had stressed in Saul's choice o f his bodygards (Ant. 6 . 1 3 0 ) " ("Saul," 8 7 ) . 1 0
" N a c h den zuletzt untersuchten T e x t e n ist Saul nur auf einem Teilgebiet, als Anführer des Heerbanns, Nachfolger Samuels. D u r c h diese Teilung der Funktion ist es möglich, dass Samuel auch den Nachfolger Sauls noch einsetzt und damit legi timiert. D a Samuel nicht wirklich zurücktritt, konnte das Bild eines kontinuierlichen A m t e s unabhängig v o m K ö n i g t u m entstehen. Samuel wird z u m T r ä g e r und Garant der Legitimation des K ö n i g t u m s " (Baltzer, Biographie, 8 2 - 8 3 ) . Josephus strengthened this sharp distinction between the king and the prophet as archaic institution.
152
DETLEV DORMEYER
But now I shall touch an a subject profitable to states, peoples and nations, and o f interest to all good men—one whereby all should be induced to pursue virtue and to aspire to those things which may pro cure them glory and eternal renown, one, moreover, that should instill into the hearts o f kings o f nations and rulers o f cities a great desire and zeal for noble deeds, should stimulate them to face dangers and death for their country's sake, and teach them to despise all terrors. The occasion for this discourse I find in the person of Saul, king o f the Hebrews. For he, although he knew o f what was to come and his impending death, which the Prophet had foretold, yet determined not to flee from it or, by clinging to life, to betray his people to the enemy and dishonour the dignity o f kingship; instead, he thought it noble to expose himself, his house and his children to these perils and, along with them, to fall fighting for his subjects. He preferred to have his sons meet death as brave men rather than leave them behind, while still uncertain what kind o f men they might prove to be; for thus, as successors and posterity, he would obtain glory and an ageless name. Such a man alone, in my opinion, is just, valiant and wise, and he, if any has been or shall be such, deserves to have all men acknowl edge his virtue. For men who have gone forth to war with high hopes, thinking to conquer and return in safety, and have accomplished some brilliant feat are, to my mind, mistakenly described as valiant by the historians and other writers who have spoken o f such persons. Certainly it is just that these too receive approbation; but the terms "stout hearted," "greatly daring," "contemptuous o f danger" can jusdy be applied only to such as have emulated Saul. That men, not knowing what is to happen to them in war, should not flinch from it, but should commit themselves to an uncertain future and ride the stormy seas o f chance—all this still falls short o f magnanimity, however many the exploits they may accomplish. O n the other hand, to harbour in one's heart no hope o f success, but to know beforehand that one must die and die fighting, and then not to fear nor be appalled at this terrible fate, but to meet it with full knowledge o f what is coming—that, in my judgement, is proof o f true valour. And this Saul did, thereby showing that it behoves all men who aspire to fame after death so to act as to leave such a name after them; especially should kings do so, since the greatness o f their power forbids them not merely to be bad to their subjects, but even to be less than wholly good. I might say still more than this about Saul and his courage, for they are subjects which afford us ample material; but, lest we should appear to lack good taste in delivering this panegyric, I will return again to the point from which I made this digression. (A.J. 6.343-351) Saul is c o n n e c t e d , althought in an unspoken fashion, to the archaic G r e c o - R o m a n kings such as R o m u l u s and Theseus. Saul's virtue, wis d o m , bravery a n d n o b l e death p r o v i d e a m o d e l for h o n o r a b l e kings.
THE
HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
153
D o r o n M e n d e l s asks, " D i d any kind o f a d o p t i o n o f a dual iden tity such as Heracles-Melquart, H e r m e s - T o t h and A n a t h - A t h e n a also h a p p e n to M o s e s o r D a v i d ? It appears, that throughout the w h o l e p e r i o d w e are discussing [the R o m a n Period, D . D . ] there is n o example o f any c o n n e c t i o n , even a hidden o n e , w h i c h was m a d e b y J e w s living in Palestine b e t w e e n a Jewish h e r o o f the past a n d s o m e seemingly p a g a n c o u n t e r p a r t . "
11
M a y b e the early kings Saul a n d
David modelled b y Josephus as G r e c o - R o m a n founders, not as heroes, c o u l d constitute the c o m m o n base for the "dual identity," w h i c h D.
M e n d e l s explored in a c o n v i n c i n g w a y .
2.
S A U L IN A.J.
7,
10,
12
AND
11
B o o k 7 describes the rule o f K i n g D a v i d a n d the decline o f the house o f Saul. All male m e m b e r s are killed, only o n e survives. T h e rival king J e b o s t h o s , Saul's son, is m u r d e r e d (A.J. 7 . 4 6 ) . T h e other descendants are sacrified except J e b o s t h o s , the son o f J o n a t h a n (A.J. 7 . 2 9 4 - 2 9 6 ) . T h i s s e c o n d J e b o s t h o s was l a m e .
13
But for the sake o f
the house o f Saul he guarantees continuity through Jebosthos. T h e r e f o r e b o o k 10 puts a kings-list in the centre o f the Antiquitates. The
blinded king Sacchias is brought to Babylon; then Josephus reflects
on the inevitability o f divine p r o p h e c y and adds to the list o f kings: Thus, then, did the kings o f David's line end their lives; there were twenty-one o f them including the last king, and they reigned altogether for five hundred and fourteen years, six months and ten days; for twenty years o f which time their first king Saul held the royal power though he was not o f the same tribe (A.J. 10.143).
11
D o r o n M e n d e l s , Identity, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic (JSPSup, 2 4 , Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 2 .
History
12
M e n d e l s , Identity, Religion and Historiography, 1 3 - 3 5 . Saul is a hellenistic model for kings (Feldman, "Saul," 76). A u n e concurs that "Louis H . Feldman has recendy demonstrated that Josephus, in his retelling o f the biblical narratives from Genesis to 2 K i n g s (blended with the work of the Chronicler), introduced hellenistic bio graphical concerns into the narrative. His portrait of Saul, for example, emphasizes the traditional G r e e k moral qualities of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice" (David E . A u n e , The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], 42). 13
" A n d there also met him (David) Saul's grandson M e m p h i b o s t o s . . . 'If, indeed,' he added, 'I had sound feet and had been able to use them in flight, I should not have been far behind y o u . ' " (A.J. 7.267).
154
DETLEV DORMEYER
Saul gets the same rank as D a v i d . T h e l o n g e n c o m i u m o f A.J. 6 . 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 prepared for this excellent position. In A.J. 11 Josephus retells the n e w creation o f Israel. T h e Persian k i n g C y r u s e n d s the B a b y l o n i a n c a p t i v i t y ( 1 1 . 1 - 1 2 ) . H e
sends
Z e r u b b a b e l (ZopopdpriAog in Josephus) as leader b a c k to Jerusalem (11.13): " T h e leader[s] o f the host here enumerated [was] Zorobabelos, son o f Salthielos, w h o was o f the tribe o f J u d a h , being o n e o f the descendants o f D a v i d . . . " (A.J. 11.73). Z e r u b b a b e l re-establishes for a short time the Davidic kingship. A descendant o f the lame Jebosthos from the house o f Saul c o u l d b e elected b y G o d and Cyrus for this ministry. But for G o d a n d Israel D a v i d was greater than
Saul.
T h e r e f o r e G o d elects Z e r u b b a b e l b y means o f Cyrus. In A.J.
11 Josephus names Saul in relation to the H a s m o n e a n s ,
his o w n ancestors: For the high priests were at the head o f affairs until the descendants of the Hasmonean family came to rule as kings. Before the captivity and deportation they were ruled by kings, beginning first with Saul and D a v i d . . . (A.J. 1 1 . 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ) . F r o m Saul to the H a s m o n e a n s there is a continual line o f kingship a n d rule.
14
For the H a s m o n e a n s Saul c o u l d serve as a better m o d e l
than D a v i d , because most o f the H a s m o n e a n leaders died violendy, as Saul did. Thus, the house o f Saul is a real parallel to the H a s m o n e a n dynasty. By contrast, the house o f D a v i d seems to b e the parallel to the H e r o d i a n dynasty, because b o t h led Israel to the a p e x o f p o w e r . But only the house o f D a v i d led to messianic h o p e s , while the H e r o d i a n dynasty excited fear and rebellion. It seems that after the lost revolt against the R o m a n s Josephus was n o longer interested in D a v i d i c messianic hopes. T h e r e f o r e , in his Antiquitates, the house o f Saul gets the same rank as the messianic house o f D a v i d .
1 4
For the line from the H a s m o n e a n s to Josephus see A.J. "Vita des Josephus," 1 8 - 1 9 .
11.111 and D o r m e y e r ,
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
3.
T H E R O L E OF S A U L AND JOSEPHUS'
VIEW
155
OF HIMSELF
It is o b v i o u s that A.J. 1-10 and 1 1 - 2 0 are parallel: Part I is o n the First T e m p l e ; Part II o n the S e c o n d T e m p l e .
1 5
Both parts have a
threefold o u d i n e . Part I: (1) Creation and establishment o f the c o n stitution ( 1 - 4 ) ; (2) First Phase: leaders and kings ( 5 - 8 ) ; (3) S e c o n d Phase: decline through corruption o f the constitution ( 9 - 1 0 ) . Part II: (1) N e w creation and establishment o f the constitution (11); (2) First Phase: high priests, the H a s m o n e a n dynasty, the ascent a n d splen did temple-restoration o f H e r o d ( 1 2 - 1 5 ) , (3) S e c o n d Phase: decline through corruption o f the constitution ( 1 6 - 2 0 ) . T h e Jewish revolt against the R o m a n s repeats the revolt against Babylon and results in the r e n e w e d destruction o f the s e c o n d T e m p l e (A.J. 2 0 . 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 ) . Will Israel n o w b e allowed a n e w b e g i n n i n g b y G o d , a third part o f historical time and history? Josephus skilfully guides the reader to this unstated
m a j o r question. I f the
reader
answers positively, the next p r o b l e m arises: w h o will refound the constitution? Josephus adds t w o appendices to his Antiquitates: Vita and Contra Apionem. T h e
Vita r e c o m m e n d s J o s e p h u s himself as ruler,
Apionem p r o m o t e s him as restorer o f the l a w .
17
16
Contra
N o w the reader can
c o m p l e t e the puzzle. T h e house o f Saul survived with the l a m e Jebosthos; the house o f the H a s m o n e a n s survived with the h u n c h b a c k e d (Vita 4 ) .
1 8
(leupxoq)
Matthias
A t the time o f the first T e m p l e the dynasty o f D a v i d was
m o r e h o n o u r a b l e than the dynasty o f Saul. T h e r e f o r e Z e r u b b a b e l b e c a m e the renovator o f Jerusalem and the altar after the Exile (A.J.
1 5
M a s o n , Life (BJP 9), xxiv; besides, he determines the parallelism as chiasmus (Life, xxiii-xxvii); but the chiasmus presses the books too strongly into an artificial structure. 1 6
D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 1 6 - 2 6 . Like the biblical Joseph he shares the fate o f the suffering and exalted righteous ruler. 1 7
D . D o r m e y e r , "Des Josephus zwei Suasoriae (Übungsreden) Über das Volk der Juden. D i e beiden Vorworte (Proömien) Contra Apionem 1 : 1 - 5 ; 2 : 1 , 1 - 7 und die bei den V o r w o r t e Lk 1 , 1 - 4 ; A c t a 1 , 1 - 4 " , in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquim Amsterdam 2000 (ed. J . U . K a l m s ; MJSt, 10, Münster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 4 1 - 2 6 2 . 1 8
For the family tree of Josephus see M a s o n , Life (BJP 9), 3 - 1 2 ; F. Siegert, H . Schreckenberg, and M . V o g e l , Flavius Josephus: Aus meinem Leben (Vita), hit. Ausgabe, Üb. u. Komm., (Tübingen: M o h r , 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 3 - 2 5 . 1 6 2 ; D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 14-15.
156
DETLEV DORMEYER
1 1 . 7 3 - 7 6 ) . In the time o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e the dynasty o f the H a s m o n e a n s did not cause as m u c h evil as the dynasty o f H e r o d .
1 9
Therefore, Josephus implicidy argues, a m e m b e r o f the H a s m o n e a n dynasty should b e c o m e the n e w founder o f the third, n e w phase o f Israel. Josephus is the only suitable living m e m b e r o f this house. H e gave p r o o f o f this in the Vita (8ff). T h e only respectable m e m b e r o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty, A g r i p p a II, has just died (Vita 3 5 9 ) .
20
Josephus
already gave a negative assessment o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty in A J. 18: I will now give a fuller account o f Herod and the particulars o f his line, both because the tale is pertinent to my history and because it affords a proof o f Divine Providence, showing how neither numbers nor any other worldly advantage can avail aught without acts o f piety toward the Divine Power. For within a century o f Herod's decease it came about that all but a few o f Herod's issue, and there were many, had perished. It may contribute to the moral instruction o f mankind to learn what their misfortunes were (A J. 18.127—128). 21
J o s e p h u s , b y contrast, is c a p a b l e o f leading a law reform, b e i n g qualified for this task since the age o f fourteen (Vita 9 ) .
2 2
H e also
gives evidence o f this qualification in the s e c o n d appendix, usually 23
called Contra Apionem.
Josephus can venture to claim the right origin and qualification. He
does not c o m p a r e himself to M o s e s , the founder and lawgiver.
The
early Christian c o m m u n i t y only m a d e this c o m p a r i s o n in their
message a b o u t Jesus.
24
CONCLUSION
It is unthinkable
that the strong warrior Saul w o u l d have p r o p h e
sied eternal rule o v e r Israel b y a pagan king a n d w o u l d have b e g g e d
1 9
D . Lambers-Petry, "Shelamzion ha-malka. T h e H a s m o n e a n Q u e e n and her Enigmatic Portrayal by Josephus," in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (ed. J. U . K a l m s and F. Siegert; MJSt, 14; Munster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 3 ) , 6 5 - 7 8 . For Josephus' assessment see A J. 1 6 . 1 8 3 - 1 8 7 . 2 0
Siegert, Schreckenberg, and V o g e l , Vita 180. "It m a y also b e edifying to tell the story o f A g r i p p a , which is in the high est degree remarkable. For from a position o f no distinction at all and to the sur prise of all w h o knew o f him, he rose to his high and mighty exaltation" (A J. 1 8 . 1 2 9 ) . T h e addition o f this favorable portrait o f A g r i p p a I, h o w e v e r , c a n n o t c h a n g e the negative i m a g e o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty. D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 1 5 - 2 3 . D o r m e y e r , "Suasoriae." D o r m e y e r , Markusevangelium, 1 4 0 - 1 4 2 . 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
for his life b y any and all means as Josephus did (BJ.
157
3.400-401).
Josephus seems to b e merely a miniature Saul. But Josephus was also an excellent biographical historian. H e r e d u c e d the sins o f Saul to only t w o , using them to form a n e w picture o f Saul, and a d d i n g two wonderful e n c o m i a as a platform for future J u d e a n politics. J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f Saul makes h i m an impressive character. Saul opens the gallery o f important Israelite kings. T h u s Josephus c o r rects the one-dimensional ideological picture o f the d e u t e r o n o m i s d c author. Saul receives the same rank as D a v i d . H e b e c o m e s a m i x e d tragic character a c c o r d i n g the Poetica o f A r i s t o d e . T h e history o f readers' response, especially in works o f ardsts, gives full credit to this useful re-evaluation o f Saul b y J o s e p h u s . J o s e p h u s '
hidden
identification with Saul has b e e n easily o v e r l o o k e d . Y e t , only Saul, not Josephus, remained the m o r a l m o d e l o f the king a n d fighter for G o d ' s law and k i n g d o m .
2 5
D i d therefore
25
only Luke use and emphazise
"Saul" for "Paul" in Acts?
the unknown Jewish equivalent
P O W E R A N D PITY: T H E I M A G E O F H E R O D IN J O S E P H U S ' BELLUM
JUDAICUM
T A M A R LANDAU
O X F O R D AND T E L A v r v
W h a t makes a g o o d story? M o r e o v e r , w h o makes it? A n d d o the answers to these questions differ w h e n it c o m e s to history? T h e s e questions c a m e to m y m i n d during m y examination o f J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d narratives. W h a t is it about H e r o d that keeps fascinating audi ences and writers to this day? Is it something about H e r o d , o r a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f H e r o d (as w e have n o other extant substantive portrait)? A r e these entities at all separable? T h e beauty o f these questions lies, in m y o p i n i o n , in their never-ending nature: there is n o definitive answer to them. Nevertheless, asking t h e m m a y b e important, a n d m a y shed a different and refreshing light o n o u r o w n historiographical inquiry. If w e were to lay the historian's hat aside for a m o m e n t a n d j u d g e the H e r o d narratives o f Josephus b y their literary merit, w e w o u l d realize that b o t h accounts retain an even higher dramatic than their plot initially has. Indeed, H e r o d ' s trials a n d
quality
tribulations
have a highly dramatic content. But Josephus, to b o r r o w Shakespeare's phrase, seems to have o u t - H e r o d e d H e r o d . Meticulously applying rhetorical devices, and consciously allowing the penetration o f e m o tions to his historical writing, Josephus created highly charged accounts w h o s e themes a n d rhetorical tricks often seem to transcend the par ticular story o f H e r o d to m o r e universal interests. M y initial w o r k i n g assumption is that the H e r o d narratives o f Josephus (B.J. 1 . 2 0 4 - 6 7 3 and A.J. 1 4 . 1 5 8 - 1 7 . 1 9 9 ) display the w o r k o f a conscientious and aware historian, w h o is well versed in G r e c o R o m a n historiography and literature, well attuned to his prospective audience and very well in touch with his o w n political and m o r a l agenda. It is also m y contention that in the H e r o d narratives, Josephus mainly relies u p o n the G r e c o - R o m a n rather than the Jewish histo riographical
tradition.
160
TAMAR LANDAU
J o s e p h u s ' historiographical awareness is best demonstrated b y his use o f rhetorical devices throughout the narratives. H e uses digressions, speeches, obituaries, descriptions o f natural disasters a n d
authorial
c o m m e n t s in his accounts o f the life o f H e r o d in a m a n n e r remi niscent o f G r e e k and R o m a n historians and also seems to b e quite well-versed in other literary genres: G r e e k tragedy, p h i l o s o p h y a n d epic poetry often spring to m i n d .
1
This p a p e r is just a glimpse into a b r o a d e r analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' use o f rhetorical devices in the H e r o d narratives.
2
H e r e , I shall only
examine the earlier a c c o u n t o f the Bellum, a n d will focus o n o n e aspect o f J o s e p h u s ' c o m p l e x m e t h o d o f portraying king H e r o d o f J u d e a . T h i s I will d o through an examination o f s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' authorial c o m m e n t s o n H e r o d . T h e r e are m a n y o f those through out the narrative, s o m e short, s o m e longer, but I will l o o k at three that form o n e possible axis: Josephus' first c o m m e n t o n H e r o d (1.208), the t w o c h a p t e r s
that d i v i d e the t w o s e c t i o n s o f the
narrative
( 1 . 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 ) , and H e r o d ' s obituary (1.665). T h e r e is m u c h m o r e to J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d , o f course. But those three c o m m e n t s perhaps c o n tain in a nutshell H e r o d ' s c o m p l e x i t y o f character, J o s e p h u s ' metic ulous historical m e t h o d , and the underlying themes o f the a c c o u n t . M o r e o v e r , they m a y help to explain a perplexing puzzle that springs to m i n d after a t h o r o u g h reading o f the story o f H e r o d . This p u z zle has to d o with a certain discrepancy b e t w e e n the excessively dra matic character o f the narrative and the flat emotional impact o f H e r o d ' s character. I shall elaborate o n that b e l o w , with the help o f the m o d e r n theory o f narratology. F o r the m o m e n t , suffice it to b e a r this discrepancy in m i n d .
WHY
HEROD,
THEN?
H e r o d i a n history was not J o s e p h u s ' primary subject in either o f his historical works. T h e earlier Bellum took the J u d e a n revolt o f 66 C E . as its main subject. T h e later Antiquitates, an extensive "universal his-
1
I shall not enter the long debate concerning the Assistant T h e o r y here; suffice it to say that in m y opinion, the person ultimately responsible for all of the histo riographical ornamentations and literary allusions in the text is none other than Josephus himself. T h i s assumption is a byproduct of both m y reading of Josephus and of the methodology I have been using. M o r e on that below. 2
T h e fuller and comparative analysis is in T . Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives (D.Phil, thesis, O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 ) .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
161
tory" style a c c o u n t o f the history o f the Jewish p e o p l e , does not focus o n any particular p e r i o d but emphasises the prevalence and virtuousness o f Jewish religion and law (noXmíá).
W h y H e r o d , then?
M y question, in fact, is a s e c o n d tier question. I c h o o s e not to 3
focus here o n the historical H e r o d but rather o n his historiographical i m a g e . In other w o r d s , I a m not asking "what is the i m p o r t a n c e o f the historical H e r o d ? " but " w h y has Josephus c h o s e n to dedicate ample space and attention to H e r o d , despite his otherwise different interests in b o t h the Bellum and the Antiquitates?" A n y historian, n o d o u b t , w o u l d have b e e n grateful for obtaining material such as the accounts o f H e r o d ' s life and reign. N o t only does the subject matter contain elements w o r t h y o f relating in m a n y aspects ( H e r o d ' s turbulent political career, and his even m o r e tur bulent private life), but also the a b u n d a n c e and detail o f the avail able source (the writings o f Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , H e r o d ' s aide and court historian) suggest a temptation almost impossible to resist. B o r n a c o m m o n e r , a n d o f I d u m e a n descent, H e r o d had risen to b e J u d e a ' s king and R o m a n protege a n d reigned o v e r J u d e a for nearly 4 0 years. A perceptive and flexible politician, he wisely crafted an alliance with Augustan R o m e w h i c h , despite J o s e p h u s ' favourable contentions, p r o v e d to b e a d o u b l e e d g e d sword for Judea. It brought prosperity a n d resulted in better facilities and extensive rebuilding projects (including the major refurbishment o f the T e m p l e in Jerusalem). H o w e v e r , it also caused internal strife, distrust and tension w h i c h g r e w under H e r o d ' s increasingly tyrannical rule.
4
H e r o d ' s trouble
s o m e family affairs and his extreme paranoia resulted in the short lived a n d even m o r e tyrannical rule o f his son Archelaus w h i c h , in turn, b r o u g h t a b o u t direct R o m a n rule o v e r Judea: this effectively put an e n d to J u d e a n a u t o n o m y , a c h i e v e d b y the ( p r o - R o m a n ) H a s m o n e a n s in the s e c o n d century B.C.E. and maintained,
almost
intact, until the e n d o f Archelaus' rule in 6 C E . In relation to b o t h
3
M o d e r n scholarship has indeed tended to focus on the historical H e r o d , e.g. A . Schalit, Hordos Ha-Melekh (in H e b r e w ; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1 9 6 4 ; rev. G e r m a n ed. with introduction by D . R . Schwartz; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2 0 0 1 ) ; M . Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971); M . Stern, The Kingdom of Herod (in H e b r e w ; T e l Aviv: Ministry o f Defense, 1992); P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), N . Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998). T h i s view o f R o m e as bearer of both g o o d and evil is later attested in the Babylonian T a l m u d as well (b. Shabb. 3 3 b ) . 4
162
TAMAR LANDAU
J u d e a n history and m o r e abstract themes such as f r e e d o m , tyranny a n d personal weaknesses, this story was u n d o u b t e d l y w o r t h relating. But that, as most historians k n o w , is not e n o u g h . It is possible that part o f the answer has to d o with Josephus' sources. In the case o f H e r o d , source material from N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s was abundant. T h i s , c o u p l e d with the dramatic content, might have persuaded Josephus to use the material. But it seems 5
that there are other, d e e p e r reasons for J o s e p h u s decision to include the story o f H e r o d in his histories in the first p l a c e , and m o r e o v e r , to treat it with m u c h rhetorical attention. T h e s e have to d o with the thematic and symbolic relevance o f H e r o d to later Jewish his tory, whether to the understanding
o f the rise and failure o f the
revolt in 6 6 o r to the evolution and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Jewish eOvoq. H e r o d was the last independent ruler o f Judea. His death effectively m a r k e d the e n d o f J u d e a n national i n d e p e n d e n c e in the
Greco-
R o m a n p e r i o d . J u d e a n self-rule started with the H a s m o n e a n revolt in the s e c o n d century B . C E . a n d continued with the subsequent rule o f the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled J u d e a in o n e form o r another
5
until H e r o d ' s assumption o f the throne as a client king o f R o m e in 37
B.CE.
H e r o d ' s reign was in m a n y ways the beginning o f the e n d o f the existence o f the J u d e a n state, culminating, o f course, with the defeat o f Jerusalem
and the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . H e r o d ' s
rule, externally peaceful and prosperous as it eventually b e c a m e , was far from consensual within Judea. His un-Hasmonean (and not entirely Jewish) b a c k g r o u n d , his Hellenising tendencies, his close political alliance with R o m e and his tyrannical b e h a v i o u r all contributed to the e m e r g e n c e o f internal tension, factualism and dissent. T h o s e seeds c a m e to full and tragic fruition with the rise against R o m e , the sub j e c t matter o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum. It seems that for Josephus, the story o f H e r o d was a necessary preface, an " a r c h a e o l o g y " o f the revolt, without w h i c h it w o u l d have b e e n m u c h m o r e difficult to under stand (and empathise with) the tragic fate o f J u d e a . T h e story o f H e r o d , then, seems to have encapsulated m a n y rel evant themes and moral interests for Josephus. S o u r c e availability, thematic relevance and a very g o o d story c o m b i n e d seem to have
5
W h e t h e r as autonomous rulers of an independent state (c. 1 4 1 - 6 3 B . C E . ) or, after Pompey's conquest o f Jerusalem, as subject to the supervision o f the R o m a n governor o f Syria.
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
163
m a d e the history o f H e r o d irresistible for an eager historian. But there was still m o r e w o r k to b e d o n e : in o r d e r to m a k e the H e r o d narratives c o m p l e t e l y relevant, J o s e p h u s h a d to rewrite them so that they w o u l d read as an o r g a n i c part o f the works they were part of. In o r d e r to make m y arguments clearer I shall first address the question o f the relations b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' final products a n d the main source he used for them, namely, the works o f Nicolaus o f Damascus
6
w h i c h seem to have c o m e d o w n to Josephus in a m u c h
fuller form than w e have them t o d a y .
7
T h e r e is n o w a y to determine e x a c d y h o w m u c h o f N i c o l a u s ' vast 8
corpus was available for Josephus, but most scholars conjecture that Nicolaus was i n d e e d the source J o s e p h u s h a d used for the history 9
o f H e r o d . H o w e v e r , opinions differ c o n c e r n i n g the m a n n e r in w h i c h J o s e p h u s used Nicolaus a n d the extent to w h i c h he b o r r o w e d from him. W h e r e a s earlier scholarship tended to view Josephus as m e r e c o p i e r o r attribute the characteristics o f the H e r o d narratives
to
6
M o r e o n the life and works o f Nicolaus in B. Z . W a c h o l d e r , Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press, 1962), R . J. H . Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: S P C K , 1961), 7 9 - 9 2 ; M . Stern, "Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s as a Source for Jewish History in the H a s m o n e a n and H e r o d i a n Periods," (in H e b r e w ) in The Mikra and Jewish History: Studies in Mikra and Second Temple Literature in Memory of Jacob Liver (ed. B. UfTenheimer; T e l Aviv: T e l A v i v University, 1972), 3 7 5 if.; M . T o h e r , " O n the U s e of Nicolaus' Historical Fragments," CA 8.1 (1989): 1 5 9 - 7 2 . 7
T h e most recent work to assess the relations between Nicolaus and the H e r o d narrative o f the Antiquitates is M . T o h e r , "Nicolaus a n d H e r o d in the Antiquitates Judaicae" HSCP 101 (2001): 4 2 7 - 4 8 . T o h e r detects s o m e stylistic a n d thematic affinities between Nicolaus and Josephus which are all in all convincing. H o w e v e r , his suggestion that the portraiture o f H e r o d is unique in essence (and not only m o r e extensive in scope) w h e n c o m p a r e d with biblical, H a s m o n e a n a n d R o m a n portraits in the Antiquitates m a y be slighdy modified. T h e r e are m o r e stylistic and thematic connections between the H e r o d narrative a n d the rest o f the work than he suggests. 8
T h i s issue has been investigated particularly concerning the Antiquitates narra tive. Thackeray, Historian, 6 6 , agrees that Nicolaus was the main source for the later account o f Herod's life. G . Hölscher, "Josephus," P W 9 (1916), 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 , and R . Laqueur, Der Jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen: M ü n c h o w , 1 9 2 0 ) con tended o n the contrary that the Antiquitates narrative was not dependent on Nicolaus. T h e i r arguments, however, are not consensual. 9
T h e bulk o f material for the H e r o d narratives was probably taken from Nicolaus' Universal History a n d from his autobiography, which was c o m p o s e d after the death of H e r o d . Fragments from both works are collected in F. J a c o b y , FGrH II A 9 0 . M o d e r n scholarship has acknowledged the presence o f other sources in Josephus' H e r o d narratives and in s o m e cases tended to attribute the differences between the accounts, the discrepancies and Josephus' criticism of H e r o d to those sources, rather than to Josephus' editorial hand. See e.g. Shutt's survey of earlier scholarship on A J. 1 5 - 1 7 a n d his o w n explanation (Studies, 8 8 - 9 2 ) , a n d Stern, "Nicolaus o f Damascus," 3 8 3 .
164
TAMAR LANDAU
assistants o r earlier s o u r c e s ,
10
m o r e recent research sees J o s e p h u s '
writing in a n e w light a n d credits h i m with a greater degree o f compositional authenticity a n d originality.
11
Let m e briefly explain w h y , in m y o p i n i o n , the H e r o d narratives c o u l d naturally b e attributed to n o n e other than Josephus and w h y , 5
in the end, the question o f Josephus extent o f borrowing from Nicolaus b e c o m e s redundant. Josephus' original hand seems m o r e evident from several angles. First, w e c a n n o t ignore the simple fact that the t w o H e r o d narratives are very different from each other. T h i s fact alone makes implausible the assumption that J o s e p h u s c o p i e d the H e r o d material from Nicolaus without alterations o r interventions. T h e Jewish historian must have m a d e changes at least in o n e o f the narratives.
12
Secondly, the use o f dramatic elements and literary allusions to G r e e k a n d R o m a n d r a m a a n d history are n o t exclusively confined to the H e r o d narratives but a p p e a r throughout the J o s e p h a n c o r p u s . T h e r e f o r e , there is n o reason to attribute them to N i c o l a u s .
14
13
T h i s is
the case even if w e assume that Josephus used Nicolaus as a source for other parts o f his historical works such as the biblical paraphrase o f the Antiquitates o r the a c c o u n t o f the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d , as
1 0
E.g. Thackeray, Historian (assistants), and Hölscher, "Josephus" (earlier sources). See also Shutt's criticism o f the G e r m a n predisposition towards Quellenkritik Studies, 89-90. 11
A m o n g these are T . R a j a k , Josephus: the Historian and his Society ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1 9 8 3 ; 2 d ed., 2 0 0 2 ) ; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), a n d S. Mason's introductions to the BJP volumes: Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3: Judean Antiquities 1-4; vol. 9: Vita (ed. S. M a s o n ; Leiden: Brill 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 ) . Stern, "Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s , " suggests an affinity o f style a n d thematic concerns between Nicolaus and Josephus but agrees that Josephus treated his source accord ing to his specific needs in both works. Shutt, Studies, 8 3 - 8 4 , compares between Josephus' and Nicolaus' life circumstances. T o h e r , "Nicolaus," 1 6 2 - 6 3 , does not draw an explicit parallel between the two historians but his observations o n Nicolaus' historiographical preferences and rhetorical skill could also be applied to Josephus. 1 2
Shutt, Studies 8 7 - 8 8 , maintains that the later Antiquitates narrative is 'much m o r e close to the original work o f Nicolaus'. T h a t o f course raises the question why, if Josephus had an original version, he first chose to change it but later went back to using the original. 1 3
See Thackeray, Historian, and Shutt, Studies, and m o r e recendy L . H . Feldman, " T h e Influence o f the G r e e k Tragedians on Josephus," in Hellenic and Jewish Arts: Interaction, Tradition and Renewal (ed. A . Ovadia; T e l Aviv: R A M O T Publishing H o u s e , 1998), 5 1 - 8 0 ; J. J. Price and L . U l l m a n , " D r a m a and History in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum^ SCI 21 (2002): 9 7 - 1 1 4 ; D . R . Schwartz, " O n D r a m a and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus," SCI 10 ( 1 9 8 9 / 9 0 ) : 1 1 3 - 2 9 . 1 4
T h a t is despite his penchant for pathetic embellishment. See Toher's analysis o f Nicolaus' fragments ("Nicolaus," 1 6 4 - 7 2 ) .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BEIXUM JUDAICUM
Wacholder
15
165
does. For even if he did, it is assumed that he used
other sources as well and therefore any textual ornaments n e e d not b e attributed solely to Nicolaus. Furthermore, w e k n o w that the use o f dramatic elements was widespread a m o n g Hellenistic historians in general, so there is n o particular reason to assume those were b o r r o w e d from his source rather than c o m p o s e d i n d e p e n d e n d y b y Josephus. Thirdly, m a n y rhetorical and dramatic elements in the H e r o d nar rative, as well as the w h o l e o f the Bellum, are not unique to this w o r k but appear in the Antiquitates as well. T h e use o f speeches and G r e c o - R o m a n rhetoric, for instance, o r the use o f pathos a n d e m o tions in the portraiture o f rulers,
16
appear in the biblical paraphrase
(A.J. 1-10). T h i s means, at least, that such rhetoric c a n b e f o u n d in other sources (such as the Bible) that Josephus u s e d — o r that Josephus himself i m p l e m e n t e d such rhetorical devices throughout his works. 5
Fourthly, w e cannot ignore Josephus explicit references to his sources throughout the H e r o d narratives, and especially his sharp criticism 5
o f N i c o l a u s affinity to H e r o d a n d his historical m e t h o d o l o g y .
17
It
m a y perhaps b e o d d that a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y conscious historian like Josephus w o u l d pass such u n e q u i v o c a l criticism o n anything, while uncritically and extensively b o r r o w i n g from that very same source. A n d a final reason, o n a different level: the use o f narratology in m y analysis dictates that I focus o n the text as w e have it, a n d set aside the source question. A l t h o u g h the implementation o f narratol o g y o n historical texts requires certain modifications (upon w h i c h I shall elaborate below), it is impossible to extend the boundaries o f m e t h o d o l o g y so that earlier levels, b o t h textual and contextual, gain p r e c e d e n c e o v e r the text (and its context). M y focus is o n Josephus 5
the narrator and his o w n , rather than his predecessors , art o f nar rating. In other w o r d s , the emphasis o f m y analysis is not o n the 5
p r o v e n a n c e o f Josephus material but o n the ways in w h i c h he treated his source material and c o m p o s e d an original and independent text. Despite o u r attempt to find a neat solution for the source ques tion and attribute the dramatic creativity to Josephus exclusively, the situation might b e a little m o r e blurred. M y research leads m e to
1 5
W a c h o l d e r , Nicolaus, 5 8 ff.
1 6
T h e former is apparent in the Josephan parallel to the Joseph story in book 2 (Judah's speech in A.J. 2 . 1 4 0 - 1 5 9 ) . Josephus' portrait of king Saul also contains tragic elements. In the case o f H e r o d Josephus' use o f pathetic and tragic elements is careful and complex. See below, in the conclusion to this paper. 17
AJ
14.8-9; 16.183-186.
166
TAMAR
LANDAU
suggest that the text w e have is Josephus' original c o m p o s i t i o n , nei ther b o r r o w e d from n o r c o m p o s e d b y a n y o n e else. H o w e v e r , even if o n e arrives at the conclusion that Nicolaus' h a n d is the o n e in content and form, o n e must accept that the
final
dominant editorial
touches must have b e e n Josephus'. T h a t is to say, even if regarding H e r o d the Jewish historian a d o p t e d (or even c o p i e d ) almost every thing from Nicolaus, he still had to c o m b i n e this narrative within the wider frameworks o f the Bellum and the Antiquitates, w h i c h evid e n d y has taken s o m e editing and modifying, a n d involved making authorial c h o i c e s . In short: it w o u l d b e very difficult to rule out J o s e p h u s ' part in the c o m p o s i t i o n and editing o f the H e r o d narra tives, even if o n e assumes Nicolaus, and not Josephus, to b e m o s d y responsible for its present form. C o n c e r n i n g the portrait o f H e r o d , I shall suggest that Josephus in b o t h narratives (but especially in the earlier Bellum) shifts the focus from " H e r o d the M a n " to " H e r o d the I m a g e . " It is not so m u c h the historical H e r o d that J o s e p h u s ' accounts emphasise but rather a symbolic H e r o d : a m e t a p h o r and e x e m p l u m o f overriding personal ambition, shrewd political perception, but also o f slavery to one's passions, paranoid b e h a v i o u r and, in the Antiquitates, o f impiety and cruelty. This emphasis o n the symbolic qualities o f H e r o d is i m p o r tant, because it might b e a clue for solving the rhetorical puzzle I have hinted at a b o v e . Before examining the text, though, let us have a l o o k at the m e t h o d o l o g y .
NARRATOLOGY
M y analysis o f the H e r o d narratives relies mainly (but not exclusively) o n the m o d e r n theory o f narratology.
Narratology, as defined b y
M i e k e Bal, is "the T h e o r y o f narratives, narrative texts, images, spec tacles, events; cultural artifacts that tell a story."
18
Bal essentially modifies the m o d e l devised b y G . Genette in his Figures III ( 1 9 7 2 )
19
20
and later revised in Nouveau discours du récit.
What
1 8
M . Bai, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (2d ed.; Toronto: University o f T o r o n t o Press, 1997), 3. 1 9
G . Genette, Narrative Discourse (trans. J. E. Lewin; O x f o r d : Blackwell, 1980). G . G e n e t t e , Narrative Discourse Revisited (transl. J. E . Lewin; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988). 2 0
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
167
stands at the basis o f the analyses o f Genette, Bal and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan
2 1
is a tripartite division o f the levels o f text, from
the basic (independent?) plot through an intermediate version w h e r e the plot is o r d e r e d , articulated a n d structured, a n d finally to the m e t h o d o f narration. Genette's tripartite division is into "story, nar rative a n d narrating"; Bal prefers "fabula, story, text."
Rimmon-
K e n a n talks a b o u t "story, text a n d narration." A n o t h e r b r a n c h o f narratology prefers a two-level reading. S. C h a t m a n ,
22
for instance,
divides b e t w e e n "story" a n d " d i s c o u r s e , " essentially f o r g o i n g
the
notion o f the initial "fabula." W h i l e the division to levels is useful as a tool within the process o f interpreting a text, it m a y b e well w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g that the borders b e t w e e n story, text and narration
tend to blur: it is not
always clear w h e r e a textual p h e n o m e n o n belongs. T h i s is especially relevant in the analysis o f historical texts, w h e r e the n o t i o n o f "an event" in "real life" determines the character o f the text a n d the author's m e t h o d o l o g y but w h e r e , in highly elaborate works such as those o f J o s e p h u s o r T h u c y d i d e s , it is virtually impossible to distin guish the original chain o f events from its relating. F o r this reason, the twofold division into "story" a n d " d i s c o u r s e " — w h a t o n e relates, and h o w o n e does s o — s e e m s to m e to b e m o r e c o n v e n i e n t in rela tion to the analysis o f historical texts. H e n c e , I shall leave aside the questions o f historical a c c u r a c y a n d to a certain extent, the use o f sources in J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d narratives a n d concentrate here o n the two levels o f story and narration
only.
23
U s i n g narratology in the analysis o f historical texts (as o p p o s e d to fiction) poses a few p r o b l e m s and requires certain modifications.
24
A
2 1
S. R i m m o n - K e n a n , Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2d ed.; London: Roudedge, 2002). 2 2
S. C h a t m a n , Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). 2 3
T h e decision to leave aside this question does not, however, entail any judgement on the historical accuracy o f Josephus. It is simply a methodological step, derived from the narratological perspective I have adopted throughout m y analysis. A . Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livy's History (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1998), ix-xi, takes a similar methodological step in his historiographical analysis. 2 4
Narratologists have already pointed out that the differences between fiction and non-fiction (or 'factual' narratives) raise several questions regarding the appli cation o f narratology to the latter. Both G e n e t t e , "Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative," in his Fiction & Diction (trans. C . Porter; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 5 4 - 8 4 , and also in Poetics Today 1 1 . 4 (1990): 7 5 5 - 7 4 ) and D . C o h n , "Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective," Poetics Today 11:4 (1990): 7 7 5 - 8 0 4 ,
168
TAMAR LANDAU
key issue that requires a certain degree o f c o n c e p t u a l acrobatics has to d o with the relations b e t w e e n author a n d audience (and their par allel textual p e r s o n a e , narrator
a n d narratees) in historical texts.
History, as genre, is perceived s o m e w h a t differendy from
fiction.
T.
R o o d explains that What distinguishes historical texts from fiction is the reader's assump tion that they relate "what actually happened." Works o f fiction may purport to relate that, and may call upon the discursive apparatus o f historical texts to give their claims an air o f plausibility, but these claims are seriously meant only by the narrator, not by the author, who belongs to a different diegetic world. Readers o f historical texts, by contrast, tend to identify author and narrator and to suppose an "ontological connection" between the discourse and the events it signifies. The status o f history as a discourse o f the real calls for some further refinement o f narratological models. A dichotomy o f story and dis course is no longer adequate; one must also allow for a referential level, and beyond that for the extra-textual level o f the deeds and words o f real people, even if this level is itself only accessible through other stories. 25
T h e questions concerning author and audience, narrator and narratees, a n d the relations b e t w e e n t h e m b e c o m e m o r e acute w h e n applying narratology to historical texts.
26
T h e historian a n d his readership are
i n d e e d very relevant to the discussion even if the emphasis is o n the textual characteristics o f the work. W e , as m o d e r n historians, can n o t ignore the real Flavius J o s e p h u s regardless o f whether o r not his "real" self h a d any discernible i m p a c t o n his c o n t e m p o r a r y "real" audience. W e also c a n n o t ignore J o s e p h u s ' prospective (immediate)
point out the generic difference on the one hand, and the possible flexibility o f nar ratology o n the other, a n d view fiction and non fiction as part of a continuum rather than two discrete genres. 2 5
T . C . B. R o o d , Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 10. 2 6
J. P. Sullivan points out s o m e o f the issues that arise in relation to authoraudience relationship in antiquity, as well as s o m e o f the problems entailed in the application o f m o d e r n literary theories to classical texts w h e n it c o m e s to those issues, in his introduction to I. J. F. de J o n g & J. P. Sullivan (eds.), Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1 0 - 1 1 . O n classical authors and their audiences see T . W o o d m a n a n d J. Powell, Author and Audience in Latin Literature (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1993); J. Marineóla, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997), 1 9 - 3 3 , and M . J. W h e e l d o n , " 'True Stories': T h e Reception o f Historiography in Antiquity," in History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History (ed. A . C a m e r o n ; L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1989), 3 5 - 6 4 .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BEIJUM
JUDAICUM
169
audience, constructed o r real: an educated, Western, Greek-speak 21
ing readership for Bellum
and p r o b a b l y R o m a n aristocrats with a
p e n c h a n t for J u d a i s m ( j o i n e d , perhaps, b y Greek-speaking D i a s p o r a 28
Jews) for Antiquitates
T h e y are all part a n d parcel o f the essential
analysis o f the works o f Josephus. T h e inclusion o f the "real" author and audience in the analysis brings in turn m o r e complexity. A p a r t from discussing issues c o n cerning author a n d audience (and narrator-narratees) a n d the extent to w h i c h real-life prior knowledge m a y affect, w e also have to address the question o f the relationship between these facets, especially between author and narrator. M u c h as w e w o u l d like to believe that J o s e p h u s the m a n , the historian and the narrator are distinctively different facets w h i c h have separate roles in the understanding o f the works o f Josephus, it is not always possible to make a clear differentiation.
29
T h e three facets tend to blur, diffuse into e a c h other a n d sometimes almost disappear, most notoriously w h e n it c o m e s to the instances o f "historian" a n d "narrator." In the case o f Josephus I will suggest that these t w o entities are even m o r e closely linked. T h i s is because, in addition to the c o n ventional m e a n s o f establishing authority (outlining the historical method;
first-hand
experience), J o s e p h u s ' narrating v o i c e seems to
remain the m a i n focalizer o f the H e r o d narrative from beginning to end. T h i s has a direct i m p a c t o n the w a y H e r o d ' s character is p o r trayed a n d o n his qualities as a dramatic character.
2 7
B.J. 1.3 designates them as "subjects o f the R o m a n Empire," xoîç m x a TTIV 'Ptouaicov fiyeuoviav. 2 8
In this matter I a m convinced by S. M a s o n ' s arguments in his introductory essay to the third v o l u m e o f the BJP. O n the basis of textual references from Josephus, Tacitus and Juvenal, M a s o n conjectures that " T h e simplest solution [to the question o f Josephus' readership] is that Josephus expects gentile readers w h o are deeply interested in J u d e a n culture. . . . T h i s atmosphere o f fascination with Judaism is the context that Josephus claims for his Antiquities, a n d his claim hap pens to match conditions otherwise known." See S. M a s o n , BJP 3 , xvii-xx (here pp. x i x - x x ) , and also M a s o n , " ' S h o u l d anyone W i s h to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): T h e A i m and A u d i e n c e of Josephus' Judean Antiquities/Life" in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (ed. S. M a s o n ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 6 4 - 1 0 3 . 2 9
Marineóla, Authority, 1 3 1 - 3 3 , discusses this tendency to identify author a n d nar rator in antiquity. A s noted above, this problem appears to s o m e extent in fiction. It seems to m e that it becomes somewhat m o r e acute in historical narratives, ancient or m o d e r n .
170
TAMAR LANDAU
How
H E R O D IS P O R T R A Y E D
A s with every c o m p l e x story, the H e r o d narrative is not simply a s u m o f its elements, but something m o r e : a c o h e r e n t a c c o u n t w h i c h derives its dramatic force not only from the implementation o f rhetor ical tools within it, but also from the stance the narrator adopts, his interaction with the audience, a n d the relation b e t w e e n this partic ular a c c o u n t and the rest o f the work. J o s e p h u s retains a resonant a n d assertive narrating v o i c e throughout the H e r o d narrative. T h i s continuous retention o f focalization
30
has s o m e interesting implica
tions for the overall dramatic character o f the narrative a n d for the portraiture o f H e r o d . Already w h e n l o o k i n g at the o r d e r o f the H e r o d
narrative—the
sequence o f relating the events—it is evident that J o s e p h u s chooses to narrate the historical a c c o u n t in an unusual m a n n e r . T h e r e is a clear partition between H e r o d ' s public and domestic affairs.
31
Josephus
begins his narrative with a presentation o f H e r o d as a y o u n g m a n , already e n d o w e d with his m o s t characteristic traits (an energetic nature, ambition, a h o t temper, a n d their political c o n s e q u e n c e s , B.J. 1 . 2 0 4 - 2 2 8 ) . T h e n c o m e s an a c c o u n t o f his struggle for p o w e r , his victories a n d failures ( 1 . 2 2 9 - 3 5 3 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s relates
an
a c c o u n t o f H e r o d ' s actual reign ( 1 . 3 5 4 - 6 7 3 ) . T h e t w o parts are j u x taposed in chapters 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 , w h e r e the narrator contrasts H e r o d ' s g o o d fortune in his p u b l i c career with his grave misfortune c o n cerning his family affairs.
32
T h e a c c o u n t o f H e r o d ' s rise to p o w e r is
d o m i n a t e d b y his p u b l i c c o n d u c t ( 1 . 2 0 4 - 4 3 0 ) . T h a t o f his actual reign, in turn, emphasises his private comings and goings ( 1 . 4 3 1 - 6 7 3 ) .
3 0
T h i s is not to say that the narrative is devoid o f e m b e d d e d focalizations: these c o m e into play in speeches, letters, and certain stories. H o w e v e r , the main focaliz ing voice seems to remain that o f the narrator, Josephus, from beginning to end. 3 1
T h i s has been noted by m a n y scholars. See most recendy U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " esp. 9 8 - 9 9 , and T . Rajak, " W h o s e H e r o d ? Josephus and Nicolaus o n the Reign o f H e r o d the Great" (paper presented at the H e r o d conference o f the British M u s e u m , April 2 0 0 1 , publication forthcoming). 3 2
In B.J. 1 . 4 2 9 - 4 3 0 Josephus lists H e r o d ' s virtues—rather G r e c o - R o m a n in nature (excellent physical constitution, invincibility in batde, precision in javelinthrowing and bow-bending). T h e contrast comes in 4 3 1 : "But, in revenge for his public prosperity, fortune visited H e r o d with troubles at h o m e " (xdq ye uev imcuGpoix; evizpayia f| x\)XT| m x ' oucov aviapoTq eveueat|aev). T h e duality o f fortune is a famil iar topos in G r e c o - R o m a n historiography.
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
171
T h e t w o parts are divided b y a smaller section, H e r o d ' s building projects ( 1 . 4 0 1 - 4 3 0 ) . Let us n o w concentrate m o r e o n the portraiture o f H e r o d . T h e main emphasis in the first part o f the Bellum narrative is o n H e r o d ' s political image, as a y o u n g and powerful contestant to the J u d e a n throne. W e are told a lot a b o u t H e r o d ' s public traits: he is quick to react, energetic, confident, c u n n i n g a n d h o t - h e a d e d . H o w e v e r , Josephus does n o t tell us anything a b o u t H e r o d ' s early upbringing, education o r domestic relationships: the w a y he treats his relatives, his personal feelings, o r what i n d e e d drives h i m to take the r o a d he has taken.
33
Perhaps as a result o f that, H e r o d at this stage seems
m o r e symbolic than real. His character is almost schematic, that o f "a y o u n g , promising (but potentially problematic) politician rising to power."
34
W e d o not k n o w anything specific a b o u t his personality,
his thoughts, his wishes o r his formative past experiences. J o s e p h u s does not write a b o u t H e r o d ' s c h i l d h o o d , o r include anecdotes o f any kind.
35
H e r o d ' s existence, as it were, begins n o t with a wise o r antic
ipatory a n e c d o t e from early c h i l d h o o d as is often the case in ancient biography, but with an i m m e d i a t e a n d glorious military action: the
3 3
Ancient biography, by contrast, often tends to include accounts o f early child h o o d a n d upbringing (aycoyfi) in such accounts, whether they consist o f curious anec dotes or an oudine o f the education o f the promising y o u n g m a n w h o would b e c o m e king. Earlier examples tend to do so m u c h m o r e than later G r e c o - R o m a n , and Latin political biography tends to have very litde o f such material: Suetonius' Life of Augustus, for instance, contains an account o f Augustus' family history ( 1 - 7 ) but only a short account o f Augustus as a child prodigy (8). T h e rest o f the work is dedicated to the emperor's political career. Cf. C . B. R . Pelling, "Childhood and Personality in G r e e k Biography," in Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (ed. C . B. R . Pelling; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 2 1 3 - 4 4 . N o t e that the firstcentury B . C . E . Life of Augustus b y Nicolaus ( 1 - 1 4 and 2 5 a - b ) includes a longer and more detailed section dedicated to the life o f the "young Caesar" (Kouaapoq xov veo\), 2 5 ) , albeit in a fragmentary and pastiche-like form. 3 4
I a m borrowing C . Sourvinou-Inwood's notion o f "schemata" and their func tion in historical narrative. See her analysis o f Herodotus 3 . 4 8 , 5 0 - 5 3 in "Reading" Greek culture: Texts and Images, Rituals and Myths (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1991), 2 4 4 - 6 7 . H e r e the "schema" appears in the initial portraiture o f H e r o d , but later it will also c o m e into play in the construction o f several sub-stories within the H e r o d narrative. A m o n g those most notably (and interestingly similar to Herodotus) is Herod's relations with his sons. 3 5
Josephus only includes a reference to Herod's y o u n g age w h e n achieving his first political role, the governor o f Galilee (veov, 1.203). Cf. Nicolaus on Augustus, Vit. Caes. 3 . 4 - 5 , and also Josephus on himself as a y o u n g prodigy, Vita 8 - 9 .
172
TAMAR LANDAU
ousting o f the brigands in the Galilee ( 1 . 2 0 4 ) .
36
It is m y suggestion
that he w o u l d retain this quality and remain distant throughout the narrative, in spite of, o r perhaps due to, the rhetorical and dramatic embellishments. T h e story itself, despite the brevity o f description, already reveals that this y o u n g m a n has certain qualities that w o u l d m a k e h i m a leader. H e r o d ' s praises are immediately "sung, as the restorer o f their [i.e. the towns a n d the villages o f the Galilee] p e a c e a n d posses sions" (1.205). O n l y later o n e discovers that this fast track to fame is somewhat problematic, first—and this is Josephus' first direct autho rial c o m m e n t o n H e r o d — b e c a u s e "it is impossible in prosperity to escape e n v y " (apf|%avov 8' ev evnpayiaxq (p06vov 8ia(puyeiv,
1.208),
37
a n d secondly, because actions like these always have a price in the f o r m o f killing i n n o c e n t p e o p l e (1.209). Five chapters after H e r o d h a d b e e n introduced, w e are acquainted with his most characteris tic quality: the twofold nature o f his personality, his affiliations, a n d his c o n d u c t . In the first part o f the narrative, the overall i m a g e o f H e r o d that w e receive is o f a y o u n g a n d ambitious politician, w h o s e shrewd nature and sharp political senses have b r o u g h t h i m the tide o f king. O n e thing is clear: his w a y to p o w e r was not s m o o t h . Internal sedi tion, violence, mutual suspicion, political opportunism, all the vices that w o u l d later b e c o m e very characteristic o f his domestic life are already in play in the J u d e a n public s p h e r e .
38
H e r o d , though, d o e s not seem to b e fully a n d solely responsible for the events, as w o u l d b e the case in the later part o f the narra tive, where the focus is o n his domestic affairs. H e does n o t initiate plotting, killing o r attacking yet (except that near-attack o n Jerusalem,
3 6
T h i s m e t h o d o f presentation o f H e r o d resembles that o f ancient historical monographs concentrating on one prominent character rather than an event, such as Arrian's Anabasis. In Josephus, this could perhaps be a remnant o f Nicolaus. But even if that is the case, Josephus later moulds the literary conventions into his o w n narrative structure and adjusts them to his independent agenda. 3 7
This early c o m m e n t contains a subde hint to Herod's subsequent misfortunes. T h e construction 'prosperity-envy', which is c o m m o n in G r e c o - R o m a n historiogra phy beginning with Herodotus, appears in Josephus both in the Bellum and the Antiquitates. 3 8
A s they would be in R o m a n politics, too. Cf. Vit. Caes. 19 ( 5 8 - 6 6 ) . H o w e v e r , while Herod's tribulations c o m e at a stage in the narrative where his vices have already been hinted at, Nicolaus' biography of Augustus is considerably m o r e lauda tory; the young Octavian is portrayed as a noble, virtuous, honest y o u n g m a n .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
173
a result o f his hot-tempered nature, w h i c h was prevented b y his father a n d brother). H e is portrayed as simply reacting to the cir cumstances. T h i s relative passiveness, h o w e v e r , is not confined to the first s e c t i o n .
39
In Josephus
5
portrait o f H e r o d , this quality o f char
acter penetrates m o r e deeply and c o m e s into play in a m o r e nega tive fashion in H e r o d ' s personal life. T o a certain extent, H e r o d ' s portrait in the s e c o n d section o f the Bellum narrative bears s o m e resemblance to that o f a tragic h e r o .
40
T h e emphasis o n personal misfortune, the self-destructive streak, the fact that he is confronting a n d s u c c u m b i n g to forces m o r e powerful than his feeble reasoning, all p o i n t in that direction. H o w e v e r , this is only an initial impression. H e r o d is in fact not a tragic character per se, but quasi-tragic. T h i s is a result o f m a n y reasons, not least generic boundaries and cultural predispositions. But tragic c h a r a c ters are not confined to tragedies, a n d there is a d e e p e r reason for H e r o d ' s incompleteness in that area. I shall return to that in the conclusion b e l o w . H e r o d o t u s ' portrait o f X e r x e s , b y c o m p a r i s o n , is also that o f an ambitious king whose weaknesses cause grave disaster. However, Xerxes "allows himself to b e persuaded" ( H e r o d o t u s 7.7), his acts have direct implications o n the fate o f an entire e m p i r e , and he is subject to divine wrath for his attempt to bridge the Hellespont. M o r e o v e r , H e r o d o t u s allows his audience m o r e than a glimpse into X e r x e s ' psyche, with the inclusion o f his dreams a n d internal scruples in the narrative a n d the c o n t i n u o u s debates with Artabanus t h r o u g h o u t
3 9
A s U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " 9 8 - 1 0 5 , convincingly demonstrate, Herod's tendency to "react, rather than control" events is prevalent in the second part of the narrative as well. 4 0
T h i s echoes earlier Greek historiographical tendencies to portray characters, h u m a n or non h u m a n , as tragic heroes. See most notably F. M . Cornford's reading of Thucydides in his Thucydides Mythistoricus (London: A r n o l d , 1907), passim. O n a smaller scale, the tendency to attribute tragic qualities to historical figures in order to enhance the dramatic effect o f the narrative is not u n c o m m o n in G r e c o - R o m a n historiography, e.g. Herodotus' Croesus in b o o k 1 and in a m o r e complicated m a n ner his portrait o f X e r x e s in books 7 - 9 . M o r e on tragedy and history in C . B. R . Pelling, ed., Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 9 7 ) and M . O s t w a l d , "Tragedians and Historians," SCI 21 (2002): 9 - 2 5 . O n Aristode's definitions of tragic characters (e.g. Poetics 13, 1 4 5 2 b 3 4 - 1 4 5 3 a l 7 ) see O s t w a l d , "Tragedians," 1 2 - 1 3 ; A . W . G o m m e , "Aristotle and the T r a g i c Character," in Idem, More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 1 9 4 - 2 1 3 . See also P. E . Easterling, "Constructing Character in Greek T r a g e d y , " in Pelling, Greek Tragedy, 8 3 - 9 9 .
174
TAMAR LANDAU
B o o k s 7 - 9 . T h e external elements, as well as the internal glimpse, are absent from H e r o d ' s portrait and i m p e d e the tragic effect. H e r o d , h o w e v e r , is very h u m a n .
41
But later in the narrative,
as
the a c c o u n t o f his d o m e s t i c trouble unfolds, the impression is that e v e n his humanness is " i n c o m p l e t e " a n d incapable o f stirring pity, fear o r empathy in the audience. " I n c o m p l e t e , " that is, s o m e w h a t lacking in what M . O s t w a l d calls "frailty."
42
S u c h frailty m a y b e
defined, in essence, as the c o m m o n h u m a n t e n d e n c y to act first, in c o n v i n c e d belief that this w o u l d solve a p r o b l e m , and realise the futility o f the action in retrospect. T h e expectation J o s e p h u s the nar rator creates for his narratees and their readiness for e m o t i o n remain unfulfilled and h e n c e , in retrospect, retain yet d e e p e r dramatic irony. H e r o d ' s passive thread o f character i n d e e d runs throughout the w h o l e narrative. H o w e v e r , the a c c o u n t o f his c o n d u c t as K i n g o f J u d e a ( 1 . 4 3 1 - 6 7 3 ) takes a s o m e w h a t different turn. T h e s e c o n d part o f the H e r o d narrative is entirely g o v e r n e d b y the unfortunate fam ily affairs. T h o s e are o f course c o n n e c t e d to political issues, a n d J o s e p h u s includes political affairs in this part. H o w e v e r , the tone and emphasis o f the narrative is m o r e personal than political. W e read a lot a b o u t H e r o d ' s c o n t o r t e d relationship with his wife M a r i a m m e , and the painful relationship with his s o n s .
43
Antipater,
H e r o d ' s plotting son, carries out his political m a n o e u v r e s o n a per sonal basis. W h a t p r o m p t s h i m to take action is his hatred for his brothers, his feeling o f inferiority and his greed. H e does not o p e r ate o n the basis o f any political i d e o l o g y o r motivation, n o r as a result o f any n o n - h u m a n intervention as is sometimes the case in Athenian tragedies.
44
4 1
T h e emphasis on humanness, i.e. leaving the focus and responsibility of action in the h u m a n sphere, is a characteristically Greek idea (as opposed to the m o n o t h e istic tendency to view divine power as the main generator of action). See most recendy Ostwald, "Tragedians," 2 5 : " M a n is not a mere toy o f divine powers w h o use him for their own inscrutable ends. . . . T h e s e powers m a y themselves be subject to a transcendent necessity, which they m a y know and c o m m u n i c a t e , but which they cannot avert." 4 2
Ostwald, "Tragedians," 2 5 . Herod's relationships with his sons m a y be viewed not only in the personal context but also as part o f a historiographical stereotype o f the (Greek) tyrant and his questionable personal conduct, especially concerning the spouse a n d sons. See Sourvinou-Inwood, "Reading" on Herodotus' Periander. 4 3
4 4
M o r e on the possible dramatic (both Greek and R o m a n ) influences o n the H e r o d narrative in U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " esp. 1 0 3 - 9 . See also H . H . C h a p m a n , Spectacle and Theater in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum ( P h . D . diss., Stanford, 1998).
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
175
T h e i m a g e portrayed in this part is that o f a king w h o s e personal flaws are accentuated. H e r o d is n o t the successful ruler any m o r e , but an unbalanced m a n and a slave to his o w n emotions. H e torments others a n d spares n o sentiments, but he is also tormented b y his o w n weaknesses. H e kills his b e l o v e d wife a n d then laments
her
death. H e sentences his o w n children to death. H e is u n d e r constant life threats from different direction a n d he even tries to c o m m i t sui cide with a fruit-cutting knife. Y e t H e r o d d o e s not stir the readers' e m p a t h y as an ordinary tragic h e r o w o u l d d o . W h y is that? A few reasons c o m e to m i n d . First, whereas J o s e p h u s i n d e e d elab orates u p o n H e r o d ' s prowess, a n d lists s o m e virtues (bravery and political shrewdness), the general impression is that H e r o d ' s o w n sense o f propriety is s o m e w h a t flawed. H e refuses to b e subject to any restraining p o w e r s (be they m o r a l , religious, political) other than his o w n . A n d his o w n fetters, in turn, are n o t morally acceptable. His vanity, verging o n hybris but not quite reaching the full depth o f the concept, diminishes the empathy that c o u l d otherwise b e stirred in the a u d i e n c e .
45
T h e inability to stir e m p a t h y might have to d o with another fac tor. T h e impression o f an unruly tyrant, w h i c h J o s e p h u s builds grad ually into a c o m p l e x portrait, is n o t only that o f H e r o d the m a n . It also alludes to m o r e abstract discussions familiar from G r e e k histo riography,
c o n c e r n i n g the "best r e g i m e " : what are the boundaries
b e t w e e n m o n a r c h y and tyranny, w h e n does a king transgress those and b e c o m e a tyrant, what are the implications o f tyranny for society.
46
Josephus, unlike H e r o d o t u s o r Dionysius, d o e s not confine his treat m e n t o f the subject to a separate philosophical debate within the narrative but stretches the theme throughout his w h o l e work. W i t h i n the w i d e r (and essentially m o r e symbolic) s c o p e , J o s e p h u s seems to b e using the portrait o f H e r o d as an e x t e n d e d m e t a p h o r for t w o
4 5
A n interesting comparison from tragedy might be that o f X e r x e s in Aeschylus' Persae. T h e r e , too, the impression is that X e r x e s ' \S(3piq was direcdy and almost solely responsible for the Persian defeat. H o w e v e r , his unbridled ambition did stir the gods' anger and the defeat is viewed as divine punishment, not as a result of h u m a n error or vanity. Although X e r x e s ' character seems rather distant and unable to invoke pity, the divine intervention a n d h u m a n helplessness seem to balance X e r x e s ' crude vanity and make empathic reaction possible. 4 6
O t h e r examples for such debates in historiography include the Persian debate on m o n a r c h y in Herodotus 3 . 8 0 - 8 2 , a n d Dionysius o f Halicarnassus,. Ant. rom. 4 . 7 0 - 8 5 . In philosophy, the lengthy discussion in Plato, Resp. 8 - 9 .
176
TAMAR LANDAU
issues that will p r o v e to b e relevant
to the rest o f the Bellum: the
possible benefits o f a political alliance with R o m e , and the vices o f extreme and tyrannical behaviour. H e r o d ' s i m a g e and life are p r i m e examples for the temptations o f p o w e r and the thin line b e t w e e n virtuous c o n d u c t a n d tyrannical frenzy. His story is also an excel lent opportunity for J o s e p h u s his narrative.
to include and display e m o t i o n s
47
in
48
H o w e v e r : the excess o f pathos seems to create an opposite effect to the e x p e c t e d rise in pity a n d fear.
49
T h e audience's e m o t i o n a l dis
tance from H e r o d is e n h a n c e d even m o r e b y the slight passiveness o r e m o t i o n a l weakness J o s e p h u s grants h i m . It is as if H e r o d d o e s n o t make the effort to disentangle himself from the w e b s o f personal misery, paranoia a n d cruelty that he has w o v e n with his o w n hands. T o c o n c l u d e this section: in the first part o f the narrative,
the
emphasis is o n H e r o d ' s external i m a g e . His political portrait is c o n structed with the m o r e philosophical ideas in m i n d : this is a king, w h o must b e brave, and ambitious, must fight a n d win wars, depicted as a saviour o f his country (pacifies seditions, establishes close ties with R o m e , and builds cities a n d the T e m p l e ) . T h e s e c o n d part o f the narrative, h o w e v e r , is inward-looking and concentrates o n aspects o f H e r o d ' s personality and private life. T h i s time, the emphasis is entirely u p o n H e r o d ' s specific traits o f character.
T h e portrait o f
4 7
I a m well aware o f the problems concerning the definition o f emotions, a n d the probable differences in meaning between ancient and m o d e r n interpretations o f pity and fear. M o r e o n the obstacles o f cross-cultural and non-contemporary inter pretation o f emotions in D . K o n s t a n , Pity Transformed ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 - 2 5 . Nevertheless, I shall assume a basic similarity between m o d e r n and ancient understanding o f these emotions for two reasons. T h e first has to do with Aristode's concept o f "the Universal"; any attempt to understand the effect o f Josephus' dra matic constructions would be d o o m e d if we leave no c o m m o n grounds between our culture and the G r e c o - R o m a n world. T h e second reason is linked with the first: since the nature o f m y analysis is textual and rhetorical, and not anthropo logical, it is possible to leave aside wider issues concerning cultural differences a n d examine the constant element in the equation: the H e r o d narratives themselves. 4 8
See Josephus' contentions in B.J. 1 . 9 - 1 2 . T h e s e concern all the above: civil strife, tyranny, R o m e and the historian's right to include emotions (xoiq e u a m o v rcaBeci, 1.9, a n d xav rcoXeuacov rcpeajteia nok\x\v iSppiv ixox>cr\) and Fabius' opening words in his speech in 9 . 9 . 6 9
7 0
7 1
Cf. BJ. 1.375. Josephus refers to other unannounced wars in B.J. M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, 9 4 . 7 2
1.269; 2 . 3 0 ; C. Ap.
1.318.
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN AJ.
(above).
73
In H e r o d o t u s 5.81.2 such a war (odcfipuKTOcrcotapoç)is seen
as a c r i m e . 3 . 6 . 3 . It
203
74
is natural
to fight against
barbarians
(AJ.
75
15.130,
136)
H e r o d emphasizes the treacherous acts of the Arabs, as w e have seen. He
seems to suggest that these acts are n o surprise, because they
were c o m m i t t e d b y barbarians. In A.J.
15.130 he calls the A r a b s a
barbarian p e o p l e without notion o f G o d . T h e m e a n i n g o f pappocpo%x\, h o w e v e r , from the intervention
o f the g o d s ( T h u c y d i d e s 7 . 6 1 - 6 4 ) .
Nicias' final speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t attributes the Syracusan
vic-
tory to their b e i n g lucky, a p p a r e n d y with the consent o f the g o d s . Y e t , the situation will turn for the better for the Athenians, because they w e r e punished e n o u g h b y the gods: " O u r enemies h a d
good
fortune e n o u g h , and, if any o f the g o d s was angry with us for o u r setting out, b y this time w e have b e e n sufficiendy punished (KOCI ei TCp 0£COV £7U(p0OVOl £OTpGCT£UO0Cp£V, a7lO%pC0VTC0ÇcDVX0U. 3
Cf. W . Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Piaton
(Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 10; Nürnberg, 1962), 8 9 . 4
Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 2 . 3 8 ; 7.10; 7.31 ( L C L ) ; cf. H . Strathmann, Geschichte der
frühchristlichen Askese bis zur Entstehung des Mönchtums in religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, V o l . 1: Die Askese in der Umgebung des werdenden Christentums (Leipzig 1 9 1 4 ) , 3 0 1 ; I. Lévy, La légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine (Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études, Sciences historiques et philologiques 2 5 0 ; Paris, 1927), 2 7 7 . 5
U.
v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der
Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin,
1932),
2:258;
W . Spoerri, Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter. Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 9; Basel, 1959), 1 6 7 - 6 8 . 6
11.27 ( L C L ) : Oi n-uGayopeioi ëcoOev e i ç x ö v o ù p a v o v à c p o p â v , iv' {mouiuvnaKcoueGa
x ô v à e i m x à x à a ù x à Kai waauxcoç x à e a v x c o v ë p y o v ô i a v v o v x c o v m l xfjç x à ^ e c o ç Kai xfîç KaGapoxTixoç Kai xf)ç
Y^JLIVÔXTIXOÇ.
248
NICLAS FÖRSTER
Pythagoreans, at the sky in the morning, that w e m a y have in r e m e m b r a n c e those hosts o f heaven that ever follow the same course a n d a c c o m p l i s h their w o r k in the same w a y , and their orderly system, a n d their purity, a n d their nakedness." In this passage, M a r c u s Aurelius stresses those characteristics o f the stars a n d heavenly b o d i e s that caused h u m a n beings to a c k n o w l e d g e their divine character a n d origin, especially because o f their unchangeableness and regular orbit. T h e Pythagoreans meditated o n just these characteristics every m o r n ing. Markus Aurelius d o e s n o t m e n t i o n prayer in this context h o w ever. Y e t the k n o w l e d g e o f g o d had its origin in the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the rising sun a n d observation o f the sun contributed a great deal to the quintessential philosophical life. F o r this reason, veneration o f the sun was not only a characteristic o f philosophical groups like the Pythagoreans during this time, but also punctuated literary descrip tion o f Utopian c o m m u n i t i e s a n d their fictitious religiousness. T h o s e 7
c o m m u n i t i e s venerated the heavenly b o d i e s . A b o v e all they p r a y e d to the sun. A famous e x a m p l e that describes such an ideal state is contained in Iambulus' writings. W e only k n o w his travel accounts through excerpts o f the G r e e k historian D i o d o r u s from Sicily, w h o lived in the middle o f the first century B . C E .
8
A l t h o u g h he wrote a
universal history in 4 0 v o l u m e s , only v o l u m e s o n e to five and 11 to 2 0 are still preserved today. W e find D i o d o r u s ' excerpt o f Iambulus' novel in his s e c o n d b o o k . A c c o r d i n g to D i o d o r u s , Iambulus described his adventures and a m o n g them, a particular j o u r n e y , u p o n w h i c h h e e m b a r k e d after his father's death. H e traveled as a m e r c h a n t to Arabia, w h e r e he was captured b y thieves and b r o u g h t unwillingly to Ethiopia. T h e Ethiopeans, h o w e v e r , sent h i m to the o p e n sea in a kind o f expiatory c e r e m o n y . Iambulus sailed southwards, where he discovered an island near the equator.
9
His description o f the island
bears similarities to C e y l o n w h i c h b e c a m e k n o w n to the Greeks after
7
G . J. D . Aalders, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (Amsterdam,
N . Holzberg, Der antike Roman (Artemis Einführungen
1975), 6 5 ;
2 5 , M ü n c h e n , Zürich, 1986),
2 0 - 2 1 ; B. Kytzler, " Z u m utopischen R o m a n der klassischen Antike," in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel (Groningen, 8
DNP
1988), 1 : 1 2 - 1 3 .
E . Schwartz, "Diodoros," P W 5 , cols. 6 6 3 - 7 0 4 , esp. 6 7 8 ; M . Fusillo, "Jambulos," 5 , cols. 8 5 6 - 5 7 ; W . - W . Ehlers, " M i t d e m Südwestmonsun
nach Ceylon. Eine
Interpretation der Jambul-Exzerpte Diodors," Würzburger Jahrbücher fur die Altertumswissen schaft N F 11 (1985): 7 3 - 8 4 , esp. 7 3 . 9
E. R o h d e , Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Darmstadt,
1 9 6 0 ; reprint
of
3rd ed., Leipzig 1914), 2 4 3 ; J. Ferguson, Utopias of the Classical World, Aspects of Greek and Roman Life ( L o n d o n , 1975), 1 2 5 ; Ehlers, M i t d e m Südwestmonsum,"
74-77.
JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF THE ESSENIAN MORNING PRAYER
Alexander's c a m p a i g n .
10
249
Nevertheless, Iambulus' novel includes m a n y
fantastic details. T h e island's inhabitants were taller than other k n o w n ordinary humans; the b o d i e s w e r e different with the tongues split into t w o parts.
11
Also, the inhabitants were alleged to die o n l y after
approximately 4 5 0 years. R e p o r t e d l y , Iambulus returned to G r e e c e via Persia. His novel unites geographical information, philosophical influences, Age.
1 3
12
merchants' tales a n d traces o f myth f r o m the G o l d e n
It is the philosophical influences, w h i c h are o f the most inter-
est here for Iambulus f o u n d a m o n g the island's inhabitants that veneration o f heaven a n d heavenly b o d i e s was also prevalent.
14
Diodorus
q u o t e d the following passage from Iambulus' novel: " A n d they w o r ship as gods that w h i c h encompasses all things a n d the sun, a n d , in general, all the heavenly b o d i e s . "
15
D i o d o r u s completes his excerpts
with the following notes a b o u t the inhabitants' feasts:
16
" A n d at the
festivals a n d feasts w h i c h are held a m o n g them, there are b o t h p r o n o u n c e d a n d sung in h o n o r o f the g o d s h y m n s a n d spoken laudations, a n d especially in h o n o r o f the sun, after w h o m they
name
b o t h the islands a n d themselves." A c c o r d i n g to the q u o t e d texts, Iambulus discovered an ideal c o m munity that possessed religious underpinnings
a n d orientated itself
towards the recognition o f divinity in the stars, the regularity o f the planets' m o v e m e n t s a n d , o f course, the sun. Prayer t o these heavenly deities was the focus o f the islanders' piety.
17
Neither
animal
sacrifices, n o r existence o f temples designed for worship w e r e m e n tioned b y I a m b u l u s .
1 0
W . Kroll, "Jambulos,"
Roman, 2 5 6 ; Ferguson, 11
18
P W 9 , cols.
6 8 1 - 8 3 , esp. 6 8 1 ; R o h d e , Der griechische
Utopias, 1 2 6 ; Ehlers, " M i t d e m Südwestmonsun,"
78-79.
D . M e n d e l s , "Hellenistic U t o p i a a n d the Essenes," HTR 7 2 (1979): 2 0 7 - 2 2 ,
esp. 2 1 2 . 1 2
R o h d e , Der griechische Roman, 2 5 3 ; Ferguson,
1 3
C . M o s s é , "Les utopies égalitaires à l'époque hellénistique," Revue historique 141
Utopias, 1 2 7 .
(1969): 2 9 7 - 3 0 8 , esp. 3 0 1 . 1 4
K r o l l , "Jambulos,"
6 8 3 ; R . v. P ö h l m a n n ,
Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des
Sozialismus in der antiken Welt. 3rd ed. rev. F. Oertel, M ü n c h e n 1 9 2 5 , 2:306; J. Ferguson, Utopias, 1 2 7 . 1 5
Diodorus Siculus 2 . 5 9 . 2 (Oldfather, L C L ) : ceßovxai Ôè Oeoùç x ö rcepiéxov rcàvxa
Kai r\k\o\ 1 6
K a i mGoAxn) rcàvxa x à o v p a v i a .
Diodorus Siculus 2 . 5 9 . 7 (Oldfather, L C L ) : ev xe x a î ç è o p x a î ç K a i x a î ç evcoxCaiç
XéyeoOai x e K a i a ô e a B a i rcap' a ù x o î ç eiç x o ù ç Geovç uavouç K a i éyKCûuia, u à X i a x a ôè eiç x ö v rçA.iov, àovxec àvaxeîtaxi; cf. Bauer, "Essener," 4 0 0 ; E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 3. Teil, 2. Abteilung. Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, 2. Hälfte, (Darmstadt, 1963), 3 3 4 , 3 6 8 ; Lévy, La légende, 1 3 2 , 2 7 7 ; C h . Burchard, "Die Essener bei Hippolyt. Hippolyt, Ref. DC 18, 2 - 2 8 , 2 und Josephus, Bell. 2., 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 , " JSJ
8 (1977): 1 - 4 1 , esp. 3 5 ; Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte, 8 4 - 8 5 , 9 6 ; W . Fauth,
"Salutatio Solis orientis. Z u einer Form der Heliolatrie bei Pythagoreern, Manichäer, Therapeuten
und
Essener," in
H . Cancik, H . Lichtenberger,
Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion.
FS M.
Hengel
(ed.
P. Schäfer; vol. 2 , Griechische und Römische Religion ed.
H . Cancik; Tübingen, 1996), 4 1 - 5 4 , esp. 5 2 - 5 3 ; Rajak, "Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe," 145. 2 4
T . S. Beali, Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls
( S N T S M S 58; Cambridge, 2 5
1988), 5 2 .
G . Hölscher, 'Josephus," P W 9, cols. 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 , esp. 1991; Mendels, "Hellenistic
Utopia," 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 .
252
NICLAS FÖRSTER
Josephus p r o b a b l y had another reason for c o n n e c t i n g the Essenes with the Pythagoreans. N a m e l y , the Pythagoreans possessed a special affinity with the N e a r East. M a n y authors o f antiquity related
the
story o f Pythagoras' visit to Egypt. H e went there in order to acquaint himself with the w i s d o m o f the priests. S o m e o f these p a g a n authors also r e p o r t e d a b o u t contacts o f Pythagoras to J e w i s h wise m e n . Josephus was very well aware o f this alleged d e p e n d e n c e o f Pythagoras o n the Jews, w h i c h he found in pagan sources. H e also cleverly used its apologetic potential for his o w n purposes. T h i s is p r o v e d b y an explicit quotation in his Contra Apionem that he found in the works o f the G r e e k philosopher a n d grammarian H e r m i p p u s .
26
T h e latter
claimed that Pythagoras "was imitating and appropriating the d o c trines o f J e w s a n d T h r a c i a n s . "
27
J o s e p h u s q u o t e d this passage to
p r o v e the superiority o f the Jewish religion. It influenced the history o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y from its beginning. T h e r e f o r e he also n a m e d Pythagoras as a m a n w h o expressly a d m i r e d the J e w s .
28
Certainly it
suggested itself to Josephus, that he ought to underpin this b o l d claim b y binding the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. But Josephus smardy a v o i d e d making the Essenes Pythagoras' teachers because he did not want to b e c o m e mired in chronological contradictions. Josephus m e n tioned the Essenes for the first time in his Antiquitates during the reign o f J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n ( 1 6 1 - 1 4 3 B . C E . ) .
2 9
T h i s passage suggests
that Josephus k n e w that the Essenes originated in the s e c o n d c e n tury B . C E . Pythagoras c o u l d n o t have personally associated with the Essenes, because he lived and died in the sixth century B . C E . Therefore, Josephus left the exact form o f the mutual relation between Essenes a n d Pythagoreans very m u c h in the dark. T o c o n c l u d e m y paper, I wish to stress the following points: T h e passages o f Josephus q u o t e d a b o v e m a y suggest that a p a g a n ideal, involving a m o n g other aspects, the m o r n i n g prayer to the rising sun,
2 6
O n Hermippus cf. Heibges, "Hermippos, der Kallimacheer," P W 8, cols. 8 4 5 -
5 2 , esp. 8 4 6 - 4 7 , 8 5 1 ; D o r n e , "Der nachklassische Pythagoreismus," 2 6 9 ; F. Montanari, "Hermippos 2 7
C. Ap.
aus Smyrna," DNP 1.165 (Thackeray,
5 , cols. 4 3 9 - 4 0 , esp. 4 3 9 . L C L ) : xauxa 8e ercpaxxe K a i ekeye xaq 'IovÖalcov K a i
OpaKGw 86^ao . . . l a y u a i a ) auf seine Seite ziehen (7tpoo7coir|aao9ai); schließlich hatte er im Sinn, dies Land als ein Bollwerk (rcpoßÄJiuo:) gegenüber den Überraschungen des Schicksals (OCTCO xfiq TV>XTK dÖr|taov) zu benutzen. 19
20
Josephus benutzt diese G e g e b e n h e i t , u m recht ausführlich die b e s o n dere geographische u n d strategisch b e d e u t e n d e Position Alexandriens mit ihren Häfen und d e m berühmten Leuchtturm,
21
e i n e m der sieben
W e l t w u n d e r d e r Antike, zu b e s c h r e i b e n . W ä h r e n d M u c i a n u s zur Sicherung der Verhältnisse n a c h R o m geschickt wird, reist Vespasian selbst in dieser Situation nach Alexandrien.
22
S c h o n seit Augustus stand
die Stadt j a unter der b e s o n d e r e n Aufsicht des Senats. Tacitus erk lärt die a u ß e r g e w ö h n l i c h e M a ß n a h m e des Senats mit d e r Furcht der Römer
2 3
dass j e d e r , der (die Hauptstadt) einer Provinz besitzt, damit
1 7
O . M i c h e l etwas blasser: „ein besonders wichtiger Teil des Reiches" (nXeiöxov xr\8iov S o u a a e%cop{o&n), a n d was
T h e terminology is interesting: he uses the
rather than the terminology w h i c h h a d previously b e e n
standard i n R o m a n sources, n a m e l y mittere o r remittere. Justin's ter 22
m i n o l o g y is here closer to the Jewish tradition: i n D e u t e r o n o m y , the husband is said to give (]P1D) the d o c u m e n t i T T 3 ; the use o f
8OUGOC
by Justin reflects b o t h the L X X o f D e u t e r o n o m y a n d M a t t 5 : 3 1 , and
this t o o is e c h o e d i n b o t h places b y J e r o m e . A s for the n o u n
penouSiov, Justin identifies i t as the t e r m i n o l o g y o f his a u d i e n c e , rather than the w o m a n . A l t h o u g h b o t h J e r o m e a n d earlier the Vetus Latina use libellus repudii, this is, as C o h e n has noted, far from a lit eral rendering o f either the sefer keritut o f D e u t e r o n o m y (or the L X X PipAaov d j c o a T a a i o u ) o r M a t t h e w ' s allusion to D e u t e r o n o m y i n the S e r m o n o n the M o u n t , where he uses a r c o o T a a i o v (Matt 5:31); rather,
2 0
Katzoff, "Papyrus Y a d i n 18" (supra n. 11) 2 4 3 , has offered an alternative expla
nation: "I suggest that this particular phrasing was chosen to provide that the hus b a n d will not have to pay out the dowry w h e n it b e c o m e s due, unless the d o c u m e n t is surrendered, and, in other words, that he will not have to make d o with a receipt. The
practice recorded in G r e e k papyri was that receipts for p a y m e n t o f private
debts were issued only in special circumstances, such as the death o f the principal creditor or debtor, loss o f the debt document, or partial or early payment. Otherwise the n o r m a l practice was to return and tear the d o c u m e n t recording the obligation." H o w e v e r , this clause o f P. Y a d . 18 speaks o f redemption of the contract (a\)Yypa(pf|v) as a whole, not simply the dowry, so that it is difficult for K a t z o f f to limit it, in the w a y he seeks, to the opinion o f R a v H a i G a o n , supra n. 19. 21
"St.
2 Apol. 2 . 6 , apparently written between Justin
Martyr,"
155 a n d 1 6 0 C . E . : see Jules Lebreton,
The Catholic Encyclopedia ( N e w Y o r k : A p p l e t o n ,
1907-1912).
Online: h t t p : / / w w w . n e w a d v e n t . o r g / c a t h e n / 0 8 5 8 0 c . h t m . T h e text was first discussed in the context o f the relationship between Jewish a n d R o m a n law by B. C o h e n , "Concerning Divorce in Jewish and R o m a n L a w , " PAAJR 21 (1952): 3 - 3 4 , reprinted in his Jewish and Roman Law ( N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f A m e r i c a , 1966), 1:384 (citing Levy, infra n. 2 7 ) , but does not appear to have been taken up in the m o r e recent discussion o f the Jewish development, p r o m p t e d b y the D e a d Sea papyri. 2 2
A s in nuntium remittere, discussed infra, text at nn.
30-32.
350
BERNARD S. JACKSON
C o h e n suggests, the t e r m i n o l o g y m a y reflect "the practice o f the R o m a n provincial law o f Palestine o f their t i m e . "
23
W h a t law, then, was this Christian w o m a n invoking, a n d what audience was Justin addressing, w h e n he wrote that she "gave [her husband] what y o u call a bill o f divorce"? T h e w o m a n ' s very recourse to the institution o f divorce w o u l d suggest that she was a J u d a e o Christian,
24
using a non-rabbinic version o f Jewish law. T h e tayojLievov
n a p ' i)|xiv seemingly implies that this was n o t the w o m a n ' s indigenous language (or terminology) but that it w o u l d b e familiar to his audience. T h e audience o f the Apobgies was pagan rather than Jewish, probably R o m a n .
2 6
25
T h o u g h the use o f such a d o c u m e n t b y a w o m a n
to divorce her h u s b a n d is, as will b e argued, unusual at this period, the term p£7cot>8iov is indeed found earlier in R o m a n sources.
2 3
C o h e n , Jewish
and Roman Law
(supra n. 2 1 ) , 1:385; Derrett, Law
Testament (supra n. 4) 3 7 3 , also regards the L X X / N T
27
in the Mew
renditions as "curious", and
takes them to imply (simply?) a cessation o f cohabitation. T h e Vetus Latina Database of the Vetus Latina Institute in Beuron (www.brepols.net) overwhelmingly supports libellum repudii for D e u t 2 4 : 1 , 3 , with just two occurrences o f librum repudii. In M a t t 5:31,
all the testimonies use either libellum repudii or simply repudium. A l t h o u g h it is
argued below (text at nn. 4 5 - 4 7 ) that divorce b y a wife performed b y sending a repudium in the R o m a n juristic sources m a y reflect Jewish
or J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n
influence, the terminology o f repudium itself is clearly R o m a n , as is indicated by the text o f Justin M a r t y r discussed above. 2 4
Perhaps, given Justin's description of the husband's behaviour, following Matthew's
porneia exception. Justin indicates in the First Apology that his native town was Flavia Neapolis in Palestinian Syria, which is close to Shechem. W e m a y note that her action is quite contrary to the approach advocated b y Paul to Christian-pagan marriages, in 1 C o r 7 : 1 4 - 1 6 , o n which see further Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" (supra n. 4), 2 3 6 - 4 2 . 2 5
T h e text occurs in. the Apology (on which see the Catholic Encyclopedia article
cited supra n. 2 1 ) , not in the Dialogue with Trypho. Justin lived for s o m e time at Ephesus, before visiting (he indicates for the second time) R o m e , where ultimately he was martyred in about 165 C . E . T h e r e is indeed a specific R o m a n addressee o f this passage: w h e n the w o m a n ' s h u s b a n d seeks to take revenge against her b y denouncing her as a Christian, Justin writes that she "presented a paper to thee (aoi), the E m p e r o r , requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs . . .": 2 Apol. 2 . 8 , in A . Roberts and J. D o n a l d s o n , eds., Justin Martyr and Athanagoras (AnteNicene Christian Library 2; Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1870), 7 2 . 2 6
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4 . 1 8 , says that it was addressed to M a r c u s Aurelius.
2 7
O n Juvenal and Suetonius, see infra, nn. 3 4 , 3 9 . Nevertheless, E . Levy, Der Hergang
der römischen Ehescheidung ( W e i m a r : Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1925), 5 9 , finds this written repudium first clearly evidenced in Justin and sees it as reflective o f his Palestinian and
Hellenistic background: ". . . ein schriftliches repudium wird m. W . erstmals in
der Mitte des zweiten Jahrhunderts von d e m Märtyrer Justinus angedeutet, der, selbst aus Palästina s t a m m e n d , in hellenistischen Anschauungen aufgewachsen und g r o ß geworden war." T h e use o f percovSiov in the papyri appears to be found only in the Byzantine period, and comes to be used also o f bilateral divorce contracts. T h e earliest appears to be M . C h r . 127 ( 3 9 0 C . E . ) , on which see R . Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332
B.C.-640
A.D.
(2nd ed.; W a r s a w :
351
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
Support for the identification
o f Justin's Christian w o m a n as a
Judaeo-Christian m a y b e derived from a further Jewish source to w h i c h B o a z C o h e n has directed attention—a dictum attributed to the third-century Palestinian R . J o h a n a n in Genesis Rabbah 18.5: "his 28
wife divorces h i m and gives h i m a repudium". Its context appears to suggest k n o w l e d g e o f diversity o f practice amongst different groups o f N o a h i d e s (nr^D): in c o m m e n t i n g o n G e n 2:24, "cleaves to his wife," the midrash asks h o w w e k n o w that they d o n o t observe (the Jewish) rules o f divorce
(pcSnj mb y\№
]"3ftl). T h r e e
answers
are
offered, the first t w o attributed to R . J o h a n a n at s e c o n d r e m o v e , the third direcdy: (a) they have n o d i v o r c e ; (b) the two parties d i v o r c e each other; (c) "his wife divorces him and gives him a repudium"—prob ably m e a n i n g
" e v e n his wife m a y d i v o r c e h i m a n d gives h i m
a
repudium", rather than " o n l y his wife divorces him a n d gives h i m a repudium" W e m a y attribute (a) to p a g a n Christians (no divorce), (b) to Hellenistic practice (divorce b y mutual consent);
29
(c) to J u d a e o -
Christians (divorce, w h i c h m a y b e unilateral, b y delivery o f a get). In short, even the p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d b y Salome is not unique in Jewish
entirely
sources, though it appears far distant from
the
mainstream normative tradition, w h i c h Josephus reflects in his critical c o m m e n t s o n it. A n d in fact, the alternative interpretation o f her action, as in conformity with R o m a n law, is m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c than is sometimes
assumed.
In late R e p u b l i c a n R o m a n sources, w e encounter unilateral divorce p e r f o r m e d b y nuntium (re)mittere. F o r e x a m p l e , C i c e r o , Top. 4 . 1 9 , is aware o f such a possibility (si viri culpa factum est divortium, etsi mulier nuntium remisit. . .). But d o e s nuntium refer to a messenger (delivering the message orally) o r to the (written) message? T h o u g h in general Lewis and Short, s.v. nuntius, take it to b e the latter, rendering nuntium
Panstwowe W y d a w n i c t w o N a u k o w e , 1955), 122 n. 7 3 . P. O x y 3 5 8 1 . 1 5 - 1 6 (4th or 5th cent.) is a petition which mentions a p£7to\>8iov sent by a wife to her husband under R o m a n law: see further I. Arnaoutoglou, "Marital Disputes in G r e c o - R o m a n Egypt," JJP
2 5 (1995): 1 1 - 2 8 , esp. 2 2 - 2 3 . See also P. O x y 129 (6th cent.; s e e T a u b e n -
schlag, ibid., 122); P. Cairo (Masp) 6 7 1 5 4 . r , 2 , 1 3 (a divorce contract of the reign of Justinian); P. L o n d .
1 7 1 3 . 9 , 2 2 ( = P. Flor 9 3 . 5 , 1 4 , a divorce contract of 5 6 9
B G U 2 2 0 3 . 4 , 12 (571 C . E . ) ; P. Cairo (Masp) 6 7 1 2 1 . s u b s ,
C.E.);
a divorce contract o f 5 7 3
C . E . ) ; B G U 2 6 9 2 . 9 (6th cent.). See also H . I. Bell and B. R . Rees, " A R e p u d i u m from Hermopolis," Eos 4 8 (1956): 1 7 5 - 7 9 (of 5 8 6 C . E . ) , where the term is used in the context of "reciprocal agreements for separation or divorce" (between Samaritans). 2 8
C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 21), 1 : 3 8 4 - 8 5 , plausibly supporting the
emendation of the M S text from yiBl 2
" Cf. CPJ
144, supra n.
15.
to
]H1S"1.
352
BERNARD S. JACKSON
uxori remittere or mittere " t o send o n e ' s wife a letter o f d i v o r c e , "
30
R o b l e d a righdy takes C i c e r o ' s use o f the expression in De or. 1.40.183 as referring to c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the fact that a formal, albeit indirect (oral) declaration h a d (here, not) b e e n m a d e .
31
T h e evidence w o u l d 32
appear to support a development from messenger to message. Nuntius is frequendy found m e a n i n g a messenger, delivering a message (nun tium), w h e t h e r oral o r w r i t t e n .
33
T a c i t u s e v e n speaks o f an oral
34
repudium. A n d the use o f a domestic libertus to deliver the m e s s a g e ,
35
36
as also the r e q u i r e m e n t o f seven witnesses u n d e r the lex Julia strongly suggest oral rather than written delivery.
3 0
37
In fact, n o such
Citing Cicero, De or. 1 . 4 0 . 1 8 3 (on which see further infra, at n. 9 0 ) ; 1 . 5 6 . 2 3 8 ;
idem, Att.
1.13.3 (uxori Caesarem nuntium remisisse, "Caesar has divorced his wife");
idem, Top. 4 . 1 9 (of a w o m a n w h o separates from her husband); Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 ; 2 4 . 3 . 2 2 ; also o f the rejection o f the marriage contract (sponsalia) by the parents a n d guardians in Plautus, True. 4 . 3 . 7 4 . 3 1
O . R o b l e d a , "II divorzio in R o m a prima di Constantino," AMW
347-90,
esp. 3 7 4 - 7 5 ,
2:14 (1982):
relating this to a tradition o f a fixed oral formula which
Cicero, Phil. 2 . 2 8 . 6 9 , attributes to the T w e l v e Tables. O n this, see also J. F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law
and Society ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e ,
1990), 8 4 - 8 5 ;
R . Yaron,
"Minutiae o n R o m a n Divorce," Tijdschrifi voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 2 8 (1960): 1 - 1 2 , esp. 1 - 8 (though he interprets it as a substantive rather than a formal requirement). 3 2
T h e classical nuntium remittere did ultimately c o m e to b e identified with the send
ing o f a written repudium. By the third century C . E . the jurist Ulpian could use repudium mittere and nuntium mittere interchangeably: Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 , Ulpianus 2 6 ad sab.: Iulianus libro octavo decimo digestorum quaerit, an furiosa repudium mittere vel repudiari possit. et scribit furiosam repudiari posse, quia ignorantis loco habetur: repudiare autem non posse neque ipsam propter dementiam neque curatorem eius, patrem tamen eius nuntium mittere posse, quod non tractaret de repudio, nisi constaret retineri matrimonium: quae sententia mihi videtur vera. See also Dig. 2 4 . 3 . 2 2 . 7 , Ulpianus 3 3 a d ed. See further Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 5 5 - 5 9 , a n d his obser vation that Tertullian at the end o f the second century appears to be the first writer equally familiar with written and oral repudiations, citing (59 n. 8) Apol. 6 . 6 (writ ten); Mon 11 (written); Idol 6 (oral); Mon 10 (both oral and written). H e leaves open the question whether this reflects daily life in Tertullian's environment,
Greco-
Egyptian custom or the influence o f the Latin translation o f D e u t 2 4 . 3 3
C . T . Lewis and C . Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1958), s.v.
nuntium. 3 4
Ann. 3 . 2 2 , dicere repudium, cf. Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 5 9 , citing also Juvenal,
Sat. 6 . 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 , w h o has the husband's libertus deliver a rather unkind oral mes sage: . . . dicet libertus. . . (without using the term repudium). 3 5
Presupposed even in the divorce procedure required b y the lex Iulia de adul-
teriis: see further infra, at nn. 7 5 , 7 6 . 3 6
O n which see further infra, sec. 3 .
3 7
S o m e (e.g. Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7 [supra n. 4 ] " 105 n. 8; Encyclopedia
Britannica, 7th ed., 7:454, s.v. "Divorce") have maintained that the lex Julia itself required (in the cases where it applied: see further infra, sec. 3) the sending o f a libellus repudii. But the evidence for this consists in one highly problematic text (on whether remar riage in the wake of an invalid repudium missum constitutes adultery), Dig. 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , G a i . 3 ad legem X I I T a b . : Si ex lege repudium missum non sit et idcirco mulier adhuc nupta esse videatur, tamen si quis earn uxorem duxerit adulter non erit. . ., discussed in detail b y
353
THE DIVORCES OF THE HEROD IAN PRINCESSES
written repudia have survived.
38
Treggiari has noted, m o r e o v e r , that
repudiare and repudium, found first in the comedians, b e c o m e the normal prose expressions for unilateral d i v o r c e b y the h u s b a n d rather than
E. Volterra, "Intorno a D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , " in Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi (Milan: Giuffré, 1965), 2 : 1 2 3 - 4 0 ; C . Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale e 'crimen adulterii' (Per una
riconsiderazione
di D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 [ 4 3 ] ) , " IURA
41 (1990): 2 5 - 5 1 .
Despite the fragment's inscription, it was placed b y the compilers in their treatment o f the lex Julia de adulteras, rather than the T w e l v e Tables, a n d the lex referred to is c o m m o n l y identified with the lex Julia: see Volterra, ibid., 128; J. A . C . T h o m a s , "Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis," in Etudes ofertes ajean Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence: Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques d'Aix-en-Provence, 1970), 6 3 7 - 4 4 , esp. 6 4 3 - 4 4 , w h o supplies a response to the objection o f R . Y a r o n , " D e Divortio V a r i a , " Tydschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 2 (1964): 5 3 3 - 5 7 ,
esp. 5 5 4 - 5 7
(who
nevertheless
acknowledges wide support for Volterra's view) that Volterra does not seek to explain the inscription. Both Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 19 if. a n d Y a r o n , "Minutiae" (supra n. 31), h a d earlier provided arguments in favour o f viewing the text as a later account o f a (long obsolete) provision o f the T w e l v e T a b l e s (see also Venturini, ibid., 3 2 - 3 3 ,
38). A . Watson,
" T h e D i v o r c e o f Carvilius R u g a , " Tydschrift voor
Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 3 (1965): 3 8 , follows Y a r o n in taking Gaius to refer to "some provision o n the subject o f divorce in the T w e l v e Tables", and regards the tradition that Carvilius R u g a , in the third century B . C . E . , was the first R o m a n to divorce his wife as inaccurate, and to be understood as reflecting a change in the
financial
consequences of divorce in the absence o f a matrimonial offence. H o w e v e r , W a t s o n ' s arguments regarding the divorce o f Carvilius R u g a (on which see also R o b l e d a , "II divorzio in R o m a " (supra n. 31), 3 5 5 - 6 5 ; I. N u n e z Paz, "Alcunas Consideraciones en torno al 'Repudium' y al 'Divortium'," Bullettino delVIstituto di Diritto Romano "Vittorio Scialoja" 9 1 (1988): 7 1 3 - 2 4 , esp. 7 1 9 - 2 1 , c o m m e n t i n g o n M . - E . Fernández Baquero, Repudium-Divortium. Origen y Configuración Juridica hasta la Legislación Matrimonial de Augusto (Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de G r a n a d a , 1987), even if correct, d o not entail the view that the lex in Gaius is indeed the T w e l v e T a b l e s . Even if the identification with the lex Julia is correct, it needs to be established that ex lege repudium missum refers to a libellus repudii. G i v e n the evidence o f Tacitus (supra n. 34), the allusion m a y well b e to the procedure o f oral announcement referred to in Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 9 (infra n. 75): cf. Volterra, "Intorno a D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , "
1 2 9 (who
notes also, at 1 3 8 , the Byzantine scholion to this text (Bas. 6 0 . 3 7 . 4 4 ) , interpreting the role o f the witnesses as subscribing their signatures to a p£7io\>8iov; cf. Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale," 41 n. 5 1 ; 49); Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale," 2 8 . A n d even if not, the oral procedure was clearly available as an alternative. P. E . Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), 2 3 8 , concludes that the witnesses attest the despatch of the messenger a n d would attach their seals to the written message only if there was one. See also W . W . Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (2nd ed.; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e : University Press, 1950),
1 1 7 . S. A . Treggiari, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to
the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1991), 4 5 7 , writes: " T h e attestation by seven witnesses was o f the statement of the divorcing party, not that the notice had been served o n the other partner", citing Isid., Etym. 9 . 7 . 2 4 : repudium est quod sub testimonio testium vel praesenti vel absenti mittitur. She observes (ibid.), " T h e scarcity o f sources m a y suggest that, like marriage ceremonies, a procedure was taken for granted, and that, like marriage ceremonies, it was evidential, not essential." T h e text, she notes (at 4 5 5 - 5 6 ) , renders any legal requirement of repudium a lex minus quam perfecta. 3 8
D . Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7 (supra n. 4 ) , " 113: " O n l y four Latin mar-
riage contracts have survived and no divorce deeds."
354
BERNARD S. JACKSON
the w i f e .
39
In the latter case, unilateral divorce b y wives, though p o s
sible, appears to have b e e n rare, o r behavioural messages,
41
40
a n d p e r f o r m e d b y oral declaration
rather than delivery o f a written d o c u m e n t .
Against this, w e might b e tempted to use the evidence o f J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t o f Salome's divorce o f Costobarus. N o t only does she send h i m a Ypotii|Liaxeiov; the terminology o f rceujtei. . . auto) is closer to the R o m a n nuntium remittere than to D e u t 2 4 : 1 , 3, where (as n o t e d a b o v e , in c o m p a r i n g the terminology o f Justin) the h u s b a n d "puts (]rQ) it (the sefer keritut) in her h a n d " rather than simply "sends" it. But Josephus appears elsewhere to "spin" his a c c o u n t o f Jewish insti tutions with terminology that will b e m o r e immediately accessible to a R o m a n audience: I a m thinking, in particular, o f his a c c o u n t o f 43
the lex talionis.
A case m a y thus b e m a d e for the view that S a l o m e , in sending a Ypau^ccxeiov to Costobarus, was, despite the strictures o f Josephus, following a Jewish rather than a R o m a n tradition. It is only later, in the writings o f the classical R o m a n jurists,
3 9
44
that w e first encounter
Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 3 6 - 3 7 , citing Suetonius, Tib., 1 1 . 4 and
Gaius 3 6 . 2 for its use w h e n notice o f divorce is sent in the husband's n a m e . 4 0
Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 4 4 4 , discussing the evidence particularly for the
Ciceronian period. Originally, divorce b y w o m e n appears not to have been possi ble in R o m e : Plutarch, Rom. 2 2 . 3 (on which see W a t s o n , " T h e Divorce o f Carvilius R u g a " [supra n. 3 7 ] , 4 4 - 4 5 ) , claims that in the archaic period (under the regula tions of R o m u l u s ) only m e n could divorce. M . M c D o n n e l l , "Divorce Initiated b y W o m e n in R o m e : T h e Evidence o f Plautus", American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983): 5 4 - 8 0 , reserves j u d g m e n t ( 7 0 n. 3) on whether the evidence o f Seneca and C i c e r o (though not noting Top. 4 . 1 9 ) supports the possibility o f divorce by wives independent o f paternal participation even in the late Republic, and argues, from an analysis o f the five Plautine passages, that there is no valid evidence for it dur ing the period o f the middle Republic. Cf. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, ibid., noting that divorce b y w o m e n , though mentioned as a possibility, never actually occurs in a Plautine c o m e d y . 4 1
Treggiari, Roman Marriage, ibid.: "Already Plautus could portray s o m e wives as
able to divorce. T h e y are imagined as turning their husbands out o f the matrimo nial (but dotal) h o m e or pronouncing a formula o f divorce against them", citing Mil. glor. 1 1 6 4 ff., Amph. 9 2 5 ; A . W a t s o n , The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 4 9 - 5 2 . But see M c D o n n e l l , "Divorce Initiated by W o m e n " (supra n. 4 0 ) 5 9 - 6 6 , rejecting a R o m a n context for the divorce scene in the Miles and arguing at length that Alcumena's declaration in the Amphitruo is a deliberate gender reversal, in which "she utters words which were properly spoken only by men". 4 2
4 3
T h o u g h rabbinic law did early c o m e to recognise delivery by an agent. A.J. 4 . 2 8 0 ; see further m y Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (Sheffield: Sheffield
A c a d e m i c Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 8 1 ; also "Lex Talionis: Revisiting D a u b e ' s Classic", § 12, online: http://www.law2.byu.edu/Biblical_Law/papers/jackson_bs_lex_talionis.pdf. 4 4
Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 3 7 .
42
355
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
d i v o r c e b y a wife p e r f o r m e d b y sending a repudium. T h e earliest instance occurs in the Institutes o f G a i u s ,
45
w h o is thought to have
c o m m e n c e d his juristic career in R o m e "but then carried o n his w o r k in the Eastern p r o v i n c e s " ,
46
a
n
d to have written the Institutes
p r o b a b l y in 161 C.E., towards the e n d o f his c a r e e r .
47
Both the dating
a n d the p r o v e n a n c e suggest the possibility o f J e w i s h o r J u d a e o Christian influence. Indeed, the case recounted b y Justin Martyr (writ ten just before the Institutes o f Gaius) appears to b e the earliest source in w h i c h the term repudium, referring to a written d o c u m e n t , is used o f divorce b y a wife o f her husband. T h r e e further instances are found in the classical juristic writings, from Paul,
48
Ulpian
49
and Marcellus.
50
A n d in the late E m p i r e , w e e n c o u n t e r the terminology o f libellus 51
repudii, perhaps reflecting versions o f D e u t 2 4 ,
52
and ultimately
53
the
4 0
Inst. 1.137a, repudio misso, o f a wife in a manus (coemptio) marriage. H e discusses h o w she m a y free herself from the manus after having dissolved the marriage. 4 6
A . Borkowski, Textbook on Roman Law ( L o n d o n : Blackstone Press Ltd., 1994), 4 4 .
4 7
B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 3 6 .
4 8
Dig. 2 4 . 1 . 5 7 . p r , Paulus 7 resp: . . . quaero, an, si eadem titio marito suo repudium miserit. 4 9
Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 , Ulpianus 2 6 ad sab.: Iulianus libro octavo decimo digestorum quaerit, an juriosa repudium mittere vel repudiari possit. 5 0
Dig. 2 4 . 3 . 3 8 , Marcellus l.S. resp.: Lucius titius cum esset jilius familias, voluntate patris uxorem maeviam duxit et dotem pater accepit: maevia titio repudium misit: postea pater repudiati absente filio sponsalia cum ea de nomine filii sui fecit: maevia deinde repudium sponsalibus misit. 5 1
B y contrast, we d o find libellus divortii earlier, in Dig. D . 2 4 . 2 . 7 (Papinian): " W h e r e s o m e o n e w h o was given the other party written notice of divorce regrets having done this and the notice is served in ignorance o f the change o f mind, the mar riage is held to remain valid, unless the person w h o receives the notice is aware of the change o f m i n d and wants to end the marriage himself. T h e n the marriage will be dissolved b y the person w h o received the notice." Its classicity is disputed by Levy, Hergang (supra n. 27), 6 1 , but defended b y R . Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes," Tydschrifi voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 2 (1964), 5 4 - 6 8 , esp. 5 8 , w h o notes that Levy's analy sis itself indicates that the expression is used nowhere in the Byzantine sources, though libellus repudii is used in Cod. Justin. 5 . 1 7 . 6 (of 2 9 4 C . E . ) . W e m a y note that the case here discussed is very similar to one in the Babylonian T a l m u d , b. Gittin 3 3 a (which in fact there resulted in annulment instituted by the Rabbis, despite the fact that, like the R o m a n s , they considered the divorce to be in principle ineffective: m. Gittin 4:1). T h e dating o f this parallel might speak in favour o f Levy, against Y a r o n , but the issue hardly affects the present argument. 5 2
5 3
See text leading to n. 2 3 , supra.
Generally discounted, in this context, is Dig. 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 , on which see n. 3 7 , supra. A s late as 2 9 4 C . E . , according to a Constitution o f Diocletianus a n d M a x i m i a n u s , a marriage is dissolved even if a libellus repudii is not handed over to the other spouse: Cod. justin. 5 . 1 7 . 6 : Licet repudii libellus non fuerit traditus [prob. int.: vel cognitus] marito, dissolvitur matrimonium, o n which see further Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 6 - 5 7 , arguing that this does not m a k e a libellus mandatory: "the decision would equally apply where a messenger had to convey notice by w o r d o f m o u t h . "
356
BERNARD S. JACKSON
delivery o f such a d o c u m e n t b e c a m e m a n d a t o r y .
54
T h i s (along with
other substantial restrictions o n divorce in the late Empire) is gen erally u n d e r s t o o d to reflect Christian influence.
3.
55
T H E C A S E S OF DESERTION
H e r e , Jewish precedents for what the princesses d i d are very m u c h weaker, consisting only in a n u m b e r o f biblical narratives. Zakovitch has argued that w h e r e the wife feared that she h a d b e e n deserted b y her husband, either she o r her father might unilaterally the marriage b y returning to her original h o m e .
5 6
terminate
T h e clearest e x a m
ple is that o f S a m s o n ' s wife. H e r father, w e m a y recall, construed the situation as a divorce: "I really thought that y o u utterly hated h e r " ( J u d g 15:2, hatred sometimes b e i n g used as a technical term for d i v o r c e ) ,
57
and gave his daughter to S a m s o n ' s c o m p a n i o n , with
fatal results. A s e c o n d e x a m p l e c o n c e r n s the marriage o f D a v i d a n d M i c h a l . Despite having himself o c c a s i o n e d D a v i d ' s "desertion" o f M i c h a l , b y attempting to have h i m killed, Saul then gave " M i c h a l his daughter, D a v i d ' s wife, to Palti the son o f L a ' i s h " .
58
Moses had
apparendy (the narrative fails to tell us o f it at the time) sent Z i p p o r a h back
59
to the house o f her (Midianite) father, Jethro; w h e n she a n d
See also C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 2 1 ) , 1:385, apparently misunder stood b y D . Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. The Social and Literary Context ( G r a n d Rapids: Eerdmans, 2 0 0 2 ) , 7 3 n. 4 8 . 5 4
For sources from the Christian Empire, see Cod. theod. 3 . 1 6 . 1 (Constantine, 3 3 1 Cod. justin. 5 . 1 7 . 8 p r (Theodosius and Valentinian, 4 4 9 C . E . ) , Cod. Justin. 5 . 1 7 . 9 (Anastasius, 4 9 7 C . E . ) ; see further Rabello, "Divorce o f Jews" (supra n. 11), 8 3 - 9 0 . C l e a r evidence o f a legal requirement for a libellus repudii appears only in the late Empire: cf. J. A . C . T h o m a s , The Institutes of Justinian. Text, Translation and Commentary (Amsterdam: N o r t h - H o l l a n d Publishing C o . , 1975), 3 4 . C.E.),
5 5
Following D e u t 2 4 . Cf. Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 5 ; C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 5 1 ) , 1:385, and earlier literature there cited. 5 6
Y . Zakovitch, " T h e W o m a n ' s Rights in the Biblical L a w o f Divorce", J LA 4 (1981): 2 8 - 4 6 , esp. 3 6 - 4 0 . Zakovitch, " W o m a n ' s Rights," 3 4 - 3 5 , views Htra? in the H e b r e w Bible as refer ring to a w o m a n not yet a divorcee but w h o m the husband would like to divorce, and suggests that the technical meaning (even o f the verb is first found at Ele phantine. I think this text, not least with the intensification o f the verb, nntOT fcOT, speaks against him. O n the usage elsewhere (including the ana ittisu series), see fur ther Jackson, " H o w Jewish" (supra n. 14), nn. 1 0 1 - 4 . 5 7
1 8
1 S a m 2 5 : 4 4 , o n which see also A . T o s a t o , / / Matrimonio Israelitico ( R o m e : Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 1 9 6 - 9 7 . E x o d 18:2. Zakovitch, " W o m a n ' s Rights" (supra n. 5 6 ) , 3 8 , notes the rabbinic interpretation o f this as divorce, based on the use o f the term shillah. 5 9
357
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
her children reappear o n the scene, in E x o d 18, it appears at first sight to b e for family reasons: perhaps J e t h r o is either seeking a rec onciliation o r m a i n t e n a n c e .
60
Blenkinsopp acknowledges sources which
r e c o r d that "a w o m a n w h o c o u l d afford to d o so simply left her husband," but maintains nevertheless that "it seems that only the husband c o u l d initiate d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s . "
61
O f the narratives cited
b y Z a k o v i t c h , w e m a y note that t w o involve matrilocal marriages (Samson, M o s e s ) , b o t h with non-Israelite w o m e n . A n d in the third, the marriage o f D a v i d a n d M i c h a l , the termination is very m u c h at the initiative o f the father-in-law, rather than M i c h a l herself. It is hard to imagine that normative conclusions for Jewish law w e r e ever derived from these narratives. T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , s o m e hints o f d i v o r c e b y desertion in postbiblical sources, though they hardly a m o u n t to a c o m p e l l i n g case. Philo's rather o d d version o f D e u t 2 4 : 1 - 4 contemplates termination o f the first marriage b y the wife rather than the husband, t h o u g h with implicit (moral) disapproval and without indicating any p r o c e d u r e other than separation.
6 0
62
Similarly, the N e w T e s t a m e n t controversy
It is noticeable that M o s e s receives Jethro with open arms, but there is no
mention o f his reception of his wife or children, E x o d 18:6—9: " A n d when o n e told M o s e s , ' L o , your father-in-law Jethro is c o m i n g to y o u with your wife and her two sons with her,' M o s e s went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance
and
kissed him; and they asked each other o f their welfare, and went into the
tent.
T h e n M o s e s told his father-in-law all that the L O R D
had done to Pharaoh and
to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, all the hardship that had c o m e u p o n them in the way, a n d h o w the L O R D had delivered them. A n d Jethro rejoiced for all the g o o d which the L O R D
h a d done to Israel, in that he h a d delivered them out o f the
hand o f the Egyptians." 6 1
J. Blenkinsopp, " T h e Jewish Family in First T e m p l e Israel", in Families in Ancient
Israel (L. G . Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins a n d C . M e y e r s , eds.; Louisville K y : Westminster J o h n K n o x Press, 1997), 4 8 - 1 0 3 , esp. 6 5 , citing also J u d g
19:1-2
and Jer 3 : 6 - 7 . T h e y are distinct from the three narratives cited b y Zakovitch, in that J u d g 19 concerns a 03*TS, w h o "became angry with him, a n d she went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in J u d a h , and was there s o m e four months", until the Levite went to retrieve her. T h e r e is no suggestion that this was construed b y any o f the participants as a divorce. Jer 3 : 6 - 7 uses the marriage-har lotry-adultery m e t a p h o r of Israel's relationship to G o d , but has the husband, G o d , issue a sefer keritut as a result. See further m y " T h e 'Institutions' o f Marriage, Divorce and M a t r i m o n i a l Property in the Bible," forthcoming. 6 2
"Another c o m m a n d m e n t is that if a w o m a n after parting (anaXkayzioa)
from
her husband for any cause whatever marries another and then again b e c o m e s a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other rather than him, because she has broken with the rules (Oeauoix;) that b o u n d her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old . . ." (Spec. 3 . 3 0 [Colson, L C L ] ) .
358
BERNARD S. JACKSON
with the Pharisees regarding d i v o r c e c o n c l u d e s with Jesus observing: " W h o e v e r divorces (ano\x>GJ\) his wife a n d marries another, c o m m i t s adultery against her; a n d if she divorces her husband and marries another, she c o m m i t s adultery."
63
H e confides this to his disciples, not
the Pharisees; M a r k m a y well in fact have in m i n d a gentile audience, m o r e familiar with G r e c o - R o m a n than Jewish mores as regards divorce. Similarly, D a u b e has n o t e d a difference in Paul's language to the C o r i n t h i a n s a c c o r d i n g to w h e t h e r b o t h parties o r o n l y o n e is a believer; it is in the former case that he counsels: "the wife should not
separate (%cop{^£o0ai) from her h u s b a n d " (1 C o r 7 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , and
this, he argues, is n o t implied to b e constitutive o f divorce, in a c c o r d a n c e with the rabbinic p o s i t i o n .
64
A similar v i e w is taken b y s o m e
6 3
M a r k 1 0 : 1 1 - 1 2 . Derrett, Law in the New Testament {supra n. 23), 3 9 2 - 9 3 , inter prets the "deviant" Jewish tradition o f divorce o n the initiative o f the wife as a "non-existent conflict between Jewish law and Jewish practice" (comparable to the use o f the diatheke to avoid the law o f intestate succession), the "practice" consist ing in possible "collusion or complacent action" b y a court, w h e n asked b y a wife to c o m p e l her husband to issue a divorce, though at p. 3 8 6 he accepts that " W h a t is not available to a w o m a n is a unilateral repudiation o f her marriage such as w o u l d free both herself and her husband for a future legal marriage": for his view of the action o f S a l o m e , see infra, n. 9 7 . Aliter, Rossetti Favento, "Matrimonio e divorzio" {supra n. 6), 2 7 2 - 7 3 n. 2 2 , w h o regards Salome's divorce o f Costobarus as an example o f abuse o f the contemporary practice; she argues {passim, esp. 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 0 1 ) that M a r k has a unique presentation o f the (natural) parity o f m a n and w o m a n , reflected in his adoption o f the (egalitarian) P narrative o f h u m a n cre ation, in G e n 1:27, rather than the "rib" m o d e l in G e n 2 : 2 1 - 2 4 , and thus that his presentation even of the possibility o f divorce b y the wife o f her husband derives from this ideology (propounded to the disciples privately: p p . 2 8 5 - 8 6 ) , rather than G r e c o - R o m a n practice (pp. 2 8 1 - 8 2 ) ; D . Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage {supra n. 5 3 ) , ch. 6, esp. 1 4 7 - 5 2 . D a u b e , New Testament {supra n. 3), 3 6 5 , has c o m p a r e d the terminology here, using the transitive arcoAA)£iv, 'to dismiss', with Josephus' account o f Salome's divorce, though noting that the (middle, a7toAA>eo9ai) form o f the verb—arcoXDOuevn xov yauov—is not quite so strong as the M a r k a n "to dismiss the husband". H o w e v e r , he tends towards the argument, supported b y text-critical considerations, that anokuzw is not here original. See also Rossetti F a v e n t o , "Matrimonio e divorzio" {supra n. 6), 2 8 3 - 8 4 , 2 9 7 ; Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" {supra n. 4), 1 0 6 - 7 , comparing Josephus' account o f Salome's divorce with 1 C o r 7. 6 4
D a u b e , New Testament {supra n. 3), 3 6 2 - 6 3 : ". . . with reference to a marriage where both parts are believers, Paul uses the intransitive x ^ p i ^ ^ of wife w h o 'separates', but the transitive aquevoci o f the husband w h o 'dismisses' his wife. T h i s is in perfect agreement with the Jewish ideas o n the subject. In the next two verses, with reference to a marriage where only one party is a believer, he uses the transitive acpievai both o f the dissolution o f the marriage b y the husband and o f its dissolution b y the wife. T h e latter application o f acpievou is justified since the procedure he has in m i n d is a non-Jewish one, R o m a n or G r e e k . . . In confirmation of this analysis it m a y be pointed out that, in Rabbinic literature, the transitive gerash, 'to expel', is used once and once only o f the wife divorcing her husband, and that it is in a discussion o f gentile divorce." In the Jewish context, he suggests, 0 1 1
m
e
359
THE DIVORCES OF T H E HERODIAN PRINCESSES
o f the o l d
6 5
strategy o f including in the marriage contract a clause
granting the wife a right o f unilateral divorce, w h i c h is attested in R o m a n Palestine
66
a n d later in 1 Oth a n d 11 th century ketubot found
in the C a i r o G e n i z a h .
67
Even if such clauses d i d give the wife an
enforceable right to d i v o r c e ,
68
the means o f effecting it appear to have 69
b e e n through court action rather than m e r e desertion. But w e have n o information as to the marriage contracts o f the Herodian princesses. Unlike the Jewish position, d i v o r c e effected b y desertion o n the 70
part o f the wife is u n p r o b l e m a t i c in R o m a n (and Hellenistic) law. A c c o r d i n g to classical doctrine, the principal legal requirement for marriage (liberum matrimonium) is affectio maritalis, a n d a n y clear d e m o n stration b y either spouse that this intention to continue in a marital relationship was absent was capable o f effecting a d i v o r c e .
71
At
Athens, divorce b y the husband was typically described as àrcoTtepAj/iç
'to separate', "may denote the same as 'to g o away', i.e. actual departure from the c o m m o n domicile, o r merely avoidance o f intercourse" a n d m a y also b e used o f a wife w h o is entided to "institute proceedings culminating in his being compelled to divorce her. But even then it is the husband w h o dissolves the b o n d , though against his will. O f her, it would still b e said that she 'separates', 'goes away' o r 'is let g o away'." Aliter, Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" {supra n. 4), 1 0 5 - 8 , opposing the view o f J. A . Fitzmyer, " T h e M a t t h a e a n Divorce T e x t s and S o m e N e w Palestinian Evidence", TS 3 7 (1976): 1 9 7 - 2 2 6 , that x|ievov П а п и р о с а v i m хд ц а х р . . . . 2 1
Cf. Flusser, Josippon, 1 5 1 . Cf. M . Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Terushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature ( N e w York: Judaica Press, 1975), s.v. Qifrus in the Arabic version: cf. A . Dietrich, Dioscurides Triumphans. Ein anonymer arabischer Kommentar. . . zur Materia medica (Abhandl. der A k a d . der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse I I I / 1 7 3 ; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1988), 148. 2 2
2 3
376
GAIA LEMBI
but also in the Bible (Cant 1:14; 4:13) as well as in B.J. 4 . 4 6 9 — always in c o n n e c t i o n with the J e r i c h o area.
24
Schalit concludes that, as in m a n y other instances, also in this case the Latin appears to b e the best textual witness to J o s e p h u s ' text: "in der T a t erweist sich bei n ä h e r e m Z u s e h e n der Latinus wie in vielen anderen Fällen so auch in diesem als vorzüglicher T r a d e n t . " 4.2.
25
0aXXicov
In the same paragraph Josephus states that a m o n g the m e n w h o perished in the batde there was also Phallion, the brother of Antipater— Kai OaMicov 6 'AvTutaxpou aSetapoq.
26
As M a r c u s notices, this n a m e is not m e n t i o n e d elsewhere—except in B.J. 1.130 which reads TÖV a8eAxpöv xöv
27
'Avxucaxpou O a M i o o v a — ,
but some o f the G r e e k manuscripts a n d the Latin version o f the Antiquitates have a different reading, viz. Cephalon. Yet
it must b e p o i n t e d out that M a r c u s ' text a n d apparatus criticus
are rather confused a n d confusing: in the text the reading is given as KCUOGCMACÜV, but the lemma in the apparatus is KaiGocAAicov, which in a w a y must have b e e n the reading "unconsciously" preferred b y M a r c u s , since in n. c to the translation he remarks that in the Bellum 22,
we
have Phallion.
In fact, the reading ©ccMacov was to b e a d o p t e d b y Schalit:
29
the
n a m e , the e q u i v a l e n t o f the Latin Florus, w o u l d h a v e b e e n the Hellenistic n a m e o f the brother o f Antipater. Later o n , h o w e v e r , Schalit c h a n g e d his o p i n i o n : the reading Kai OaMacov—the o n e c h o -
2 4
Cf. A . Schalit, Namenwbrterbuch zu Flavins Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), s.v. Karcvpcov: " O r t bei Jericho." M . Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History [(in H e b r e w ) ed. D . R . Schwartz; Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center, 1 9 9 5 ] , 2 0 6 n. 5 , instead, suggested that Papyron appears to be an area south-east of Jericho that received its n a m e from the presence of papyrus plants. 2 5
Cf. A . Schalit, Namenwdrterbuch, s.v. Kowropcov; Idem, Kdnig Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 7 4 1 - 4 2 . 2 6
2 7
A.J.
14.33.
In Haverkamp's footnote to the passage, it is stated that a manuscript has in fact the expected xox>, but according to the same editor this (unusual) use of the definite article is typical of Josephus. Cf. S. H a v e r k a m p , ed., Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt opera omnia graece et latine, cum notis et nova versione Joannis Hudsoni. . . (Amsterdam: Wetsteim; Leiden: Luchtmans; Utrecht: Broedelet, 1726). T h e r e are no variant readings as regards the text o f the Bellum. A . Schalit, King Herod. Portrait of a Ruler (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960), 3 4 7 , n. 2 4 [in H e b r e w ] . 2 8
2 9
377
THE LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITATES
sen b y Niese a n d the other editors—will have originated from a mis reading, o n the part o f a Byzantine scribe, o f an original KEOAAAIQN as KAIOAAAIQN > KAI O A A A I Q N .
30
T h e reading KetpccMicov o f L A
2
w o u l d b e , then, the hypocoristic f o r m o f the "authentic" f o r m pre served only b y the Latin, viz. Cephalon—KeqxxAxov (cf. Pausanias, Descr. 1.3.1)—and, time and again, b y the Josippon, which has
jl^D.
3 1
It must b e a d d e d that this same r e a d i n g — i n the f o r m Caephalion— was the o n e already preferred b y N o l d i u s only in a footnote to the text.
33
32
and H u d s o n — e v e n if
Noldius p o i n t e d out also that the
mistake s e e m e d to b e very ancient since it appeared already in the M
Hegesippus ^ not to m e n t i o n the Bellum.
O n e w o n d e r s , then, i f the "mistake" shall n o t b e a s c r i b e d to Josephus himself—leaving aside that the w o r d i n g in the Bellum (xov a8eA,(pov xov 'Avxircaxpou O a M i c o v a ) excludes completely the possibil ity o f the p h e n o m e n o n w e are used to call itacism, since here there is n o KOU before the n a m e . T a k i n g into a c c o u n t the m e a n i n g o f OaMicov in Greek, i.e. cpaMxxpopoq,
35
it is n o t to b e e x c l u d e d that
the reading kefal- with all o f its variants was dictated b y the sensi tivity o f a very polite scribe. . . .
4.3. Strabo o n P o m p e i u s a n d a Fine Gift {A.J. 1 4 . 3 4 - 3 6 ) "Aristobulus sent h i m [i.e. P o m p e y ] a fine gift, a g o l d e n vine w o r t h five
h u n d r e d talents. T h i s gift is also m e n t i o n e d b y S t r a b o o f
C a p p a d o c i a in the following words: ' T h e r e also c a m e from
Egypt
3 0
Schalk, Konig Herodes, 7: « D e r byzantinische Kopist mißdeutete die vermudich in einigem A b s t a n d von O A A A I Q N befindlichen Buchstaben K E als gleichbedeutend mit K A I — d e r D i p h t o n g AI wurde E gesprochen—und schrieb m i OaAAicov». Cf. Idem, Namenwörterbuch, s.v. K^aAAicov. 3 1
Cf. Flusser, Josippon, 1 5 1 .
3 2
C . N o l d i u s , "Historia I d u m a e a e seu D e vita et gestis H e r o d u m , diatribe Accesserunt hinc inde N o t a e in J o s e p h u m ut & pro eo vindicae & responsiones contra Baronium, Serarium, Salianum, & Alios," in H a v e r k a m p , Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 1 : 3 3 3 - 4 0 1 . 3 3
Cf. H a v e r k a m p , Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 1:686. Noldius, "Historia Idumaeae," 3 3 9 (nr. 5): «Josepho etiam Bell. Jud. I c. 5 O a M i c o v appellatur. Pro q u o Hegesippus Excid. I c. 14 scribit Fallion. A d locum Papyronem ( H e g . 1. cit. male Paparionem) occubuit». In fact, in Ussani's edition o f the Hegesippus (22,10), we find: Aristobolus autem uix dudum idoneus propulsando periculo manum collegit, hostem insequitur et ad Papyronem, id uocabulum loco, VI milia hostium simul et fratrem Antipatris Fallionem proelio fudit. See LSJ, s.v. 3 4
3 )
378
GAIA LEMBI
an embassy and a c r o w n w o r t h four thousand pieces o f gold, a n d from J u d a e a either a vine o r garden; xeprccoAri (delight) is what they called this w o r k o f art. M o r e o v e r , w e ourselves have e x a m i n e d this gift, w h i c h has b e e n set u p in the temple o f Jupiter Capitolinus at R o m e , and has an inscription reading ' F r o m Alexander, the king o f the J e w s . . . ' " [ M a r c u s , L C L ] .
3 6
Leaving aside the m a n y questions w h i c h this passage raises,
37
we
should like to focus o u r attention o n the term xeprccoAii. The
nature o f this 8 i i | i i o u p y r | | i a is far from clear. A c c o r d i n g to
J o s e p h u s it was an a u j c e ^ o v x p u a f i v ; a c c o r d i n g to Strabo d i e aiinekoc, ei'xe Kfjrcoq, a very strange assessment o n the part o f an eyewitness! Even stranger is the addition they used to call this work of art xeprccoXri, with the n a m e o f the w o r k given in Greek. A c c o r d i n g to M a r c u s (n. a, ad loc), the H e b r e w reflected b y the e
G r e e k xep7icoA,f| w o u l d have b e e n eden a n d the artefact a plastic reproduction o f the paradise. Now,
38
not only the term xep7cco^f| does not a p p e a r elsewhere either
in Josephus o r Philo o r the Septuagint—in which w e have 7 c a p d 8 e i a o q xfjq xpucpfiq ( G e n 3:23) for ]1V p — , but what o n e w o u l d expect is an A r a m a i c o r H e b r e w n a m e , certainly not a G r e e k o n e . M o r e o v e r , it is difficult to understand its c o n n e c t i o n with the vine, even if in a late Jewish tradition the prohibited fruit o f the paradise is identified with the vine (b. Ber. 40a; Gen. Rab. 19:5).
39
Moreover, in the Septuagint a^mXoc, is the usual translation for ] 2 H ; only once does it stand for ]3 (Lam 2:6) and three times for D I D . T h e idea o f delight seems then to be excluded. 40
In an attempt to clarify the question, K . Galling suggested that what w e have here is an allusion to the so-called Adonis gardens, 'A8coviSopov
Aiòq xou KarcexcoAioi)
ßaciXeax;.
See B. Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà? A proposito di AJ X I V , 3 4 - 3 6 " [ 2 0 0 2 ] 1 - 1 3
(unpublished). 3 8
Cf. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 2 5 4 .
3 9
See Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà?," 5 .
4 0
New
Cf. W . Bauer, W . A . Arndt, F. W . Gingrich, ed., A Greek-'English Lexicon of the Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press,
1957), s.v.
8è
THE
379
LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' AXTIQUITA TES
41
KTIKOI, the key b e i n g the very term x^Tcoq.
In particular, the gift
w o u l d have b e e n the o n e d e s c r i b e d b y Pliny, Nat. 3 7 . 1 4 , as fol l o w s : . . . montem
aureum
generis
vite
circumdata
quadratum
cum cervis
et leonibus
et pomis
omnis
aurea.
As regards the term xeprccoAri, Galling's suggestion is to interpret it as a transcription o f a Semitic w o r d ^HTICD (terpol—tarpol),
with a
final -/ functioning as diminutive, the root b e i n g *pCD, w h i c h in A r a b i c (and to
in H e b r e w ? ) means to be fresh. T o s u m u p , the reference w a s
the
fresh,
novel plantation,
constitutive o f the so-called Adonis
gardens.
Galling, h o w e v e r , d i d n o t p a y m u c h attention to the textual sit uation. T h e Latin has here terpon ( o r terpnon) id est delectabile,
reading o f the
Josippon
(]1STn o r ]12"in, a c c o r d i n g to the
J N U L 8 ° 4 1 2 8 0 , f. 3 4 v ) .
42
MS
the same
Jerusalem,
A s is apparent, the Latin translator d i d not
understand the G r e e k term a n d terpon was nothing else than a faith ful transcription o f TEPflON. Later o n , the t e r m — w h i c h does not exist in G r e e k — w a s interpreted as the G r e e k adjective xeprcvov, "delight ful."
H e n c e the variant reading a n d the gloss id est delectabile. T h e
addition is an attempt to clarify this difficult term, once read as a Greek one. In fact, thanks to the Latin w e are entided to suggest that the w o r d in question was the A r a m a i c ]D"1CD, w h i c h appears in b. Niddah 20a,
a n d means "foliage, l e a v e s . "
5.
43
T H E T R A N S L A T I O N OF JOSEPHUS' KNTIQUITATES AS P A R T OF A B R O A D E R C U L T U R A L PROGRAM
If the author o f the Latin translation
remains u n k n o w n , it seems
anyway certain that the translation was s p o n s o r e d b y C a s s i o d o r u s .
44
This translation was surely part o f a b r o a d e r agenda, in which Josephus has to function—so to say—like a trait d'union between Biblical writings and classical authors, mainly Livy. T h i s w a s in a c c o r d a n c e with a l o n g tradition that c o n s i d e r e d J o s e p h u s e x a c d y as Graecus
Livius:
we are lucky e n o u g h to have a few manuscripts w h i c h contain Livy
4 1
K . Galling, "Die Tep7icoA.r| des Alexander Jannäus," in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Festschift 0. Eissfeldt (ed. J. H e m p e l and L . Rost; Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1958), 4 9 - 6 2 . 4 2
S e e D . Flusser, Sefer Yosippon: ha-nusakh ha-meqori, tzilum ktav-yad Yerushalayim 8° 41280 im hosqfot (Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center, 1978) [ = Josippon: The Original Version, MS Jerusalem 8° 41280 and Supplements]. 4 3
4 4
Cf. Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà?," 1 2 - 1 3 . Cf. De institutione divinarum litterarum 1.17.
380
GAIA LEMBI
45
alongside Josephus —just as, o n the other hand, it is not so aston ishing to find a w o r k ascribed to Josephus as part o f the Syriac O l d Testament.
46
T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' works w e r e utilized n o t only for a p o l o
getic purposes, but as a constitutive element o f a wide-ranging cultural project aiming at the preservation o f the cultural legacy o f the past. H o w seminal this project must have b e e n , c a n easily b e grasped from the fact that for almost a century since the invention o f print ing, the Latin text was edited several times before the publication o f the G r e e k o n e b y Arlenius.
47
Its fortune is testified to as well b y
the large n u m b e r o f manuscripts c o p i e d b e t w e e n the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries.
48
I was lucky e n o u g h to b e able to peruse three o f them, kept in the National and University Library in T u r i n .
49
In o n e case, the
manuscript (I-I-10) has huge dimensions and the b i g characters in w h i c h it was written induce o n e to think that it was not intended for private use, but for teaching and c o m m o n reading. O n the other hand, the other t w o manuscripts, o f smaller size, are carefully illu minated.
50
Curiously e n o u g h , o n e o f them (D-II-8) shares with the
largest o n e the shaping o f the initial headings, for instance the shap ing o f the o p e n i n g letter o f B o o k 15 as a snake—the n a m e in ques tion is Sossius. T h e fortune o f b o t h the Latin a n d v e r n a c u l a r translations o f Josephus was even increased in the following t w o centuries, espe cially in Italy, due to the withdrawal o f the Bible from the h a n d o f 51
the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s . Josephus b e c a m e its natural succedaneum:
4 5
See Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 1 2 9 - 3 0 .
4 6
Cf. S. Castelli, "Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe nella letteratura siriaca," Henoch
2 3 (2001): 1 9 9 - 2 2 6 , esp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 . 4 7
Cf. Graesse,
4 8
Cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 2 5 - 1 0 0 .
4 9
I-I-10 ( = T a ; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 4 1 ; G . Pasini, Codices manuscripti bibliothe-
Trésor de livres rares; Oberthür, " D e Flavio
Iosepho."
cae regii taurinense athenaei per linguas digesti, & binas in partes distributi, in quorum prima hebraei, & graeci, in altera latini, italici, & gallici [ T o r i n o : Stamperia Reale, 1 7 4 9 ] , 125); K - I I - 2 ( = ta; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 8 5 - 8 6 ; Pasini, Codices manuscripti, 126); D - I I - 8 ( = tr; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 3 9 ; Pasini, Codices manuscripti, 171). 5 0
On
the illuminated manuscripts o f Josephus' works
cf.
H.
Schreckenberg,
"Josephus in Early Christian Literature and Medieval Christian Art," in H . Schreck enberg and K . Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Christianity (Assen/Maastricht:
V a n G o r c u m ; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press,
Medieval 1991),
7 - 1 3 8 , esp. 8 7 - 1 3 0 ; U . Liebl, Die illustrierten Flaviusjosephus-Handschri^en des Hochmittelalters (Frankfurt a. M . : Peter Lang, 1997). 1 1
Cf. S. Castelli,
"Die Bibel u n d die italienischen Übersetzungen des Josephus
in der Renaissance," in An der Schwelle zur Moderne. Juden in der Renaissance (ed. G . Veltri and A . W i n k e l m a n n ; Leiden-Boston:
Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 9 0 - 1 0 7 .
THE
381
LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITA TES
this was perfectly in line o n o n e h a n d with the tendency to supply the Latin Bible with a full set o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s to the J o s e p h a n works
52
and, o n the other hand, with the tendency to re-order the
b o o k s o f b o t h the Antiquitates and the Bellum so as to create a his torical continuum from the creation o f the w o r l d to the destruction o f the T e m p l e . T h u s , the V a t i c a n manuscript Josephus
5
Vat. Lat. 1994 contains
b o o k s in the following order: A.J.
A.J. 1 8 - 2 0 ; B.J. 3 to 7 .
1 to 12; B.J. 1 a n d 2;
53
T o c o n c l u d e , I should like o n c e m o r e to underline the i m p o r t a n c e o f the indirect tradition with an e x a m p l e that, although not drawn from the Latin version o f Josephus, demonstrates h o w important it is to collect every piece o f information before formulating a wellg r o u n d e d philological hypothesis. It happens that an a n o n y m o u s trea tise against the Jews, dating to the sixth century, constitutes the oldest 5
post- Eusebian witness in G r e e k to the Testimonium Flavianum. * Even though the text was published in a generally available
series—the
Corpus Christianorum {Series Graeca 3 0 ) — , n o b o d y seems to have taken notice o f it, including the author o f a recent m o n o g r a p h o n the Testimonium.^ I h o p e I have m a d e a g o o d case against "the Horatius m e t h o d " , as D a v i d Flusser labelled the tendency to g o into superfluous details, instead o f seeing the c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r .
56
I m e a n that it is time
to reassess as it deserves the indirect tradition o f J o s e p h u s ' works and especially its main branch, viz. the Latin
5 2
translation.
Cf. Castelli, "Die Bibel," 9 3 .
5 3
Cf. B. Nogara, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Valkanae Codices Manu Scripti Recensiti (Codices Vaticani Latini, T o m u s III, Codices 1 4 6 1 - 2 0 5 9 ) ( R o m a : Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1912), 3 9 6 - 9 7 . 3 4
J. H . Declerk, ed., Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994). Cf. G . L e m b i , "Il Testimonium Flavianum, Agrippa I e i fratelli Asineo e Anileo. Osservazioni sul libro X V I I I delle Antichità di Giuseppe," Materia Giudaica 6.1 (2001): 5 3 - 6 8 , esp. 5 6 - 6 0 . 5 5
Cf. A . W h e a l e y , Josephus on Jesus: The T e s t i m o n i u m Flavianum Late Antiquity to Modern Times ( N e w Y o r k : Peter Lang, 2 0 0 3 ) . 5 6
Controversy from
Cf. J. Blau, " H e b r e w versus other Languages o f the Traditional M e d i e v a l Jewish Society," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 7 (2002): 3 4 8 - 5 5 : 3 4 8 , n. 1: "one is liable to g o into superfluous details and, instead of seeing their c o m m o n denominator, to try and explain away their affinities one by one (the late D a v i d Flusser d u b b e d this 'the Horatius method', since the last surviving Horatius killed the three Curatius brothers one by one; thus a scholar w h o faces contradictory details, finds for every one separate excuses, 'killing, so to say, o n e by one')."
TRANSLATING BOOK JUDAICUM:
1 OF JOSEPHUS'
SOME CRITICAL A N T H O N Y J.
BELLUM
OBSERVATIONS
FORTE
PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE
In the p r o l o g u e to his Bellum Judaicum, Josephus declares that h e is a " H e b r e w b y birth" (yevei 'Eppcuoq) a n d claims that there was another version o f his w o r k . H e w r o t e : I have proposed to make available to those who live under Roman domi nation a history rendered into Greek ( EMa5i yhhoor\ iieiapaXcbv) from the work which I previously composed in my native tongue (xfi naxpm owxatpLq) for the barbarians in the interior (xoiq avco papPapoiq). e
1
It is generally a c c e p t e d that J o s e p h u s ' "native t o n g u e " was A r a m a i c , not H e b r e w . T h e "barbarians in the interior" o f B.J. 1.3 are defined by Josephus in BJ. 1.6 as "Parthians a n d Babylonians a n d the most remote tribes o f A r a b i a . . . b e y o n d the Euphrates a n d the inhabi 2
tants o f A d i a b e n e . " G o h e i H a t a has a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s used uexaPaMxo " t o indicate s o m e radical c h a n g e , that is, rewriting, a n d not
merely translation".
3
I f he is correct, a n d I suggest that h e is,
one must critically re-examine J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k o f the Bellum in light o f this, namely that J o s e p h u s ' text is n o t a translation, but a w o r k that has b e e n re-written a n d polished b y c o m p e t e n t G r e e k writers. The
reflections that follow are limited to the G r e e k o f the first b o o k
o f the Bellum Judaicum. Josephus states that his first version o f the Bellum was d o n e assiduously and with a c c u r a c y to acquaint his fellow J e w s with the "origin o f the w a r , the various phases o f calamity through w h i c h it passed a n d 4
its c o n c l u s i o n . " Historians have argued that Josephus d i d n o t simply
1
npoi)6euT|v eyco xoiq m x a XT^V 'Pcouaicov fiyeuoviav, 'EAAa8i yAxoaori uexapaXcov a xoiq avco pappapoiq xfi rcaxpicp O D v x a ^ a q averceuvj/a rcpoxepov (B.J. 1.3). n<xp0o\)KJ\
39
Gdvaxov KaxepydCexai. T h e verbs epyd£o|Liai and Kocxepyd^oum, "to w o r k out, effect, p r o d u c e , " seem to b e s y n o n y m o u s in this passage. W e simply have a varietas locutionis. S o m e t i m e s w e e n c o u n t e r c o m p o u n d verbs in biblical G r e e k that w o u l d seem to have n o different meaning, had the author e m p l o y e d the simple form. F o r e x a m p l e , at E p h 1:12, w e read: eiq xo eivai fijxaq ziq e m w o v So^riq auxou xovq rcporiAjuKoxac; ev xcp X p i a x S .
40
T h e question here is whether the c o m
p o u n d form rcpoeAjti^co has the same m e a n i n g as the simple form eAju^G).
41
T h e fact is that prepositions w h i c h f u n c d o n as prefixes in
biblical G r e e k often d o litde m o r e than give emphasis to the main thought o f their v e r b .
42
3 8
For example, m 6 i o x r | u i is used by Josephus 4 times in close vicinity with different meanings. m x e a x T | o a v "appointed" {B.J. 1.202); т Э ш х а х о "organize" (B.J. 1.203); K a G i a ^ o i v "appointed" (B.J. 1.203); K a G i a x a ^ e v o q "rendered" (B.J. 1.206). 3 9
"For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death." ( R S V ) . 4 0
" W e w h o first hoped in C h r i s t . . . to live for the praise o f his glory." ( R S V ) . O t h e r examples o f c o m p o u n d verbs whose meaning seems to be no different than that o f the simple form can be found at R o m 1:2: о лроетгпууег^ахо 5ioc xcov rcpoqynxcov auxov ev у р о к р а ц а у г а ц and C o l 1:5: 8iot xfjv еАлаба XT^V arcoKeiuevt|v i)uiv ev xoiq oupavoiq, r^v ярот^коцаахе ev хф Xoyw xfjq aXv\deiaq тох> evayyeXiov. 4 1
4 2
T h e change from the simple to the c o m p o u n d form o f the verb is quite c o m m o n in the L X X . For example, see 1 Esd 4 : 1 9 , m i хсашх navxa acpevxeq eiq avxrrv еукеулуау m i уаакоухес xo oxoua Gecopouoiv ai)XT|v кхХ. This p h e n o m e n o n is most especially evident in the Lucianic Recension. See Bruce M . M e t z g e r , " T h e Lucianic Recension o f the Greek Bible," in idem, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1 - 4 1 .
396
ANTHONY J. FORTE
T h i s same p h e n o m e n o n can b e said, t o o , o f J o s e p h u s
5
use o f m a n y
c o m p o u n d verbs. T h e following texts o f the Bellum contain
some
examples o f simple o r c o m p o u n d verbs that have parallels either in the Bellum itself o r in the Antiquitates. T h e meanings o f the verbs are often similar, yet there are occasionally s o m e striking differences.
BJ.
1 (Niese)
e
BJ. 43
292. . . . Hpco8nc eK8pa(Lio)v iiex' oAiyoi) axicpoix; xpercexai xayecoc Kal Ktaova SiaocbCei
44
1 (Forte)
292 . . . Herod, with a small band of soldiers, rushed out at them, quickly drove them back, and rescued Silo,. . .
295 Xxpaxo7te8e\)oa|ievo'u aaxeoq oi TOCOTTI cpvtaxKeq exo^evov xe Kai efriKovxiCov amove,
295 When the troops had pitched camp on the west side o f the city, the guards stationed there attacked them with arrows and javelins,
297 . . . EniGKE\)OLGa\ievoq yap noXkovq xcbv axpaxicoxcov arcdviv ercimSelcov avapodv Kal yprinaxa eic xpocpdc drcaixew a7cdyeiv xe a<pav ( < eicxpexco = "to r u n / r u s h out, run forward; to sally forth; make raids". See B.J. 1.253 for the double c o m p o u n d form of the verb, erceicSpaucbv (< ejceKxpexo) "to rush out against, make a raid against, attack"). 4 4
8iaocb£ei K<XKG)£ d|i\)v6u£vov ( < 8iaacb£co = "to save, spare"). T h e parallel pas sage at A.J. 1 4 . 3 9 7 uses the simple form of the verb, ocb^ei. 4 5
e^t|Kovxi^ov ( < e^aKovxi^co = "to throw spears (at someone)". T h e c o m p o u n d verb is a hapax in Josephus. See B.J. 1.332, aicovxi^exai ("to hurl (a javelin), attack with javelins; to hit, wound"), for an example of the simple form. See also the par allel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 1 , T I K O V X I ^ O V . 4 6
a v a p o a v ( < ava(3odco = "to shout, call out, clamour; to cry out against, c o m plain loudly over"). T h e parallel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 6 has m x a p o a v ("to cry out, inveigh [against s o m e o n e ] , revile, abuse; to complain loudly; to d e m a n d [loudly]"). 4 7
A.J.
otrcaixeiv ( < cxTtaixeco = "to d e m a n d back, reclaim; to require"). T h e parallel in 1 4 . 4 0 6 uses the simple aixeiv.
4 8
T h e double c o m p o u n d form rcpoaveaKeDcxauivcov ( < 7CpoaveoKe\)a^op.ai = "to pick up and carry away previously") is used here, while the parallel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 6 has the c o m p o u n d ocveaKeudaOai ( < aveaice\)d£o|Liai = "to snatch up, carry off"). 4 9
6pur|aav oi
